Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
I have learned to not pay much attention to any of these Barron groups. Goodness knows Mr. Gundlach was wrong on a number of things last year, too. Forget about trying to guess which countries will be the best in any year. Either own a cheap index fund of some kind or buy a concentrated, active-share fund with a successful manager or team. Let them decide where to put their dollars. And for Pete's sake, can we stop the political snarking? That is not why folks participate or read this blog.
BobC said: "And for Pete's sake, can we stop the political snarking? That is not why folks participate or read this blog."
It's tough. When an interview from a long established source like Barron's (Read: WSJ & Rupert Murdoch) featuring investors like Mario Gabelli, Brian Rogers and Abby Cohen comes under attack for surreptitiously advancing a political agenda and seeking to undermine a particular political group (focusing on a single paragraph) with no mention or regard for the other 2500+ words devoted to investments and investment themes ... it's tough.
Not everyone likes or enjoys these celebrity-laced interviews. (I'd never base a buy/sell decision on one.) But we all learn and assimilate information in different ways. To each his own. Ted linked these interviews for years. They received their share of criticism. But I can't ever recall a single instance of one being attacked as politically slanted.
@Dan You're right-Author Barry Glassner of the book you cite has exposed a lot of America's irrational fears. Among them, the fear of illegal immigrants and Muslims:
@Dan You're right-Author Barry Glassner of the book you cite has exposed a lot of America's irrational fears. Among them, the fear of illegal immigrants and Muslims:
Yes. Fear is ingrained in the USA - it sells everything from mouth wash to nuclear bombs. When I've visited other countries, part of relaxing is that you don't hear all that fear. 24hr news channels and newspaper/news sites/mags desperate for ad $ will insure the fear will continue.
"Trump’s “authoritarian xenophobic” rampage has taken him to the White House. From his point of view, there are no reasons to let up. The Trump agenda has developed its own internal logic: the more wreckage, the more publicity; the more publicity, the more success."
I'd say that the author is blinded by his own prejudices. The 'post materialism' is just a pseudo-intellectual cover.
I could poke holes in the specialized, inventive vocabulary being referenced. ""Postmaterialism." That sounds pretty crazy to me. The entire world has become enthralled by Consumerism. (Materialism.) Now more than ever, people can have it their way, and they're taking advantage of every opportunity. Want a pizza delivered to your hotel room at 3;30 p.m. in New Delhi, next Friday? Sure, there's an app for that. Just because the capability of doing something exists doesn't mean it's a good idea, or an ethical one, for that matter.... By "consumerism" I mean an unreflected-upon propensity to spend, spend and spend without any thought given to healthy, mature priorities. Without any attention given to the question: how much is too much? Can I afford this item? What does it say about me and about the rest of us that no consideration in this Consumerist culture is given to the plight of the have-nots? "The poverty of the poor is not a call for charitable relief. It is a demand that we build a different social order." ---Gustavo Gutierrez.
***** However, this is true: "...The main common theme of populist authoritarian parties on both sides of the Atlantic is a reaction against immigration and cultural change..." Federal troops lucky enough to survive the battle of Gettysburg in 1863 were hastily called to NYC to put down a draft-riot. The Irish, who were angry over working conditions, were busy lynching blacks--- whose presence in the job market drove down wages. (And besides, "they're not LIKE us.") Not to mention the fact that with $300.00, you could buy your way out of the draft. Only the well-heeled could ever hope to see $300.00.
I could poke holes in the specialized, inventive vocabulary being referenced. ""Postmaterialism." That sounds pretty crazy to me. The entire world has become enthralled by Consumerism. (Materialism.) Now more than ever, people can have it their way, and they're taking advantage of every opportunity. Want a pizza delivered to your hotel room at 3;30 p.m. in New Delhi, next Friday? Sure, there's an app for that. Just because the capability of doing something exists doesn't mean it's a good idea, or an ethical one, for that matter.... By "consumerism" I mean an unreflected-upon propensity to spend, spend and spend without any thought given to healthy, mature priorities. Without any attention given to the question: how much is too much? Can I afford this item? What does it say about me and about the rest of us that no consideration in this Consumerist culture is given to the plight of the have-nots? "The poverty of the poor is not a call for charitable relief. It is a demand that we build a different social order." ---Gustavo Gutierrez.
***** However, this is true: "...The main common theme of populist authoritarian parties on both sides of the Atlantic is a reaction against immigration and cultural change..." Federal troops lucky enough to survive the battle of Gettysburg in 1863 were hastily called to NYC to put down a draft-riot. The Irish, who were angry over working conditions, were busy lynching blacks--- whose presence in the job market drove down wages. (And besides, "they're not LIKE us.") Not to mention the fact that with $300.00, you could buy your way out of the draft. Only the well-heeled could ever hope to see $300.00.
I agree that the "PM" is a wack idea. It really is a poor organizing theory.
Draft riots ... are you saying the Democrat party is the authoritarian party in the USA? NYC/the Irish were/are Dems. The Dems/Progressives were the party of Jim Crow/anti desegregation.
Post-materialism is a euphemism for another euphemism--identity politics. The elite right-wing strategy has always been divide and conquer over race since Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 made the elites worry about a class uprising. Click here:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon's_Rebellion In the 19th century and the early 20th this strategy belonged to the Democrats and the Republicans were the liberals. Post LBJ it's the Republican "Southern Strategy." Click here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy But I suspect DanHardy knows this already and is just bringing up the 19th century Democrats to win an argument by any means necessary. He acknowledges that fear of illegal immigrants is irrational here and yet in other threads claims they are a threat. So which is the truth? Or does it even matter?
Post-materialism is a euphemism for another euphemism--identity politics. The elite right-wing strategy has always been divide and conquer over race since Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 made the elites worry about a class uprising. Click here:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon's_Rebellion In the 19th century and the early 20th this strategy belonged to the Democrats and the Republicans were the liberals. Post LBJ it's the Republican "Southern Strategy." Click here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy But I suspect DanHardy knows this already and is just bringing up the 19th century Democrats to win an argument by any means necessary. He acknowledges that fear of illegal immigrants and Muslims is irrational here and yet in other threads claims they are a threat. So which is the truth? Or does it even matter?
A couple of points. 1676?! Let's stay current and in the USA. The Ds chose to go the route of identity politics after their 2x defeat by Nixon and continued it after Reagan. They realized they lost the middle class and blue collar. This is not new news and it is obvious in most of their speeches.
Let's also not forget the Ds history of being the party of Jim Crow laws and it was a D/Progressive - Wilson - that brought segregation to the US Gov't. One of the greatest blows to integration and that delayed integration for decades. It was also the Ds who filibustered against Eisenhower's Civil Rights bill of 1957 to get it watered down. Again, a stain on the history of the Ds.
Where did I claim immigrants and Muslims were a threat? Link please.
Where did I claim immigrants and Muslims were a threat? Link please.
You stated the following:
The Ds are worse because they favor the illegal aliens who bring down wages and take jobs. You may want to reply that IAs do jobs that citizens would not do. Please research and think about it before you make such a statement.
The link is here on this page: mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/82919/#Comment_82919 That is precisely the irrational threat Donald Trump used to get elected. It is precisely this irrational fear Barry Glassner wrote about in his opinion piece for the New York Times. If you say "let's stay current and in the USA" why did you discuss the Irish and Dems in the 19th century? You can't have it both ways.
You got it wrong - i.e. illegal aliens not immigrants. You got the Muslims information wrong also. That is why you can't find a quote from me.
The Irish was to another poster not you. The items I mentioned in my post to you happened in the 20th century - google it if you need more information.
No Dan, you got my quote wrong. I said: "He acknowledges that fear of illegal immigrants and Muslims is irrational here and yet in other threads claims they are a threat." Illegal immigrants is a less offensive term for the "aliens" you use. And it is precisely this irrational fear of "illegals" that Glassner, your hero, is writing about.
In Boston in mid-November, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said, "One of the struggles that you're going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics."
No Dan, you got my quote wrong. I said: "He acknowledges that fear of illegal immigrants and Muslims is irrational here and yet in other threads claims they are a threat." Illegal immigrants is a less offensive term for the "aliens" you use. And it is precisely this irrational fear of "illegals" that Glassner, your hero, is writing about.
You miss the point I used the word 'illegal aliens' not the word 'immigrants'. The word 'illegal' is a key word.
@DH, evidently you weren't of age in the 1960s into the early 1970s. Your worldview, or whatever it is, would be more sophisticated if you had experienced all of the party identity morphing and pandering from Goldwater through Ford.
@DH, evidently you weren't of age in the 1960s into the early 1970s. Your worldview, or whatever it is, would be more sophisticated if you had experienced all of the party identity morphing and pandering from Goldwater through Ford.
'When the law is against you, argue the facts, when the law and facts are against you attack the defendant.' There is no need for you to attack me for lack of 'sophistication'. If we were to use your criteria above only those who lived the history would be 'sophisticated' enough to discuss it and learn from it.
Keep an open your heart and mind and consider that the information I gave you about the Ds identity politics saved you from future embarrassment.
You miss the point I used the word 'illegal aliens' not the word 'immigrants'. The word 'illegal' is a key word.
Again, I did not miss the point. The word "illegal" was in every one of my posts regarding you and this thread. You yourself suddenly switched it to the solitary "immigrants," not me.
You miss the point I used the word 'illegal aliens' not the word 'immigrants'. The word 'illegal' is a key word.
Again, I did not miss the point. The word "illegal" was in every one of my posts regarding you and this thread. You yourself suddenly switched it to the solitary "immigrants," not me.
Comments
@DH, where *do* you get this sort of thing?
https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Fear-Americans-Minorities-Microbes/dp/0465003362
It's tough. When an interview from a long established source like Barron's (Read: WSJ & Rupert Murdoch) featuring investors like Mario Gabelli, Brian Rogers and Abby Cohen comes under attack for surreptitiously advancing a political agenda and seeking to undermine a particular political group (focusing on a single paragraph) with no mention or regard for the other 2500+ words devoted to investments and investment themes ... it's tough.
Not everyone likes or enjoys these celebrity-laced interviews. (I'd never base a buy/sell decision on one.) But we all learn and assimilate information in different ways. To each his own. Ted linked these interviews for years. They received their share of criticism. But I can't ever recall a single instance of one being attacked as politically slanted.
Regards
https://lclark.edu/live/news/34757-our-commitment-to-support-students-regardless-of
http://nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/12/15/are-americans-fears-legitimate/fear-has-always-been-a-marketing-tool-in-the-us
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/the-peculiar-populism-of-donald-trump.html
I'd say that the author is blinded by his own prejudices. The 'post materialism' is just a pseudo-intellectual cover.
haha, pasha over edsall
***** However, this is true: "...The main common theme of populist authoritarian parties on both sides of the Atlantic is a reaction against immigration and cultural change..."
Federal troops lucky enough to survive the battle of Gettysburg in 1863 were hastily called to NYC to put down a draft-riot. The Irish, who were angry over working conditions, were busy lynching blacks--- whose presence in the job market drove down wages. (And besides, "they're not LIKE us.") Not to mention the fact that with $300.00, you could buy your way out of the draft. Only the well-heeled could ever hope to see $300.00.
Draft riots ... are you saying the Democrat party is the authoritarian party in the USA? NYC/the Irish were/are Dems. The Dems/Progressives were the party of Jim Crow/anti desegregation.
In the 19th century and the early 20th this strategy belonged to the Democrats and the Republicans were the liberals. Post LBJ it's the Republican "Southern Strategy." Click here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
But I suspect DanHardy knows this already and is just bringing up the 19th century Democrats to win an argument by any means necessary. He acknowledges that fear of illegal immigrants is irrational here and yet in other threads claims they are a threat. So which is the truth? Or does it even matter?
1676?! Let's stay current and in the USA. The Ds chose to go the route of identity politics after their 2x defeat by Nixon and continued it after Reagan. They realized they lost the middle class and blue collar. This is not new news and it is obvious in most of their speeches.
Let's also not forget the Ds history of being the party of Jim Crow laws and it was a D/Progressive - Wilson - that brought segregation to the US Gov't. One of the greatest blows to integration and that delayed integration for decades. It was also the Ds who filibustered against Eisenhower's Civil Rights bill of 1957 to get it watered down. Again, a stain on the history of the Ds.
Where did I claim immigrants and Muslims were a threat? Link please.
That is precisely the irrational threat Donald Trump used to get elected. It is precisely this irrational fear Barry Glassner wrote about in his opinion piece for the New York Times.
If you say "let's stay current and in the USA" why did you discuss the Irish and Dems in the 19th century? You can't have it both ways.
The Irish was to another poster not you. The items I mentioned in my post to you happened in the 20th century - google it if you need more information.
>> Dems chose to go the route of identity politics after their 2x defeat by Nixon and continued it after Reagan.
Now that's droll. You got the wrong party --- precisely backward.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-democrats-and-the-seesaw-of-identity-politics
http://gazette.com/pointcounterpoint-should-the-democratic-party-abandon-identity-politics/article/1594392
In Boston in mid-November, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said, "One of the struggles that you're going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics."
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/310386-identity-politics-isnt-dead-democrats-just-need-to-do
For the last decade, Democrats have talked about “identity politics” as a way to bring together diverse factions of the electorate to form an unbeatable majority-minority coalition that would help us hold the White House for decades and expand majorities in Congress.
Keep an open your heart and mind and consider that the information I gave you about the Ds identity politics saved you from future embarrassment.
Can you show me the quotes where you included the word 'illegal' when refering to my quotes? I don't see any. Thanks