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 came across a few good articles re: Ray Dalio's recent cautionary remarks to investors while reading last evening. He's the head of Bridgewater, a large hedge fund. Dalio feels we're probably in a 1937 type political environment (sharply divided) and sees substantial risks to markets.
As a result, Bridgewater has pulled back on risk. Not all would agree. However, Dalio does make an interesting case that financial markets cannot be completely isolated from political/social factors. The two to him are intertwined - especially today.
End point - I didn't post any of the stories for fear Ted had already linked them somewhere else. For the most part, I prefer to read newspapers directly rather than to sort through 100+ posts
All welcome. I have a sib who's one of the contributing econs at PIIE (globalization is his expertise and academic gig) and he sends me occasional samples of colleagues' work. Although somehow I'd heard of this Cline view prior; I thought it was here, but a search turned up nothing.
As I mentioned to msf in another thread, Ted has, by sheer weight of mouthpower and ill-tempered badgering, managed to contrive the impression that there is some sort of MFO rule or agreement that once someone provides a particular link it is somehow forbidden for anyone else to utilize that same link.
In a really perverse application of attempted censorship, Ted decrees that once he has utilized a public information resource, it is then off-limits for anyone else to do the same. Deference to this "ownership" of information is regrettable, as it reenforces Ted's manipulation, and undercuts the right of any poster to provide linkage in whatever context the poster may desire.
Having to ask another poster for "permission" to use a link is absurd.
@Mark- About time somebody tries to call this foolishness for what it is. To be expected to read through twenty or thirty links of one egotistical poster before daring to post, or abandoning a post because someone else has also used a certain link, is just plain nonsense.
@MFO Members: Lets connect the dots ! david moran post a link asking has this been posted yet? The Linkster answers no ! david moran says whew ! bee comments nice article. Hank says thanks ! david moran comments. Then Old_Joe takes a repeated swipe at the Linkster for no reason at all. The flogging didn't have any affect on Old_Joe so I must take harsher measures !! Regards, Ted
"Then Old_Joe takes a repeated swipe at the Linkster for no reason at all."
@Ted: I gave my reasons, in plain English. You are attempting to require a poster to read through twenty or thirty of your links before daring to post, or specifically ask you if you have already used a link. If the answer is "yes", then the other poster needs to ask you for permission to use the same public resource?
Total BS. Your frowning yellow circles, and movie clips suggesting that you are in charge of discipline don't change a thing. Your attempts to emulate your "president" are pathetic.
I hope no one noticed that I had stated Blackstone instead of Bridgewater for Dalio's hedge fund. Have now corrected that. Sorry for the goof.
Old Joe made an excellent point yesterday which did not escape me. And he generously repeats it here. That being that no one has exclusivity over particular topics. I'll go farther and state that when someone who seldom links stories or does so only a half-dozen times a week puts a story up on the board, I'm much more inclined to perceive their link as worthy of my time and thereby click on it. Human nature I guess. Ol Tom Paine said it well a couple hundred years a go: "It is dearness only that gives every thing its value."
None of this is meant to take away from anyone's contributions. Just that linking interesting stories found while reading has become more of a hassle nowadays than I recall in the past. ---
PS: @Ted, Ol'Joe is the best of the best here IMHO. No reason to insult him or anyone. Drive everybody away through this nonsense and what have you got left? The purpose of new posts should be to initiate/stimulate discussion. Otherwise, Google, Yahoo, Bing can churn out hundreds of financial stories daily.
Comments
I came across a few good articles re: Ray Dalio's recent cautionary remarks to investors while reading last evening. He's the head of Bridgewater, a large hedge fund. Dalio feels we're probably in a 1937 type political environment (sharply divided) and sees substantial risks to markets.
As a result, Bridgewater has pulled back on risk. Not all would agree. However, Dalio does make an interesting case that financial markets cannot be completely isolated from political/social factors. The two to him are intertwined - especially today.
End point - I didn't post any of the stories for fear Ted had already linked them somewhere else. For the most part, I prefer to read newspapers directly rather than to sort through 100+ posts
As I mentioned to msf in another thread, Ted has, by sheer weight of mouthpower and ill-tempered badgering, managed to contrive the impression that there is some sort of MFO rule or agreement that once someone provides a particular link it is somehow forbidden for anyone else to utilize that same link.
In a really perverse application of attempted censorship, Ted decrees that once he has utilized a public information resource, it is then off-limits for anyone else to do the same. Deference to this "ownership" of information is regrettable, as it reenforces Ted's manipulation, and undercuts the right of any poster to provide linkage in whatever context the poster may desire.
Having to ask another poster for "permission" to use a link is absurd.
About time somebody tries to call this foolishness for what it is. To be expected to read through twenty or thirty links of one egotistical poster before daring to post, or abandoning a post because someone else has also used a certain link, is just plain nonsense.
Regards,
Ted
@Ted: I gave my reasons, in plain English. You are attempting to require a poster to read through twenty or thirty of your links before daring to post, or specifically ask you if you have already used a link. If the answer is "yes", then the other poster needs to ask you for permission to use the same public resource?
Total BS. Your frowning yellow circles, and movie clips suggesting that you are in charge of discipline don't change a thing. Your attempts to emulate your "president" are pathetic.
Old Joe made an excellent point yesterday which did not escape me. And he generously repeats it here. That being that no one has exclusivity over particular topics. I'll go farther and state that when someone who seldom links stories or does so only a half-dozen times a week puts a story up on the board, I'm much more inclined to perceive their link as worthy of my time and thereby click on it. Human nature I guess. Ol Tom Paine said it well a couple hundred years a go: "It is dearness only that gives every thing its value."
None of this is meant to take away from anyone's contributions. Just that linking interesting stories found while reading has become more of a hassle nowadays than I recall in the past.
---
PS: @Ted, Ol'Joe is the best of the best here IMHO. No reason to insult him or anyone. Drive everybody away through this nonsense and what have you got left? The purpose of new posts should be to initiate/stimulate discussion. Otherwise, Google, Yahoo, Bing can churn out hundreds of financial stories daily.
I've said my piece. I'll shut up now.
OJ