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.
>> start these threads just to get responses from the conservatives.
Interesting that we non-conservatives typically include data and citations or analysis for substantiation while the conservatives, or whatever they claim to be, just assert.
It is an interesting question if one shuts off debate and simply refuses to listen to the other side by only viewing certain media outlets that share your views whether this behavior is any different from "confirmation bias" in investing. If you study politics in school, the major is called "political science," with the idea being that you use the scientific method to determine the best form of government. You study data, citations, and historical precedents and you use facts to bolster one's side of the argument. But if you refuse to do this, and choose to ignore the data and historical precedents--the facts--then politics is no longer remotely scientific. It becomes no different from religion.
"Faith is the evidence of things not seen" it says in the bible. That is precisely how the political ideologue thinks. He believes things are a certain way even if the factual evidence says otherwise, disregards it, calls it "fake news" in this case. One's "gut feelings" become more important than facts. In other words, as Stephen Colbert describes, truthiness becomes more important than truth.
What is surprising on a board like this one is that people can be fairly scientific in their approach towards investing, read the various financial studies, and weigh the evidence carefully to decide what mutual fund or ETF to buy. But when it comes to politics, it's often my way or the highway. Unfortunately, if someone says, you know what I'm just going to shut you out and listen to only that which I already believe--well then--all hope for political science is lost. Fanaticism and confirmation bias reign.
@Lewis: "What is surprising on a board like this one is that people can be fairly scientific in their approach towards investing, read the various financial studies, and weigh the evidence carefully to decide what mutual fund or ETF to buy. But when it comes to politics, it's often my way or the highway." I think your finally starting to get it, MFO is about investing in funds, not politics. Regards, Ted
@Ted Let's assume this is a democracy and you're not god, OK? You just started a thread called "America Needs a New Milton Friedman." What does that have to do with mutual funds?
@Ted - As Linkster Extraordinaire, I'd expect you above all others to rise to the defense of the press you so often cite. With domestic media now the "enemy", in the future look to Pravda for your stories. Nary a harsh word from Trump, Conway, Bannon about Putin and his subjugates. Today's "news" (especially regarding George Soros) should prove highly popular. http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/
@Ted- With 126 comments and over 2000 views this particular thread obviously is of significant interest to many MFO members. Neither you nor Trump are the arbiters of where or when democracy is allowed in this country.
I agree w/OldJoe....As long as prolonged political discussions take place in clearly-marked political threads (ie, this one) and the discussions are pretty civil (and they are), I say go for it. Now, if *every* post/thread becomes a partisan thing, then we have bigger problems and the MFO forums lose their value for people .... however I'm confident our MFO community won't devolve into that level of bickering and pettyness.
@Ted- With 126 comments and over 2000 views this particular thread obviously is of significant interest to many MFO members. Neither you nor Trump are the arbiters of where democracy is allowed in this country.
@Maurice- I read, and listened. Edmond makes certain observations that are both interesting and accurate. How are you able to determine that my views are not influenced or tempered to some degree by the positions that you prefer? Just because we disagree on some issues does not mean that you are not being listened to.
I'm befuddled and a bit frustrated that much of the discussion has deviated away from the issue of a free press (which I intended to highlight in posting). However, that's human nature and such digression is not unexpected. Somewhat unexpected - With the Dow approaching 21,000 and markets setting daily records, folks have still found this off-topic thread of great interest. Never would have expected that.
I would like to ask all involved in this thread " Is there something wrong with considering yourself to be a conservative when the only other choice is a liberal ." As I read this thread I think certain individual think so.
@Art- since you ask, my feeling is that no one political philosophy has a lock on "truth". I suppose that if the choices are limited, as you propose, to "liberal" or "conservative", I would have to largely identify with the former.
I have no argument with a general philosophy, but certainly do on specific issues, particularly when a viewpoint is promoted as a fact, when that may be totally debatable.
I have absolutely no problem understanding why, with the abandonment of the middle classes by both major political parties, the current president was elected. I support a good many of his general viewpoints, as well.
While I may support those positions, I do not believe that promoting them by attempted suppression of the free press, threats to jail political opponents, political manipulation of United States security agencies, introduction of "alternate facts", destruction of civil discourse, contempt for proper process of law, and disregard of decent international relations is worth the price.
Anyone who is the least conversant with the political environment of the past six months or so is well aware of factual documentation for each and every item specified above.
OJ,For a long time now I have thought the press has gotten away from reporting the news to making the news. Social media is largely responsible for the country "looking like it is divided. We need to all be "Americans" first. I also wonder how much of what the new administration is doing is different than past presidencies but instead there is more transparency once again due to social media. I long for the Dragnet days and "All we want are the facts, ma’am".
"I also wonder how much of what the new administration is doing is different than past presidencies but instead there is more transparency once again due to social media."
@Art- Yes sir: a very interesting question, indeed. However, I question the premise that there has been some major shift in reporting vs "making" the news. The reactions of US citizens and the gradually growing anger to the Vietnam war were shaped by reporting, not "making", but I suspect that neither the Republican nor Democratic presidents of that era would likely agree with that.
What there undoubtedly has been, though, is a generally increased skepticism on the part of the "mainstream" press with respect to almost all political reporting. Until Watergate the press was generally inclined to give the major political leaders a "pass", even when the press was aware that all was not exactly as it seemed. Those days are long gone, for sure.
That, plus the addition of a host of non-mainstream internet reporting entities not interested in giving anyone a pass for anything have certainly sharpened the news reporting atmosphere. Many of those internet entities are less interested in facts than in the advertising revenue generated by creating dissension.
@OJ Advertising revenues? What advertising revenues? Can you ask these Internet entities to pass along some of these revenues to the publications I read and work for?
Lewis- Surely operations such as Breitbart have significant advertising revenue, since I recently read that many advertisers are becoming very skittish with respect to where their advertising appears. You must be reading the wrong kind of stuff.
While I genuinely believe partisan politics have no role in investment discussions ( I once dropped a newsletter subscription after the editor went on a political rant) I think the potential instability in the markets by Trump's shenanigans warrants at least some discussion of how different a game he is apparently playing. This is attack on the truth and the reporting of the truth is really unprecedented.
today he goes after the NYT ( up 32% since election) and CNN, tomorrow it might be M* or Merrill Lynch if they report facts that he doesn't like
@hank- To quote Lou Rukeyser and thereby maintain a very slender thread to financial affairs, "You betcha!"
@Maurice: tin•pot |ˈtinˌpät| (also tin-pot) adjective [ attrib. ] informal (esp. of a country or its leader) having or showing poor leadership or organization : a tinpot dictator.
>> I also wonder how much of what the new administration is doing is different than past presidencies
Seriously? It genuinely is different, in every respect, not just in trying to roll back so many decades of progress but in the cynical caliber of appointees. If your wondering is serious, I can privately send you a great many thoughtful links.
I heard a few years back a nice saying, "you're entitled to your own set of beliefs, you are NOT entitled to your own set of facts."
That's the big issue I have with Trump. He'll say whatever he wants, no matter how outrageous and simply say, "I read it on the internet, so it must be true:. Rubbish.
What is scary is that his methodology so far has EXACTLY what some want to be dictator would take - demonize the press so that you can tell your lies and call everything else a falsehood.
That said, while I didn't vote for him [I held my nose and voted for Hillary], he was elected and is the president. For the folks that don't like it - get involved damnit. Call your elected officials. Talk with your friends. And get out and vote in 2018. And that boys and girls, will be the nut - what happens in 2018.
And also for those that are wetting their pants, look to your checks and balances - the courts, the congress, the republican party and corporate America.
and again, we've muddled through worse and we'll muddle through this.
Agan, Trump has won. He has distracted the press with the 'enemy' comment as he advances his agenda. He won in that he has put it into the American discussion that the main stream media is biased and puts out fake news. Many people see him as a fool but he keeps plugging away.
Comments
>> start these threads just to get responses from the conservatives.
Interesting that we non-conservatives typically include data and citations or analysis for substantiation while the conservatives, or whatever they claim to be, just assert.
@davidmoran
It is an interesting question if one shuts off debate and simply refuses to listen to the other side by only viewing certain media outlets that share your views whether this behavior is any different from "confirmation bias" in investing. If you study politics in school, the major is called "political science," with the idea being that you use the scientific method to determine the best form of government. You study data, citations, and historical precedents and you use facts to bolster one's side of the argument. But if you refuse to do this, and choose to ignore the data and historical precedents--the facts--then politics is no longer remotely scientific. It becomes no different from religion.
"Faith is the evidence of things not seen" it says in the bible. That is precisely how the political ideologue thinks. He believes things are a certain way even if the factual evidence says otherwise, disregards it, calls it "fake news" in this case. One's "gut feelings" become more important than facts. In other words, as Stephen Colbert describes, truthiness becomes more important than truth.
What is surprising on a board like this one is that people can be fairly scientific in their approach towards investing, read the various financial studies, and weigh the evidence carefully to decide what mutual fund or ETF to buy. But when it comes to politics, it's often my way or the highway. Unfortunately, if someone says, you know what I'm just going to shut you out and listen to only that which I already believe--well then--all hope for political science is lost. Fanaticism and confirmation bias reign.
Regards,
Ted
I agree w/OldJoe....As long as prolonged political discussions take place in clearly-marked political threads (ie, this one) and the discussions are pretty civil (and they are), I say go for it. Now, if *every* post/thread becomes a partisan thing, then we have bigger problems and the MFO forums lose their value for people .... however I'm confident our MFO community won't devolve into that level of bickering and pettyness.
I have no argument with a general philosophy, but certainly do on specific issues, particularly when a viewpoint is promoted as a fact, when that may be totally debatable.
I have absolutely no problem understanding why, with the abandonment of the middle classes by both major political parties, the current president was elected. I support a good many of his general viewpoints, as well.
While I may support those positions, I do not believe that promoting them by attempted suppression of the free press, threats to jail political opponents, political manipulation of United States security agencies, introduction of "alternate facts", destruction of civil discourse, contempt for proper process of law, and disregard of decent international relations is worth the price.
Anyone who is the least conversant with the political environment of the past six months or so is well aware of factual documentation for each and every item specified above.
If that makes me a "liberal", so be it.
@Art- Yes sir: a very interesting question, indeed. However, I question the premise that there has been some major shift in reporting vs "making" the news. The reactions of US citizens and the gradually growing anger to the Vietnam war were shaped by reporting, not "making", but I suspect that neither the Republican nor Democratic presidents of that era would likely agree with that.
What there undoubtedly has been, though, is a generally increased skepticism on the part of the "mainstream" press with respect to almost all political reporting. Until Watergate the press was generally inclined to give the major political leaders a "pass", even when the press was aware that all was not exactly as it seemed. Those days are long gone, for sure.
That, plus the addition of a host of non-mainstream internet reporting entities not interested in giving anyone a pass for anything have certainly sharpened the news reporting atmosphere. Many of those internet entities are less interested in facts than in the advertising revenue generated by creating dissension.
today he goes after the NYT ( up 32% since election) and CNN, tomorrow it might be M* or Merrill Lynch if they report facts that he doesn't like
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/us/politics/white-house-sean-spicer-briefing.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
@Maurice:
tin•pot |ˈtinˌpät| (also tin-pot)
adjective [ attrib. ] informal
(esp. of a country or its leader) having or showing poor leadership or organization : a tinpot dictator.
>> I also wonder how much of what the new administration is doing is different than past presidencies
Seriously? It genuinely is different, in every respect, not just in trying to roll back so many decades of progress but in the cynical caliber of appointees. If your wondering is serious, I can privately send you a great many thoughtful links.
I heard a few years back a nice saying, "you're entitled to your own set of beliefs, you are NOT entitled to your own set of facts."
That's the big issue I have with Trump. He'll say whatever he wants, no matter how outrageous and simply say, "I read it on the internet, so it must be true:. Rubbish.
What is scary is that his methodology so far has EXACTLY what some want to be dictator would take - demonize the press so that you can tell your lies and call everything else a falsehood.
That said, while I didn't vote for him [I held my nose and voted for Hillary], he was elected and is the president. For the folks that don't like it - get involved damnit. Call your elected officials. Talk with your friends. And get out and vote in 2018. And that boys and girls, will be the nut - what happens in 2018.
And also for those that are wetting their pants, look to your checks and balances - the courts, the congress, the republican party and corporate America.
and again, we've muddled through worse and we'll muddle through this.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
He won in that he has put it into the American discussion that the main stream media is biased and puts out fake news.
Many people see him as a fool but he keeps plugging away.