elgabogringo

As to the points in the article: Correlation does not equal causation. Now to two major points it conveniently left out.

- First, the overall labor participation rate is at 40 year lows, so there is no labor shortage. In fact, the rate for those 55+ has gone up and is at 50 year highs.

- The biggest danger from an aging population is how to fund our entitlements Medicare & SS.

The reason for a weak recovery and stagnant wages are pretty obvious and completely avoided by this study and article - which I think was purposeful.

The real issue is a legal, not financial one. The ACLU fought a long time ago to make it very hard to commit anyone, very hard to give them treatment while committed, very hard to keep them there, etc.

No matter how much city/states spend, they can't fill up the hospitals and treat patients, which is why most of the hospitals were closed.

If you are interested, there's a very thorough book on the subject that I'd recommend:

https://www.amazon.com/My-Brother-Ron-Personal-Deinstitution...

One of the dumbest statements from a very dumb, condescending post. SF is uber progressive. "Ayn Rand followers" are few and far between and, even then, very much in the closet.

Sorry, I can't take this post seriously. Some thoughts without trying to get too political:

- I guess he was disappointed by Obama? Join the club.

- "I moved to Silicon Valley" No you didn't, you moved to San Francisco.

- The Bay Area is one of the most naturally beautiful metropolitan areas in the world. Beijing is one of the most polluted. You can have it.

- "I was confused by the sheer amount of narcissistic Ayn Rand followers." Really? Where are they, I've been here 15 years and have yet to find this mythic horde

All told, I'm getting really sick of the Euro-lectures-Americans schtick.

Tigers don't change their stripes.

A better recipe is to enforce a culture of actual politeness (not fake tolerance) and not talk about politics or religion at the office.

Well, by preventable, I think I meant something different than you. I meant you could not share needles or you could always use a condom. Sex/needles are what, 99% of transmissions?

And yeah condoms break, but if HIV transfer was limited to the condom breaking that would be a step in the right direction.

I love the fervor of the poster as I strongly support the 2nd amendment and find leftist/democrat arguments to be hypocritical...

But... I don't see the relevance to HN and if this were a leftist post I'd flag it and I want to be intellectually consistent, so... Flagged. Sorry.

If I'm wrong on flagging it, please let me know. Trying to adapt my HN behavior to the general decorum.

Hmm... I'm surprised by this. At least in the US AIDS is under much more control, is it not? My fiancee treats AIDS/HIV and has never mentioned "resistance" except when referring to antibiotics. This seems more like a funding issue, though I could be wrong.

All told, this is sad. Aids is the most easily preventable disease. Most of her patients know exactly when they got it.

Note that it's also very relevant to comment I replied to. Not being argumentative (or don't mean to be.) I'll admit when I'm wrong, but I feel this comment was relevant to the original comment in the thread and article and these are my reasons why.

In fact, I probably should have brought up another threat to fair elections, which is the lack of any voter ID requirement. Also very partisan, but essential for security.

Actually, I didn't say financial influence, I said foreign influence and the article refers back to foreign influences in multiple places, just one example below:

If foreign governments learn that they can influence our elections with impunity, this opens the door for future manipulations, both document thefts and dumps like this one that we see and more subtle manipulations that we don't see.

I'm not derailing a thread if I'm reminding the readers that much of the foreign influence we are threatened by comes about through the complicity / corruption of domestic political actors.

actually, if you read the article and the post, the subject is about foreign influence in elections, so my comment is on point.

I use netvibes. Basically replaced my old "my yahoo" page about five years back. Love it.

And Facebook COO Just endorsed Hillary publicly on FB, the day after WSJ reported that Hillary has taken $48.5 Million from hedgefunds/Wall Street vs $19,000 for Donald Trump.

We know who is on the little people's side in this election.

If we care about foreign influence, shouldn't we be concerned about all the foreign money the Clinton's have taken?

Millions to their foundation (just while she was SoS):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-...

Millions in speaking fees outside the US (just while she was Sos): http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bill-doubled-speaking-fees...

And it's doubly-ironic how much the left suddenly cares about Email security after getting let off by FBI.

Funny that the left all of a sudden cares about security in our elections.

Try to implement the most basic security that is common even in poor foreign countries, such as an ID requirement and the left is up in arms.

The truth is, the left doesn't care about election security, it just cares about the left.

Is that a bug or a feature?

Just like government sponsored enterprises (GSE's) made housing more expensive, they are making college tuition more expensive.

Left out of the article are probably biggest recipients of the newfound largesse are University administrative employees whose employment "jumped 60 percent from 1993 to 2009, 10 times the growth rate for tenured faculty"[1] In my opinion they are not just overemployed but overpaid.

Also left out are the billion dollar endowments that can generation over a billion in annual gains - all untaxed because the schools are "non-profits."

It's strange that these points are left out. Also strange is the bias in the article, where Republicans are at fault for everything and it's just the poor old Democrats left standing up for students when the reality is that student loan debt took off under Obama [2]

This is a serious, bipartisan issue. It's a classic case of special interests, wall street, and politicians colluding to rip off Americans. This article is biased and does a poor job identifying root causes for the crisis. Still, it's a subject worth discussing.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-11-21/the-troubl...

[2] http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2014/10/15/127859...

He really lost me with the first two paragraphs... Oh, and the title. The Brexit? Really? He's using the Brexit to launch into a soliloquy on the meaning of life?

It's not clear to me that the Brexit had to do with wealth as much as it had to do with sovereignty. It's also not clear that the Brexit will have a negative long run impact on Britain's wealth.

I know this sounds crazy to all the super smart international people out there, but A) the EU's growth sucks and B) it's likely to get worse before it gets better - oh, and C) when it gets worse the Euro could very well go away, making the Brexit crowd look like geniuses.

Look, if you look for fulfillment in money or possessions you are going to be disappointed. This has been a tenet of Western philosophy for millennia. Using this philosophy as a platform to trash the Brexit is disingenuous and beneath somebody as uber super smart as Hawking.

Uh huh. Funny how a billionaire has so easily convinced you that adding costs to his competitors (and consumers) is really "removing a subsidy".

If he/we really cared about CO2 production and Global warming externalities, we'd put a massive tax on service/product from China or India, whose CO2 production continues to grow:

http://blogs.nelson.wisc.edu/es112-304-4/wp-content/uploads/...

Agreed. It's an argument for indirect subsidies to his company on top of the direct subsidies he already receives.

Elon Musk is hardly a libertarian. He's just another crony capitalist.

Because it's a Billionaire shilling for more subsidies, that's how.

It's politicization of the military, as I said in my OP.

I said it was the politicization of our armed forces, and it is.

Um... Those two were Presidents. Harvey milk was on a city board of supervisors. Big difference.

They've always chosen divisive political figures?

You'll need to add some context for the first sentence.

Regarding the 2nd sentence, go watch the press conference. Trump doesn't want to be in bed with Russia.

"Russia" is being thrown around by the Democrats (in McCarthyite fashion, I might add) to deflect from the troubling info that was in the DNC emails.

Especially ironic because 4 years ago Obama was belittling the idea of Russia as a foe, now they are the Democrats new boogyman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1409sXBleg

Doubly ironic because it was Hillary that "pushed the reset button" with Russia - because (I guess) relations with them were so bad under Bush - but her team screwed up the translation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7930047.stm