jazzyk

It was just the previous King, Juan Carlos, his son (the current King) seems to conduct himself much better (no corruption, no elephant hunts, no tawdry extra-marital affairs).

But I do agree with you that the concept of monarchy (hereditary power/wealth at taxpayers' expense) has run its course.

Hillary had been claiming Trump's presidency was 'illegitimate' all 4 years. Just one link (there are hundreds of others), for example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...

You assume that experts are completely impartial. Or ethical.

They aren't.

See "Inside Job" - an excellent documentary about the 2008 financial crisis. Highly credentialed Harvard, MIT, Columbia professors produced reports for Wall Street to convince buyers to buy their toxic financial products (while collecting enormous fees).

I am all for science, but one needs to watch out for $cience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(2010_film)

Absolutely, but since we are off-topic, let's just leave it at that.

Not inventing anything.

Northeast US:

Office hours: 9-6pm -> 9 hours (yes, includes "lunch" where people get a sandwich and eat it at the desk) Note that many people work longer, till 7pm or 8pm (startups, etc). Many people need 2 jobs to pay the bills.

Average commute time: 45 mins (you can google it) x 2 E-mail checking/responding at home after the kids go to bed: 1 hr

Total: 11.5 hrs easily (or more if you want to climb the corporate ladder)

So market-browsing/cooking is not your thing - that's fine. But let me just note that we invented all these life "efficiencies" - and are less and less happy (loneliness, drugs, etc).

What's the point?

So efficient = working 12 hrs/day and being able to afford everything ready-made/shipped for/to you (frozen and flavorless, on occasion past expiration date).

Even if you have an exciting/fulfilling job (a relative rarity) it gets old very quickly after a few years because most people need some variety in their lives.

Every time I vacation in southern Europe, I love going to markets, picking fruit/vegetables, having prosciutto cut for me. I think the time you claim it takes exagerrated - usually there are 1-2 people in line.

People dream to retire and tend to their garden (very "inefficient"), cooking their meals from scratch everyday, etc.

Lots of cooking shows and shows like "Escape to the country" (BBC) seem to prove my point.

I don't have a problem chipping in to cover those who can't afford it.

I DO have a problem with paying at least 50% more than the next highest spending countries like Switzerland or Norway - all with excellent healthcare systems - probably better than the US (except for the very high-end)

Health-"care" costs are rising even faster - premiums are rising 13-15% EVERY year.

And the only way you see it in full is when you are self-employed. If you have employer-sponsored health insurance, some part of the increase is covered by the company - at the expense of your salary increase or bonus, of course.

To me globalists - the top 0.1%, with their business interests spread over the world, completely unaccountable to any government (in fact, increasingly influencing/corrupting governments around the world with their money).

And attempting to sprinkle anti-semitism into it is just a (typical) attempt to make the word "globalist" socially unacceptable. Nothing to do with Jews, but hey, nice try.

Many people (even on this board, in other threads over the past couple of years) made similar observations. So no, it is not "just me".

I think you are being paranoid - what has globalism got to do with anti-semitism? There are plenty of globalists of varying nationalities/religions.

UPS says they found the missing package.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/oct/29/fox-news-tucke...

I had been a subscriber for almost 30 years. Loved their cheeky style and erudite, but clear writing.

In 2015, the publishing house Pearson sold their majority stake to a bunch of globalists: the Agnelli family, the Rotschilds, Cadbury, etc.[1]

I was not aware of this at the time, but noticed the change of direction a year or so later. Cancelled my subscription - sadly there are few real journalists left.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist

There are people who age extremely well, though.

Audrey Hepburn, in her early sixties (just before her death) was stunningly beautiful. She was merely "cute" when she was in her twenties.

Where was NYT's policy of using real-names when they:

- quoted anonymous source behind the White House "Op-Ed",

- used "well-connected", (but anonymous) sources reporting on the "Russia collusion" news?

I must be missing something here?

I disagree - many inner-city youths are into super-expensive sneakers ($300 and up), golden chains and other status symbols dictated by the social environment they grow up in. Computers are just not cool enough. Yes, there are exceptions, but the stereotype - unfortunately - mostly holds..

More money helps to a point, but what these young people need more than anything is appropriate role models (engineers, scientists, etc). Yes, I know, easier said than done...

There has been relatively little creative destruction in the US in the past decade, thanks to the Federal Reserve's policy of easy money, propping up badly managed companies.

That's why the unemployment rate (which measures the dynamics of job losses) has been so low.

Programming can be often fun, but if we want to be taken as seriously as other professionals: (doctors, lawyers) we need to stress that programming takes a lot of brains and hard work.

Give it a few years

As you age, other life aspects come into play - life partners, kids, taking care of your health, your parents' health, etc...

By buying up junk bonds the government props up irresponsible, mismanaged companies, which possibly spent money on stock buybacks and bonuses for executives, instead of product/service development.

The way to go is to protect workers during transition from one job to another by providing them with decent unemployment benefits, training, etc., not bail out lousy executives over and over.

Just a pedantic note - I have most of my 401K money in Certificates of Deposit, so you do not have to pump the market.

However (thanks, Federal Reserve!), you get punished with interest rates below inflation, so people, increasingly desperate to protect their savings from inflation, put their money in risky investments (not just the stock market, also overpriced real-estate, etc).

What about people who are addicted (huge problem in the US)? If we give them money, they will spend it on drugs/alcohol/etc. and will still need to be taken care of.

So while food stamps (universal or need based) may not be a perfect solution (selling food stamps for drug money is not unheard of), it is still better, because it makes misappropriating the help provided more difficult.

Take a look at December 2018. There was no pandemic. The Fed tried to very slowly reduce its balance sheet. The stock market threw a major tantrum (by dropping 20% or so) and voila, the Fed reversed its course.

The same in 2016, and other times

How can you say they are not focused on the stock market? They are primarily focused on propping up the markets.

Slightly off-topic, but if you consider that 90% of "mainstream" media is owned by 6 huge corporations, which are interested in maintaining crony capitalism (of which the state is a central player) - then it would not be completely outlandish to think that the press is kinda part of state (conceptually speaking)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownersh...

I am not sure what is so particular about this company that the CEO deserved 30M, while neglecting to have a rainy-day fund, just like any reasonable business should. With 30M of bonus, it does not seem like the company was struggling last year?

Do they all need to be late (2016+) models, though? It seems like most of them are.

But perhaps, just perhaps, the CEO could take $2M as bonus and save $28M for a rainy day?

A rainy day will arrive sooner or later - whether it is a pandemic or an economic crisis or a dry spell in additional funding, etc.

Were any execs let go?

I bet they all had severance guaranteed in their contracts...

Yeah, but because it is o easy to fire, some companies (especially startups which just got some VC money) over-hire and then are forced to let people go.

This creates a never-ending hamster-wheel of hiring-firing - not good for the employee and not good for the company.

Also, if paying 1 month of severance is too much for a company, then perhaps it is not run well and should be allowed to fail?

As I mentioned I had been a subscriber for 30 years.

And no, I am not missing your point. There was a clear change in direction a few years ago - as I mentioned, I sensed it, but was not aware of the ownership change at the time.

You either did not notice or you just started reading them - good for you. Enjoy.