wbsss4412

60,000 IU per day or per week?

5,000 IU is most likely a daily dosage in this instance.

> I can't! That's the only thing you provided.

Quotes aren’t editorializing. I’m referring to the quotes + the fact that he has yet to provide any proof of those assertions.

Disregarding any editorializing from the AP, not following up these quotes:

> “People think, when they hear AIDS, they hear HIV. No, the vaccines aren’t causing you to be infected with the HIV virus,” said Malone, during a taped interview with a website that focuses on COVID-19. “They are causing a form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, that’s what AIDS stands for.”

With concrete and compelling evidence, is irresponsible and unbecoming of someone who is claiming expertise in a subject.

That’s the point. One can have a discussion about the integrity of the media in general, but that doesn’t have any bearing on the facts of Dr Malone’s public behavior. We’re talking about someone who clearly knows the ethics of his profession who is going around making extremely inflammatory statements without providing evidence, and tweeted out a video claiming a kid died from the Covid vaccine without actually making a basic effort to examine its provenance.

Y’all want to sit here and point fingers but my point was never about the integrity of the media nor tech companies. The original question was more or less “I don’t see why they have a problem with this guy“ and I answered it.

I find it amusing that simply because I pointed out the faults of Dr Malone, you assume I’m some sort of devotee of the Washington Post/NYTimes. This is a fabrication inside your own mind.

Well I can see why you’d put so much faith in a man of such unimpeachable integrity.

You don’t believe what, exactly? The quotes? The source from the article is the AP, are you claiming the AP fabricated these quotes?

> In a video circulating widely on social media, Dr. Robert Malone, a frequent critic of COVID-19 vaccines who once researched mRNA vaccine technology, made the claim that the vaccines are “damaging T cell responses” and “causing a form of AIDS.” “People think, when they hear AIDS, they hear HIV. No, the vaccines aren’t causing you to be infected with the HIV virus,” said Malone, during a taped interview with a website that focuses on COVID-19. “They are causing a form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, that’s what AIDS stands for.” In the interview, published April 1, Malone claimed that “lots of scientific data” support his claim, but cited no evidence. The claims are unfounded.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-covid-technology-s...

> In November 2021, Malone shared a deceptive video on Twitter that falsely linked athlete deaths to COVID-19 vaccines. In particular, the video suggested that Jake West, a 17-year-old Indiana high school football player who succumbed to sudden cardiac arrest, had actually died from COVID-19 vaccination. However, West had died years earlier, in 2013, due to an undiagnosed heart condition. Malone deleted the video from his Twitter account after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from West's family. Malone later said on Twitter that he did not know the video was doctored.

> In an April 1, 2022 interview, Malone made the unfounded claim that COVID-19 vaccines are "damaging T cell responses" and "causing a form of AIDS". Malone claimed that he had "lots of scientific data" to back up his claim, but did not cite evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone?wprov=sfti1

I don’t see how targeted ads are any less insufferable than a viagra ad. I don’t watch ads for fun.

No matter how “relevant” an ad may be, you’re still breaking context to insert yourself, and distract me from, the thing I’m actually interested in.

Not sure what services you’ve looked at, but it definitely doesn’t cost $10/month.

Your personal solution seems pretty good though.

> This makes sense because most are being sold at a big loss

Your article is 3 years old and the economics of BEV production have changed rapidly in that time span. It quotes battery pack cost per kWh at $190-$210, but current prices are averaging closer to $132. [1]

The costs are primarily a function of scale, and the reason why there is limited supply is that you can’t scale manufacturing that fast. Within 2-3 years, major manufacturers will be pumping out millions of EVs and the economies of scale will really kick in.

> Plus, there are practically no used EVs on the market

The restrictions are on the sale of new EVs by 2035, so this is irrelevant. And to add, there will be a significant used EV market by then.

> The car companies haven't exactly figured out what to do about EVs and are selling a few half-baked products at a loss just for show, but its not sustainable at these price levels. I'll be fine, sure I don't want to pay 20-30k more for a car

Multiple manufacturers have released good products in the last two years, and you can buy a perfectly fine EV today for under 30k. (Nissan leaf, Chevy bolt)

[1] https://insideevs.com/news/552010/electric-car-battery-price...

You can install chargers on the curbside.

Is that the solution? I don’t know, but honestly all of these issues are solvable problems and the idea that we can’t figure it out in 13 years says more about our self belief than it does about the tractability of the problem.

I’ve owned a BEV for over a year and can’t charge at home. I rely on workplace + public charging. It’s been pretty great honestly.

You don’t have to spend 40 minutes at a charger either. That only happens if you want to go from empty to full. That’s bringing a gas tank mindset to a completely different paradigm. You charge when you can for how much you need at the time and you’re fine.

> Quantitative easing (QE) is a monetary policy whereby a central bank purchases predetermined amounts of government bonds or other financial assets (e.g., municipal bonds, corporate bonds, stocks, etc.) in order to inject money into the economy to expand economic activity.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing?wprov=sfti...

> Wouldn't QE be anti-liquidity since it's net result is more cash goes to the Fed and QT be pro-liquidity since the opposite happens?

You have QE and QT backwards.

QE => fed builds up it’s balance sheet, it sends out cash.

QT => fed reduces its balance sheet, it gets cash back.

>On this earth, liquidity is about transaction velocity, and The Fed taking transactions off the table (by being a guaranteed buyer at every auction) makes non-Fed transactions happen at lower prices. The end.

Transaction velocity matters but it’s not everything. You’re myopically looking at one market, while the rest of us are talking about the systemic effects.

Transaction volume follows from the supply and demand for money. If you remove money from the system, you remove liquidity.

Look, you quoted a blatantly incorrect definition of QE/QT below. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

> EDIT: Maybe this helps - you're taking for granted that the US Treasury auctions an increasingly large amount of Treasuries to cover an increasingly large amount of debt, but The Fed doesn't create that debt, that's a separate phenomenon. If the government balanced its budget for a year, does that create liquidity?

Do you actually understand what liquidity is?

Bonds are just one instrument the fed uses, the bond market isn’t the end all be all of open market operations. As I noted earlier, the fed was previously injecting liquidity by buying bonds and mortgages. What you’re talking about is tangential.

Liquidity is the amount of cash in the system relative the size of the market for assets. All else equal, adding or removing is the same as adding or removing cash.

The fed removes liquidity every time it receives a coupon payment or a bond matures (ie, it gets paid cash by the government). It could stop all open market operations and it would continue to remove liquidity from the system by virtue of that process. So, no, it doesn’t need to sell any assets in order to remove liquidity from the system, it simply needs to have lower net outflows of cash than its inflows of cash. As the headline states, since mid April it’s net outflows of cash have been $140 billion less than its inflows.

> Yes, so they aren't 'removing liquidity' because they are still 'injecting liquidity' at literally every treasury auction (as they have been for 15 years). They are simply injecting less liquidity than they have been, which is my entire point.

Your point is myopically focused on the bond market (and realistically the mortgage backed securities market as well).

The net amount of liquidity is going down. They are removing liquidity.

If I’m in a sinking ship and frantically pulling out buckets of water, the ship is still sinking even though I’m removing water. The fact that the fed has to continue to make bond purchases is a technicality that is irrelevant to anyone outside of the trading industry, and has little net effect of the Marco economy.

Like, when headlines come out saying “alphabet stock sell off on earning miss” do you tell everyone around you that technically there was a buyer on the other side of every one of those transactions?

I’m aware that is the case. If they weren’t doing that, though, it would result in a massive uncontrolled level of tightening. I don’t see how it’s somehow a bad thing that they are being intentional about the draw down.

If I were to buy a bond ETF, that fund would be doing the same thing on my behalf. I wouldn’t be “buying” bonds just because the underlying product is maintaining a fixed asset level/ratio.

> yet it's fighting inflation and has the largest national debt out of any country in the world ... is this simply a circumstance that the US is "less bad off" than the rest of the world?

Debt is usually benchmarked against GDP for a reason, by that metric the US doesn’t have the highest debt level, it also doesn’t have the highest level of inflation.

The USD is also the currency of basically all international trade and settlements, it’s value is determined by external factors to a significant degree, not only on the US economy itself.

To add, they sell mortgage backed securities too.

“Liquidity” literally means the ease with which assets can be converted into cash. In the context above it’s saying they have removed cash from the system, in specific reference to the M1 money supply.

It’s one of those words that gets used in a bunch of different contexts without a consistent meaning, unfortunately.

> Is that removing liquidity? Not really, it's just decreasing the active injection of liquidity that the Fed has been doing for the past 15 years.

This is a pretty ideologically based statement. The fed is quite literally removing liquidity from the system. They aren’t “actively” adding any liquidity and haven’t been for months.

For context, yes it’s helpful to keep in mind the build up of the balance sheet, but the spin here is overly politicized.

Note that many people on this and other forums have been talking about how the fed just prints money forever and is out of control. This is them destroying money.

It might not be enough for you personally, but let’s not pretend that money printing only goes in one direction.

Note: as a base expectation, you want to be printing a small amount of money unless circumstances dictate otherwise. In a growing economy, if the growth in the money supply doesn’t keep up with growth, you’ll eventually see deflation. This is explained by the following identity (where the velocity of money is typically observed to be fairly constant):

[Price] * [output] = [velocity of money] * [money supply]

To add, both parties usually get additional value out of an exclusivity deal, which is why they voluntarily enter into an arrangement.

In the case of Amazon though (and I caveat this with the fact that I’m not aware of the full details) this is about being able to sell on Amazon at all, there are no extra perks involved for the sellers.

Ah yes, so according to you, in the “real world”, shareholders interests and the interests represented by the government are functionally equivalent. This must be why we have no minimum wage laws, worker protections, nor does the FTC ever block any mergers.

> If you make the false assumption that the public requires 100% support to do anything.

You’re sitting here complaining about not being perfectly understood over and over and yet here you claim I said 100% support is required. I said one group isn’t representative of the other, ie it’s interests are not reflective of the pother groups interests.

> You don't need it to be representative, just to form majority. 51% is more than sufficient. 58% provides a healthy margin.

Assuming 88% of that 58% are in actually in agreement.

> Should it imply it? I don't see the relevance.

You made the argument that the shareholders of one public company are somehow functionally equivalent to the public at large:

> Anti-trust could, in theory, do more to prevent the general public from not caring about the product they control. The problem is that laws (where Figma and Adobe are located) are prescribed by the very same general public, so you have to convince them its a good idea. And if you've done that, the law becomes largely superfluous because at that point they're already on board and will act as such on their own accord.

Your position is basically: we already live in an anarchy capitalist society with extra cruft.

Setting aside the fact that your own measure means that 42% of Americans own zero shares, meaning that it is already not representative. The fact that 58% of Americans own a share does not imply that they are shareholders of every single one of the ~6,000 companies listed on the public markets in the US. Further, 10% of Americans hold 89% of the stocks in the US, and therefore as many voting shares.

So yes, I do mean the US. I’ll reiterate: it is absurd to imply that “the public” in reference to shareholders is somehow synonymous with “the public” in reference to voters in America.

> What would the alternative be? There will always come a day when founders and investors want to move on. Retirement age comes faster than you might think. Even if you deny an exit strategy, the principals are still going to stop eventually, and the product will still come to an end at that time. Allowing a sale at least provides an opportunity for the product to live on, even if there can be no guarantees about how the next guy decides to treat it.

This is what you wrote in response to the idea that anti trust should be used to block these kinds of buy outs.

> The problem is that laws are prescribed by the very same general public, so you have to convince them its a good idea. And if you've done that, the law becomes largely superfluous because at that point they're already on board and will act as such on their own accord.

That is frankly an absurd oversimplification. Shareholders are a miniscule subset of the general public.

You can argue whichever is better for society, more anti trust, more big corp acquisitions. My point is only that the idea that without big corp acquisitions, founders would have no options besides walking away and letting their product die is preposterous.

I’m making my comments in the context of the thread:

>we need new antitrust laws that are a bit more proactive when it comes to super-massive companies like Adobe

> What do you think happens to VC investments when it’s harder for companies to be acquired?

> maybe a culture of creating small companies out of VC capital only to be acquired by megacorps is not the best way forward for society

> What would the alternative be? There will always come a day when founders and investors want to move on

> A company like figma could have always just gone public if the founders/investors just wanted to get out

The whole point was that anti trust should be stepping in more, and then people were making over the top claims about there being no alternative.

The whole point is that it is not up to the public shareholders to sell to whoever they want if the government will block the sale.

I suppose I just don’t understand you original point then?

> What would the alternative be? There will always come a day when founders and investors want to move on.

Going public means you can move on and sell your shares at any time on the open market, they never needed Adobe to buy them out except to get a higher valuation.

Your original comment implied that if companies like Adobe weren’t able to buy out smaller competitors, the products would just die, which, obviously isn’t even the case here.