i'm not quite sure how to interpret that. it may refer to a concrete set of criteria issued by the central bank, as opposed to explicit whitelists and blacklists.

it does, i'm sure.

i would be happier with an actual free market---free of government interference; everyone stands on their own two feet. let the chips fall where they may. i don't need the fed to pump bitcoin, either.

the selective bailouts just exasperate the economic divisions in society. by perpetually giving handouts and subsidies to corporations and people who aren't poor and refusing to ever let the markets organically crash, they are destroying all notions of upward mobility and meritocracy. at the risk of sounding like a pinko commie, this is all pretty clearly designed to entrench existing capital and property owners at the expense of everyone else.

.....to what end?

these ideas have roots in anarcho-syndicalism, going back to the 1800s. they weren't invented to strip jeff bezos of power.

the entire reasoning behind worker self management is the conflict between shareholder and worker interests. why would workers be interested in self-management otherwise?


....and what proof do you have that this model would stifle innovation and progress? worker-owners have just as strong of an interest in a successful growing company as do capitalist shareholders, since they can pay themselves the dividends. in that sense, the profit motive still exists.


revolutionary concepts don't usually work like that.

worker ownership doesn't imply every executive decision requires a company-wide vote. i don't see why they couldn't elect perfectly capable operational executives.

think of it this way. shareholders just extract profits from the company. they don't actually provide any value. so what's wrong with cutting them out? if the goal of a company is not to generate profit for shareholders but to provide a good living and workplace for its workers, what's wrong with that?

because it shows the stock market is completely disconnected from company fundamentals. it's obviously just a game of greater fools. the fed prints money, the markets pump, and you can always sell higher.

the risk has almost been completely removed from stock investment---or rather it's been socialized across society. when investors are effectively bailed out at every turn, asset prices (like housing) more or less permanently rise. this keeps the propertied/investor class entrenched, keeps the have-nots from attaining property, and punishes all savers by devaluing our currency, further compounding the problem.

in a true free market, people who make bad investments and buy into grossly over inflated markets would pay the price for their mistakes. we shouldn't be bailing these investors out. if we're tossing around bailouts, we might as well go full blown socialist---at least then there is some commendable goal ("to each according to his needs"), as opposed to just kowtowing to the investor class and making sure they never lose money.

granted, but it was still the worst economic contraction in history by far---since they started keeping records anyway.


i'm nervous to see what happens next. the beefed up unemployment payments are over. lots of moratoriums on evictions (including the one on federally subsidized housing) are ending. unemployment claims are on the rise again. this is all happening in the context of surging coronavirus outbreaks, which i expect to bring more economic slowdowns and retail closures.

it's upsetting to watch the stock markets pump at a time like this.

zing!

it's not that bad. we just don't have instant real-time transfers. a fed wire transfer sent during business hours (ie before 5pm eastern time) gets completed in ~ a couple hours. ACH transfers clear overnight.

that's the norm for business banking anyway. big banks like chase and bank of america often delay things a day or two for retail customers, but as far as i can tell it has little to do with real limitations of the banking system. it's just big banks treating consumers like shit.

it's not totally anti-crypto. for example, the law explicitly allows companies to issue security tokens if they register with the central bank, which is a lot less harsh than china's 2017 regulation. the law also legitimizes BTC and other cryptocurrencies as investments by fitting them into the russian tax scheme.

the fact that crypto can't be used to pay for goods and services is certainly a bummer, but i don't see the news affecting the market (domestic or otherwise) and it also probably won't be enforced.

this is something i have learned the hard way: looking far into the future and trading based on logical assumptions about the world---eg "the second wave of coronavirus will destroy the stock market"---rarely works. people shorting or buying puts with that mindset have been getting punished for months, and tbh i expect that to continue.

the old keynes quote “markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent” applies here.

sure, as some sort of band-aid solution. it will keep people from starving in the streets, basically.

it's just not an answer to the systemic economic problems we face, especially with the specter of large scale job automation constantly hanging over our heads. it's a simple expansion of the welfare system, which itself only exists as a way to give poor people just enough to subsist. it doesn't fundamentally change anything. it's just a way to offset the effects of rising costs of living and rising unemployment.

i hate seeing any 9-K here. flying blind but you have to bet into him---why else would you flat call the flop?

lemme guess, he check-raised you?


hmmm, that kicker.....

any reads on this guy? have you seen him double/triple barrel before?

dang, missed our shot at even odds. i had no idea where to look for action on this. the odds on polk are up to 1.42. https://www.pokershares.com/market/poker/6ee2a4d8-df3a-4c0b-bee2-1b14b727751f

have you guys used pokershares before? trustworthy?

it's not just businesses. those loopholes are intentionally built into the law. most regulations are structured to hurt small businesses and benefit large corporations under the guise of protecting consumers. that should come as no surprise since it's support from big corporate lobbyists that is getting politicians elected in the first place. quid pro quo....


doesn't UBI just treat the symptoms too? it doesn't restructure the class system or property ownership. it just doles out a small entitlement---just big enough to keep the population from rioting and revolting.

+1. consider credit unions vs banks. when shareholders are cut out of the equation, cooperative members split the spoils among themselves. in the case of credit unions, that means lower interest rates for borrowers and higher interest rates for depositors. this model can theoretically be applied to most sectors.

worker-owned businesses is a nice idea, but i still have trouble seeing how we get there from here on a large scale.

mondragon is probably the most interesting example of large scale worker cooperatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

daniel should have taken him up on his offer to play half NLHE and half a game of his choice. all online, all high stakes NLHE? my money is on polk.

when is this happening? i can barely follow all the back and forth on twitter.

how often can you get someone to fold Ax there? how often will they give you action with no A if you call behind the flop?

re sizing, i approach it the same way i'd play against a flush draw. the odds are pretty similar. somewhere in the 3x-4x range seems good to extract value if he calls.


that's a fine way to play AK. it's a potential nightmare postflop, as you rightly point out. when we account for fold equity, it makes sense.

no idea what might have triggered it? have you deposited lots of funds in the past? what about trading activity---what tier are you?

i hate to hear this about kucoin. just about every other exchange is doing these KYC questionnaires by now, but this is the first i've heard of it with them. i regularly trade there (unverified, USA) and haven't had any issues myself.


the only thing i've noticed that changed recently is that they now allow 3 accounts per 1 verified user. used to be no multi-accounting allowed.

two old white guys, that's why. it has nothing to do with policies or platforms. if you haven't noticed, identity politics are front and center in this election.

biden has already vowed to pick a woman VP, so technically that's why it's impossible. in terms of odds, it's pretty clear by now that it will be a non-white woman. i'll be very surprised if it's anyone besides kamala harris or susan rice.

hand #1 seems like a decent spot to stack off, depending on your strategy. small chance you're dominated but usually not as most villains aren't shoving so huge w/ QQ-AA there. i think you're generally a 60/40 favorite, maybe better, against a typical range there.

hand #2---preflop i'm in position, can take the pot if i sense weakness postflop, plus set mining. hard to say what i'd do on the turn not knowing what you did postflop and what villain did on the turn. tbh i like to 3-bet postflop in spots like these because slow playing can generate big dangerous pots that are tough to play on turn/river against Ax.

hand #3---A9o is not my favorite opening hand, it's near the margins full ring, but i think the open and call are fine. i'm curious to see what he did on the turn.

i've been saying it for several weeks now, ever since the BLM protests took off. susan rice is a distant second, but kamala is the obvious choice. VP selection is all about getting out the vote in your own party. nobody else is gonna fire up black and progressive voters like her.


i liked her at 2.7 but it's still good odds IMO.

trump's odds improving, now at 2.76. i have a feeling we already saw the best odds we'll get on him. he needed a stock market rally, and he got one.