Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 2:07 PM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 1 hr 53 mins


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

SPDR S&P 500 Message Board

darwins_assistant 254 posts  |  Last Activity: Apr 11, 2014 9:10 AM Member since: Jun 1, 2012
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • It just doesn't fit America's actual demographic future. Even in countries where single payer health care is dominant, there are doctors for private pay. America is largely about spending all our time getting rich off each other. This is simply immoral when it comes to providing critical healthcare.

    The other half of this is a serious level adjustment needed in terms of expectations for receiving healthcare. America is obese and the costs and problems of our system overall are highly weighted (pun intended) toward the chronic illnesses of people who do not care for themselves. I'm in favor of simply denying anything more than palliative care for chronic self-inflicted illness unless its private pay.

  • darwins_assistant by darwins_assistant Mar 25, 2014 7:29 AM Flag

    our myriad of problems fairly objectively, causes and effects. Technology disruption/displacement, globalization of goods production/employment, commodity prices due to high global demand, wealth concentration due to an oversupply of labor, crony capitalism in bed with politicians, the rapid rise of the underclasses in the American population, obscene profit seeking in our health care system combined with a chronically ill population that eats garbage. America worships youth, celebrity, entertainment, and sports. Very ephemeral ideals and abilities.

    The simple fact is that we do not have a society structure that supports a competitive model of middle class life where a majority of citizens can be successful. Its ranks are thinning, even as Democrats increasingly pretend many of the poor and the marginal are really middle class. I think wealth concentration is an effect rather than a cause. If labor was constantly converting to new business ownership and competition, the wealth concentration wouldn't occur. It may be true that allowing corporations to get so large and command such high market shares isn't in our best interest as a nation, because we can't create enough new industries to keep progressing as a society fast enough. We've reached a sort of plateau in the last 40 years where our technologies aren't enabling us to do new things as much as its simply replacing humans with machines to get work done.

    While we know this, there are no easy answers in a free market system or a politically directed system. Globalism is a more major problem than many realize because it destabilizes any and all national economies via trade based on labor arbitrage. We need to stop doing this. It may work in theory but it doesn't work in practice. That doesn't fix everything. Neither does having every citizen earning a college degree. We see that now. It isn't purely or even primarily an education problem. Our labor oversupply is only going to get worse because of technology.

  • darwins_assistant darwins_assistant Mar 21, 2014 11:59 AM Flag

    Where's the science for nuclear fusion, for cancer, for solving global warming, drought, over exploited oceans, for world peace. Science doesn't solve everything, it is after all, only a research method and a repository of empirical data mostly about the physical world. Its why we don't live in a technocracy.

  • Reply to

    Obama doesn't care about global warming.

    by jjacksgeo Mar 21, 2014 11:16 AM
    darwins_assistant darwins_assistant Mar 21, 2014 11:37 AM Flag

    We live in a free society, not a police state. All joking aside with the abuse of executive orders, your proposal makes no practical sense at all. Find something else.

  • Reply to

    Obama doesn't care about global warming.

    by jjacksgeo Mar 21, 2014 11:16 AM
    darwins_assistant darwins_assistant Mar 21, 2014 11:27 AM Flag

    A quarter of the US workforce already telecommutes without a government directive.
    Sounds like in the never ending confrontation between the 'consent of the governed' and 'the state', you're a really big fan of the State.

  • you see firsthand in action the feedback loop where participants creating marketing messages swallow their own ʇıɥsןןnq. They actually do believe the things they make up and they can't tell the difference themselves anymore as to what is real (in terms of the products and services they sell) and what is exaggeration and pure fiction. (the sizzle).

    When computers are the primary participants in asset markets as they are today, they are programmed with similar feedback loops. They react to their own previous signals to buy or sell. And they believe their own ʇıɥsןןnq in just the same way as human marketing drudges do.

    We're watching algorithmic feedback loops that reasonate with their own self-reinforced misperceptions.

  • Phoenix hopes that, eventually, Vicarious’s computers will learn to how to cure diseases, create cheap, renewable energy, and perform the jobs that employ most human beings. “We tell investors that rigan ht now, human beings are doing a lot of things that computers should be able to do,” he says.

    All we need now is a future for humans themselves.

  • darwins_assistant darwins_assistant Mar 21, 2014 9:47 AM Flag

    Really, an EPA fine of 3 cents a gallon ? Another victory for corporate America, the saviors of civilization.

  • Reply to

    Why does CNBC keep Cramer?

    by testajoe147 Mar 21, 2014 9:10 AM
    darwins_assistant darwins_assistant Mar 21, 2014 9:37 AM Flag

    Like Cramer said a few years ago when Jon Stewart attacked him for his nonsense, "Hey, I'm an entertainer" (essentially). The mindset that is successful in markets changes over time, really quite radically. There are few permanent truisms in investing/speculating. Even this time period where central banks appear invincible and a new global reality of infinite liquidity without a crisis of confidence will pass.

  • darwins_assistant by darwins_assistant Mar 21, 2014 9:24 AM Flag

    7 geniuses try to 'solve' the world's problems overnight in the face of a nuclear threat from a mad man.
    A lot of bear themes resonating on this board get aired. In the end the world is pǝʞɔnɟ up because of our flawed humanity and our unwillingness to forgive each other and move on.

  • darwins_assistant by darwins_assistant Mar 21, 2014 9:13 AM Flag

    Such a distorted view against the Big Bang is a quirky rationalization, a mental construct that creates sustainable permanence as a basis for framing a personal reality.


    A fairly lucid article for the novice astrophysicist in all of us.

  • Reply to

    where's darwin, he was clever

    by debreasystems Mar 10, 2014 11:35 AM
    darwins_assistant darwins_assistant Mar 10, 2014 12:07 PM Flag

    Thanks for the kind words. I'm still here, I read the board most days. I found myself saying the same half dozen things too often, so I thought I'd step back a little and look for some new insights and emerging trends.

    I feel pretty uncomfortable where stock prices are because the growth prospects aren't great, and the global monetary policy circus could end at anytime with Janet being fired out of one of those 40ft clown cannons right through the hole in the top of the Big Tent.

    If you want the big gains you have to have at least one of the mega-growth stocks in your portfolio, like a Tesla, Google, or even a Priceline, bought on a rare pullback. Valuations be damned there.

    Good luck.

  • and change can only come through crisis, and repeated bad solutions that have to fail first. Every wrong thing must be tried to the point of nausea to preserve financial flows for those with economic advantage.

    I have faith in humanity, that we'll be significantly better overall in 10,000 years, its just the stupidity that we could get there in 300 years if we had evolved a little farther from bacteria and cockroaches, but we haven't yet.

  • darwins_assistant darwins_assistant Feb 25, 2014 4:51 PM Flag

    In your world view, the word morality itself has no meaning or context. It simply doesn't exist. You might admit a word like 'law', but it can only be practical convention, there is no inherent right or wrong.

  • having virtually no impact on asset markets. Money over mind.

  • darwins_assistant by darwins_assistant Feb 24, 2014 12:01 PM Flag

    if you visualize a relatively small number of people sitting in front of gigantic piles of money and a responsibility to get a return on investment.

    This is distinctly different from visualizing a real economy as a system, and measuring growth.

    When capital was scarce, the second method worked well, and it was the reason capital markets were created. Since central banks took control of modern financial economies, the first method has become dominant and the second method, quaint.

  • Reply to

    long you have 1 - 2% upside and only 50 - 60% downside

    by rqtect Feb 24, 2014 11:42 AM
    darwins_assistant darwins_assistant Feb 24, 2014 11:51 AM Flag

    loufah, since you feel comfortable just making statistics up because its funny, why not say markets historically gain 19% per year ? Posting disinformation isn't freedom of speech, its disrespectful to everyone around you.

  • Reply to


    by jlcconsult1 Feb 21, 2014 11:55 AM
    darwins_assistant darwins_assistant Feb 21, 2014 12:03 PM Flag

    No easy way to go back and check now, so take my word for it. The 'data' was not getting better yet, when the market bottomed. It was still horrible, and getting worse, but THE RATE OF CHANGE OF HOW FAST IT WAS GETTING WORSE had begun to slow down.

    Even now its hard for me to believe that it was enough to declare a bottom, and Timothy Geithner had just said "I don't have any idea of what to do now". Speculators are funny, cold blooded lizards.

  • This is the kind of fictional literature you got a C- for in high school.

187.51-0.38(-0.20%)2:06 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.