All_Pro_Bills

My current employer is hot and heavy for some ESG and DEI lovin' of their own. I've dedicated myself to avoiding it all, quite successfully. My co-worker that has spent time working and living in poor parts of Africa and Asia calls all this stuff "first world problems" for people with nothing to worry about such as not starving to death.

I wouldn't count Yellen and Powell out just yet. Various Fed and Treasury Department officials have succeeded in holding together the financial system with some glue and rubber bands for the last 15 years so I expect they can keep the financial system together a bit longer. My read of the markets this morning is an expectation something is seriously broken, but the Fed will stop raising rates or cut, and some huge amount of liquidity is going to be injected into the banking system and the markets. If all this happens the US dollar might be the loser here along with anyone that gets paid in dollars or has assets denominated in dollars.

I also agree with Gene that SIVB, which for some unknown reason, was buying the long end of the credit market but as the smoke clears I expect we'll find out they've also employed a lot of leverage. Puts and Calls, Futures, Derivatives, all on top of a fractional reserve banking system. Leverage can compound gains to many multiples but it also has the potential to multiply losses on the way down. My guess is that's what went on here. The fact they employed a clearly losing strategy of going long with lots of leverage in the face of rising rates when the Fed gave no clear signal or statement they were contemplating reversing course or standing pat is incredibly stupid.

Yeah. I'm scared and you're insane. The suggestion that Bannon or Giuliani or somebody else doctored Hunter's laptop smells of complete desperation. Rats cornered. I mean, come on. Who makes up this crap? Whoever these ass clowns are they need a psychological examination to evaluate their comprehension of reality. You need to be a few cans short of a 6 pack to even contemplate believing it.

Some sophisticated conspiracy to falsify content. Comical flailing and denial. You sound like those MAGA conspiracy nuts.

The other common mental gyration is confirmation bias.

Sorry. I don't see the equivalency argument between an environmental disaster and a bank failure.

Apparently, you're not only an expert on every political and social justice topic (along with proficiency on quoting every person on Earth that uses Twitter) but also an expert on everything else. Including banking. Maybe you're wasting your time scolding and educating us simpletons and should move on to bigger and better things? Or elaborate further on your knowledge of the banking sector. Such what further implications do you see from SIVB?

So what you suggest is bankers are just too greedy and stupid to run their businesses in a responsible manner and its necessary for scores of government agents to be looking over their shoulders constantly to make sure they do thing right?

Are you missing something obvious? That being playing the victim is the core principle of social justice dogma. All you gotta do to validate my point is read and listen to it all.

So how long should we wait for anyone in the media or government that was "wrong" about anything to admit their mistake, apologize, and issue a retraction?

I'll be honest, I'm getting frustrated with you because its not about Putin. But you keep going back there in some effort to marginalize my views by associating me with somebody I never met and have no regard for either. I merely asked for some clarity and discussion around the administration's position of doing "whatever it takes". And what that undefined and nebulous slogan might imply. I dared to questions the establishments actions and lack of providing any clarity to the public at-large around the objectives and you immediately jumped to their defense by suggesting I'm siding with the enemy for merely for questioning the government. How dare me! .

Standard liberal talking points. Kill the messenger, make vague references and avoid detail, and claim that somehow the truth endangers people. It gets tiring.

The objectives are the same, control.

When it comes to war? No, I see no difference. Lots of people die, mostly for nothing. Just a couple: Do you think Bush a terrorists for killing over 400,000 Iraqi civilians in the course of pursing the war in Iraq? Do you think Obama a terrorist for killing civilians in drone strikes into Pakistan? Do you think Churchill was terrorist for authorizing the firebombing of Dresden? Do you think Truman was a terrorist for dropping the H-Bomb on Hiroshima? Leaders make decisions that can be debated to be either good or bad that lead to terrible consequences.

You seem to think our enemies are immoral and merciless savages bent on destruction while we on the other hand are noble and principled civilized people acting to uphold peace and tranquility while the objective truth is the major difference in the two is where you stand. Perspective.

I think it boils down to one thing, perspective.

So in this scenario is Schummer or Carlson the dictator? I mean, Chuck did call on the network to censor the show. But either way I don't see any equivalency in the argument. Its not an unreasonable expectation to ask US officials that dispute statements made by a media personality to appear a TV "news" show with a reporter they claim is making false statements to set him straight. Especially when it involves the biggest threat to democracy since the Civil War. What could be more important? As for legitimacy, he already has one of the highest rated shows so its not like they'd be giving him anything. And if truth is on their side they would severely damage his "legitimacy". to the point he'll have close to zero legitimacy. And you'll have done a public service by neutralizing his voice. But logically, if officials bashing the guy know his positions have merit they would want to avoid any discussion.

If I said yes would it make you happy and would you address my questions?

That's the excuse I expected to hear (I was going to close my post with it!). But at the end of the day they just lack the guts for the confrontation. (and that's the response I expected)

Carlson also said he's invited officials like Garland and Schummer to appear on the show and provide some real-time entertainment and debate on the events, the video, his statements, and their statements but nobody has accepted the invite. My skeptical side says if he's such a liar then end the charade and prove it by calling him out on his own show but I also expect none of these people have the guts to call his bluff and take up his offer. So what does that say about commitment to the truth? Throwing stones at each other over the fence can be fun but its nothing like some in your face confrontation. Time for an old-fashioned throw-down. Tucker seems up to it but the rest of these folks I suspect are cowards.

My questions were about Washington's stated position of support to do "whatever it takes". And other than a slogan there's little meaning to it unless you define some goals and objectives. What are the administrations goals and objectives? First it was defending democracy, then it was to weaken Russia. Which is it? I don't recall hearing anyone, including the President, address the American public with a clear and specific statement other than a few one liners. If I missed it please point it out to me.

And if it was up to the committee, we would still be seeing one side. It's one thing when a media person is a lying propagandist but when our elected officials are lying propagandist that's a serious problem.

Interesting times indeed. Monitoring the rhetoric out of China lately I'm convinced they're planning on providing support in material, arms, and intelligence. Or may already be doing so. And when I hear US officials support the commitment to the point of "whatever it takes", one I wonder what that quantifiably means and two, whatever it takes for what? Does whatever it takes mean an endless escalation of steps up to and including tactical nuclear weapons until total victory? If F-16's are sent, then what's the next step if that doesn't produce "whatever it takes"? Does "whatever it takes" include commitment of US forces to combat missions? And what is the objective of whatever it takes? To reach some peaceful conclusion via a treaty or agreement or unconditional victory defined as a return to Ukraine's 2014 before the seizing of Crimea or something else. What do the Ukrainians think are acceptable terms vs. the US vs. the Europeans? What is Russia looking for or willing to negotiate? In any endeavor it's hard to measure success or failure or something in between when you have no objective goals.

In my view its more about motivation than fitting some classic definition of the term. Why did the US provide assistance to the Afghan rebels? Out of love for the cause (which wasn't the democracy pitch no matter which side prevailed) or to mess with the Soviets? I'd argue the same motivation exists in Ukraine to a small or large degree depending on your perspective. To mess with the Russians. Because excluding the supporting democracy position (which I never bought into) I can't identify a single strategic interest. Some might want to cite some half baked European domino theory about stopping Russia from taking over Western Europe but if they can't beat Ukraine one on one in over a year then somebody please explain and articulate a realistic path to prevailing over the US, NATO, and the armed forces of all of Europe in a combined military alliance? Its just not possible.