CrowEpistemologist

Um, what? You obviously harbor some sort of grudge against me personally, but that was straight out of left field...

I'm trying to ask the right question here, and maybe I should have asked it differently, along the lines of: "do you feel that racism against blacks and other minorities is a significant problem for them? Rate from insignificant to very significant". Based on the responses here, almost nobody here seems to think that blacks and other minorities have any real problems with inter-racial racism in the USA, and that they are just making things up when they say there is significant bigotry, i.e. they are just making lame exuses when they complain about racism in the USA. Fair assessment of most people's views here?

So another vote for, "absolutely insignificant", correct?

But you don't imagine such a scenario (or a parallel one e.g. blacks and a job involving security) being realistic? You don't imagine that happens in the USA?

The OP has a link to an interesting study that provides some hard numbers. Like I said, the TL;DR is that white people don't imagine (inter-racial) racism existing whereas blacks see it as a big problem. One can imagine that is because: a. They are making it up to pollsters so they can secure more handouts. b. They are telling the truth about their own experiences.

Got it. So you voted, "absolutely insignificant" above, correct? I want to make sure everybody understands the poll...

Are we talking about investment advice here? I didn't think I was. Not really. Careful readers might detect a broader theme...

I suppose I could have qualified the poll better. I meant inter-racial racism not intra-racial. I can't modify the text of the poll, but people should vote according to that definition...

Yeah Nicky, go ahead, mischaracterize my views. If that makes you feel better, sure. How is your portfolio going, anyhow? Still have those 3 Krugerrands in your floor safe? Run-away inflation will make you rich someday, just like all of those non-believers who drive those fancy cars. That'll show em.

Investment decisions are based on your estimate of the future value of the thing you invest in. There are a million factors, including your estimated (guessed at) future cash flow, that help determine the future value of an instrument. But to be clear, as I said above, my statement absolutely was an, "unverifiable assertion based on feelings". It was also hypothetical...

No, definitions absolutely exist in the context of human society. You don't get to make up your own definition based on things that have no connection to how people popularly use the term. Wikipedia defines inflation as, "In economics, inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time.". They don't talk about the money supply. Of course maybe Wikipedia is part of the conspiracy?

(Some background: http://blairrockefellerpoll.uark.edu/6107.php ) A side-topic, and perhaps a foundational one, for the Ferguson situation is the issue of racism in the USA. When I look at the national conversation about Ferguson, I detect a conversation that's often two sides talking past each other. I think the root of this problem is a decidedly different view of racism in the USA, and the practical effects of racism, based on, well, one's race. To put the problem in the simplest--and perhaps oversimplified--terms, the majority of white people think there's not very much racism, and it's no big deal when it does exist, and the majority of black people think pretty much the opposite. Regardless of what "the masses" think, however, I was wondering what people here thought...

On the whole, you are correct. Investment decisions are educated guesses based on a large number of factors you observe in the world. That goes for all investment instruments, not just gold btw...

And your definition is intellectual bait-and-switch. Nobody but nobody cares about the numbers on some balance sheet somewhere, they care (less and less however) about the goods they buy on a daily basis going up in price on a US dollar basis. It's bait-and-switch because while nobody cares about the concocted "technical" defintion of inflation that the Austrians et. al. use, people are concerned (rightly or wrongly) about consistent overall consumer price inflation--which is the definition everybody save a tiny cabal of egg-faced economists use as thier definition of inflation. In other words, in the face of being absolutely, positively, dead-ass WRONG WRONG WRONG in their predictions of inflationary apocalypse, the predictors simply switched their definition to be, in circular reasoning fashion, the existence of a set of (now proven irrellevant) numbers that lead them to their incorrect conclusion.

My prediction was: a. Based on science that comes from this world. b. Wrong. Your prediction was: a. Based on fantasy and the enforcement of a narrative that harkens all the way back to the batshit insane Illuminatti wierdos from the 60s. b. Wrong. A stopped clock is right twice a day...

Or to put it another way: "It's impossible for you to have been more wrong, Rick. Your call for inflation, the destruction of the dollar, the failure of the US economy to rebound. Rick, it's impossible for you to have been more wrong. Every single bit of advice you gave would have lost people money, Rick. Lost people money, Rick. Every single bit of advice. There is no piece of advice that you've given that's worked, Rick. There is no piece of advice that you've given that's worked, Rick. Not a single one. Not a single one, Rick. The higher interest rates never came, the inability of the U.S. to sell bonds never happened, the dollar never crashed, Rick. There isn't a single one that's worked for you." - Steve Liesman

Keep investing Nicky. You're an example of the law of Social Darwinism, Financial Edition... The important thing to note is that "economists" who define inflation, under their breath, as "an increase in the technical money supply" and then enjoy the benefits of the definition everybody else uses (an increase in the prices of most things people buy) are being called out as the charlatans that they are. Btw, even if US Dollar inflation did finally, miraculously appear, the final irony for the gold bugs would be for it to still only go sideways since runaway inflation has been priced into gold's price for about 10 years now. There would be investment rocketships leaving all over the place, but gold bugs will be sitting on the sidelines with their silly yellow metal. Get it through your head: gold is another speculated investment instrument like any other. Its mystical status among the Doomsday Prepper set drives it up in price. Yes, you can make money banking on an increase in aggregate stupidity--and even make a lot of money doing so--but I'm personally betting (with a very small side bet to be sure) on the opposite.

I responded to a quote from his blog posting. It was a direct quote.

??? Can't even parse that response... it's not... English...

You didn't even read my (2 line) post. I quoted the article. As for the linked article, Dr. Hurd wrote: "Is she right? I don’t know enough about either soccer or football to register a strong opinion, at least insofar as we examine the technical details of sports. But philosophically and psychologically, I think she’s on to something." In the "philosophical" realm, presumably, we don't need primitive tools like "evidence" or "facts" when pure, disconnected abstractions wiil do. Yes, he doesn't know what he's talking about, but that's okay because... it fits into a wider pre-defined narrative that we already know is true because God said so. I read this too: "Psychologist Michael Hurd, a favorite commentator of mine,"

He's right, huh? My kids have played youth soccer for years, and have never recieved a ribbon or a juice box, except once or twice when they were four years old. But yeah, just keep pulling stuff out of your ass to fit into a pre-defined narrative. That's the way we do it these days...

Nothing "bizarre" about it. Before this guy was against the Iraqi war, and now he's bashing the president for not taking us to war there again. Dishonest.

So this Gus Van Horn person is just dishonest to the core. Got it.

From the linked article: "Finally, President Barack Obama's refusal to date to take offensive action to destroy Islamic State in Iraq and Syria demonstrates to Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states that under Obama, the US would rather allow Islamic State to expand into their territory and destroy them than return US military forces to Iraq." So either we launch an all-out war against these States--which would require, done correctly, a massive military campaign (because that worked so well last time we invaded Iraq)--or, apparently, it signals that Obama is pro-Hamas and pro-Isis. This is blatant partisan crap. If this had been a Republican president doing the exact same thing the author would be praising them for their careful balance of our country's safety, which is what it is. Yes, the US is wary of more wars in the middle east--for very, very good reason. Iraq showed us all the futility of any operation short of making the target country a 51st State. If we're not able to easily affect an outcome we want there, leaving the region alone might be the best (least bad) option. This partisan crap is easy to refute: just ask them what we are supposed to be doing. A massive invasion to destroy Hamas and Isis and a permanent occupation to keep them out forever? Idiotic.

I've paid these guys not to play. Seriously. It's a man in a miniskirt being attacked by a vacuum cleaner.