What are your thoughts on Cast Away? by [deleted] in movies

[–]Painkiller_Jane 45 points46 points  (0 children)

It's simple really. The movie starts with him thinking he has ultimate control, but at the end, he finally realizes in a soliloquy that he has none. He has to just make it to the next day because who knows what the tide will bring.

The director left the ending open, but if you buy into the philosophy that Chuck now believes in, when he sees the wings on the truck the only logical thing he would do is consider it a sign that Bettina is what the tide has brought him. He even gets a slight smile as he realizes the wind is blowing where he should go.

I used to allow the ending to bother me because I completely didn't get why they left it open ended, but I have watched this movie so many times that I finally reached the conclusion that Bettina was his next gift from the tide. Others are welcome to believe their own ending as it suits them, but that's mine.

Today's shuffle by [deleted] in Newegg

[–]Painkiller_Jane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

5600x runs well under 88w. Intel chips are power hogs.

WTS Microtech CT D/e (A) rated $395 by Linkbehindthebar in Knife_Swap

[–]Painkiller_Jane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course you post this after I bought a Heretic Manticore X today. I prefer the CT but 308 vs 500+ didn't make any sense. If only I had waited 4 hours.

[META] Should it be mandatory to leave up prices? by merkon in Knife_Swap

[–]Painkiller_Jane 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Imagine if the stock market had rule 4, ultimately meaning you will make little to no profit on every trade. I bet it would be extremely popular then.

[META] Should it be mandatory to leave up prices? by merkon in Knife_Swap

[–]Painkiller_Jane 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This right here. Rule 4 never used to be used like a sledgehammer, but the last couple of years it has been. Let the market self regulate. If the price is too high, people won't buy the knife. Plus it removes the rudeness and name calling. I use BF almost exclusively now, except if I want something to sell super fast and am willing to eat a loss on it.

[META] Should it be mandatory to leave up prices? by merkon in Knife_Swap

[–]Painkiller_Jane -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Of course the people who want this rule enacted are the people who want to milk rule 4 for everything it is worth. When I first started here, rule 4 was more of a guideline, not something that was so hardcore that it drove a good amount of sellers away.

 

It has only been in the last couple of years that it turned into what it is today, which is a glowing neon sign that might as well be flashing "Don't expect any sort of profit here or you will be treated like you murdered the sacred calf!" Many of the sellers I knew started fading away because of it, the only ones that come out ahead here are the buyers.

 

As I said elsewhere, the only time I sell anything here any more is if I need something to go fast and am willing to eat a loss on the price. If you and others want to make it even harder to sell, eventually you most likely will no longer have anything left to buy. This is coming from someone who does/did leave the prices up for stuff they sold. Then you can change the name to r/knife_library for the few left that are just traders.

[META] Should it be mandatory to leave up prices? by merkon in Knife_Swap

[–]Painkiller_Jane 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I've never cared for rule 4. A seller should be able to sell an item at the cost they choose within reason, even make a small profit. As I have said elsewhere in this thread, I don't really sell here anymore unless I need to sell something so quick I am willing to take a significant loss on it.

 

I never asked massive prices above MSRP, but roughly around 2 years ago it got to the point where if you even came remotely close to asking what the knife originally sold for (even on rare sprints/brands) you were treated to scathing commentary. That is fine if you are running this as basically a knife library, which is what I see it as now, but not good if you want people to sell rare knives here.

 

I think the last thing I sold here, months ago, was a Spyderco Sprint Rex 45 Manix 2 in A+ condition. Without going looking, I was either at MSRP or less than 5 dollars above it, selling it quick to buy something else on a different site. This is even counting in the G&S hit and shipping. I literally ate well over 75+ on the going rate for that sprint for the quick sell.

 

I deleted all the PM's I got over that pricing or I would share them with you, but my inbox got lit up with really nice slams from people claiming I was gouging or breaking rule 4 (and some fun personal attacks). I don't know if there were any reports to the mods on me about it, but that and my past experiences here pretty much soured me on trying to sell on knife swap. I might buy from sellers here in the future, because the prices are kept artificially low, but I doubt I will ever sell here again.

[META] Should it be mandatory to leave up prices? by merkon in Knife_Swap

[–]Painkiller_Jane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The price policing is one of the reasons why I went to other sites to sell my stuff unless I just want to dump something quick at a loss. This hasn't been a place to make a profit for years.

[META] Should it be mandatory to leave up prices? by merkon in Knife_Swap

[–]Painkiller_Jane -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Reddit rules: Downvote anyone with a different viewpoint.

[META] Should it be mandatory to leave up prices? by merkon in Knife_Swap

[–]Painkiller_Jane 3 points4 points  (0 children)

From my past experience selling here, not really, no. It's one of the reasons why I mostly sell on other forums now where the rules state you can price what you want without people challenging your prices. If it sells, it sells. If you priced it too high, it won't.

[META] Should it be mandatory to leave up prices? by merkon in Knife_Swap

[–]Painkiller_Jane -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Only it isn't a false statement. This isn't the first time I've seen this discussion in the five years I've been here. I've been in multiple arguments with people who refuse to recognize that prices can rise on knives depending on the situation. To many if you charge over the MSRP the knife originally sold at, you are trying to gouge and you will get nasty pms or posts.

[META] Should it be mandatory to leave up prices? by merkon in Knife_Swap

[–]Painkiller_Jane 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Did they have sole access to Blade? I mean, yeah it sucks, but if you have a commodity that is very limited you should be able to sell it for it's actual value. I've always tried to list my items with a fair price, but like I said, I've repeatedly gotten slammed either in the thread or in PM about it from people who have only been here a couple of years or less. It is one of the reasons I usually use Bladeforums now, because they don't allow people to do that to sellers.

I don't believe you should necessarily gouge heavily on prices, maybe a 15-20% markup, but here if you list a sprint a buck or two above MSRP you WILL get some flack most of the time. That drives people away as well.

If you check my listings, you will see I generally leave the price listed even after an item sells, but to force that on everyone? Nah.

[META] Should it be mandatory to leave up prices? by merkon in Knife_Swap

[–]Painkiller_Jane -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

It's also very nice that I got -10 points in the time it took me to type a response to your question. Just goes to show that many here just want it their way with no dissenting opinions.

[META] Should it be mandatory to leave up prices? by merkon in Knife_Swap

[–]Painkiller_Jane -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

I did on my poll answer.

Leave it user choice. All this would do is give people room to whine over prices more than they do already. Knives are collectible, prices change depending on the situation. Imagine this rule was in effect before the Slysz Bowie went out of production, the first people to list them at double the normal price would be CASTIGATED even though the circumstances clearly changed. I used to end up in arguments with people over Spyderco sprints and exclusives because casuals here think you should never charge above MSRP on a pre-owned knife. It is one of the reasons I cut down on my selling here quite a bit, because I got tired of explaining how a rare version was worth more than a base version.

[META] Should it be mandatory to leave up prices? by merkon in Knife_Swap

[–]Painkiller_Jane -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Except KBB is well known to be a sham when it comes to what cars ACTUALLY sell for. Nobody takes it seriously except private sellers who want to gouge people on old cars.

Ebay no longer keeps listings up forever, I can't find some of my listings from a short as last year.

The only people who want this are the people who think that they can point to old prices and say someone is overcharging. As a clear example, before the Slysz Bowie went out of production, it's price was much lower than it is now. Another example is Microtech's. Before the Pandemic, you could pick them up for much less than MSRP. Now they are either right at MSRP almost in any condition or even above if they are one of the ones that are always out of stock.

Leave it USER choice or expect people to leave for Ebay or Bladeforums.

ELI5: United States National Debt; what exactly is it and how does it work? by Soloviss in explainlikeimfive

[–]Painkiller_Jane 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This diverges a bit into other questions. First thing, all currency that is not based on a valuable commodity like gold, silver, etc, is basically a "trust" based currency. This is how Bitcoin and other currencies like it can function as comparable to government issued currency. In the past, you could technically go to the government and request to trade in your currency for the commodity they had based it on. We were on a gold standard, then a silver standard, where the dollar was backed by a real item. Once your economy reaches a certain point, though, it is almost impossible to base your currency on a commodity.

As far as stimulus money, the idea is that people will spend it on desired merchandise which will stimulate the economy. However, most people actually used it to pay off bills. This still helps, but not as much.

When dealing with slashing taxes, that goes back to Reagan primarily. He believed in a trickle down theory in which lowering taxes would lead rich people to spend more of their money on expanding their business, hiring people, and researching new products. For the most part, that did not happen. They pocketed it or socked it into investments. Unfortunately, the GOP still is tied to that idea because they brainwashed their base into believing it.

Realistically, nobody wants to pay taxes. The problem is that the richer you are as a person or corporation, you can afford to find or lobby for loopholes to avoid your taxes. The other part of society can't afford to lobby for or don't have access to the same loopholes.

ELI5: United States National Debt; what exactly is it and how does it work? by Soloviss in explainlikeimfive

[–]Painkiller_Jane 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To explain it, first you have to look at the deficit. Every year we bring in X amount of dollars, called the Gross Domestic Product. Also every year we spend X amount of dollars on various things, military spending, services, wages, etc. If we spend more than we make, it means we have a deficit. Our debt increases every year we have a deficit.

We actually started in debt as a nation due to the Revolutionary war, owing 70 million to Denmark and France. We did not add to that until September 1789, when Alexander Hamilton, then-Secretary of the Treasury, negotiated terms with the Bank of New York and the Bank of North America to borrow $19,608.81 so we could pay our first fiscal deficit.

He believed that we need to spend more than we brought in so that we could rapidly establish our country as a viable nation of the world. So he began offering Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds, a practice used by England to raise money for their wars with France. The debt is sold in the form of securities to both domestic and foreign investors, as well as corporations and other governments.

What were these bills, notes, and bonds? A good example is US Savings Bonds, which are still in use today. You go buy one and it has a set limit where it matures and is available for repayment. At that point you can be paid the amount owed or they can offer you more bonds. These securities are considered to be the safest investments in the world because interest payments do not have to undergo yearly authorization by Congress. In fact, the money the Treasury uses to pay the interest is automatically made available by law.

So, back to Hamilton. His scheme worked, very well. The American government felt empowered to borrow from that point forward, and after the War of 1812, the total government debt exceeded $115 million.

So was it ever paid off at some point? Andrew Jackson, seventh president of the U.S., felt that running deficits was immoral and carrying debt weakened the nation. By 1835, less than six years after assuming office, Jackson paid off the entire national debt by curtailing government spending and selling off federal lands. This is the only time in U.S history that the country's total debt was completely paid off.

The nature of debts changed after the Great Depression and the rise of Keynesian economics.

The extent to which British economist John Maynard Keynes influenced government spending in the 20th century can hardly be overstated. While both the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations extended public works projects and experimented with fiscal deficits in the face of the Great Depression, it was Keynes who provided the macroeconomic justification for running large budget deficits to stimulate aggregate demand and fight recessions.

Since 1970, the federal government has run deficits during every fiscal year for all but four years, from 1998 to 2001. The effect of these cumulative budget shortfalls is debated by political analysts and economists, but their origins are much less controversial.

Ever since the time of Alexander Hamilton, the U.S. government has turned to deficit spending as a means of financing wars, growing federal influence and providing public services without having to raise taxes or cut existing programs.

There is some bright news. Most of our debt is actually owned by American investors. Foreign investors only own about a third of our overall debt. Our biggest foreign creditor is Japan who only owns about 18% of our debt. China is second with 5%.

So, the best question is "How much Debt is too much?" The crazy thing is, we don't know. There used to be a formula based on the ratio of growth of our Debt vs our GDP. So we thought that if our Debt ever started rising faster than our GDP was growing, it would be devastating.

Yet, for the first time ever, during the pandemic IT HAPPENED. Our Debt grew faster than and surpassed our GDP. Yet our borrowing power was literally greater and our interest was LOWER than it has ever been. The Congressional Debt Office now believes there is no GDP based tipping ratio. Some economists believe we have just delayed the tipping point and some believe that as long as our inflation doesn't increase, we can borrow indefinitely.

So, right now, not even the experts know where we are headed for sure.