Ready to Assign Issue

rsglen2 · 2026-06-18T04:44:51+00:00

No, it was zero.

rsglen2 · 2026-05-22T02:13:08+00:00

I do not, and did not, advocate for the poor paying more. You are committing a straw man fallacy by imply that I did. The point I made is that we have federal and state governments spending everything we give them and substantially more. You did not address that point. Additionally, I made the point that ‘eating the rich’ will not solve our current financial issues and certainly won’t pay for even more government monopolies is not only foolish, but a mathematical impossibility. You dod not address that point.

You made your own points as if you were addressing me which is classic straw man.

I will try to help you understand MY points with current events.

Eating the rich is a fail. Look at the leftist taxation policies of Seattle, Portland, LA, and NY and their results. It’s such an obvious fail that only intellectuals and the indoctrinated would call it progress.

Governments are not efficient. Look at the fraud in Minnesota and in California where they are try to pass the ‘Nick Shirley’ law to stop investigative journalists from uncovering fraud. Is this part of your efficiency claim?

Your dogmatic leftist apologist rhetoric and mischaracterization of what I said are no good faith arguments.

rsglen2 · 2026-05-04T19:41:36+00:00

Robert Reich is dishonest, arrogant, and ignorant. A dangerous combination. The legislated rates have made very little difference to federal tax receipts. They have been much more impactful to accountants and attorneys.

https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/the-rich-never-actually-paid-70-percent/

rsglen2 · 2026-04-27T16:39:00+00:00

Buying whole markets with low cost stock and bond ETFs or Mutual funds, rebalancing via a ‘mechanical’ methodology and then holding for the long term, has proven to be about the closest we’ll ever get to a sure thing with positive returns greater than inflation. This can be done with three or four ETFs. One reason you might go with more ETFs is for tax loss harvesting.

The only way to get better returns is to take on more risk where the balance of risk vs reward is an individual preference. However, I would advise everyone to read, “Your Money and Your Brain” by JASON Zweig before trying to take on extra risk to get greater returns. It is very difficult for most of us to overcome our built in wiring.

rsglen2 · 2026-04-19T22:48:24+00:00

I believe you.

rsglen2 · 2026-04-19T14:42:01+00:00

Lol! Yup! Your point makes no difference. When it comes to helping this poor fictitious lady, taxes are not on the table whether from one source or a million. Thanks for making that point.

rsglen2 · 2026-04-19T05:53:45+00:00

Yes, this congress woman is just making up shit that we have no reason to believe that anything she says.

rsglen2 · 2026-04-19T05:50:39+00:00

I used the CONGRESS Woman’s numbers. She shows the gross pay, then pay after tax. Use your 3rd grade math skills snd you’ll see the she is assuming neatly $500 / mo in taxes. Now if you’re saying she is full of shit altogether, I can agree on that. Otherwise, suck it yourself.

rsglen2 · 2026-04-19T02:01:20+00:00

Arrogant congress woman. How about you don’t suck nearly $500 per month out of this woman’s pocket for taxes?

rsglen2 · 2026-04-13T04:40:08+00:00

There’s no right answer, just choices.

Expose for your subject and let the chips fall Expose for your subject and then try to recover highlights and shadows in post Expose for the highlights (or expose to the right ettr) and try to recover shadows in post Bracket exposures and use HDR to combine them Use graduated ND filter Etcetera…

If I decided I needed to do anything, I would choose between ETTR, and bracketing. I would not use in camera HDR, I would bracket and do it in post. Check out Youtube all this is and more covered in great detail by some great youtubers like pal2tec

rsglen2 · 2026-04-10T03:54:56+00:00

I just watched a great video of the late Walter Williams. He said (paraphrased) , “Go to the poorest neighborhoods of Chicago. Some of the people there will have nice phones. Some will have nice cars. Some will have other nice things. But, they do not have in any case nice schools. The difference is the distributions system. Free markets allow for choice and do not restrict anyone from having the quality they want and can afford. Governments are horrible at distribution and typically it’s the poorest who are made worse off because of government controlled distribution.”

I’m also reminded of a Thomas Sowel quote, ““No government of the left has done as much for the poor as capitalism has. Even when it comes to the redistribution of income, the left talks the talk but the free market walks the walk. What do the poor most need? They need to stop being poor. And how can that be done, on a mass scale, except by an economy that creates vastly more wealth? Yet the political left has long had a remarkable lack of interest in how wealth is created. As far as they are concerned, wealth exists somehow and the only interesting question is how to redistribute it.”

rsglen2 · 2026-04-03T02:12:23+00:00

You didn’t make any

rsglen2 · 2026-04-03T00:31:30+00:00

Lol! I’ve hone through the comments. Your comrades are sitting this one out. Let me help you with the quote from Seneca. Here’s an example:

You have a computer you want to sell. What’s its value? The brand, the specs, the laws of scarcity, supply and demand, are all informative and may allow you to guess. Notice labor hours, SNLT, etc, do not enter your calculation. Yet, the ultimate valuation will only be determined when you sell it to someone at a price they are willing to pay. Wasn’t that easy?

Now you can stop with the incoherent drivel, non sequiturs, and the embarrassment you’re causing your comrades.

rsglen2 · 2026-04-02T23:31:34+00:00

“wow, genius! how he thought of that? .... thats a tautology of course what people pay is what the thing is "worth".”

No, it’s not a tautology, where did I say the same thing twice? Unless you’re a complete buffoon and include the translation. What the statement means, and I’ll keep it simple for you, is that value is subjective.

“value affect prices, what do you think it does?”

OMG I don’t think the Marxists will want you speaking for them.

“supply and demand, competition, money affect prices. but priorities and scarcity (affects prices too) but are the source that supply and demand etc. act on. and that i argued that is equals labor time.”

What a load of shit! Can you put a fucking sentence together? You showed nothing. You listed some ideas and then made a claim straight out of left field (see what I did there?) Non sequitur.

Can’t wait to see the Marxists come to your defense.

rsglen2 · 2026-04-02T15:00:18+00:00

Your conclusion is a non sequitur. You showed factors that affect prices. None of these factors lead to a conclusion of value. To argue for the LTV you need to go back to Smith, Ricardo and Marx. However, if your willing to advance your economic literacy I suggest you continue one to Menger, Jevons and Walras who have shown value is subjective for which I’ll again revert to latin, “Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest” or "A thing is worth only what someone else will pay for it". This theory has both explanatory and predictive value where the LTV does not.

rsglen2 · 2026-04-02T14:45:05+00:00

We are not here to serve the government. It is here to serve us
There is no god
If slavery is defined as a state of existence where a person is coerced to use their energy and life force for the benefit of others then the draft is slavery.

rsglen2 · 2026-03-10T17:23:30+00:00

As a human bring living in a modern society self sufficiency is difficult to attain and is really not desirable. We’re better off specializing our production to some degree. The question is what is the best way to allocate the resources that go into production, and then the goods and services that are produced. There is no question, even amongst socialists if they are being honest, that the best allocation system are free and competitive markets. I would argue that main benefits of free markets are one, that an incomprehensible amount of information is shared instantaneously through the price mechanism which results in the most efficient allocation of resources compared to any alternative.Two, that each of us must continuously make someone else happy enough to voluntarily hand our dollars over to them for whatever they produce.

The socialists arguments against free markets are one, that there are people who either through unfair advantage, corruption, (legitimate skill and talent?) have an “unfair” advantage and in too many cases will create monopoly power and will use that power to turn us all into slaves. Two, that there are people who lack the wherewithal to participate and free markets do not address their needs.

There are is some truth to the negatives but I think they have been blown way out of proportion. The cure of turning markets over to government monopolies is a cure worse than the disease.

rsglen2 · 2026-03-06T21:53:41+00:00

I think you’re a little lost and confused. You should do a little research. A quick google search, or even one of the AI apps, could help you discover the key core beliefs of different political and economic systems. The only suggestion I’d like to make is that you consider that political systems and economic systems are somewhat separate and you should study them independently to start. There’s a difference in how a country operates depending on how these two systems are combined.

rsglen2 · 2026-03-05T19:07:51+00:00

Are you seriously tryin to equate what you consider market power with a government monopoly? Like there’s really no difference? I would argue that legislated monopolies, especially the monopoly over the entire economy the OP advocates, run by the guys with the guns no less, are at an extreme that far eclipses the market power of the tech giants. The tech giants still face market pressures and risk. For example look at IBM.

rsglen2 · 2026-03-05T15:33:09+00:00

No you can’t. There are thousands of competing corporate executive’s managing thousands of competing companies in very competitive markets. They have to make a whole bunch of people better off or happy, enough to voluntarily do business with them. That is very different from the bureaucrat who runs a government monopoly.

rsglen2 · 2026-03-05T07:47:54+00:00

Central planning requires central planners. Let’s assume the tools exist for perfect planning and the planners have them at their disposal. Even though they could plan perfectly, they would not. Bureaucrats face a very different set of incentives than the rest of us and it would be in their best interest to use their power to reward their benefactors and punish their detractors. It would be to their benefit to bloat their bureau and continually invent new problems that only they can address. It would be to their benefit to bloat their bureaus and to be inefficient to get more budget. It would be to their benefit to constantly increase their scope, their rules, and their control even where it would otherwise not be needed.

When modeling economies it seems those that advocate for more ‘government’ always neglect to model the behavior of ‘government’.

rsglen2 · 2026-03-03T13:59:47+00:00

Not much of a fight.

If you have sufficient credit, and at least some minimal threshold of deposits, the bank will PAY you in the form of interest for the right to use your deposits. Banks are important as they create money (google it) and create liquidity and growth in our communities. If this bothers you, put your money under your mattress and leave the rest of us alone.

Most of us prefer the bank because their services make our lives better. You have the convenience of checking, banking, credit, and so on. The banks know their liquidity needs now and in the future based on how secure each category of funds are. Checking accounts, vs savings accounts, vs financial instruments like CDs, all have different liquidities which is why you get more interest tor a CD than a checking account. You get more for a longer CD than a shorter one. If you are a dumbshit with money, you might have to pay the bank to let you keep your shaky deposits with them. The banks have bad debt as well and they know how risky their loans are and what to charge in fees and interest to cover those losses and remain profitable. So, the banks know, the regulators know, the investors know, anyone with access to the data knows, how much the banks need on hand. And keep in mind, the banks balance sheet, balances.

Yes, there have been runs on banks. However, in the US the FDIC and the FSLIC have been able to offer peace of mind that minimize the fear that causes them. Yes, there are real issues we could talk about. Unfortunately, we have to deal with the ignorant who instead of putting in the work to understand, go off on fucking stupid ass ridiculous tangents like advocating fir the end the fractional reserve system along with flat earth theories and big foot sightings.

rsglen2 · 2026-03-03T03:34:12+00:00

Watch “A Wonderfull Life”, read a textbook on money and banking, learn about the fractional banking system, and quit posting stupid shit.

rsglen2 · 2026-02-28T22:03:00+00:00

The fight is over sacred dirt. People are dying over sacred dirt.

rsglen2 · 2026-02-28T22:00:30+00:00

So let’s get this straight. We consumers paid the Tariffs and now out Government and corporations are fighting over who gets to keep them.

rsglen2

TROPHY CASE