IanDrake

You can print money indefinitely and not cause inflation as long as there is an equal demand for what you're printing.

USD demand is very high globally and domestically right now. Let's hope that doesn't change over night.

EEE then. That's a virus transmitted by mosquitoes. Malaria was a bad example.

I'm not sure it's a function of money, probably more likely capacity and time to create capacity.

As we enter summer, the question no one is asking is:

Can mosquitoes transmit this virus like they do malaria?

Testing when?

When you have symptoms? Too late.

330 million people testing weekly? Not possible.

There is no realistic way to mass test everyone in a meaningful way.

Most people are printing masks frames using house filters for the filter and face shield frames using overhead transparencies for shields.

I'm my area a local maker group has coordinated with the local hospital to print and distribute face shields. We have about 25 makers printing them now.

I would check local maker groups or contact your local hospital to see what they're accepting.

No, its not hugely overvalued. Interest rates are low, where will you get your desired yield?

PE ratios are in the normal range.

How do you justify your position?

What are you comparing it to? RE? RE isn't passive.

Who took on more debt just for stock buyback that is now asking for a bailout?

Most parks are just outdoor resources and people want to be outdoors.

I think it makes sense for the parks to stay open, but close the visitor centers and any other place people congregate.

>Loosing a fully paying job is never preferable to unemployment in the US.

Is that what I said? No, it's not.

>When companies do these buybacks, they deprive themselves of the liquidity that might help them cope when sales and profits decline in an economic downturn.

No one is depriving themselves of needed liquidity. Liquidity-need is forecasted, as is the expected IRR for the cash on hand if it were re-invested into the company. Ultimately, companies decided share holders got the best return with buybacks.

For many, losing a job maybe preferable so they can collect unemployment.

Edit for what I thought was obvious context:

If you had a full-time job and where forced to go to meager part-time hours, it might be better to just get laid off and collect. I had a friend in this situation. It would have been better for him to have been laid off.

At the point when hospitals run out of ventilators, no one denied a ventilator is going to care about FDA approval.

And you are the arbitor of how much of something a person needs?

Two people at a grocery store, both with an entire shopping cart full of dried pasta. One has twelve mouths to feed at home, the other lives alone.

How do you police that or distinguish who is selfish?

Re: down votes. HN isn't a forum for people to disagree and discuss.

It's a hive mind where dissenters are punished via down votes for hurt feelings.

Regarding people being selfish... There is nothing selfish about self preservation. The problem is we have a negative view on "price gouging" which is just economic triage.

There wouldn't be a run on toilet paper if it cost 10x the normal price. It costs you nothing to stock up, so people do.

Anyone else read this while counting the logical leaps being made between data and reason without any evidence?

There is no multi-factor analysis being done, only single factor correlations that the authors want so badly to point to evil capitalism as causation.

Typical Socialist BS. Greedy Capitalist calls for the death of millions. Just read the headline and trust our analysis.

Except Santelli was clearly (but poorly) trying to argue that Coronavirus isn't that big a deal, as we'll all find out eventually. He wasn't actually proposing or "calling" to infect everyone.

He was just saying it will take months for people to realize how small an issue this is and infecting everyone would shortcut that time table, very tongue in cheek.

As Dave Chappell pointed out, if the shooter is a student, which is frequent, then why give them a road map to destruction.

This article complains about conspiracy theories, yet it's a non-stop conspiracy theory itself.

Does the climate change? Of course. Are we doing a good job predicting it and understanding how it works? No. Not even close.

I have a background in financial modeling, using exponentially more observations, in a less chaotic system, with participants betting on the models with real dollars. It makes climate change models look like simplistic toys, which most are.

There is NO consequence of being wrong with a climate model, no shame, and there's a high degree of survivorship bias. Climate models that have been right, have been right for the wrong reasons. Climate models that have been wrong (most) are long forgotten and never discussed. New models come out all the time to hype fears for events that prior models predicted would be happening now (and aren't).

The question isn't does the climate change, the question is do we understand it at all.

You're re missing the point. Look at the map, the blue region is the extent in 100 years.

What do you think happens in that 100 years? I assume this would be a near linear progression. That means current waterfront has about 10-20 years, not 100.

Obama only ran the country for 8 years, but hfdh434535 knows better.

Real estate is about the closest thing to putting your money where your mouth is as far as climate change goes and the people have spoken - the coasts are still the most valuable and desirable places to live.

Well, I don't believe in "consensus" [insert field] science because that's an oxymoron.

If you still believed what was once the consensus, you would believe in some crazy stuff. Science is skeptism of the consensus, not the other way around.

I'm glad someone here gets it.

In the free market of ideas, no one actually believes this will happen.

Just look at coastal real estate. Buyers and lenders would have to be colossal fools to pay such premiums to be waterfront. Even Obama just plunked down 12M on a waterfront mansion on the low lying island of MV.

Fun story. DCOM was so cool back in the day.

So we should live in huts?

I can't tell if you're just trolling me now. Three hundred years ago the world was a completely different place.

We didn't have labor and environmental arbitrage like we do now. One could email IP to someone in China who can mass produce it, with lower quality, lower costs, higher environmental impact and ship it across the Pacific a month later.

300 years ago, if someone stole your windmill design and took it to china, you'd never know.

Not Gillette. Title is wrong.

The beginning of this article seems to conflate "success" with riding a short term "fad".

Only after you conflate those two, you can equate success with luck.

Once you get out of SV, business success has little to do with fart apps and birds that are angry or have flappy appendages and more to do with skill, knowledge, and hard work.