Gyroscopic Investing

Mostly a tangent, but here's another example of conventional wisdom being totally wrong: people think they're recycling when they put their plastic in the recycling bin. But they're really not.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/89769209 ... e-recycled

Xan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:04 pm

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:03 pm

yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:59 amThe proscribed United States diet is not based upon science but based upon politics, driven by lobbyists.

Vinny

But it all started with Ancel Keys, a scientist, cherry picking data to fit his "saturated fat is bad" dogma.

Right, and who's to say the same isn't true about masks?

btw, Vinny, "proscribed" means "forbidden". "prescribed" is what you're looking for, I think.

I agree. As I've stated, except in public situations in stores, I do not wear a mask.

The Trump and coronavirus topics sure are getting mish mashed here!

I'd like Trump to say the following, because it is what "I" would say. Unfortunately this is where it becomes problematic because you have 50-60% of people not believing anything he says, so from that perspective, leadership has failed if the majority of the population doesn't believe you on important issues. It's quite likely you can say that about any president, but I think the extent Trump is not believed by the other side (on anthing) is probably larger than any time in recent history.

"Coronavirus was new to us early this year. Even though it is a coronavirus, like a cold virus, we were unsure of its transmissivity through the air (Note, how could we not??!!) We have since found that mask wearing might be helpful in some close in situations, where someone might sneeze or cough out large droplets, but in general, the virus is so small that masks are effectively transparent to the smaller vapor particles we otherwise normally breathe out. Therefore, even though much of the rest of the world has mandated masks, the US will not be mandating them (At this point, probably a TOUGH sell!)

Scientists have determined that the particles can travel in air up to 26 feet, so there is no effective social distancing possible, short of a lockdown.

Given these constraints, my recommendation to people are:

1) if you are in a higher risk group, generally those older than 70 with other underlying conditions, you should consider wearing a N95 level mask and learn how to use it properly if you go outdoors, or alternatively, limit your exposure until an effective vaccine is available.

2) To everyone else, your risk is minimal. That is not to say there won't be some severe cases and deaths like any higher than average flu season. Wash your hands more often."

Or something like that.

But you also have to recall April and May where people in NYC were dropping like flies and we were more uniformly freaked out than we are now.

Xan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:41 pm Mostly a tangent, but here's another example of conventional wisdom being totally wrong: people think they're recycling when they put their plastic in the recycling bin. But they're really not.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/89769209 ... e-recycled

I've had a talk about that with my wife because I'm always putting her iffy (fused metal and plastic) recycling submissions in the trash. I should have just kept up the pretenses with pure plastic with numbers on it. I may as well told her there are giant spiders living in the basement.
(She still thinks the elderly dog down the block moved to Florida).

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:56 pm

"Coronavirus was new to us early this year. Even though it is a coronavirus, like a cold virus, we were unsure of its transmissivity through the air (Note, how could we not??!!) We have since found that mask wearing might be helpful in some close in situations, where someone might sneeze or cough out large droplets, but in general, the virus is so small that masks are effectively transparent to the smaller vapor particles we otherwise normally breathe out. Therefore, even much of the rest of the world has mandated masks, the US will not be mandating them (At this point, probably a TOUGH sell!)

I too would love it if he said that. However, I know If he came out and said that then the media and most large businesses would virtue signal respond and "mask harder." Ultimately so many businesses and government buildings would require masks that we would be in the same position we are now, only with a much louder minority refusing.

jalanlong wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:05 pm However, I know If he came out and said that then the media and most large businesses would virtue signal respond and "mask harder."

This is where the original topic comes into play.

I don't know if it simply is social media amplifying polarization, but I would have thought Carter, or Reagan, Or HW, or Clinton or George W or even Obama could have commanded a more unified response, NOT that it would have been the right response in the end, though.

I could be wrong here.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:19 pm

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:13 pm

jalanlong wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:05 pm However, I know If he came out and said that then the media and most large businesses would virtue signal respond and "mask harder."

This is where the original topic comes into play.

I don't know if it simply is social media amplifying polarization, but I would have thought Carter, or Reagan, Or HW, or Clinton or George W or even Obama could have commanded a more unified response, NOT that it would have been the right response in the end, though.

I could be wrong here.

The MSM twists his words at every turn, unlike with any former president. It matters not what he says. How can anyone believe him if the media is constantly lying, twisting and subverting him?

I am very interested if this is a Trump thing or a thing with any Republican president in the future. Up until Trump, the media tried to at least maintain a semblance of being unbiased. If the next President is a more traditional Republican (say a McCain/Romney type) does the MSM go back to showing at least a little respect for them or is this a sea change and any Republican going forward is going to get the Trump treatment?

The media response has more to do with the fact that Trump is an outsider not from the established political class than whether he’s a Republican or Democrat.

The UniParty establishment doesn’t care if you’re R or D as long as you’re willing to play their game. Trump’s not playing their game (any more than he’s forced to) so he’s a threat that needs to be neutralized.

People that continue to see all of this as a R vs D thing are really missing the big picture.

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 2:38 pm
People that continue to see all of this as a R vs D thing are really missing the big picture.

Doesn't that play into the whole global elite conspiracy theory? Why then, does he campaign actively, and hard, for so many republicans? Why would he care, if it is a uinparty?

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:00 pm

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 2:38 pm
People that continue to see all of this as a R vs D thing are really missing the big picture.

Doesn't that play into the whole global elite conspiracy theory? Why then, does he campaign actively, and hard, for so many republicans? Why would he care, if it is a uinparty?

Because RINOs have to pretend to be on his side. They can't vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker or Chuck Schumer for Senate majority leader.
Of course that isn't true for those with a D behind their names.

I sort of asked this early on in this thread I think.

For those who dare to get in Trump's head, why did he give interviews to Woodward? Esp. after Woodward wrote "Fear" two years ago and Trump made comments like these about the book:

After several news outlets published excerpts of the book in early September, Trump claimed that Fear was "just another bad book", and that Woodward "had a lot of credibility problems ...

If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide from anybody.

stuper1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:34 pm If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide from anybody.

True.

stuper1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:34 pm If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide from anybody.

Including tax returns

I disagree. Information attracts the bitter ankle biters.
And the tools of lawfare aren't exactly the honest scales of justice we would all like.

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:00 pm

stuper1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:34 pm If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide from anybody.

Including tax returns

I don't get the whole tax return thing. Does anyone think that Donald does the taxes for the Trump Organization?

I use a pretty high priced accounting firm for my taxes every year. And if they don't use every legal loophole they can find, they won't be with me much longer.

The IRS gets a copy. They go over it with a fine toothed comb. How is that not full disclosure? If anything is amiss, it gets corrected with a letter and a fine. Other than that, it is all legal and aboveboard.

Keeping your 1040 (semi) private is not the same as hiding your heroin dependency or Thai rent boi.

What else does anyone expect?

High priced law firms and the IRS give DJT's taxes the full treatment. If there were anything juicy there, someone in one of those organizations would have leaked it.

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:32 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:00 pm

stuper1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:34 pm If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide from anybody.

Including tax returns

I don't get the whole tax return thing. Does anyone think that Donald does the taxes for the Trump Organization?

I use a pretty high priced accounting firm for my taxes every year. And if they don't use every legal loophole they can find, they won't be with me much longer.

The IRS gets a copy. They go over it with a fine toothed comb. How is that not full disclosure? If anything is amiss, it gets corrected with a letter and a fine. Other than that, it is all legal and aboveboard.

Keeping your 1040 (semi) private is not the same as hiding your heroin dependency or Thai rent boi.

What else does anyone expect?

High priced law firms and the IRS give DJT's taxes the full treatment. If there were anything juicy there, someone in one of those organizations would have leaked it.

There HAS to be extreme and harsh internal penalties for leaking from the IRS because I cannot remember it ever happening.

Vinny

yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:20 pm
There HAS to be extreme and harsh internal penalties for leaking from the IRS because I cannot remember it ever happening.

Vinny

Vinny, you're a gentle soul and I like you.

But you are also smart. And an accountant. If you felt it was vitally important to the security of the country to leak some numbers to the press, do you think you could do it without getting caught?

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:00 pm

stuper1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:34 pm If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide from anybody.

Including tax returns

How about all your medical records and all your private correspondence with everyone you've ever known?
Want to publish them here?

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:49 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:00 pm

stuper1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:34 pm If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide from anybody.

Including tax returns

How about all your medical records and all your private correspondence with everyone you've ever known?
Want to publish them here?

Does it make a difference that I'm not running for public office, not seeking a position where my decisions would have any impact on you or anyone else participating in this discussion forum?

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:47 pm

yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:20 pm
There HAS to be extreme and harsh internal penalties for leaking from the IRS because I cannot remember it ever happening.

Vinny

Vinny, you're a gentle soul and I like you.

But you are also smart. And an accountant. If you felt it was vitally important to the security of the country to leak some numbers to the press, do you think you could do it without getting caught?

Yes, I could do if not working for the IRS. But if I were working for the IRS and there was a list of penalties such as "and, every one of your tax returns that have ever been filed and every one you subsequently file will be audited" I might not take the chance.

But there is another factor here - privacy and trust. I did work for an accounting firm for 9 years. I had access to every single tax return the firm filed. I would have loved to have seen my friend's tax return, which was prepared by that firm. However, since I was not involved in preparing his tax tax, I never looked at it because doing so would have been a gross breach of privacy and trust. I don't want that happening to me therefore by the golden rule I'm not doing to do it to others.

Another case, was when I was remotely backing up all my financial advisor's client files on to my hard drive. This was well over 20 years ago. Again, I knew some of his clients and would have loved to have looked at their portfolios. But for the same reasons described above, while I still have all those files, I have never opened one of them.

But back to the IRS. I'm almost certain that they have fairly antiquated computer systems. But, even so, I have to believe that they have some record of each person who has ever touched a certain tax return. Therefore, IF a tax return was ever leaked they are going to focus on each person who ever touched that return and put on heavy pressure. And, I mean HEAVY pressure.

When I was 18 years old I had a summer job with the US post office, delivering mail. One day I left my mailbox key in the mailbox. I came back and told my boss what I had done. Luckily a subsequent mailman found it. My boss told me that that key opened every mailbox in Cranston and Providence (Rhode Island) -- a population of about 250,000 -- and if that key had not been found, they'd have to change the keys on all the boxes in boxes for each city overnight. He told me that the postal inspectors would be on me for the rest of my life. As I said, luckily another mailman found it. How I left it there is a story for another time.

We like to think the government is inept. In certain cases you do NOT want to cross the government.

I just don't know of a tax return ever being leaked from the IRS. Do you?

Finally, your exact question was: "to leak some numbers to the press".

What credibility would you give to some numbers appearing in an article that stated it came from an unnamed source within the IRS? I'd suspect none.

Wouldn't we at least need to see the first page of the 1040 both signed by the taxpayer and the tax preparer?

And, even then, how do we know that it genuine and the real thing and not something someone created in a tax program?

Vinny

Harry Reid lied about Mitt Romney’s taxes in the 2012 election. All it takes is an accusation and the media takes it from there. Credibility not required. The damage can’t be undone in a timely manner if at all.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harr ... neys-taxes

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:42 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:49 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:00 pm

stuper1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:34 pm If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide from anybody.

Including tax returns

How about all your medical records and all your private correspondence with everyone you've ever known?
Want to publish them here?

Does it make a difference that I'm not running for public office, not seeking a position where my decisions would have any impact on you or anyone else participating in this discussion forum?

Probably not to some rabid glennds stalker who alleges he saw you pee on the flagpole when you were in kindergarten.

yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:11 pm ...

We like to think the government is inept. In certain cases you do NOT want to cross the government.

I just don't know of a tax return ever being leaked from the IRS. Do you?

Finally, your exact question was: "to leak some numbers to the press".

What credibility would you give to some numbers appearing in an article that stated it came from an unnamed source within the IRS? I'd suspect none.

Wouldn't we at least need to see the first page of the 1040 both signed by the taxpayer and the tax preparer?

And, even then, how do we know that it genuine and the real thing and not something someone created in a tax program?

Vinny

Great response, Vinny, thanks.
I absolutely believe that it isn't something you would do. Both from a sense of ethics and an understanding that it is a bad idea all the way around. I just don't have much faith that all of the IRS employees have that same ethos and common sense.

Here's hoping you are right.
Mark

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:44 amGreat response, Vinny, thanks.
I absolutely believe that it isn't something you would do. Both from a sense of ethics and an understanding that it is a bad idea all the way around. I just don't have much faith that all of the IRS employees have that same ethos and common sense.

Here's hoping you are right.
Mark

Vinny's right that I've never heard of anybody's tax information ever being leaked by the IRS. Which is really very impressive.

Simonjester wrote: given the way the IRS handled tax status applications from the tea party a little while ago, it seems likely that many do not have the ethical standards Vinny (and most of us) would expect and hope they have..

Yes, that was very messy and put a huge black mark on the entire organization, no question.

But on this specific issue, the leaking of citizens' personal information from the IRS, it seems they have a stellar track record.