Gyroscopic Investing

Smith1776 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 2:38 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 2:33 pm Boo!
Torrent?
Does anyone torrent anymore in this age of streaming?
VPN?

LOL. I totally forgot about my own VPN. Even after that thread about it.

I changed my location and It's working now. As far as YouTube is concerned I now live on the U.S. east coast!

East coast, eh? Enjoy the rain, and the video.

The ‘FT’ reports today that the war is sucking the labor force out of the Russian economy and into the military. Obvious, but I hadn’t thought about it much until now.

dualstow wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:09 am
The ‘FT’ reports today that the war is sucking the labor force out of the Russian economy and into the military. Obvious, but I hadn’t thought about it much until now.

That would only be via a draft, correct? Assume small amount of it would be from volunteer enlisting?

Are there any polls as to what percent of the Russian population supports the war?

yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:25 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:09 am The ‘FT’ reports today that the war is sucking the labor force out of the Russian economy and into the military. Obvious, but I hadn’t thought about it much until now.

That would only be via a draft, correct? Assume small amount of it would be from volunteer enlisting?

Are there any polls as to what percent of the Russian population supports the war?

Regardless of whether they're drafted or volunteering, they aren't contributing to the general labor force.

Xan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:28 am

yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:25 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:09 am
The ‘FT’ reports today that the war is sucking the labor force out of the Russian economy and into the military. Obvious, but I hadn’t thought about it much until now.

That would only be via a draft, correct? Assume small amount of it would be from volunteer enlisting?

Are there any polls as to what percent of the Russian population supports the war?

Regardless of whether they're drafted or volunteering, they aren't contributing to the general labor force.

My question asks how severe a problem this is.

1) What is Russian's unemployment rate? If high less being taken out of the labor force but now becoming "employed".

2) If volunteers then will only be in for a fixed period of time. If drafted then can be unlimited.

3) If volunteers then limited pool to choose from. If drafted then unlimited pool to choose from


How many are currently in the military? How has the military been expanded since the start of the war? How many have been killed or wounded and, thus, needed to be replaced?

Trying to get at the severity of the problem and how likely it is to persist into the future.

Xan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:28 am

yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:25 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:09 am
The ‘FT’ reports today that the war is sucking the labor force out of the Russian economy and into the military. Obvious, but I hadn’t thought about it much until now.

That would only be via a draft, correct? Assume small amount of it would be from volunteer enlisting?

Are there any polls as to what percent of the Russian population supports the war?

Regardless of whether they're drafted or volunteering, they aren't contributing to the general labor force.

Also, thinking about this further .... with the low unemployment rate we have and with there being 2 open jobs for each person looking for one ... cannot the same thing be said about our military not at war? That if we reduced the size of our military that there'd be many more people available for the labor force in the United States?

The above quote was a somewhat vague, general statement with no specific numbers stated anywhere in it, e.g., Russia's unemployment rate, the absolute amount of extra people gone into the military since the start of the war.

Hmm, interesting thought, Vinny. I don’t think you can say that, though. The U.S. servicemen *are* a labor force. The Russians are largely cannon fodder.

dualstow wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2023 7:57 pm
Hmm, interesting thought, Vinny. I don’t think you can say that, though. The U.S. servicemen *are* a labor force. The Russians are largely cannon fodder.

"labor force out of the Russian economy"

How are those in the military part of the United States economy? They absorb money; they are not part of the GNP?

I didn’t say anything about the GNP. I simply said that they’re a labor force. Defense is the service they provide.
The military are also customers, so in that sense they’re part of the economy.
But again, the Russian draftees are cannon fodder. Too many of them won’t be coming home to participate in the civilian workforce.

Here is a semi un-informed opinion

When Russia called the US and its installed puppet on its continued NATO expansion rhetoric, the US should have told the DWTS guy (Zelenskyy) to give up the Donbass and call it a day or Donetsk or whatever he wants if its "within reason". He's called our bluff.

ppnewbie wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 4:50 pm Here is a semi un-informed opinion

When Russia called the US and its installed puppet on its continued NATO expansion rhetoric, the US should have told the DWTS guy (Zelenskyy) to give up the Donbass and call it a day or Donetsk or whatever he wants if its "within reason". He's called our bluff.

If I remember correctly, the DWTS puppet was going to give up the two Russian provinces and declare Ukrainian neutrality to avoid the destruction that's occurred.

Then Boris Johnson flew out and convinced him to destroy the Ukraine for the promises of billions or whatever and he complied. Now half the population is gone, probably never to return, and huge portions or the country are destroyed and the male population decimated.

Ohhh and I think the peace settlement which is hopefully coming soon will have the Ukraine ceding 4 provinces to Russia instead of the original 2 so huge losses for Zelinsky and NATO all around. Germany really got a raw deal with the US blowing up their oil pipeline but hey....you lie with dogs you get fleas.

Do people on here really still think having a war over these Russian provinces was a good idea? Was it worth it to "bleed" Russia or whatever?

SilentMajority wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 9:04 am Do people on here really still think having a war over these Russian provinces was a good idea? Was it worth it to "bleed" Russia or whatever?

Are you asking if it was a good idea for the west to join the war? Because war was happening. That’s not on Boris Johnson.

@silentmajority - I think we are in agreement.

dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 9:27 am

SilentMajority wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 9:04 am
Do people on here really still think having a war over these Russian provinces was a good idea? Was it worth it to "bleed" Russia or whatever?

Are you asking if it was a good idea for the west to join the war? Because war was happening. That’s not on Boris Johnson.

It is ALL on Russia. They had no excuses / reasons for what they did in spite of what their apologists might state, Robert Kennedy, Jr. being a notable one.

dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 9:27 am

SilentMajority wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 9:04 am Do people on here really still think having a war over these Russian provinces was a good idea? Was it worth it to "bleed" Russia or whatever?

Are you asking if it was a good idea for the west to join the war? Because war was happening. That’s not on Boris Johnson.

How I see it. No nato expansion on the table, No war. And if war was happening, we could still decide not to participate with money borrowed from our children.

ppnewbie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 9:54 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 9:27 am

SilentMajority wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 9:04 am
Do people on here really still think having a war over these Russian provinces was a good idea? Was it worth it to "bleed" Russia or whatever?

Are you asking if it was a good idea for the west to join the war? Because war was happening. That’s not on Boris Johnson.

How I see it. No nato expansion on the table, No war. And if war was happening, we could still decide not to participate with money borrowed from our children.

All a supposition. Where is your proof of that? Did Putin ever cite that as the proximate cause?

Also, war is a last resort not the first resort. It's another tool of politics once diplomacy ends. Where was the failed attempts at diplomacy? When Putin has all the troops lined up there prior to the start of the war why was he denying there would be a war? When we lined up all our troops in Iraq in 1990 we never denied it could lead to war.

You could choose better clients to defend. Heinous world figures are not entitled to a defense.

ppnewbie,

You are absolutely right in your opinion. Don't worry about arguing with these guys. They are nice guys, but they don't do any serious research or thinking on these matters. They think everything is black and white. The US and the West are great and never do anything wrong and have every right to build up their militaries as large as they can to defend democracy throughout the globe and lecture everybody else, and Putin is the next Hitler. That's about as deep as their thinking goes on this. Like I say, they are nice guys, no problem on that point.

yankees60 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 1:21 pm

ppnewbie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 9:54 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 9:27 am

SilentMajority wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 9:04 am Do people on here really still think having a war over these Russian provinces was a good idea? Was it worth it to "bleed" Russia or whatever?

Are you asking if it was a good idea for the west to join the war? Because war was happening. That’s not on Boris Johnson.

How I see it. No nato expansion on the table, No war. And if war was happening, we could still decide not to participate with money borrowed from our children.

All a supposition. Where is your proof of that? Did Putin ever cite that as the proximate cause?

Also, war is a last resort not the first resort. It's another tool of politics once diplomacy ends. Where was the failed attempts at diplomacy? When Putin has all the troops lined up there prior to the start of the war why was he denying there would be a war? When we lined up all our troops in Iraq in 1990 we never denied it could lead to war.

You could choose better clients to defend. Heinous world figures are not entitled to a defense.

Not defending Putin. Its one of the main reasons he is there. Thought experiment. Canada says it wants to join the Warsaw Pact which would grant the right of Russia to place military bases on the US Canada border. How long would the US put up with this before we annexed the country?

https://russialist.org/transcript-putin ... ty-policy/

"I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?"

I continue to be fascinated by this thread's title. "Putin invades Ukraine". Why is one man a threat to a country, especially as I don't think (I may be wrong) that Putin has set foot in the Ukraine since the war began. Now Russia invading Ukraine is a bit more understandable, or Putin has arranged a boxing match with Zelensky, or something like that. Hmmmmm, a man invading a country ?????????

Language is important. Words have meaning.

Also - Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq and now Ukraine, Israel, Syria. Nothing will be gained from any of this. This is an albatross of debt and distrust for the next generation to bear.

stuper1 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 1:40 pm
ppnewbie,

You are absolutely right in your opinion. Don't worry about arguing with these guys. They are nice guys, but they don't do any serious research or thinking on these matters. They think everything is black and white. The US and the West are great and never do anything wrong and have every right to build up their militaries as large as they can to defend democracy throughout the globe and lecture everybody else, and Putin is the next Hitler. That's about as deep as their thinking goes on this. Like I say, they are nice guys, no problem on that point.

You should then appreciate that there is a lot of (incorrect) deep thinking here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPtBkw5uD-0

Robert F. Kennedy Jr: CIA, Power, Corruption, War, Freedom, and Meaning | Lex Fridman Podcast #388

OUTLINE:
0:00 - Introduction
3:18 - US history
7:34 - Freedom
9:28 - Camus
12:51 - Hitler and WW2
22:03 - War in Ukraine
45:24 - JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis
1:10:31 - JFK assassination conspiracy
1:20:06 - CIA influence
1:29:04 - 2024 elections
1:40:49 - Jordan Peterson
1:42:30 - Anthony Fauci
1:45:57 - Big Pharma
2:05:37 - Peter Hotez
2:11:17 - Exercise and diet
2:13:42 - God

- What are the odds that what we are doing in Ukraine will have little positive consequences?
- What did you think the odds were when the conflict started and the US started intervening?
- What are the odds that we are willing to sacrifice as many Ukranian lives as it takes to weaken Putin and Russia?

I think Russia will get what they wanted which is a guarantee of no NATO expansion and the bonus of expanded territory for all the trouble.

stuper1 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 1:40 pm ppnewbie,

You are absolutely right in your opinion. Don't worry about arguing with these guys. They are nice guys, but they don't do any serious research or thinking on these matters. They think everything is black and white.

“absolutely right
don’t do any research
they think everything…”

So, who’s black and white?

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 3:09 pm I continue to be fascinated by this thread's title. "Putin invades Ukraine". Why is one man a threat to a country, especially as I don't think (I may be wrong) that Putin has set foot in the Ukraine since the war began.
…

Well, my friend, Putin is what is known as a “leader.” A country doesn’t really invade without his say-so.
(Except Wagner Group, but that’s another story)
The use of “Putin” to mean Russia is what as known as a metonym.

When the breadwinner says, “I put a roof over your heads,” he doesn’t just mean a roof. He means he provided a whole home, utilities, and so on.

When someone says “Heaven knows”, they mean God.

Closer to the Putin-as-Russia metonym, you can say “Today, the White House put out a memo…” but it wasn’t really that building which put out the memo. It was the administration, or at least the President.

More here - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metonym

BTW - In my mind this is a good discussion even though it feels like we are posting at each other. No disrespect to anyone. Especially Vinny and Dualstow!