Gyroscopic Investing

Benefits are great. And so are some of the comments under the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX6bTwe ... e=youtu.be

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:54 am I’ve seen headlines about polls showing that people are afraid of restrictions being lifted too soon. To me, it sounds as if they prefer what I call Lockdown Socialism. - via Tyler Cowen.

Lockdown Socialism. Great term.

The strange new alliance between the wealthy suburban Karens calling the cops on anyone not delivering them dinner and the unemployed socialist wing afraid to see the free rent and stimulus checks come to an end is interesting to watch. I expect much gnashing of teeth when the lockdown party stops.

Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 10:31 am

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:54 am ..Lockdown Socialism. - via Tyler Cowen.

Lockdown Socialism. Great term.

The strange new alliance between the wealthy suburban Karens..

What is a Karen? I only know them as the indigenous tribe Sylvester Stallone rescued in Rambo 2008.

dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:03 pm What is a Karen?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Karen

If Liquor Stores Are Essential, Why Isn’t Church?

...Individual churches have been closed for health reasons in the past. History buffs may recall that the first Free Exercise Clause case in Supreme Court history, in 1845, involved the prohibition of open-coffin funeral services in a New Orleans church during a yellow fever outbreak. But this is the first mass closure of churches, synagogues, temples and mosques all over the country. And it has lasted for almost a month.

Other important activities — from shopping in hardware stores to voting — manage to take place with appropriate safeguards against the spread of the disease. Yet worshipers have been prevented from gathering “together” (six to 10 feet apart) in cars in the church parking lot; Catholic churches have been told to close their doors even for solitary prayer; traditional sunrise services were canceled even when they would take place in the fresh air, observing the rules of social distancing.

In the early weeks of the crisis, it made sense to enforce sweeping closure rules against all public gatherings — no exceptions. And even now, until the crisis subsides, religious communities will have to refrain from activities long central to the expression of love of God and one another. We would know: One of us had to forgo being with family who were sitting shiva, mourning his cousin. The son of the other could not be received into the church on Easter morning. Sacraments cannot be taken by Zoom.

But in the days ahead, religious leaders and public health officials will need to find new ways to deal with the novel conundrums forced on us by this novel coronavirus. Fortunately, these new arrangements can be fashioned with some very old materials: the centuries-old principles of the First Amendment...

Read the rest here...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/opin ... e=Homepage

It's difficult to maintain separation in a church, although it certainly could be done.
Don't you know, though, Ad O, that alcohol brings serenity to the masses?
--
Thanks again, Tyler.

Coronavirus World Map: Tracking The Spread Of The Outbreak

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandso ... witter.com

https://covid19.topos.com/

COVID-19 Compiler

Coronavirus Kills More Americans in One Month Than the Flu Kills in One Year


https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/ ... -one-year/

Coronavirus Deaths Greater Among Fox News Viewers That Prefer Hannity Over Tucker Carlson, Study Says

https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-de ... dy-1499354

tomfoolery wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:32 am Number 1 cause of death in the United States over the last several weeks since covid started... is heart disease, the same number 1 cause of death Before covid started. Yet, gyms are closed by government order.

So gyms obviously didn't affect heart disease.

I’m confident that those who go to the gym regularly are the same folks who are going to find a way to keep fit this spring. Hand weights, yoga mats, Peloton and such.

We’ve got cleaner air, fewer car accidents, fewer murders. In some places, like Pennsylvania, it’s harder to buy liquor. (More expensive and a few extra hoops to jump through). Salty meals at restaurants are over.

On the flip side, people who drink are probably drinking more and starting earlier because who cares. You’re home or you’re masked. And those who skipped the gym to go to Cheesecake Factory are probably not buying salad ingredients. <shrug>

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:36 am
On the flip side, people who drink are probably drinking more and starting earlier because who cares. You’re home or you’re masked. And those who skipped the gym to go to Cheesecake Factory are probably not buying salad ingredients. <shrug>

I make it a point to eat one Seinfeld-style big salad every day, and it always reminds me of that scene.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:49 am
In other news:
"Corona virus deaths greater among people who prefer Action-Adventure movies to Romantic Comedies, study says."

So the total available audience for the next Marvel action-adventure flick will be smaller? Disney is taking notes.

Imagine if all the Avengers movies were all rom-coms lol.

Tortoise wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 4:17 pm When a large fraction of the users of a product resort to loopholes/scams or the black market (e.g., pirating), it generally indicates that the seller is charging a price above the true market price (i.e., the price is not accurately reflecting the true value that most customers are placing on the product).

In the case of WSJ, they are simply charging too much for their product. They’d make more money by charging a bit less, and as an added benefit, fewer people would be tempted to use loopholes/scams to get their product.

Sorry, I'm just now getting caught up on this thread, so I'm just now bumping this back-and-forth from a few pages ago, as it's actually a subject that I'm extremely passionate about.

I'm generally in agreement with Tortoise's comments, but I'm excited to provide a much more verbose perspective on it ...

FWIW, I'm a software developer and a "creative", but I also believe that the entire concept of "Intellectual Property" is immoral (recommended: read some of Stephan Kinsella's writing on this subject). This combination is probably pretty rare, as my beliefs about IP can seem opposed to my ability to profit off of software or creative work I might develop. I like to think that it gives me a more objective perspective on the subject.

When I was a kid I "pirated" games for my Commodore 64 and Amiga. Later in life I would rip rented DVDs and even Blu-ray discs. I don't do those things currently, partially because I'm older and better-off financially (so some of those things I might have balked at the prices of wouldn't seem as expensive now, but also I would have more to "lose" by getting in trouble for it). But I'm also buying more software and movies now because the prices (and licensing terms) are a lot more reasonable than they used to be, IMO. There are a lot of great apps for my iPhone, iPad, or MacBook that seem "cheap" compared to what software cost years ago. And I can buy an app for my iPhone and be "officially allowed" to install it on my wife's and/or daughter's iPhone without paying any extra. Apple makes it difficult (impossible?) to "jail break" an iPhone these days, so I don't know if pirating iPhone apps is even a thing these days but, even if it were, why would I go to the trouble (and potential legal risk) just to save the $1-5 that most apps cost these days? (and many don't cost anything, and are instead supported by ad revenue)

Movies are similar, but not quite as good of a deal. I buy most of my movies via iTunes these days, and watch them via my Apple TV (streaming media box). I find most movies these days to be crap, but I still find myself paying $20 to "own" the movie, versus $4 (or whatever it usually is) to rent it. At my age, and especially after a cocktail and some wine and a late dinner, I find myself falling asleep at some point during the movie. So I've been burned in the past by renting a movie, only to not have time to finish watching it until after the 48-hour rental window had passed. I figure also that we might have been willing to go to a movie theater and pay more than $20 for 3 of us to see it, not including the overpriced popcorn and drinks. Also, if I was a person who traveled often (I'm not) Apple makes it both super-easy and permissible to download that iTunes movie onto my laptop or iPad to watch on the plane.

But movies still aren't a "great" deal compared to my iPhone/iPad/MacBook apps. $20 for a movie I might not watch again for another year (if ever)? So it doesn't surprise me that there still *are* a significant number of people who find ways to circumvent this by ripping Redbox rentals (where you're still contributing "something" financially, spending time/effort to circumvent the copy protection, and then spending money on extra disk storage to store your library locally), or who find these movies online (which is often a mixed bag quality-wise, and where you're adding some legal risk to yourself).

Getting into somewhat fuzzier territory, I also share my iTunes account with my brother, and he shares his with me. He's 10 years older than me and lives in another state. He has a huge iTunes library that he's amassed over the years, and I've got a smaller (but still pretty large) iTunes library of my own. On my Apple TV I can very easily swap between using my account or his account...I don't even need to re-enter the passwords (it saves multiple accounts). I'm not sure if Apple added this feature to intentionally "support" this use case or not. Either way, I feel no guilt about it. If he came to my house to visit, it would seem perfectly reasonable to expect that he should be able to log into my Apple TV in order to access his movie library.

So, my point being that a lot of the "reasons" why I might have been more pro-piracy in the past have been resolved amicably these days.

Getting back to the original topic of the WSJ online: I mentioned that I don't really have a whole lot of desire to even read their articles. It sounds like they may have better content than most, so I wouldn't necessarily mind reading their content. But it wouldn't be worth it to me to pay $20/month. $1/month? Maybe, maybe not even that. If I had a stronger desire to read their content, I could see paying $1 or more to read it, but still can't ever imagine paying $20/month to read it. YMMV. Do you think they'd rather that I pay $1/month to read it versus giving them $0/month to not read it?

I remember reading a while back a story about how (if I'm remembering right) Microsoft was selling some of their software for dirt cheap in certain places in the world, because software piracy was so rampant. They would rather get something, rather than nothing, and it wasn't "costing" them anything other than "potential" profits (which they weren't going to get anyway). Software can be easily/cheaply (even freely) duplicated.

On the flip side, I want to be clear that I have no qualm with a company that decides to charge top dollar for their software, locks it down with copy protection and limited "rights" for the consumer, and charges regular upgrade or annual licensing fees. That's their prerogative. But I also wouldn't shed a tear for them if I learned that someone cracked their copy protection and put it out on the internet for others to download for free. If it was a popular enough app for a large enough audience, it would surprise me if such an alternate source like that wasn't available, as it just seems like common sense that such a "market" would emerge. If it's a niche app catering to customers with deep pockets, and where support is often necessary, it might be in their best interest to continue charging what they're charging. If there's a potentially huge market of cost-conscious users who don't need much, if any, support, then I'd count them as being stupid for stubbornly "overcharging" for their software, as they'd make out better if they lowered their price or, better still, figured out a different pricing/feature structure, where they could sell to the smaller segment at a higher price, and the other segment at a low price.

I make a distinction between "Intellectual Property" which is not "scarce" and thus should not be considered to be "actual" property, versus actual property which *is* scarce. If you build a bicycle and I steal it, you no longer have your bicycle. I do. That's clear theft. If I make a copy of your bicycle, you still have your bicycle. You've just "lost out" on the ability to profit from selling me one of your bicycles, and you never had a natural right to have me buy your bicycle in the first place. Preventing me (via man-made/enforced IP laws) from making my own copy is actually immoral and a form of slavery, as you are infringing upon my natural rights to combine the resources I own with my skills/time however I see fit.

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:30 am but I also believe that the entire concept of "Intellectual Property" is immoral

why

I make a distinction between "Intellectual Property" which is not "scarce" and thus should not be considered to be "actual" property, versus actual property which *is* scarce. If you build a bicycle and I steal it, you no longer have your bicycle. I do. That's clear theft. If I make a copy of your bicycle, you still have your bicycle. You've just "lost out" on the ability to profit from selling me one of your bicycles, and you never had a natural right to have me buy your bicycle in the first place.

What if you stole apples from a commercial orchard, but didn’t damage the tree. Which would that be closer to?

Are you making a copy of a customer’s bicycle, or the guy who put his life’s work into designing that particular bicycle?

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:53 am

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:30 am but I also believe that the entire concept of "Intellectual Property" is immoral

why

I edited my post several times, so I'm not sure if this was a sentence I added/revised after you started to quote it, or if you just left it out of your quote for some reason, but I offered a simple explanation/analogy when I stated:
"Preventing me (via man-made/enforced IP laws) from making my own copy is actually immoral and a form of slavery, as you are infringing upon my natural rights to combine the resources I own with my skills/time however I see fit."

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:53 amWhat if you stole apples from a commercial orchard, but didn’t damage the tree. Which would that be closer to?

I would consider that to be theft. Whoever owns the apple orchard owns whatever level of production that apple tree produces, so by taking one apple from the tree, I've stolen one apple from the owner of the orchard. I've also likely trespassed.

A more interesting thought excercise, IMO, is this one:

You have a special breed of apple trees that produce especially delicious apples. Maybe you spent a good amount of time cross-breeding different types of apples to come up with that special new type of apple. You sell me an apple. I take that apple and its seeds and am able to grow my own apple tree and eventually sell that same breed of apples myself. It is my natural right to do that. If you attempt to prevent me from doing so, you are, in fact, the one who is infringing on *my* natural rights.

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:53 amAre you making a copy of a customer’s bicycle, or the guy who put his life’s work into designing that particular bicycle?

It doesn't matter, IMO. I have a right to make a replica (and modify the design, if so desired, or not) of your bicycle. If you want that bicycle design to be a secret that no one else is allowed to copy, then you have a right to try to keep it a secret (e.g., only ride it on your own property, hoping that no one else can see it). You have a right to make more of them and sell them, but you don't have a natural right to prevent me from copying the design, once it's "out in the wild." As an entrepreneur, you have several ways that you can go about trying to maximize your profit (and "ownership" of the design), including:
1) Be first to market. It will take some amount of time for competitors to come along, copy the design, and start selling them on their own.
2) Establish your brand as being one where you make it well known that you were the originator of the design, you use the best parts, have great quality control, and are constantly improving upon the design.

If you don't like those options, and don't see enough value in having a limited time window of selling your bicycles before someone else comes along and copies it and does a better job of profiting off of the design, then you have the right to not bother spending the effort to design it in the first place.

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:11 amI edited my post several times, so I'm not sure if this was a sentence I added/revised after you started to quote it, or if you just left it out of your quote for some reason, but I offered a simple explanation/analogy when I stated:
"Preventing me (via man-made/enforced IP laws) from making my own copy is actually immoral and a form of slavery, as you are infringing upon my natural rights to combine the resources I own with my skills/time however I see fit."

I did miss the edits as I was also editing my own post.
Rereading yours now...
...actually, I think I just missed the once sentence about slavery.

Related to being healthy to resist the effects of this virus (or any)…

How Healthy Are You?

https://medium.com/live-your-life-on-pu ... 66f26b4569

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:30 am I'm generally in agreement with Tortoise's comments, but I'm excited to provide a much more verbose perspective on it ...

Thanks for sharing your articulate, detailed thoughts on the topic of IP! Apparently my unspoken thoughts about IP were copied from my brain at some point and were transferred into yours.

If I had to summarize my position on WSJ subscriptions (and expensive IP in general) in a single sentence, it would be something like this:

Although consumers often pirate and find loopholes to avoid paying for "expensive" IP like movies and WSJ subscriptions, they generally prefer honesty and will tend to gladly pay for that IP instead if its price is adjusted to a lower level close to the true market price.

Maybe at some point we can start a separate thread to discuss this fascinating and controversial (admittedly non-coronavirus-related) topic.

Assuming this chart is accurate (from Mish's blog), this puts it into more perspective for me.

Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:57 amMaybe at some point we can start a separate thread to discuss this fascinating and controversial (admittedly non-coronavirus-related) topic.

And for anyone interested, dualstow has done exactly that:

Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10686

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:30 am Sorry, I'm just now getting caught up on this thread, so I'm just now bumping this back-and-forth from a few pages ago, as it's actually a subject that I'm extremely passionate about.

I'm generally in agreement with Tortoise's comments, but I'm excited to provide a much more verbose perspective on it ...

FWIW, I'm a software developer and a "creative", but I also believe that the entire concept of "Intellectual Property" is immoral (recommended: read some of Stephan Kinsella's writing on this subject). This combination is probably pretty rare, as my beliefs about IP can seem opposed to my ability to profit off of software or creative work I might develop. I like to think that it gives me a more objective perspective on the subject.

I used to have that opinion too.

Not any more. Read https://www.amazon.com/Origitent-Why-Or ... B07DRQ9NWC to find out why. I'll send you a copy if you don't want to pay the $2.99.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:25 pm

CT-Scott wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:30 am I also believe that the entire concept of "Intellectual Property" is immoral
...

I used to have that opinion too.

Not any more. Read https://www.amazon.com/Origitent-Why-Or ... B07DRQ9NWC to find out why. I'll send you a copy if you don't want to pay the $2.99.

Irony!