Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 497
» Latest member: Best Auditing
» Forum threads: 2,644
» Forum posts: 19,236

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 34 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 34 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
New Quinnipiac poll: Ever...
Forum: Politics
Last Post: da bear
41 minutes ago
» Replies: 9
» Views: 118
Allergy Season worse this...
Forum: Misc
Last Post: brunt
11 hours ago
» Replies: 4
» Views: 59
LOVE and HATE People
Forum: Gloves Off
Last Post: DaveGillie
Yesterday, 04:57 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 7
Forum: Misc
Last Post: DaveGillie
Yesterday, 04:44 PM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 158
US attacks Russia
Forum: Misc
Last Post: aqua
Yesterday, 02:58 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 77
Fed Meeting on Wed 6/19
Forum: Markets, Money & Investing
Last Post: hunter
06-18-2019, 08:03 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 67
One for Ollie
Forum: Markets, Money & Investing
Last Post: aqua
06-18-2019, 03:47 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 22
Coming Apart - USA
Forum: Politics
Last Post: DaveGillie
06-18-2019, 01:53 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 15
Cartoon Trump
Forum: Politics
Last Post: aqua
06-18-2019, 12:48 PM
» Replies: 321
» Views: 33,406
deepstate deepfake false ...
Forum: Politics
Last Post: aqua
06-18-2019, 12:44 PM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 88

  LOVE and HATE People
Posted by: DaveGillie - Yesterday, 04:57 PM - Forum: Gloves Off - No Replies

I LOVE people (believe it or not)

My persona is different in person - from the seemingly harsh it seems here some times.

Many people like my wife openly admit to hating people - and a LOT of others sure seem to.

Remember I personally interact with HUNDREDS of people most days (when I go to work - used to be 7 days a week, not like 4)

Still, while I notice most people are just plain NORMAL to GOOD.
I'm super amazed most days about how CRAZY WEIRD some of those (otherwise normal/good) people can be!!!

I wish YEARS ago i would have started a thread for "crazy of the day" examples.
it'd be a great joke book by now years later!

Print this item

  Fed Meeting on Wed 6/19
Posted by: aqua - 06-18-2019, 04:04 PM - Forum: Markets, Money & Investing - Replies (3)

The Fed is meeting this week.

Since the rates paid at my Credit Unions have gone down.......

I am predicting the Fed will announce a "Rate Decrease".


Print this item

  One for Ollie
Posted by: aqua - 06-18-2019, 03:47 PM - Forum: Markets, Money & Investing - No Replies

We need a banking expert like Ollie to explain how this works.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com...ebug=false]

Ho Ho Ho It's magic: Deutsche Bank,
Market Cap $14B
to Spin Off $50B in assets


Deutsche Bank, with a market cap of under $14 billion looks to spin off $50+ billion in allegedly productive assets.

I am scratching my head a bit over this idea. From the expression on CEO Christian Sewing's face, he is too......

Derivatives Spin Off

If the headline sounds preposterous, the derivatives details as described by the Financial Times are even more amazing.

"While the derivatives destined for the non-core unit still provide some cash flow, all the profit on the deals — and therefore the associated bonuses for those who arranged them — were booked up-front."

Supposedly these $50 billion in derivative assets are actually productive, except for the fact that Deutsche Bank booked the profit up front.

Thus, the proposal is to spin off productive assets to the "bad bank" keeping what?

The Financial Times explanation is to keep its better bond business.

To top it off, Deutsche Bank supposedly has €260 billion in cash and liquid securities on hand.

Magic Steps Explained

  1. Deutsche Bank will spin off $50 billion in productive assets to a bad bank
  2. Deutsche Bank will keep its better performing assets
  3. Deutsche Bank has €260 billion in cash and liquid securities on hand
  4. Deutsche Bank has a market cap of $14 billion

Bear in mind that deposits are liabilities. Banks pay interest on them. But in the topsy-turvy EU world, interest rates are negative. If so, the bank is gaining by holding deposits.

If the liquid securities are government bonds, those are highly likely to have a negative yield and the bank is losing on them. This is the foolishness of the ECB's negative interest rate policy.

The entire impact of item 3 rages from a likely a big nothing to a tiny gain or loss.

As for point one, even if the asset is performing, excess profits were booked on it. Spinning it off should result in a charge, even if someone else is willing to deal with the derivatives mess.

This spin off story makes perfect sense, in some magical alternate universe somewhere."

Print this item

  Coming Apart - USA
Posted by: DaveGillie - 06-18-2019, 01:53 PM - Forum: Politics - No Replies

our future sounds a bit scary here,


reminds me a bit of an older Jordan Pederson

Print this item

  Pension is in big trouble....
Posted by: hunter - 06-18-2019, 08:37 AM - Forum: Markets, Money & Investing - Replies (1)

This could happen sooner rather than later...    


Print this item

Posted by: iamhe - 06-18-2019, 06:41 AM - Forum: Politics - No Replies


fuck it, he can bomb the shit out of iran for rothschilds for all I care about as long as he gets these assholes the fuck out of my town....


Print this item

  Why Truth usually doesn't change minds. What does?
Posted by: doubletroublejim - 06-16-2019, 06:12 PM - Forum: Misc - Replies (4)

Hello all,

Here's an interesting article about truth. Why it usually doesn't change minds, and what might.  Maybe brutal honesty is not always the best policy.  Something I'm going to think about and reason over. Hah!  It's probably true most people don't value truth as much you and they themselves think they do. Hah, again!


Print this item

  US attacks Russia
Posted by: DaveGillie - 06-16-2019, 02:39 AM - Forum: Misc - Replies (4)


Quote:NYT: U.S. Steps Up Attacks on Russian Electrical Grid,

Print this item

  Lunar Real Estate For sale
Posted by: aqua - 06-15-2019, 04:09 PM - Forum: Misc - Replies (1)

Smile  Buy yourself a plot of land on the moon.

Only $24.99 per acre.

What a deal.

[Image: ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2...downey.jpg]

"Back in 1980, a former ventriloquist and car salesman named Dennis Hope was out of work, going through a divorce and struggling to make ends meet. As he tells it, he was driving along wondering what he could do for cash flow when he looked through the car window, saw the moon and thought: “Now there’s a lot of property.”

Hope did some research in a college library and discovered the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, a pact in which dozens of nations, including the United States, laid out the basic legal guidelines for dealing with celestial bodies. Hope thought he saw a loophole: The treaty declares that no nation can assert sovereignty over the moon, but it fails to say clearly that individuals can’t.

So Hope sent a note to the United Nations, laying claim to the moon as well as the other planets and moons in the solar system, and went to work. In the years since, Hope has made a tidy fortune selling deeds to plots on the moon and other celestial bodies; he estimates around $12 million so far. A typical moon acre costs $24.99. The whole of Pluto is going for $250,000 — a good deal, but a tough commute.

Even if you don’t seriously credit the idea that one man in Rio Vista, California, is sole proprietor of the moon—and most experts don’t—Hope’s quixotic career attests to the legal vacuum surrounding real estate that doesn’t happen to be located on this planet. And as humans prepare to return to the moon, with a dozen or more nations and private firms eyeing the lunar surface for everything from mining to scientific research, the arguments over ownership are expected to become only more complicated.

Space lawyers dispute the existence of Hope’s loophole, and the U.N. never acknowledged his claim. (Hope is unfazed: “I wasn’t asking their permission. I was merely informing them of what I was doing.”)

But he’s right that the primary legal framework governing space remains that 52-year-old treaty, negotiated at a time when computers were the size of school buses. Today, as space becomes a legitimate commercial target, there are growing questions about whether the Outer Space Treaty is up to the job.

The 1967 pact, signed two years before the U.S. moon landing, is an idealistic document that effectively rules out the possibility that a country can “own” territory in space, even if it manages to plant a flag there. The treaty also states that Earth nations can use the moon and other celestial bodies only for peaceful purposes, forbidding the creation of military bases on those entities and the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space.

But the relatively simple framework of the treaty, which runs around 2,200 words, leaves unanswered many increasingly crucial questions about how people, companies and countries can operate in space. That includes questions about acquiring and exploiting the resources found there, from water to gases to minerals, issues that might have seemed fanciful to the diplomats who negotiated the terms in the 1960s. Which countries will take the lead and which will follow? What kinds of military equipment and activities are permitted? Who will set the rules and mediate disputes? And, far-fetched but still intriguing: What if we encounter aliens with ideas and customs of their own?

As the date of humankind’s likely return to the moon draws nearer, people in the space industry say there’s growing urgency around these questions, and some players have begun pushing to expand the treaty or rethink it entirely. There’s also a creeping worry that the answer may simply lie in first-mover advantage, and that whoever reaches these untapped frontiers first will set the rules for decades, generations, even centuries to come – and possibly even carry out a resource grab of galactic proportions."

Print this item

  Allergy Season worse this year
Posted by: aqua - 06-15-2019, 03:54 PM - Forum: Misc - Replies (4)

This is what I am seeing here in the Midwest.

If not pollen, it is mold, from the unending rains.

Allergy Season Is Bad This Year. Thank Climate Disruption.

William Rivers Pitt
by William Rivers Pitt | June 15, 2019

"If you think allergy season this year is especially severe, you are not wrong. Even people who do not normally deal with pollen allergies are suffering, and those with serious allergies or other respiratory issues are under siege by a marauding army of windblown dots of pollen. This is on top of the smoke pouring into the U.S. from Canadian wildfires. As with so much else today, the stark reality of climate disruption is playing a part in our misery.

More than half the states in the continental U.S. are enduring pollen counts ranging from “High” to “Very High.” Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas are an inland sea of allergens, and every Southern state from Mississippi to South Carolina and up through Virginia are painted yellow and orange with the misery-inducing spores. The story is the same out West from Washington State to California, and from Idaho to Arizona and New Mexico. Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois are likewise feeling the sting.

Harsh allergy seasons are nothing new in the human experience, and I am certainly not trying to pull a Reverse Inhofe by claiming climate disruption is to blame for your car looking like someone slathered it in cake batter every morning. The science here, however, is entirely straightforward.

“For the first time in human history, on May 13, Earth’s concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) reached 415 parts per million (ppm). Before the 19th century’s industrial revolution, the CO2 concentration was at about 280 ppm,” writes Dahr Jamail for Truthout. “The current dramatic rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is unparalleled in Earth’s history dating back hundreds of thousands of years, based on ice-core data.”

Put plainly, C02 is plant food. The more plant food there is in the air, the more pollen trees and other plants will produce. Combine that with the historically wet spring season felt by the Northeast, Southeast and Midwest, and all the ingredients for a pollen explosion are in place.

“If you remember your basic biology from elementary school,” writes meteorologist Dave Epstein for the Boston Globe, “you’ll recall that carbon dioxide is what plants take in, while they give off oxygen. If you increase the carbon dioxide, you essentially give plants more food and many of these are responding in kind … The projections moving forward are for even more pollen production. By the time we get to the middle of the 21st century, carbon dioxide is expected to be near 600 parts per million, and this will rapidly increase the amount of pollen being produced by all plants.”

Exacerbating an already wheezy season is the smoke pouring out of Canada from wildfires that are unprecedented in both size and number. One such, the Chuckegg Creek Fire in Alberta, is almost the size of Rhode Island. In seven Canadian provinces and two territories, at least 87 other wildfires are burning.

Here in the U.S., a swath of states from Washington State to Maine and down to Oklahoma are hacking their way through a thick cloud of Canadian woodsmoke. Smoke from the Alberta wildfires is so vast that it is painting the sunsets in Great Britain, an entire ocean away.

As with the brutally high pollen count, climate disruption is playing a distinct role in Canada’s worsening fire seasons.

“As the Canadian north grows warmer and drier for longer periods, the destruction is expected to get worse,” writes Amanda Coletta for The Washington Post. “Wildfires are now scorching more than 6 million acres of land here per year. That’s twice what they burned in the 1970s — and it’s projected to double again by the end of the century … More broadly, analysts say, intense wildfire activity is increasing, and fire seasons are getting longer. They say climate change is at least partly to blame.”

The problem of climate-driven drought and fire is, of course, not relegated solely to Canada. “As western states like California continue to reel from last year’s onslaught of fires, South Asia is in the midst of a staggering heat wave,” reports E.A. Crunden for ThinkProgress. “Areas within the Arctic circle, meanwhile, are shattering their own heat records.”

More than 25 million people in the U.S. suffer from asthma. Many of them live in poorer communities that are more likely to be saddled with the industrial pollution that is helping to disrupt the climate in the first place.

Another 14 million people suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, according to the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Millions more endure various other respiratory distress syndromes. With the pollen count and the smoke from wildfires continuing to enter the atmosphere at an increasing rate, the threat to the health of those with chronic respiratory conditions is acute.

We all need to breathe. Climate disruption is making that more difficult for everyone. Donald Trump can suggest we cut down all the trees, as he did in response to last year’s California conflagration, but that will not solve the problem, because there is no solving the problem. (Also, notably, killing plants is the fastest way to end the world — and forest regeneration is a key tool in combatting climate change.)

So, how can we address respiratory dangers? We can mitigate the situation somewhat if we act now to eliminate fossil fuels and take other immediate, global measures to lessen the blow. One roadmap has already been laid out in detail within the Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts). However, in the final analysis and given all the damage that is already baked into the atmosphere, all these new perils are merely heralds of what is to come."

Print this item