And this is why I never went into a math-heavy program.
Edit: That's just one fund of 10 or so from the same mutual fund company. On its own I'll admit it isn't much, but it's still interesting and makes me want to poke around in the rest to see what is there.
Given that you generally don't have any direct control over what a mutual fund is invested in, and the fact that mutual funds generally invest pretty broadly across the market, claiming there's even a shadow of a conflict of interest here seems a bit of a stretch.
That said, one wonders if Bernie may wanna look into an index fund, such that he gets charged less on the back end and can claim he's just investing in the market in general.
It's partly an image thing, which, in politics, can be more real than actual facts. Spun properly, it can turn into Bernie's entire platform being based on hypocrisy - just more white, upper New England arrogance coming from someone who doesn't believe the things he says.
It's also about Bernie's belief that any amount is too much (same with his supporters; progressive environmentalists want complete divestment from fracking and oil). It's the standard he's holding others to, so a look in the mirror is warranted.
The minutiae don't really matter. What does is how it fits into a broader narrative. I'd keep an eye out for this coming back up later on, especially if Bernie and his supporters continue to gaslight Clinton and her supporters.
That said, one wonders if Bernie may wanna look into an index fund, such that he gets charged less on the back end and can claim he's just investing in the market in general.
Sure, but you know what's in the S&P 500? Big bad XOM. If you're worried about the perception of investing in "evil" companies, it doesn't get much worse than index funds IMO.
A quick count shows 38 energy companies in the S&P. 18 are "Oil & gas exploration & production". So if crazies are looking for an excuse, you won't escape there.
That said, one wonders if Bernie may wanna look into an index fund, such that he gets charged less on the back end and can claim he's just investing in the market in general.
Sure, but you know what's in the S&P 500? Big bad XOM. If you're worried about the perception of investing in "evil" companies, it doesn't get much worse than index funds IMO.
A quick count shows 38 energy companies in the S&P. 18 are "Oil & gas exploration & production". So if crazies are looking for an excuse, you won't escape there.
Sigh, don't run for public office, kids. Apparently it's in direct opposition to sound financial planning.
Does anyone really try to sell the population on "Yay, oil, and coal!"?
It's very profitable, and not everyone has easy access to cleaner energy resources.
Profit by design?
People don't have coal and oil pits in their backyards, just like they don't have solar cells or wind turbines. Someone has to put them there.
Also, define cleaner. Burning oil and coal would be fine, if you were able to capture all the CO2 emissions. The technology exists, albeit inefficient. The CO2 footprint in investing in solar farms and wind turbines is lower than continuing to burn fossil fuels.
If CO2 was a cost, as it should be, fossil fuels would sooner cease to be a viable business.
The minutiae don't really matter. What does is how it fits into a broader narrative. I'd keep an eye out for this coming back up later on, especially if Bernie and his supporters continue to gaslight Clinton and her supporters.
While it's a bit nit-picky, I'm not sure "Gaslight" is the appropriate term to use, there. While there's a lot of fact-twisting and truth-bending going on among Bernie Supporters, Gaslighting is a form of abuse, not a general term for that sort of thing.
Also, I think you're out on a limb a bit here. While I agree, it's right to hold that kind of a mirror up, you also must consider if he knew or not, and if he'd change it if he did. We can't really know the latter without his say-so, but the former, it's not unreasonable to think he didn't. How many people research that much about their retirement funds, as long as they're making money?
Burning oil and coal would be fine, if you were able to capture all the CO2 emissions.
And the rest of the super poison coal spits out. IIRC cancer deaths from coal are more than a 9/11 every year? Those aren't from CO2.
That's a separate argument I think. If we want to prevent cancers and deaths from fuel sources, even if coal power was abolished, you'd still need adequate health care and appropriate amount of clean air facilities. Which don't exist. We only have trees for that. Buildings may have HEPA filters (or some other kind) on their air conditioners, but that doesn't reduce smog outside.
There are plenty of sources of harmful chemicals currently in our atmosphere. Coal is 1.
I was consolidating the argument to CO2 emissions. To go into all the other sources of undesirable chemicals, should be a separate thread.
If you don't already know at least a few of the reasons why fossil fuels are a common bad, it makes arguing the economics more laborious.
You could simply rule out fuel C because as it also produces sulphuric acid. It could be a considered cost as a part of the process. If you could contain and sell it/ dispose of it.
However that never enters the argument because it's too inefficient to recover trace chemicals, however harmful they may be.
If energy companies were more responsible like that, energy prices for fossil fuels wouldn't be so 'cheap', because the cost of recovery is high.
Wait, you mean a Democratic candidate running for president is actually raising money and supporting other Democratic candidates so he or she can try to win back Congress? For shame!
"Sanders makes it sound like Clinton is raising such obscene amounts of money for her campaign. In actuality, she’s raising money for herself, the Democratic Party and state Democratic parties around the country. Those funds would then be used to finance everything from “get out the vote” operations to phone banks and email blasts not only for the presidential nominee but also for House and Senate candidates down the ballot. In an election year in which the Republican presidential nominee could be Donald Trump, the prospects of Democrats holding the White House and possibly retaking the Senate AND the House are not remote. Having money to do this for the November elections will be essential. "
Yeah... That's not a fire. It's literally how politics is done, and has been done for a long long time.
One of the main duties of a party's presidential candidate is to bolster the fundraising downticket. Down there, in state and congressional races, is where all actual change is incubated.
Yeah... That's not a fire. It's literally how politics is done, and has been done for a long long time.
One of the main duties of a party's presidential candidate is to bolster the fundraising downticket. Down there, in state and congressional races, is where all actual change is incubated.
Exactly. Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but one of my biggest complaints of Bernie Sanders is that he hasn't done anything to support other progressive candidates running for office. Say what you will about Hillary Clinton, but at least she's trying to help out her party and win back Congress. The Sander's campaign hasn't done any of that. But then again, he's not a Democrat, he's an Independent.
It would be very ironic if, by some miracle, Bernie Sanders won the Democratic primary and the general election, and had a Democratic Congress because of Hillary's fundraising efforts.
To clarify, I never said it was fire. I said it was smoke. Also note it's not casting shade directly on Hillary. It's an indictment of the DNC as an organization. I happen to think money in politics is so toxic that extremely harsh measures are required. Certain activity in and of itself stinks of impropriety and this qualifies in my book. The activity here was about 8 months before her official candidacy.
I don't fault Hillary for benefiting from a corrupt system in this instance. You use the rules of the game to try and win. The problem is that if this is true, she accepted inappropriate aid from the DNC. Our campaign finances laws apply the moment someone begins soliciting, accepting, and using funds for their campaigns. The Clinton campaign acted within the laws, even if 100% of the articles assertions are true. Hillary & her campaign did nothing against the law.
I think this is part of why a lot of folks (myself included) are so against the status quo. Our laws are set up in such a way that even the perception of being able to buy a local party and its super delegates is possible. I find it unacceptable that it's allowed to happen and so do many others.
One of the main duties of a party's presidential candidate is to bolster the fundraising downticket.
She was not and, to date, is not the party candidate. YOU MUST BE WORKING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT!
Hillary is operating on the status quo trying to prop up down ticket. I get all that. Bernie wants public financing of elections with minimal to no outside money. I suppose in his mind, why bother propping up that particular apple cart when he plans to overturn it anyway? It does speak to his shortsightedness and ability to play party ball but I can see past it.
I don't fault Hillary for benefiting from a corrupt system in this instance. You use the rules of the game to try and win. The problem is that if this is true, she accepted in appropriate aid from the DNC. Our campaign finances laws apply the moment someone begins soliciting, accepting, and using funds for their campaigns. The Clinton campaign acted within the laws, even if 100% of the articles assertions are true. Hillary & her campaign did nothing against the law.
I think this is part of why a lot of folks (myself included) are so against the status quo. Our laws are set up in such a way that even the perception of being able to buy a local party and its super delegates is possible. I find it unacceptable that it's allowed to happen and so do many others.
There is literally no way to change that unless you get to a starting point of Democratic control of congress and the presidency.
Remember the Lessig Mayday movement? It's noteworthy that it in effect became tilted 95% toward supporting Democrats, and was opposed out of hand by the far majority of the GOP. It became partisan because Republicans are heavily against this reform, while Democrats are split.
A Democratic ship means we can undo a lot of harm, and also effect progressive change (push drug legalization, LGBT protections, abortion rights, etc...), while simultaneously using the relatively safe political environment to start getting far progressive/liberal/socialist Democrats into the power structure.
She was not and, to date, is not the party candidate.
Bernie should be doing the same thing. The fact that he isn't is harming the party's progressive elements, and also the party as a whole. You can't stop the money machine without feeding it. He needs to feed it now.
More importantly, the Bernie organization is doing jack shit for building a long term, self-sustaining, organized progressive movement down ticket. They're so focused on the presidency that their entire movement will dry up the second he's not the POTUS nominee. They need to be attacking the local party system, building local party aparati, and basically doing what Ron/Rand Paul did with the libertarians.
There is literally no way to change that unless you get to a starting point of Democratic control of congress and the presidency.
Remember the Lessig Mayday movement? It's noteworthy that it in effect became tilted 95% toward supporting Democrats, and was opposed out of hand by the far majority of the GOP. It became partisan because Republicans are heavily against this reform, while Democrats are split.
A Democratic ship means we can undo a lot of harm, and also effect progressive change (push drug legalization, LGBT protections, abortion rights, etc...), while simultaneously using the relatively safe political environment to start getting far progressive/liberal/socialist Democrats into the power structure.
I can see the logic in that line of thinking. I mean, Bernie IS running for the Democratic nomination so if he does win it, however unlikely I think that'll will be, he'll at least be flying the Democratic flag whilst giving the ship a hopefully more progressive heading.
Bernie should be doing the same thing. The fact that he isn't is harming the party's progressive elements, and also the party as a whole. You can't stop the money machine without feeding it. He needs to feed it now.
More importantly, the Bernie organization is doing jack shit for building a long term, self-sustaining, organized progressive movement down ticket. They're so focused on the presidency that their entire movement will dry up the second he's not the POTUS nominee. They need to be attacking the local party system, building local party aparati, and basically doing what Ron/Rand Paul did with the libertarians.
I'm actually not ready to pass judgement on the statement "He needs to feed it now." quite yet. In time it may be you're right but he *might* get away with not feeding it, in which case I get to say you were incorrect. ;-)
I will absolutely agree with the second part of this, however. He is hurting progressive agendas in the future, but lets be honest, when was the last time real progressives had an actual voice? Ralph Nader and his raiders? Hopefully he will inspire just the sort of thing you're talking about but I cannot fault the man for being singularly focused on anything but the POTUS. It's a young mans game, he's already old, and this is his one shot at the Oval. My only personal hope is that he will recognize his place as a symbol of the "movement" (ugh, I hate that term applied in this context) and begin doing what you outlined after the fact.
Comments
Edit: That's just one fund of 10 or so from the same mutual fund company. On its own I'll admit it isn't much, but it's still interesting and makes me want to poke around in the rest to see what is there.
It's also about Bernie's belief that any amount is too much (same with his supporters; progressive environmentalists want complete divestment from fracking and oil). It's the standard he's holding others to, so a look in the mirror is warranted.
The minutiae don't really matter. What does is how it fits into a broader narrative. I'd keep an eye out for this coming back up later on, especially if Bernie and his supporters continue to gaslight Clinton and her supporters.
A quick count shows 38 energy companies in the S&P. 18 are "Oil & gas exploration & production". So if crazies are looking for an excuse, you won't escape there.
People don't have coal and oil pits in their backyards, just like they don't have solar cells or wind turbines. Someone has to put them there.
Also, define cleaner. Burning oil and coal would be fine, if you were able to capture all the CO2 emissions. The technology exists, albeit inefficient. The CO2 footprint in investing in solar farms and wind turbines is lower than continuing to burn fossil fuels.
If CO2 was a cost, as it should be, fossil fuels would sooner cease to be a viable business.
Also, I think you're out on a limb a bit here. While I agree, it's right to hold that kind of a mirror up, you also must consider if he knew or not, and if he'd change it if he did. We can't really know the latter without his say-so, but the former, it's not unreasonable to think he didn't. How many people research that much about their retirement funds, as long as they're making money?
There are plenty of sources of harmful chemicals currently in our atmosphere. Coal is 1.
I was consolidating the argument to CO2 emissions. To go into all the other sources of undesirable chemicals, should be a separate thread.
If you don't already know at least a few of the reasons why fossil fuels are a common bad, it makes arguing the economics more laborious.
CO2 is common to all processes. Hypothetical:
fuel A:$100/kW, 1G tonne CO2/y
fuel B:$200/kW, 1 tonne CO2/y
fuel C:$50/kW, 1G tonne CO2/y + 1 tonne H2SO4/y
You could simply rule out fuel C because as it also produces sulphuric acid. It could be a considered cost as a part of the process. If you could contain and sell it/ dispose of it.
However that never enters the argument because it's too inefficient to recover trace chemicals, however harmful they may be.
If energy companies were more responsible like that, energy prices for fossil fuels wouldn't be so 'cheap', because the cost of recovery is high.
The Exxon Valdez was fine, except for all the oil.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/
"Sanders makes it sound like Clinton is raising such obscene amounts of money for her campaign. In actuality, she’s raising money for herself, the Democratic Party and state Democratic parties around the country. Those funds would then be used to finance everything from “get out the vote” operations to phone banks and email blasts not only for the presidential nominee but also for House and Senate candidates down the ballot. In an election year in which the Republican presidential nominee could be Donald Trump, the prospects of Democrats holding the White House and possibly retaking the Senate AND the House are not remote. Having money to do this for the November elections will be essential. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/31/heres-why-a-bernie-sanders-victory-for-the-nomination-would-make-him-a-hypocrite/
One of the main duties of a party's presidential candidate is to bolster the fundraising downticket. Down there, in state and congressional races, is where all actual change is incubated.
I don't fault Hillary for benefiting from a corrupt system in this instance. You use the rules of the game to try and win. The problem is that if this is true, she accepted inappropriate aid from the DNC. Our campaign finances laws apply the moment someone begins soliciting, accepting, and using funds for their campaigns. The Clinton campaign acted within the laws, even if 100% of the articles assertions are true. Hillary & her campaign did nothing against the law.
I think this is part of why a lot of folks (myself included) are so against the status quo. Our laws are set up in such a way that even the perception of being able to buy a local party and its super delegates is possible. I find it unacceptable that it's allowed to happen and so do many others. She was not and, to date, is not the party candidate. YOU MUST BE WORKING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT!
Hillary is operating on the status quo trying to prop up down ticket. I get all that. Bernie wants public financing of elections with minimal to no outside money. I suppose in his mind, why bother propping up that particular apple cart when he plans to overturn it anyway? It does speak to his shortsightedness and ability to play party ball but I can see past it.
Remember the Lessig Mayday movement? It's noteworthy that it in effect became tilted 95% toward supporting Democrats, and was opposed out of hand by the far majority of the GOP. It became partisan because Republicans are heavily against this reform, while Democrats are split.
A Democratic ship means we can undo a lot of harm, and also effect progressive change (push drug legalization, LGBT protections, abortion rights, etc...), while simultaneously using the relatively safe political environment to start getting far progressive/liberal/socialist Democrats into the power structure.
Bernie should be doing the same thing. The fact that he isn't is harming the party's progressive elements, and also the party as a whole. You can't stop the money machine without feeding it. He needs to feed it now.
More importantly, the Bernie organization is doing jack shit for building a long term, self-sustaining, organized progressive movement down ticket. They're so focused on the presidency that their entire movement will dry up the second he's not the POTUS nominee. They need to be attacking the local party system, building local party aparati, and basically doing what Ron/Rand Paul did with the libertarians.
I will absolutely agree with the second part of this, however. He is hurting progressive agendas in the future, but lets be honest, when was the last time real progressives had an actual voice? Ralph Nader and his raiders? Hopefully he will inspire just the sort of thing you're talking about but I cannot fault the man for being singularly focused on anything but the POTUS. It's a young mans game, he's already old, and this is his one shot at the Oval. My only personal hope is that he will recognize his place as a symbol of the "movement" (ugh, I hate that term applied in this context) and begin doing what you outlined after the fact.
Greg seems to enjoy belittling people he thinks are inferior to him.