incomingpain

182 ms·

2311.
by incomingpain 5y ago
>Eventually Mozilla will probably ditch Firefox as they can’t afford to do any significant development other than UI. It's not that they can't afford. They get truckloads of free money every year. The reason they dont have sign
2312.
by incomingpain 5y ago
>Each time I try to read what Mozilla has planned for itself, I find it dug deeper in the hole it dug for itself (and its loyal users). I just posted: "Mozilla might be irreparably damaged by their political activism." What exa
2313.
by incomingpain 5y ago
Firefox market share: 3% How far the mighty has fallen. Firefox was once the best browser. We could go into Mozilla's political activism that led up to this utter collapse. That's unnecessary. Mozilla's political activism was
2314.
by incomingpain 5y ago
>Yup. the fed sees it coming too. in one of their speeches they even hinted that the dollar may not be the global reserve currency forever. I'm certainly not Nostradamus. Lots of people see it coming. It's a huge benefit to bei
2315.
by incomingpain 5y ago
>If any, what is your advice for poor and middle class Americans? Well first things first. Americans are mostly 'rich'. There's a political ploy about the 'disappearing' middle class but it's because america
2316.
by incomingpain 5y ago
>I don't know why people use the phrase "printing money", when people use this word I honestly don't know what they mean. So this isn't just the creation of paper money but rather issuance of new money that mostl
2317.
by incomingpain 5y ago
This year? Im not sure. So many highly dynamic realities in play. Lets look at them individually. >Inflation out of control 40% is locked in over the next several years. It's virtually impossible for the fed to stop this reality. Th
2318.
by incomingpain 5y ago
>i am curious what you mean by looking for new reserve currencies as a function of a portfolio, does this mean simply going overweight non US stocks? This is significantly less important to individual investors. As an individual investor
2319.
by incomingpain 5y ago
>I argue it’s not the right thing. I agree that stepping in is necessary SOMETIMES and at reasonable scale. The feds job isn’t to prop up the stock market. Keynes went into depth about this. The temporary government measures are never te
2320.
by incomingpain 5y ago
>I would argue it's obviously the wrong thing to do for years and years while all assets are mooning in value, and 1m jobs being added per month. That's kind of what I was saying. They did this during 2009. Great, it was needed
2321.
by incomingpain 5y ago
>The Fed made massive profits on its crisis-era purchases. Many were held to maturity. The graph from multiple OPs literally say otherwise. >Your "literally nobody else" is a multi-trillion dollar pool of buyers. Like normal
2322.
by incomingpain 5y ago
The big question is 'are they assets'? They bought 'assets' which literally nobody else wants. They did this in 2009 and over 10 years never exited those 'assets'. Are these in reality liabilities and worse yet
2323.
by incomingpain 5y ago
During covid, the bond market inverted. To avoid collapse of the bond market the fed was the only one who could step in and print money to buy assets. It's the right thing to do. Nobody is saying they were wrong to do this. Nixon made