Ethics in journalism has fallen hard but was a huge chunk of my college roommates (polysci/journalism major) coursework. In the case of PV, they are 90% unethical disproven fraud and 10% at best real issues. Almost every major headline they produce is edited, photoshopped, staged, or aggravated whereas the opposite is true for major media outlets like the NYT, WaPo, and others. 105 might be partisan coverage or leaning but 90% is real information or at least not photoshopped evidence.
Unethical behavior is still unethical if other people are doing it too. In the case of Amazon there isn't a physical evaluation of a product if it's "on and end cap" and promoted like a typical brick and mortar store. I've purchased the Amazon Choice item many times as I didn't have time to read reviews on a dozen similar products and assumed the one they recommended was well rated, reliable, the best choice. If it was properly labelled "Featured by Amazon," I'd have assumed something very different and inspected the product carefully.
In a physical store, I have ignored the end cap because the product was visibly a smaller volume than a competitor at a similar price. I can also go to the aisle section and directly compare all the options the store presents vs products filtered down and advertised to me by Amazon's algorithms. There is bias but more transparency like bottom shelf vs eye level. Amazon is a black hole unless you still trust their review system.
The other ratios have inverted over the last 6 months, I think as early as the 5-1 ratio in January. The 10-2 is simply the more extreme indicator and the bigger signal that a recession will probably happen in the coming 12-24 months. I used 10-2 both as it is in the news this week and is the critical indicator that I studied in college. In January I was referencing the 5-1 as an early indicator that without correction would lead to the 10-2 inverting as well.
It's a gross simplification, but with the volume that is Danish housing vs demand for said housing the risk is very low.
One of many issues leading into the 2008 crash was how Us mortgages were bundled, rated AAA, then resold as an investment tool. However, the ratings were falsely boosted to promote investment and when the underlying junk mortgages fell through and demand fell off a cliff with the rest of the economy there was no way to flip foreclosed housing to make up losses.
In this case, Danish mortgages are not bundled, rated falsely positive, and not sold as an investment tool like in 2008. Current US auto loans may be much more similar than these Danish loans.
Everytime PV makes front page news its followed by obvious accusations of bias, editing, taking quotes pout of context, and recently was under felony charges. It's an attention seeking "Whistleblower" group with minimal intellectual value.
Like racist sites like the Daily Caller sometimes their reporting has facts in it. But also like the Daily Caller, it's a known terrible source until confirmed and expanded by a journalist with ethics.
A recession will follow in 12-24 months, based on my understanding of the bond yield curve and close following of it in recent years. We can check in mid 2020 and see if that timeline holds.
The bond yield curve inversion mentioned in the article has led every recession in the last 70 years by 12-24 months. It's an indicator, because we don't know the future, but it's historically accurate to a T. On some level it is self fulfilling but the evidence of past crashes is there too.
Auto loan defaults are at a high, as is student and household debt (higher than 2007). Those auto loans are often bundled almost exactly like junk mortgages in 2007 leading to a similar investment risk. More americans live paycheck to paycheck than ever before possibly increasing the number needing support should unemployment jump back up to 12%, where it was when Obama took over in 2009. It won't be as bad but the federal government under Trump/GOP has cut taxes and drastically pumped up the deficit putting us in a worse position to weather a recession of any length. Cuts to social programs will also extend a recession or at least increase it's effects as people will still need food and affordable housing. The number on social security will increase while less will be employed to pay in and as SS was used as a piggy bank for GOP spending decades ago that system could go from failing in a few decades to gone.
It could be 6-12 months of job losses and stock market falls like the .com bubble but it could quickly complicate as the government may be slow or unable to respond in traditional ways due to lack of funding, lack of staffing (an existing issue in the current admin), lack of experience of the current staffing, and continued conservative/GOP attacks on social programs and minority groups most likely to be hit hard by any recession.
It's like Jenga. In 2007 a core lower block was pulled and a lot of pieces went with it but we had the leverage federally to hold some in place or put back others like auto manufacturers. This time, the piece may be much higher up but automakers are already suffering under tariffs and the federal government won't have the funding capacity or push by the GOP led government to react in time and, like midwest farmers, that could be the end of an era for some industries.
"Deep state" is a conspiracy theorist level term for some underground, underhanded Hoover/FBI style group that doesn't exist or is really just career officials, most of whom have left the administration especially the state department. This has left a massive shortage in expertise and qualified or cleared workers slowing down how the government can handle ongoing processes/projects and new issues like the many foreign policy blunders and embarrassments Trump and his often unqualified appointees have made.
The trade war is one such blunder that no responsible and informed person thought would do any good long term but was spun as a hard core negotiation tactic. Tariffs are import taxes charged mostly to residents and businesses in the home country or passed to the consumer by the importing firm. This short term harms everyone but could be the straw that pushes a close deal to be ratified. Unfortunately, we didn't have a close deal beyond the TPP and this wasn't a cooperative negotiation but one of necessity framed as USA vs China.
It was never a smart move and was recommended against by nearly all experts or those with experience in the matter and we have reached the logical conclusion of such policies to find that there is no deep state outside of conspiracy forums and our economic outlook and foreign policy is a dumpster fire as Trump is not rational but likely narcissistic and mislead or misinformed by his staff to ignore reality such as the looming economic crisis.
99% is memes, random boards, or hate/bigotry/odd. The platform we need right now is proper enforcement of whistleblower protections.
Mainstream media is 30% Fox, by viewership, with most traditional publishers remaining trustworthy in most reporting. 4chan/8chan ties in with Daily Caller types too often to be of any value 99.9% of the time.
Alternatively, I can create a new team or channel myself without oversight, standards, or any sort of best practice. That functionality is not locked down allowing freedom but the possibility of a wild west chat system.
This sounds like ad administrative issue with how Teams are built and organized within Teams. It can be clean, simple, and effective when managed properly but user training is important.
HP now is incredibly different from HP then. My dad was there for 38 years before retiring, my mom as well before choosing to stay at home and support the family once I hit 1st grade. Growing up most of our family friends were HP employees and engineers (they were the 2nd largest employer in town). I remember summer picnics meeting high up managers from all over the country. From maybe 2004 to 2010 the culture and management style changed a lot especially under Fiorina. Honestly, from everything I've seen and heard she was the death knell of OG HP simply by crushing the free form engineering spirit of R&D by streamlining and significantly cutting back research. She made HP a lean machine that couldn't innovate and so the dream died.
That sounds somewhat inelastic. Like gas or basic needs, people will often still use/need healthcare regardless of price, at least as long as it is high quality care. If, say, knocked unconscious in an accident, you'll wake up in the ER regardless of price.
Oregon and other states have a documented history of nonissue with this system, especially compared to existing systems in Georgia or NC. Vote by mail is incredibly successful in getting people to vote securely. It's those who wish to decrease turnout or ability to vote who fight such successful systems.
There is a liberal majority that votes democrat, not republican. Guess which states make it easier to vote and have a voice in our democracy? It isn't the red ones.
I am often disappointed in US healthcare discussions for similar reasons on gun violence discussions. It can work a lot better, we have many examples of this around the world that can scale and be even cheaper/better like the Canadian system or German system.
But for some reason, we want to do it our own way with profit seeking companies who can game the system or lobby the government for their benefit, not citizens. Maybe that's BC/BS or the NRA, maybe it's libertarians or conservatives that want smaller government (that time and time again fails like in Kansas or with the federal deficit hawks and their lovely tax cut).
We have solutions in front of us. We just need to shift momentum and get there instead of spinning our wheels and debating doing anything at all.
I agree, though I think a universal, single payer system under government oversight without profit seeking drive would be better. Consolidation under the current system is identical to McDonalds and Burger King consolidating the fast food industry, they will still be driven to outperform the other to consumers and to investors/owners.
Instead, a single system under the Us government shifts negotiation of drug prices, care expenses, and more to one entity backed by the government, not just a set of insured customers, which has excessive power to negotiate. Like other nations that function this way, there is no skimming off the top for shareholders or profits and as the only other party at the table suppliers/hospitals can't play opponents against each other or take a kickback to give better pricing to the larger insurer or something.
Ideally, it consolidates and simplifies negotiating pricing or allows the government to step in and say, "No thanks, we'll pass a law or budget for that on our own unless you lower prices or cut a better deal.
Also, a government system could cut out administrative and bureaucratic paperwork like billing, coding, and more potentially removing a large % of overhead costs that exist currently, by default lowering expenses for healthcare similar to Canada.
the biggest issue I see is that about 1/6th of the US economy is built on health care/insurance/etc companies. shifting that away from corporations into private hands could cut tens of thousands of jobs (like billing and adjusters) while shifting that cash flow under the US government as well. There would be fallout as people would need social safety buffer for unemployment or retraining or education. I don't think it could happen without pairing up with reduced/free college and smart expansion of some needs based aid. That requires some sort of tax, maybe like Warren has suggested, to cover intermediate costs and friction.
The good news is it could save the average family over $5000 per year in insurance costs alone while bringing millions out of medical debt and providing a better standard of care and options for everyone. It's not libertarian to shift something under the government but if it makes economic and ethical sense to give such a monopoly to the feds (like with infrastructure, the military, and more) while improving choice for citizens (no longer tied to employer healthcare or entering debt to resolve acute or handle chronic medical issues) it could be a huge boon for choice and freedom. I'd be one of the first to start my own business if I didn't have to worry about my chronic health issues being fully covered and paid for by my employer plan.
Now the cost of entry to egg farming is 50% what you experienced and competition doubles as new firms can compete at rates below the margin you need to be profitable given your higher cost of entry. Although you also benefit from cheaper hens you are unable to contest with new firms and could go out of business as your original debt to buy hens becomes unsustainable.
In other words, external forces are unpredictable. Although not always the most profitable, proper risk and market assessment of an industry, its trends, and possible future are important considerations when launching a new endeavor. However, if we all knew hens were about to drop to half price tomorrow nobody would be buying today decreasing demand and ballooning supply until the prophecy is self fulfilled.