Gardening, home improvements, personal or side development projects, exercise, online courses, playing music, etc.
There are plenty of activities to do that moves one's life forward, rather than the utter stagnation that is television and video games.
edit: To be clear, leisure activities definitely have their place. But to loosely paraphrase JC, while playing games is fine, it's much better to make them.
Powell has printed $6T, and the DXY has gone nowhere but up, along with the SPY and the QQQ and the DJIA.
Every single Thursday, we report more job losses than expected, and the market screams higher.
As much as we'd like to think there will be consequences to printing money, the evidence is in that there won't be, either in currency value or market confidence. MMT has proven itself correct.
Personal experience from someone who enjoys hunting and eating game:
The bigger issue is getting one's family on board. A spouse or kids who have grown accustomed to CAFO beef and chicken and not much else will be difficult to transition to gamier meats, to say nothing of offal.
> whose fault is it that Wall Street react to tweets?
He's not permitted to tweet anything that may materially impact the stock without prior board or general counsel approval, per his contempt agreement.
Obviously Jay Clayton is going to let him get away with it just like his prior violation of the Consent Decree, but for the brief period of time that the market forgets the SEC is toothless when it comes to Musk, this is nominally a big deal.
This is a ridiculous assumption. For two obvious examples, Art Bell attracted plenty of advertisers, as did early-day Howard Stern.
Some advertisers do, and some do not. Don't lump them all into a single bucket. YouTube is creating an environment that guarantees a future without Art Bells or Howard Sterns.
The concern you raise could easily be remedied with a single checkbox on the advertiser portal labeled "Display this Campaign on Fringe Content". The fact that with the enormous technical capability of Google, they choose not to do this and instead decide that they know the advertisers' preferences better than the advertisers themselves demonstrates clearly that this is about power and control, not ad revenue or serving the customer.
Can you explain this? It's never made any sense, at all.
1. If you earn excess unreported income, eventually the IRS will figure it out and come get their cut.
2. If you earn it through criminal means, you're already committing a crime for which, if caught, you will be punished.
Why is the act of obfuscating the source of income a crime? Who gets harmed by this, that isn't already harmed by either the potential crime committed or taxes evaded?
This method, while effective, is likely to be a significant frustration for the woman in this situation, given that cyclical high fertility usually coincides with high sex drive.
Then they do what everyone else does. Sell the asset and cut back on expenses.
Capital owners are not a special class of citizen. If you have assets and need cash, there is a way to convert one to the other. It's called a "market". You may have heard of it.
It seems that during recessions, asset-rich/cash-poor people, nominally Capitalists, turn into overnight socialists because making cuts to the ol' lifestyle is for the little people, not them.
You very well may be correct, but I'd like to point out that for a broader sense of "doomsday narrative", living in or near DC while the rest of the US crumbles would be a lot like living in Rome when the Germanic tribes were overrunning the Empire's frontiers. DC is the absolute best place to be during an American empire collapse - until, of course, the very end.
Yes, but stocks are ripping higher on much worse jobless claims, housing starts, and Philly Fed numbers than expected, 113 unexplained cases of reinfection in South Korea, and the PPP fund being completely tapped out with three weeks to go in Congress' recess.
The market is fully convinced that everything is fixed.
His PhD is in Neurotoxicology. Of all the things Martenson has been wrong about over the years, this particular event is a bit more in his wheelhouse than the economics or energy topics he typically covers.
Not really relevant. Equities are completely divorced from reality at the moment. FB and GOOG could guide down 2020 revenue by 50% and the stocks would pop AH because $6T new money has to find returns somewhere.
The greatest psyop was that perpetrated against their own disbelievers.
The very same people who were outraged over the CIA fabricating pretext for war against Iraq are completely uncritically accepting of the CIA's pretexts for war against Syria.
The Federal Reserve is printing $90B per day (on average) in open-ended QE. This liquidity is used to take agency paper and treasuries off the hands of primary dealers and hedge funds. In turn, the managers of these organizations refuse to sit on cash, so they grab other assets. Some (large) percentage of these assets will be equities.
Anecdotally, retail investors also appear to be buying the dip in volume, though we need more recent fund flows data to see if reality reflects anecdotes.
Psychology is malleable, and consumption patterns beyond food and shelter are driven largely by psychology. In the great depression, consumption behavior of an entire generation was permanently changed, no matter how much better the economy got. Those mental scars lasted forever.
What percentage of the population will watch a parent, spouse, best friend, or grandparent slowly asphyxiate to death and develop a lifetime aversion to casual dining, tourism, mall shopping, non-business air travel, fast food, staying in hotels, visiting family for holidays, casino gambling, meeting with potential clients, going to class, etc?
And then what are the second order effects of not needing the suits/ties/dresses, jetliner inventory, commercial real estate, gasoline, cruise ships, university buildings, casinos, etc required for the above activities?
Which of the economic sectors predicated on those activities will "bounce back"? What is the current high-yield debt load associated with these sectors?
Feces comes in all manner of consistencies and textures. There is a range of consistencies for which bidets are wholly useless. Specifically, sticky ones. For these, you need friction from a solid, high-surface-area object.
I'm sure you've had brown streaks inside the bowl that could not be removed in N flushes, but a simple toilet brush made quick work of the matter.
To use your handwashing analogy, try removing crisco, or some other substance that adheres to your hands with a stream of water. Now try physically wiping it with a paper towel. The towel will win every time.
This is to say nothing of the fact that it's quite nice to leave the bathroom with dry hindquarters rather than a bad case of SA.