Terrific somebody already did the work. I only got to Lemmy last month. This kind of thing might happen to me a lot...
Englishgrinn
joined 4 months ago
I love that story about the first New Testament baptismal. It's so weird to think that that person was (after a fashion) Nonbin. It conjures this weird scene to me where Jesus is in some kind of board room and the Apostles are bringing him polling data.
"Jesus, I know we have a mission statement. I know, I know. "Love thy neighbour" "Love everyone" "We're all Gods children". No, totally love that, very cutting edge. No, we're so onboard. I just think we really need to consider not loving some specific groups. Like, Nonbins, or Trans people, or the Gays. First century Judea is just not very progressive and some of these demographics are..."
Jesus flips whole fucking boardroom table
"What THE FUCK, Paul!? Are we going to have this fight every Dad-damned week? Listen to me. Listen. It's core to the brand. Do you understand me? The whole brand! We don't love SOME people. We don't love JUST the Hebrews, or JUST the Romans. EVERYBODY. If it's not EVERYBODY, then what the fuck are we doing here? Seriously.
It's the whole goddamn brand. I promised a "New Way". You want to take my vision - my divine purpose- and make it just like every other religion on the block. Totally dilute our entire brand image. Why would anyone choose the son of a carpenter, if I was going to be picky? Ok? That's the core question here. We are doing this for EVERYBODY.
No. No, of course I forgive you. I always forgive you. Just... get the fuck out and lay off the Queers."
That woman, is a dangerous gang member? THAT woman? And her screaming, terrified 18-year-old daughter who had the audacity to demand cops show a fucking warrant.
If you aren't filled with rage at this point, you're either evil, or painfully ignorant.
"Inspire" might be a better word. They're not all stupid, you know. Indoctrination doesn't care how smart you are. They get you young enough, beat the drum steady for long enough, smart people can be convinced of very stupid things.
Lets get in their face. No more false humility. Let's show them that, imperfect and broken as we are, we know a better way to do some of this stuff. Follow our lead, make your country a better place.
In before MAGAs are on your case wondering what mushrooms have to do with anything.
You hear about Pluto? That's messed up.
Ah ha - I see, we're talked over each other a bit but I think I get it now. You have to adjust for the assumed 7% in growth that would be considered "standard". We're not really at -2%, because we should be aiming for +7% at minimum. Which means the short fall is more than 4 times what it appears to be to my layman ass. I think I get it.
Right, and I can see that. But if you back out that line graph over a longer period of time, this dip would be miniscule compared to the overall upward trajectory. If the Y Axis tracking the market starts at 0 (which it wouldn't I get that, but go with me here) and the X axis tracks time and we set it to say, a 3 year period - then the result is that the line has exploded upwards. The tiny tip at the end which represents the last 6 months barely registers. The average closing price in 2023 was 34,121. The close today was 42,454. So even if the market has dropped significantly in the last few months - it's 25% higher than it was 2 years ago.
Again, I trust that people know what they're talking about. I am certain I do NOT know what I'm talking about. I am not saying I don't believe them, or that I'm right - I just want someone to explain the factor I'm missing. I have theories, but no way to confirm them because I lack the base knowledge to even phrase the question right.
Is the stock market supposed to have a "default growth" element that we have to account for? Like, is the fact that the market twice as high as it was 3 years ago an illusion because constant growth is just a necessary element of the market functioning at all? Does that default growth make longer timelines less useful as comparative tools?
Or is it that more that the market was projected to grow and then shrunk instead, so the relevant comparison isn't to history, but to projections, which is why even a small dip seems more catastrophic? Because it was supposed to continue skyrocketing.
Or am I asking the impossible? Does gaining context for the larger momentum of the stock market take a degree in finance and by asking for someone for a simple explanation I'm just further showing my ignorance?
Did it? I really can't wrap my head around trying to reconcile what the people who know about this stuff say and what the numbers on page seem to say. I'm just not smart enough. I know I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but I've been trying to figure out the real impact of all this on the market and it honestly seems to be really minimal. Yes, it's trending down and recession seems likely and a couple days had really big drops this month - but it's nowhere near even its average, never mind its lows from the past 2 or 3 year periods. Just 3 years ago the market was at like 28,000 points. It doubled in 3 years and now that its shrinking a bit, that is a crisis? What do I not get?
This isn't so much the market "plummeting" as it looks like to me a massive bubble bursting that was based on nothing to begin with.
But then, I'm the guy who thinks "The Big Short" was a smart movie. I'll freely admit I'm a fucking moron who knows nothing about finance.
A couple of op-eds for a Student newspaper criticizing Israel? I thought I saw the pieces linked earlier but I don't see them now. The article linked on this post says it supported a student divestment program and referenced the International Criminal Court calling attacks on Gaza a genocide.
Hardly spicy compared to your average social media post.
Not my kind of game, but I have friend who will be very into this.