Posts by Carl Morales9

Even though I set up Nvidia GeForce Experience using English settings, my notifications have somehow started appearing in Canadian, which is quite unexpected. Does anyone know how I might fix this? I've already tried digging through the registry without much luck, and even a thorough search on Google hasn't yielded any helpful answers.

Anonymous said:just head to the garage 😂

A residential zone basically means you're looking at housing rather than tourist traps or massive shopping malls. Within any residential neighborhood, you'll still find local grocery stores, video rental spots, coffee shops... pretty much whatever else pops up. Your best bet is to check in with the local zoning inspector or the city planning office to be 100% sure.

I’ve already checked, and they’re insisting it’s a no-go. Since I have my doubts about whether their expertise or intentions are truly aligned with my interests, I figured I would bring the question here instead; perhaps there is a way to navigate around those kinds of clumsy decisions made by the FBI.

rustywalker42 said:First off, define "LLC" versus "small business." If you're talking about a wallpaper guy or a mechanic, where exactly would you put them? If you mean businesses in general—then yeah. There's an LLC operating in two apartments right above me.

Since we are looking at a house and a garage in a neighborhood dominated by single-family homes, your choice depends entirely on what is most streamlined to register through the state. It is a bit like choosing between different types of zoning permits. Depending on your specific location, your apartment might be situated in a mixed-use zone, which would make setting up an LLC there perfectly feasible.

Is there any theoretical chance that someone could open a small business, such as a custom upholstery shop or an auto repair garage, within a strictly residential zone? I’m wondering if obtaining the necessary permits is even a remote possibility, or if it’s just a complete non-starter.

P.S. I actually submitted this inquiry to LegalZoom since I haven't received a response yet, so I figured I’d toss it out here in case anyone has some insight.

Ashley Collins4 As Ashley Collins4 points out:
I find myself wondering which institution provided your training before you stepped into the banking sector, because looking at this particular logic, one can't help but feel a bit puzzled.
I find myself wondering about the true nature and purpose behind the words you choose to put forward.

I feel that my previous points were quite elementary, perhaps even something one would expect a child to grasp upon finishing grade school. It seems like common sense to me, much like understanding how a basic thermostat regulates the temperature in a home. Since you seem to disagree, I would be genuinely curious to learn about your own academic background—what specific economic institutions did you attend, and which authoritative texts or literature could you point to that might support your particular perspective?

Ashley Collins4 said:What kind of school did you graduate from to end up "working" in banking? Look at the logic in
what you're writing.
Money is printed through a deficit. A deficit is a deficit, which means there is no money there—maybe in a surplus, but not a deficit.

Sure, interest rates pull money off the market, and that's exactly where the problem lies. Clearly, you haven't grasped
anything at all.

You can't print money in "multiple ways." There is exactly one way: there's a machine in a printing press,
and that's where the money gets made. In our country, we'd probably need to run it in three shifts just to keep up.

Next time, try reading what you write before posting, so you can avoid spreading such nonsense.

Think of a deficit simply as the gap between what comes in and what goes out. Since the federal government is responsible for covering all its obligations, you might wonder where that extra cash actually originates. A surplus works the exact same way, just with the roles reversed—it’s when revenue outpaces spending. Essentially, when the government runs a surplus, it acts like a vacuum pulling liquidity out of the economy, whereas a deficit allows it to act more like a pump, injecting capital back into the system. 🤣

Ashley Collins4 said:What kind of school did you graduate from to end up "working" in banking? Look at the logic in
what you're writing.
Money is printed through a deficit. A deficit is a deficit, which means there is no money there—maybe in a surplus, but not a deficit.

Sure, interest rates pull money off the market, and that's exactly where the problem lies. Clearly, you haven't grasped
anything at all.

You can't print money in "multiple ways." There is exactly one way: there's a machine in a printing press,
and that's where the money gets made. In our country, we'd probably need to run it in three shifts just to keep up.

Next time, try reading what you write before posting, so you can avoid spreading such nonsense.

Well, I am certainly glad to see that you have finally grasped the core of the matter.

Ashley Collins4 As expressed by:
Printing isn't just a single-track process where you're limited to one specific method; rather, it's much like how there are various ways to navigate a highway, though in a professional print shop, everything centers around one specialized machine that handles the heavy lifting.
It truly makes one wonder who exactly is tasked with the printing of our money; if we were to approach the situation with real efficiency, those facilities ought to be operating around the clock in three full shifts.

Haha... You seem to be under the impression that all the money circulating within the system is merely the physical paper cash we carry around in our wallets. 🤣

Ashley Collins4 said:What kind of school did you graduate from to end up "working" in banking? Look at the logic in
what you're writing.
Money is printed through a deficit. A deficit is a deficit, which means there is no money there—maybe in a surplus, but not a deficit.

Sure, interest rates pull money off the market, and that's exactly where the problem lies. Clearly, you haven't grasped
anything at all.

You can't print money in "multiple ways." There is exactly one way: there's a machine in a printing press,
and that's where the money gets made. In our country, we'd probably need to run it in three shifts just to keep up.

Next time, try reading what you write before posting, so you can avoid spreading such nonsense.

This particular advice is truly excellent and is a practice I personally swear by, so I think you might find it quite helpful to adopt it as well.

Ashley Collins4 said:Those deposits don't matter. I mean, not a single major bank in this country has gone under yet, so what's the big deal?
I see how it is. It’s just not happening. And that’s exactly why we’re getting screwed. The banks stay perfectly stable—it’s never a crisis for them—while everyone else takes the hit.
Everything just collapsed. Nobody seems to have a clue where things went sideways, so we’re all just sitting around waiting for better days. Who knows?
Where exactly is this supposed to come from? If nothing actually happens, nothing changes.

There isn't just one reason why cash is drying up. The root cause? It's all about "lending money at interest."
The whole thing is flawed from the ground up. Hypothetically speaking, nobody in the market actually holds a single cent.
The Federal Reserve handles the initial funding for the country and manages the distribution of the currency through the banks.
We're talking about the sheer volume of currency being dumped into the market—say, $500 billion—all at once.
Interest rates, the Federal Reserve, and banks all lined up at 10%, for example. Basically, the market just needs enough peace and quiet to pay back that principal.
Add another 10% to that principal. It’s pretty obvious the capital is split up and we're looking at...
It’s small change, sure, but it’s about the principle. The real question is: who's actually going to pay back that 10% they physically took?
No chance. That 10% market share is just being carved out by taking from you and me. So, who’s actually winning here?
He’ll probably end up getting them from someone else anyway. Between those steam vacuum companies and whatever Kaya is up to, he's running out of options.
You’ve gotta pay up—electricity, water, taxes, and all that other stuff.
Whatever happens, happens. But for starters, that poor soul who walks right into those famous traps... what a mess.
10%? That money doesn't actually exist. Nobody is out there printing it.
All that interest just flows straight back into the bank. The people running the show keep winning, and we just get sucked right back into the next cycle.
10%. Bit by bit, we're drying up the market liquidity. Just saying—everyone's feeling it.
Whether it’s a tax hike, utility bills, or some new random levy on basically everything—any price increase at all is just more of the same.
Doing the exact same thing.
Who’s actually keeping track of this game? Honestly, the Federal Reserve should be stepping in to handle this, but how exactly would they do that? Just print more dollars to cover a year's worth of interest? I don't think so. But then again, the Federal Reserve...
I’ve banned myself from doing that. That right there is exactly why there's no cash flowing through the market.

I’m not changing my points; they just don't align with yours.

Well, I guess I learned a thing or two from that Dalmatian person.

I think there’s something much deeper going on here than just the government failing to look out for its own companies.

Private enterprise isn't going to act against its own interests, but don't be fooled—it’s definitely going to push its own agenda hard.
When does it start clashing with the national interest? Because, let's be honest, it’s already obvious.
It seems like nobody actually sees—or even understands—what the national interest really is.

It seems from your explanation that there might be a bit of a misunderstanding regarding how the banking system actually functions. Beyond the Federal Reserve, money is generated by all commercial banks and by the government through budget deficits. The interest charged by the Federal Reserve serves as a mechanism to pull excess liquidity out of the system. There are numerous ways to print money; the true science lies in knowing how to extract that surplus from the economy.

Nicole Collins13 said:The only real perk of having a local bank is that there's no way to move those profits out of America.
Any other government interference in the banking market is just bad business.

Because there wouldn't be any profit to speak of in the first place.
At this point, foreign institutions are performing quite effectively; they generate significant returns and certainly have the means to repatriate those funds abroad. It seems everyone tends to overlook the historical precedent set by Bank of America. After all, what did Bank of America actually siphon away from America during that period?

Mark Nguyen6 said:The core of my question was actually a bit different from how it came across.

Setting aside the specifics of the protege's career for a moment—Wells Fargo was really just being used as an example of what a 'domestic bank' looks like.

So, given all the complaining about how our banking system is essentially owned by foreign interests, I was wondering—what would we actually gain if we shifted everything over to a single institution under domestic ownership (let's say some imaginary XYZ Bank)? Would there be any tangible benefit—for the government, for individuals, for society at large, or for the economy as a whole—and if so, what exactly would that look like?

The real question isn't about what we might gain, but rather about what we stand to lose. It’s much like looking back at the era of socialism; we had banks that were entirely state-owned, which ultimately failed because there was always someone willing to ignore basic economic principles just to hit some short-term political target. When you centralize every decision—from setting interest rates to deciding who qualifies for a loan—you invite instability.
If we were to revert to that old model by essentially funneling all our capital back into a single government-run institution, we would effectively kill off the competitive spirit that the banking sector has worked so hard to build over recent years. While the current landscape isn't perfect or flawless, competition still exists. I don't necessarily oppose having at least one state-backed bank, provided it is given clear, achievable goals that aren't subject to constant political whims.

Fair enough. I suspect we'll get a clear picture quite soon, once those who actually hold accounts at Bank of America weigh in with their thoughts.

Alright, you clearly have all the answers. Would you actually hire him to run your Wells Fargo branch?

Of course, things seem much simpler from your perspective, but for me, it’s far easier to just keep collecting my manager's salary.

I certainly see your point, and I find myself in complete agreement. However, that approach effectively leaves them without any incentive to earn their management salary. It essentially suggests that one should simply collect a paycheck regardless of merit or performance. Why bother striving for excellence or implementing intelligent solutions when someone "from above" is inevitably going to derail everything anyway? It seems like a pervasive issue within many large American government agencies and state-run corporations.
Međutim Protega se trudio dokapitalizirati HPB i napraviti je dobrom i profitabilnom bankom, bar po potezima koje znam da je povlačio ili pokušao napraviti, međutim ne možeš uspjeti ako vlasnik čini sve da to ne uspije. Da je otišao, došao bi neki drugi poslušnik i bilo bi isto za HPB. To samo potvrđuje ono što sam rekao.

Nicholas Turner said:Wells Fargo is essentially a government-run entity at this point. Once something falls under state control, you can practically guarantee disastrous management—it’s almost a rule. Executives just shovel money into their own pockets while the company sinks. Just look at Duke Energy, Amtrak, or even the federal highway system; it's the same story. Even at our Wells Fargo, where Protege (that little spy 😁) ended up getting sidelined for creating a "hole" in the books, all while private banks are out there actually turning a profit.

I find myself in agreement with the bulk of what has been said here, though I would add that even the most brilliant leadership can be neutralized when dealing with government-linked corporations, as they are often forced to follow nonsensical mandates handed down from the top. In this specific instance, it strikes me that Protege wasn't necessarily a poor banker, but rather someone who simply had a very poor boss.

If foreign banks were to collapse, Wells Fargo wouldn't be rescued, nor would they see any improvement in their business operations.

hiddenhawk3 said:I don't really get why economists even need general humanities classes either.
Don't worry, they have stuff like that at all universities 🙂 Besides, most of what you actually need to know is learned on the job, not in a classroom 🙂

Does this mean we can conclude that Bloomberg is a natural-born economist?🤣>

Gregory Williams7 said:There is simply nothing left to sell when it is already 100% cash.
By the way, I did exactly that a week ago, and today I am back in again. As of Monday, anything influenced by the Veterans Fund no longer carries weight. Whoever collected money for the veterans has already done so; now, you just have to grab whatever opportunities remain.

Furthermore, what kind of crisis regarding the Veterans Fund are we actually discussing? Am I missing something? Is there some scenario where nuclear missiles are being transported through the US, creating a risk that one might blow up AT&T and somehow boost its P/E ratio from 10 to 15 or 20? I fail to see the logic. How can a veterans' fund possibly impact the fact that the P/E ratios of the most liquid companies in America are currently under 15?

It’s entirely possible for them to manipulate things so that giants like AT&T and ExxonMobil end up with a P/E of just 1.

Analyses like this would actually carry some weight if we weren't dealing with massive players who possess enough capital to force the market's hand; for instance, if they claim the Nasdaq is undervalued by 30%, they can simply drive prices down until they effectively "prove" themselves right.

Your creativity is your greatest asset, acting much like a unique signature on a piece of fine art. Rather than being rigid or pushing things to extremes, try to lean into your natural state—being open-minded and engaging. That’s precisely why people gravitate toward you. Some individuals command a room through sheer charisma, while others build their reputation through steady, diligent work; regardless of which path you walk, stay true to your essence. While your expertise and years of experience aren't items you simply put on a clearance rack, they absolutely serve as leverage to increase your market value. In fact, you should use the window around mid-April to lay down the groundwork for future triumphs—sometimes, all it takes is making the right connections at a local networking event or a coffee shop in Chicago.😕 The positive momentum you're looking for will likely manifest in May. During that time, it will be vital to showcase your full range of skills, ensuring your creative output remains unparalleled. If you find yourself stuck performing monotonous or uninspired tasks, you might feel your motivation dipping to a dangerous low. Throughout May and June , expect a surge in activity that might feel a bit out of your comfort zone, yet this period will ultimately prove that you are the most capable person in the office. It might even be the perfect moment to turn those long-held entrepreneurial dreams into reality by securing a small business loan and, perhaps more importantly, leaning on the unpaid support of good friends." from the forum... 😂 🤣
This seems to align perfectly with what some folks else have been predicting here on the board. 😂 😂 😂

Thomas Miller80 said:Alright, here we go again—for the 1,263rd time, I’m moving this to the subforum titled "statute of limitations for misdemeanors, i.e., 1 or 2 years."
🙄

It honestly would have been better to stay silent, given how condescending and disrespectful that tone was. 👎

The core issue remains: where exactly is this documented? It isn't as if I can walk into an appeals court and argue my case by saying, "Well, Thomas Miller80 told me so."
Statutes of limitations can be tucked away in various different legal codes.
Under the misdemeanor law, it states, "A special statute may establish a longer period for initiating misdemeanor proceedings for offenses prescribed by that specific law.
", or alternatively, "Upon any interruption of the statute of limitations, the clock restarts. The limitation expires in all cases when twice the period specified in paragraph 1 of this article has passed, or when twice the period provided by a special statute under paragraph 2 has elapsed."
When I review a decision from a municipal court, they never cite the specific federal or state registers where these laws were officially published. Therefore, I intend to follow up once more to clarify which official government publications contain the misdemeanor law and its amendments, as well as the traffic safety law and its updates regarding these expiration periods.

PS. I am asking because the information I'm receiving regarding these deadlines is completely contradictory. My thanks in advance to all the helpful members here.

Thomas Miller80 said:is complaining about ☕

Of course I’m going to file an appeal. It would certainly make the process much smoother if someone could just clarify exactly when the statute of limitations expires.
Based on the misdemeanor law from 2002, the deadline falls on July 25, 2007—which is actually tomorrow. Is there any more recent misdemeanor law or perhaps a recent amendment I should be aware of?