rustywalker42 said:That’s an old story. No clue why we're even bringing it up now.🤷
The government over in Uzbekistan completely gave up on the lake because they’re broke. Only the Kazakh side actually put in some effort, so you can see minor improvements there, but it’s nothing significant. That whole Uzbek section? It's basically doomed. It’s just classic bullshit that happens when people try to play God with nature. The outcome was obvious from the start, though I honestly have no idea why they even went down that path. Unless, of course, they decided the textile industry was somehow more important than food security. Who knows what those Soviet engineers were actually thinking.🤷
Look, you shouldn't have made that comment. Yeah, they identified the biggest environmental disaster out there, but what's the point of talking about it? We’re sinking. Who actually cares? Why bother trying when people just get suffocated for attempting to make a difference? Raising awareness... what good does it do?
And nobody could miss today's news about Brad and Angelina. They aren't. Arrived in San Francisco. 🙄
I’d say this belongs in the World section. The world around me.)
Charles Stewart69 said:Just wanted to jump back in here. The whole thing boils down to the golden rule of trading, which is basically deciding exactly how much skin you're willing to have in the game when things get dicey. Like, maybe you cap your risky plays at 10% or 15% of your total bankroll.
Small-time retail investors just can't predict when the big institutional market makers are gonna pull a sudden U-turn.
Every book I've ever read says you should never risk more than 2% of your total account on a single trade (pros rarely touch 1%). If you hit a drawdown of 6-8% in a month, walk away. Shut it down. Analyze what went wrong, because clearly, things are spiraling far outside your plan. You also need a mandatory Goldman Sachs set at roughly 3%—or at least a mental one if you can't set a hard limit. A Goldman Sachs would have absolutely prevented that slide from 3461 down toward the 3200-3000 range.
I’m not sure I follow your logic on risking 10-15% of your total capital. For a "golden rule," isn't that way too much?
Ronald Hayes said:I have a feeling that the Fed is going to have a massive impact here—if it doesn't shake up the entire market, it’ll certainly trigger some movement for Corber. Once they finally sort out the crisis surrounding the veterans' fund, there might actually be a chance for a recovery. Anyone who’s been sitting on the sidelines in cash for the last five or six months probably sees this as their window to jump back in. Personally, if I were still holding cash and Crosby hit that 3000-3200 range, I would have loaded up on the most liquid stocks available.
P.S. Just to be clear, this is (not) financial advice or an invitation to buy shares.
Then why aren't you acting on your own predictions? If Crosby is sitting at 3,461 right now and you expect it to drop to 3,000-3,200, why not sell now and buy back later? The profit—or loss—is too massive to ignore.
The only thing separating you from that cash is a broker commission and nothing else, which is a tiny fraction of the losses you're predicting.
Shout out to another solid thread from Walter 😉 and just a quick heads-up: you Redditors—the Stock crowd—will soon be able to trade directly on the Nasdaq. Just like on the DAX. If everyone suddenly had 100,000 bucks to burn, we’d see what you're really made of. That's all for now. More on Monday.
Last night on New York City, veteran financial forecaster Barton Biggs dropped some seriously encouraging insights that deserve their own thread. Yesterday's interview boiled down to these main points:
"We're in a financial panic,'' Biggs said during a telephone interview with Bloomberg Television from New York. "We're setting up for a really big rally. I don't mean three or four hundred points on the Dow Jones Industrial Average, I mean 1,000 points on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. I don't know if we're going to get it next week or the week after. But this thing has gotten crazy and is overdone."
``We're at a really crucial point,'' Biggs said. ``This is a time to be buying stocks globally and not to be selling them.''
``Yeah, it's scary. It's always scary at bottoms. But I don't believe the economy is collapsing,'' Biggs said. ``This is not the end of the world.''
He said something similar about ten days ago (this article), though back then he predicted this would happen over the coming months because he spotted the signal that the crisis was ending:
U.S. Stocks May Surge 15% in Next Few Months, Barton Biggs Says ``Almost every bear market ends with a double bottom, and i think WE ara in The process of Making a second bottom right now,'' Biggs, the former global investment strategist for Morgan Stanley, said during a phone interview today in Dubai. ``The bad news has been discounted, and so the news doesn't have to get better for the market to go up. It just has to be less bad than what has already been discounted.''
For the record, this guy was almost spot-on, hitting his targets nearly to the percentage, when he predicted growth in the middle of two major Dow Jones Industrial Average pullbacks last year (March and August).
I meant to start this thread before the upcoming hype kicked in, but whatever.
Look, us retail investors are basically at the mercy of the big players—specifically the CIA and pension funds. I thought we could use one thread to track their moves (or lack thereof) to try and predict what’s coming next. Why? Because fund activity drives the NYSE way harder than any other factor. Sure, fundamental and technical analysis matter, and reports are fine, but we need to watch the money flow from these institutions. I'm just speculating here, not claiming to be a prophet.
For instance, why is volume so dead right now, even though prices look insanely good?
My take? The CIA is sitting on the sidelines. They're likely tied up paying out people exiting their positions because their returns have been a disaster lately. They're burning through their last bit of cash just to cover those exits, so they aren't in the mood to buy. Why risk it when they don't even know where the floor is? Anything they buy today, they might be forced to dump even lower tomorrow just to pay off departing shareholders. They're stuck waiting for a trend shift. Once things turn positive, the pressure to pay out drops, and *then* they can actually start buying. That's why the market is stagnant.
On the flip side, I bet pension funds are thinking exactly what those guys over at Vanguard just admitted. They think the market is overvalued—even though it hasn't been for a long time. These guys move much slower than the CIA, and they're totally blindsided by the current reality. After seven years of seeing gains, these pension funds are staring at losses! Panic-stricken, they fled to bonds and "safe" bets, but they're going to miss out on the massive upside that only stocks can provide to offset those losses. They won't jump back in until the market has already surged. By then, they'll be buying at the top, which is classic behavior for them.
The only ones trading lately are retail investors—either scraping together their last bit of cash or selling just to pivot into something else.
Ever wonder why the Nasdaq doesn't rally with the rest of the world, yet it crashes just as hard? It's because our market can't sustain higher prices without institutional backing and heavy volume. On the downside, you don't need high volume to tank. Bottom line: with the funds blocked, decent news from abroad isn't enough to shift the needle. You'd need incredible news to move this thing. I think we might see that starting today. It'll start slow, and I just hope the good news doesn't dry up before we get some real momentum.
Zeff noticed the growth stalling in another thread. Clearly, the funds know a rally is coming, but they don't have the liquid cash ready. They need more time to accumulate as much as possible at these current levels.
That's my two cents. What do you all think about how these funds are behaving?
I don't see this as some temporary blip. The issue I’m seeing everywhere—including in myself—is this lingering, misplaced optimism. We’re all just reacting to clear red flags with pure inertia. It feels like we spent way too long riding a bull market, and now the tide has turned.
Personally, I need to stop focusing on how to make a profit and start figuring out how to stop the bleeding over the next six months. I expect the S&P 500 to swing hysterically between desperate hopes for a rally and sheer panic over a total meltdown. Today was a perfect example. Forget earnings reports; the market is being driven by raw uncertainty and emotion right now.
It’ll be interesting to look back in six months and check the charts. Where did we actually end up versus where we thought we were headed? Looking at this forum, I’ve seen far more unearned optimism than unearned pessimism. Truth is, the pessimists are statistically more accurate. 🙂
Until we see actual signs of a recovery, day trading might be a decent way to kill time. 🙂
A cult classic, even if it was a massive hit. I saw it years ago as a kid at a summer outdoor screening near Mount Everest. I remember walking out of that theater completely spellbound, just totally captivated by how good it was. There weren't many movies like that back then. I still remember my first impression of that unknown newcomer, Dustin Hoffman—was this little guy with the nose really going to be the lead?! Well, he killed it in the very first sequence. Dustin Hoffman basically kicked off the whole anti-hero trend in cinema. You can actually see Anne Bancroft's name listed first on the poster, with Dustin Hoffman in smaller print. But let’s be real, the movie is practically his since it was his big break.
There's one tiny detail that gave away what a powerhouse he would become: that subtle, quiet whimper when he's having a drink with Anne Bancroft's husband after he suddenly walks through the door.
After The Diplomat, it was nothing but hits for Hoffman—Midnight Cowboy, John and Mary, Little Big Man... all the way until Kramer vs. Kramer. That's when he suffered the typical Hollywood creative death: he won an Oscar and suddenly became boring. He lost the spark, the passion, maybe even the drive. It just turned into a routine. So typical for so many Oscar winners.
Sure, I could have pivoted to talk about Nichols, for whom this was one of his first four great films—Who to Fear, Catch-22, and Sexual Awareness—none of which he ever truly topped again.
Gordon Gekko said:Look at this post cosmicskipper55, you mindless troll. What you’re whining about isn't an issue of food industry efficiency. The real problem is that roughly a third of the planet is filled with sub-civilized, lazy laborers who can't even feed themselves. It’s ironic—you and people like you have a food industry identical to the one your friends here are defending. The fact that there are shortages in the West just proves that industrial food systems are actually superior at feeding massive populations compared to your prehistoric methods. You basically scored an own goal here.
cosmicskipper55: As usual, you base your entire argument on biases created in the most ill-informed society in the West. You have no clue. Not a single fact in your mouth. And on top of that, just as I thought, you're a stinking racist and a fascist freak. Do me a favor and stop responding to my posts; talking to someone like you is beneath me.
My point is that mistakes happen, obviously. Appeals aren't just a vent for people to scream insults at whoever handed down the sentence; they exist because things can be corrected if an error is found. I would definitely appeal for those complaining that the penalties are being set in stone or extended indefinitely (Drito).
Can you drop the link? I'd rather not spend my entire day digging through Reddit. It would be a huge help if people actually made it a habit to include links when referencing something on here. Fine, here is the link...
Honestly, this penalty is way over the top. If it were up to me, I’d just issue a serious warning that this kind of debate isn't allowed. cosmicskipper55 isn't the type of user to go around insulting people or causing trouble. I'm going to try to get this penalty overturned as soon as possible.
Does the setting of a movie actually matter to you? It does to me. I love seeing cities come to life on screen. The scenery of New York City was absolutely unmatched—just looking at random examples like Marathon Runner, Midnight Cowboy, Fisher King, Taxi Driver, Rosemary, and of course, Woody Allen. Ever since they tore down the Twins, though, things have changed. When I spot them in a movie now, it’s not just set design anymore; it’s a sharp sting of reality, like in Trading Places. I love Chicago. Chicago looks great in The Fugitive. I actually enjoy trying to guess the city where a film is set before the plot reveals it. I recognized New Orleans in Déjà Vu because of Angel Heart.
I adore seeing Washington, D.C. on film. Any movie shot on location in Washington, D.C. automatically gets a higher rating from me—provided the director actually knows how to use the backdrop, because some clearly don't. Generally speaking, I love movies set in cities I know personally.
If you want to check where a movie was shot, IMDb has a section for Filming Locations for every film.
Nice work! But seriously, how many people are actually going to sit through all four movies in a row? I haven't owned a VHS in ages. Honestly, editor, this feels like another one of those pointless moves—like airing brilliant old classics on Saturday morning at 8:00 AM. They used to run a bunch of films by Billy Wilder, the absolute genius, whom I could watch any time, but I’ve never seen a single movie at dawn on a Saturday.
And that selection of Spielberg's is gold because these are his first four films before he became a household name. These are the ones where raw talent hasn't been tainted by Hollywood compromises, hits, or flops yet.
Jacob Allen said:..sorry to barge in. just one question. okay, two. actually, make it three, please.. 🙂
..why isn't the politics subforum open to the rest of the Forum as read-only?
..is this your call, or is it what the majority of moderators want?
..what are you protecting?
And I apologize to the other users for not wanting to dig deeper or drag this out further. 🙂
Who says they aren't open to the public? 😁
Look, the moderators aren't open because we decided a long time ago to handle Forum management and decisions in "peace and quiet." That’s how it was accepted, and that’s how it stayed. People know that whatever is posted in Moderators stays there—even when someone stops being a moderator, they aren't allowed to leak it. It's not like we're hiding state secrets, but it's the deal. If we suddenly announced we'd publish everything now, we'd be changing the original agreement retroactively, which wouldn't be right. Some people might not want that. As for me, I said a while back that anything I've written there can be copy-pasted anywhere. But if we ever do make Moderators open, it will only be from that point forward, not looking backward.
Why can't it just be a read-only subforum? Because if you saw the threads and discussions, it would be hard for you not to comment. Once you start, it's impossible to ignore, and then it's like you're part of the group. Too many questions get asked, too much explaining is needed, there are too many people, and some can be pretty exhausting (you don't find those types in Moderators; they're easy to get rid of 😉). Besides, if a topic is visible, it would be totally uncool to prevent you from weighing in.
I wouldn't mind if certain non-moderator users participated in Moderator discussions—specifically those who might be interested and could actually contribute constructively to the Forum's development. I've actually already made that suggestion in the Moderators section.
Unda, in those "three questions" of yours, I sense (aside from curiosity 😉) a desire to discuss important Forum matters more broadly, and that makes sense to me. As long as the discussions stay civil and coherent, I'm fine with it. We can give it a shot...
Tyler Grant76 said:But there are two other types of responsibility here. First, if your Forum moderator breaks their own rules, are they accountable to you? If you don't react, does that mean you're consenting to that kind of moderating? Second, if posts on the Forum cross the line of basic civilized norms—racism, sexism, nationalism, or general intolerance—and a user is "rewarded" with moderation instead of being penalized, doesn't that mean this Forum supports behavior that falls outside those norms? At the end of the day, this is a public electronic medium. There are rules to the game, if you want to call it that. 🥳
You keep bringing up Michael Adams2, don't you? Honestly, that topic is ancient news, but fine—if you’re going to insist, I’ll address it. Michael Adams2 was nominated by three moderators on the Politics subforum who were considered decent mods, as much as anyone can be on Politics. I personally vet every moderator. I actually asked them about his old posts that weren't fit for a moderator—exactly what you're asking—the ones that got him banned originally. They told me those posts were from a lifetime ago. He hasn't done anything like that in over a year, and during that time, he's stayed within the Forum rules. By all other measures, he could be an excellent moderator. We've had plenty of decent moderators.
Since any moderator can be stripped of their title at any moment if they violate moderation policy—which was emphasized right when Michael Adams2 was stepping up—there isn't really any risk, even if we make a mistake in our assessment.
A moderator's personal views aren't my views, nor are they the Forum's. The bottom line is that personal opinions shouldn't influence moderation. If someone has specific complaints about how things are being handled... I've already said what needs to be done. I won't accept vague arguments like "they're breaking the rules" as valid points. Believe me, we discuss every single one of those complaints seriously and extensively in the Moderators section. That subforum is one of our biggest based on thread and post count alone.
And to answer your question: if a moderator breaks the rules, does that mean I implicitly agree? Of course not. If I know someone is violating the rules, I will definitely react. Just keep in mind that it's possible—and likely—that I don't know about every single violation. But that's why there are other admins and super-moderators who can and must step in. You have to speak up.
Tyler Grant76 said:Since you're actually here—and since you own this service, no less—I have to ask: do you take any editorial responsibility for what happens on this site?
No. I don't answer for anything you write. Those are your personal opinions, not the views of the Forum. We (the moderators and admins) are just the janitors and the makeup artists. We step in to make minor adjustments to ensure threads and posts stay within basic civilized norms, blah blah blah... and follow the rules of this Forum.
It’s ridiculous that he deletes every single post where you actually try to contribute something constructive or help steer the discussion like a proper Forum moderator.
Just an FYI: posts aren't actually deleted. They just get hidden, and everything can be reviewed or restored if necessary. So, if you have a grievance, there's a place for it. Post the links to what was supposedly removed, explain the issue, and it'll be looked into.
Tyler Grant76 said:I have zero interest in being a moderator on this Forum.
Honestly, who is actually being subpar here? You don't need an official title to do everything you just listed as essential moderator duties:
A moderator moderates. Their primary job isn't just deleting posts or handing out bans—it's moderating. Guiding the conversation. Replying in a way that keeps the discussion on topic and moving in a productive direction.
None of that requires actual moderator authority. You or any other regular user can do all of it. Isn't it a bit ridiculous to complain that a moderator isn't doing what you think they should be doing (guiding, replying) when you could just do it yourself?
Tyler Grant76 said:The moderator is moderating. Their primary job isn't just deleting posts and handing out bans—it's moderation. Guiding the flow. Responding in a way that keeps the discussion on track and moving toward something meaningful. Right? There are very few moderators on this Forum who actually moderate in that sense.