[Speculation] Is Schmidt on the move?

[Gurn]

13 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

This thread has gone totally off the rails.

Fine by me, I'm getting tired of all the Schmidt around these forums anyway.

[DrJockitch]

16 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Boomers ended in 60 and (I’m guessing here) millennials started in the new millennium, so a 40 year gap?  You suggesting life for kids got progressively more difficult over those 40 years?  

nope, just saying that there are intervening groups, not as someone stated Millenials and the Boomers who spawned them. That misses at least 2 generations. 
What I was saying is that Boomers who have mostly held onto the control of the planet with iron fist have a terrible record.  Whether it is racial justice, income inequality and especially climate their record gets worse and worse.
Been like a pack of locusts destroying all they touch and leaving a barren wasteland behind. 

[MikeBossy]

[Devron]

Nate Dawg 

[DrJockitch]

8 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Guess which generation stands to inherit the lion's share of that boomer wealth though? Millenials will very likely end up having the biggest transfer of wealth in history. Without lifting a finger to earn it. So your theory is a bit off. They will probably end up the wealthiest generation in the end.

 

All the boomers who lost their houses due to being upside down on their mortgages with insanely high interest rates probably would disagree with your assertion that the entire generation had it easy.

This is the worst prediction I have seen on CDC and that says a lot. 
Most of the wealth in the world is inherited. What has happened is that the Boomers have focused the wealth in fewer and fewer individuals.  So yes their wealth will be changing over when they die but it will just continue to get focused in fewer and fewer people. There are no meaningful inheritance taxes in NA and the only things Boomer’s collectively seem to understand about taxes is they don’t want to pay them when the next generations can.  
if you think the death of the Boomer’s is going to lead to some massive wealth redistribution you have been seriously misled. 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

nope, just saying that there are intervening groups, not as someone stated Millenials and the Boomers who spawned them. That misses at least 2 generations. 
What I was saying is that Boomers who have mostly held onto the control of the planet with iron fist have a terrible record.  Whether it is racial justice, income inequality and especially climate their record gets worse and worse.
Been like a pack of locusts destroying all they touch and leaving a barren wasteland behind. 

To me eye it’s the generation prior to the Boomers, who were the parents in the 50’s and 60’s, that began the era of “easy”.  That’s when the new inventions to make life so much easier became affordable to the masses.  Then the race was on to see which family could have the latest and greatest gadget added to their new house in the suburbs.  

[Dazzle]

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The media typically has a lot more info, sources, and context than the average person does. If they are reporting it, that generally means they have verified it to the best degree they can. Does that mean they are always correct? Of course not. They have a tough job for sure.

 

Anything the media says should always be taken with a grain of salt. That doesnt mean everything they say is to be disbelieved though just because you have the view that unless they are cheerleading for Benning that nothing they report is fair. Anything a team or player says in response should likewise be taken with a grain of salt. They have their own reasons to craft a narrative too. More so than the media tbh. 

 

Rumors persist for different reasons. The longer a rumor persists, the more likely it is to have some truth to it. Disproven rumors die quickly. A player not immediately shutting down the rumor certainly keeps it going. Thats not some heinous crime against the Canucks, its just the way media works. And if people werent always starving for Canucks news it would probably not work that way as much. 

 

The media in Vancouver certainly has its share of hacks like anywhere else. But I do defend the main media players because I know and deal with them. They do have a lot of integrity compared to a lot of other places media. I actually find that collectively as a group they go pretty easy on Benning and the Canucks overall.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/650/canucks-central-at-noon/iain-macintyre-canucks-goaltending-situation-organizations-reluctance-spend/

Take this recording for example. This is chock full of speculation, which was that the "organization wasn't willing to spend" narrative. We NOW know that this was a total speculation crapfest. We have some extensions, plus new coaches, INCLUDING the keeping of Ian Clark.

I think it was Iain Mac who speculated somewhere else that Ian Clark was on his way out?

 

I actually refrained from speculating that maybe you knew the media and/or you worked with them in an earlier post, so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you side with them.

 

You are not actually practicing what you preach, unfortunately.

How or why should the media be taken with a grain of salt (assuming we ONLY include the reputable ones), if you believe them to be reporting honestly? On the same coin, why wouldn't the media have an agenda when reporting?

The two major papers are: The Vancouver Sun and The Province - both of which are owned by the same company.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by Dazzle

[Provost]

28 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Guess which generation stands to inherit the lion's share of that boomer wealth though? Millenials will very likely end up having the biggest transfer of wealth in history. Without lifting a finger to earn it. So your theory is a bit off. They will probably end up the wealthiest generation in the end.

 

All the boomers who lost their houses due to being upside down on their mortgages with insanely high interest rates probably would disagree with your assertion that the entire generation had it easy.

That is objectively wrong.

The vast bulk of "boomer" wealth they didn't lift a finger to earn as it was just housing inflation.  That is pretend wealth because people need to live somewhere.  So if boomers inherited half a house worth $50,000 and then passed on half a house to each of their kids... the kids aren't any better off even if that house increased in value.

Also, the government debt went up almost exclusively in the boomer working generation where they voted to demand far more services than they were willing to pay in taxes, leaving future generations deep into debt several factors more than what they will "inherit".  That boomer debt has to be paid off.  Boomers were the generation that had the best earning power and opportunity yet didn't want to pay their fair share and racked up a massive credit card debt for their great grandchildren to still be facing.

I am an old guy, and it would be justice if estate taxes were 90% until that accrued government debt got paid off.  

[wallstreetamigo]

31 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

This is the worst prediction I have seen on CDC and that says a lot. 
Most of the wealth in the world is inherited. What has happened is that the Boomers have focused the wealth in fewer and fewer individuals.  So yes their wealth will be changing over when they die but it will just continue to get focused in fewer and fewer people. There are no meaningful inheritance taxes in NA and the only things Boomer’s collectively seem to understand about taxes is they don’t want to pay them when the next generations can.  
if you think the death of the Boomer’s is going to lead to some massive wealth redistribution you have been seriously misled. 

Lol ok bud. Only almost all the leading experts disagree with you but whatev. There is a massive redistribution of wealth in the next 20 or so years. Millenials will see the lions share of it.

 

Minimal inheritance taxes prove my point. That money will be passed relatively untouched. Millenials being notoriously more focused on spending rather thansaving (like the boomer generation did) means less of that money will be passed on after them. 

[wallstreetamigo]

17 minutes ago, Provost said:

That is objectively wrong.

The vast bulk of "boomer" wealth they didn't lift a finger to earn as it was just housing inflation.  That is pretend wealth because people need to live somewhere.  So if boomers inherited half a house worth $50,000 and then passed on half a house to each of their kids... the kids aren't any better off even if that house increased in value.

Also, the government debt went up almost exclusively in the boomer working generation where they voted to demand far more services than they were willing to pay in taxes, leaving future generations deep into debt several factors more than what they will "inherit".  That boomer debt has to be paid off.  Boomers were the generation that had the best earning power and opportunity yet didn't want to pay their fair share and racked up a massive credit card debt for their great grandchildren to still be facing.

I am an old guy, and it would be justice if estate taxes were 90% until that accrued government debt got paid off.  

Almost all wealth is actually not earned in the traditional sense. But if you earned wealth through asset accumulation and inflationary housing prices, you still "earned it" in some manner. Inheriting wealth is 0% you earning it other than being born.

 

The pushing of government debt out to the future is hardly a new thing.  And as society shifts and starts demanding even more government spending on more ambitious government services and programs, that is not likely to ever change. Government debt will not be paid off by millenials. It will just keep getting pushed out further and further. Someone will eventually pay the piper but its not likely to be millenials.

 

Historically low interest rates also mitigate the increase in housing prices to some degree for the millenial generation. So its not entirely accurate to say all housing related wealth is not an advantage to those who will inherit it. 

 

I agree that inheritance taxes are a joke but considering the people with the most wealth are the ones who make the rules, thats not likely to change much.

 

The rich, whether boomer or millenial or whoever will continue to get richer. The poor will stay poor. The entire system is built around that solitary focus unfortunately.

 

 

[Kenny Blankenship]

46 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Almost all wealth is actually not earned in the traditional sense. But if you earned wealth through asset accumulation and inflationary housing prices, you still "earned it" in some manner. Inheriting wealth is 0% you earning it other than being born.

 

The pushing of government debt out to the future is hardly a new thing.  And as society shifts and starts demanding even more government spending on more ambitious government services and programs, that is not likely to ever change. Government debt will not be paid off by millenials. It will just keep getting pushed out further and further. Someone will eventually pay the piper but its not likely to be millenials.

 

Historically low interest rates also mitigate the increase in housing prices to some degree for the millenial generation. So its not entirely accurate to say all housing related wealth is not an advantage to those who will inherit it. 

 

I agree that inheritance taxes are a joke but considering the people with the most wealth are the ones who make the rules, thats not likely to change much.

 

The rich, whether boomer or millenial or whoever will continue to get richer. The poor will stay poor. The entire system is built around that solitary focus unfortunately.

 

 

I swear you post almost exclusively to make controversial statements bahahahah. I don’t know how you can look at the current state of our world, in particular Vancouver, and say that millennials will have the lions share of the wealth soon. We literally cannot afford anything now lmao. 

[aGENT]

4 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Saying a rumor could be true even though Benning denies it isnt actually refutable by anyone. 

 

So even if you deny being a lizard-person, it isn't actually refutable by anyone.

 

Cool.

 

'Facts'.

 

Anything being possible doesn't mean everything is possible. But you carry on with your conjecture 'facts'.

[Kenny Blankenship]

5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

So even if you deny being a lizard-person, it isn't actually refutable by anyone.

 

Cool.

 

'Facts'.

 

Anything being possible doesn't mean everything is possible. But you carry on with your conjecture 'facts'.

It’s such a backwards way of thinking. If you make a statement, it’s up to you to provide proof, not other people to disprove it. It’s pretty straightforward. 

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Lol ok bud. Only almost all the leading experts disagree with you but whatev. There is a massive redistribution of wealth in the next 20 or so years. Millenials will see the lions share of it.

Respectfully, people in the west here lost about 3 trillion or so by all estimates from the start or onset of covid.  the top earners in the west here earned over 3 trillion.  The current wealth transfer has been going on since the reagan administration and Mulroney and ha sonly hit a rocket since about 2008/2009 witht eh largest transfers coming in the last 18 months.

 

Suggesting we have to wait 20 ish years to see a massive redistribution of wealth is a bit of a farce as it is already occurring, it is just not the peons that are garnering it and it never will be again.

 

And all of you embroiled in this conversation should know that the most important take away from all of this is that THIS IS SCHMIDT TALK NOT YOUR INTELLECTUAL GLAD HANDLING WHIZZING CONTEST

 

So please, take it to off topic because the entire subject is very interesting and i'd LOVE to read more but this is the wrong section for it.  This is where we complain about Benning and then also prop him up because we can't agree on what colour the sky is today

 

 

[Coconuts]

2 hours ago, gurn said:

Fine by me, I'm getting tired of all the Schmidt around these forums anyway.

Hey man, Schmidt happens 

[wallstreetamigo]

7 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

So even if you deny being a lizard-person, it isn't actually refutable by anyone.

 

Cool.

 

'Facts'.

 

Anything being possible doesn't mean everything is possible. But you carry on with your conjecture 'facts'.

Interesting comparable. Not remotely relevent but you do you.

 

If Benning denied I was a lizard-person but I myself said nothing to refute it, then I wouldnt really expect anyone to suddenly believe the rumor is definitively refuted.

 

Benning lying to the media is not really a once in a lifetime event. See the shifting Toffoli explanations and the complete fabrication about the Tryamkin situation as recent examples.

[wallstreetamigo]

4 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Respectfully, people in the west here lost about 3 trillion or so by all estimates from the start or onset of covid.  the top earners in the west here earned over 3 trillion.  The current wealth transfer has been going on since the reagan administration and Mulroney and ha sonly hit a rocket since about 2008/2009 witht eh largest transfers coming in the last 18 months.

 

Suggesting we have to wait 20 ish years to see a massive redistribution of wealth is a bit of a farce as it is already occurring, it is just not the peons that are garnering it and it never will be again.

 

And all of you embroiled in this conversation should know that the most important take away from all of this is that THIS IS SCHMIDT TALK NOT YOUR INTELLECTUAL GLAD HANDLING WHIZZING CONTEST

 

So please, take it to off topic because the entire subject is very interesting and i'd LOVE to read more but this is the wrong section for it.  This is where we complain about Benning and then also prop him up because we can't agree on what colour the sky is today

 

 

Your last sentence is sad but true.

[JM_]

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Guess which generation stands to inherit the lion's share of that boomer wealth though? Millenials will very likely end up having the biggest transfer of wealth in history. Without lifting a finger to earn it. So your theory is a bit off. They will probably end up the wealthiest generation in the end.

 

All the boomers who lost their houses due to being upside down on their mortgages with insanely high interest rates probably would disagree with your assertion that the entire generation had it easy.

which generation? probably no one once the boomers eat through all of that capital on long term care costs at $12,000 per month, and the massive debt loads they are  carrying.

 

Its ridiculous to think people under 40 today have it easier than the boomers, they do not. The years of one wage earner carrying a family and owning a home are long gone. 

[JM_]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Yup.  Life in the 50’s and 60’s was a lot easier than now.  We didn’t have all the gizmos and gadgets, but things were pretty cheap and decent paying jobs were plentiful.  

I remember a good chunk of the 70s and life was still like that.

 

But I also remember the go-go 80s, the love affair with debt the boomers enjoyed, the guaranteed defined benefit pensions, etc etc. Massive gravy train compared to what we expect kids to do now. 

 

People used to be able to go get a great union job out of high school that could carry a family. Now kids are told to go get 3 part time jobs and rent a shared basement. 

[Dazzle]

30 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Interesting comparable. Not remotely relevent but you do you.

 

If Benning denied I was a lizard-person but I myself said nothing to refute it, then I wouldnt really expect anyone to suddenly believe the rumor is definitively refuted.

 

Benning lying to the media is not really a once in a lifetime event. See the shifting Toffoli explanations and the complete fabrication about the Tryamkin situation as recent examples.

So, you think Benning lying to the media is not really a once in a lifetime, but you are very quick to defend the media for lying about their stories, or at the very least not exercising due diligence at all times. Totally not suspicious at all...

 

I get that you are biased; you have friends in the media, and you "work with them". The problem is that you ARE applying double standards for these two groups, so you are NOT as objective as you claim to be.

 

And again, not a peep about Sekeres, and how he leaked out Hughes' name. Because you haven't addressed the Sekeres component, you are an apologist. You have no interest in obtaining "facts", just the stuff you want to believe in.

 

You claim the media has ethics, and your silence about Sekeres' blatant misconduct speaks volumes about your inability to resolve his (and the media's) guilt.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Dazzle