Jump to content

Vegas64

Full Members
  • Posts

    1407
  • Joined

Everything posted by Vegas64

  1. My specialist is a woman and I trust her and she's so awesome. I can't imagine, man or female, anyone better and think there is no small chance that her care is why I'm doing as well as I'm doing!
  2. His stance makes sense to me if you think of it (and he'll have to confirm or deny his own belief here) that if abortion is the full stop murder of human beings, then that is in many (and potentially his) minds as "murder is such a huge issue that of course being against it should oversdhadow the other stuff". So the R vs W being a non-issue now clears the path to vote against the MAGATs
  3. I got about 65% of the way there this year and it's taken time off my life clock in the form of lack of sleep and man hours worked and even then I needed a great deal of good luck. That's why I was asking-- knowing the horrors endured, how does one ever even obtain a consistent (or one-off) 7 figure w2 as a corporate, white collar worker. I think the answer based on this thread is some combination of a) insane luck b) insane personal sacrifice and/or c) find a job with a lot of upside on RSU's (see first reason a.)
  4. I'm obviously not smart or rich enough to understand the humor you in the inner chambers of power use. Come again?
  5. Looking at some taxes stuff. I am at a point where I'll be the most experienced and in the most senior role in my career and life as an oldie and I had a great year financially. However, I'm still so far from a 7 figure W2. I've had many friends and colleagues climb the ladder and I've heard of folks getting to that point. How do you do it? Has anyone here done it and can proffer some advice? Is it luck and a one-off (stock options/RSU's vest) or is it repeatable (C-Suite role? Managing Partner with huge bonuses?). Or anyone hit a grandslam with crypto / day trading? Just curious more than anything I guess and you guys and gals are the best and brightest! (My suspicion, btw, is that it is exponentially easier to make a million bucks a year if you own your own small-to-medium business and are not a corporate employee)
  6. This is a blast from the past!
  7. My personal opinion is that even with a hostile administration, the U.S. will continue to invest in some measure of sustainability and new / renewable energy. It just won't be as widely adopted and move as fast without the helpful nudge of federal regulation...
  8. It's a fascinating topic (Climate) to revisit and keep top of mind, considering a new regime who is likely going to be unfriendly to the ESG space compared to the rest of the Western developed civilization. I think I saw today we've already dropped out of the Paris Agreement (again), or are about to?
  9. I agree, but I bet there is at least a forecasted or modeled hypothesis that shows a net negative CO2 at some point. All projects have a build/implementation phase that put you into a negative initially (e.g. power plants, solar farms, etc. etc. etc.). It's basic EIOERI stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
  10. I think that if he were to die in office of natural causes, you could not convince the unwashed masses it was a hit/assasination/inside job and the conspiracy theories would put JFK to shame.
  11. I mean...that is the million dollar question. From what I can gather, the idea is to use lower carbon footprinting and going to market with a premium offering (e.g. pay $.01 more per gallon for the fuel that is less carbon intensive) so that the producer can capture that value, but the basis has to be the customer/market asking for it. To give an energy example.
  12. They are talking about DAC or Direct Air Capture (I believe). Oxy is (or was, haven't followed lately) huge into this down in Houston. ETA link: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/27/1210928126/oil-climate-change-carbon-capture-removal-direct-air-capture-occidental
  13. It's because today, doing anything beyond the most rudimentary and lip-service of net zero is wealth and value destruction and we live in a world where value creation in the short-and-medium-term is all that necessarily matters (e.g. shareholder capitalism). Thus, regulation is necessary. Edit to add, I know you get it, but for the granola types who don't have a business background, the theory undergirding all this is in our system: A company merely exists to create value for shareholders by investing in projects that generate cash flow growth and/or return on invested capital (ROIC). If the ROIC is less than the cost of capital, the growth destroys the value. Climate Change implementation to processes (did you know that it is widely understood that 7 industries make up 85% of the direct greenhouse gas emissions) is costly and hard and distracts from or actively destroys value creation.
  14. Saw this graphic and it hit home: We have two factors to work with (of the 4 that are generally understand to contribute to our CO2). 1) the amount of energy used to create a unit of economic development (dollars) 2) the amount of CO2 generated per unit of energy produced
  15. Or.............we can have states step up like California has done (and NY could be next), etc. President 47 ain't gonna do federal climate change regulation any favors.
  16. From where I stand here is what I see is the biggest problem right now: Short of a federal government mandate like you have in Europe (and we were going down that path but it seems completely dead now), in America we have to either a) incentivize businesses in a methodology that enables shareholder value creation or b) rely on states to enact reporting and penalty mandates (a la California). Up to this point it's been largely a "you should do this because it's a good thing to do and even though it's a value destruction in the short and mid-term", IMO.
  17. Like I said, I'm not dying on that hill and I would never quit my job or the service because I'm not anti-vax in any shape or form, but I can see where if you were, you'd be annoyed. Also, like I said, I think the gamble (as much as those service people cared or really thought they would be made whole one day) was such a crazy one that the odds to me were like someone hitting a 10 team parlay. But those guys and gals just hit it though based on what Trump said an hour ago, so what do I know?
  18. Right, I mentioned that the manufacturers, by virtue of being subsidized and profiting from the mandates and being immune from any legal remedy, was an extension of the agency (and which is why I said the issue was on the spectrum of the agency-principle problem).
  19. nah. The principal being the government/employer and the agent being the worker/armyman who has to capitulate via a mandate in opposition of their personal desires and beliefs or suffer a consequence (and further not having any legal remedy while also being at an information disparity and disadvantage). But I get it, it was an emergency and in times of war and emergency, you do things you otherwise wouldn't (the poster before me mentioend habeas corpus), so resonable people can debate the different angles of it all when taking everything into context, IMO. There is rarely a clearly defined right answer and someone somewhere will be hurt or aggrieved no matter what.
  20. my OP said this: "...it's just a spectrum of the agency problem I guess. I mean, I disagree and don't like it, but I'm not going to do anything about it or care more than just notate it on a messageboard." and then the guy responded thinking I was talking about the federal agency, so I responded back that I was actually referencing a well known business issue and linked it above if he wanted to read up on it. Now, delving into my personal opinion which is what I think you were asking: I think that providing a quasi-mandate (and full mandate in other areas like aforementioned armed services and healthcare) by putting a biologic into your body and NOT allowing for legal remedy to the manufacturer's or enforcement is on the spectrum of the problem. Is the definition and if you interpret that the agent is the organization enforcing vaccinations (and as an extension the manufacturer of vaccinations) and the princpal (those who do not want the vaccination), you see there is a problem when there is a lack of means to punish the agent for any ill consequences. You can argue that it was (and is) a necessary mandate and that a utilitarnianism philosophy should reign supreme here, but I think there is reasonable arguements to be made in the realm of ethiical egoism, bodily autonomy, libertarianism, etc. I'm not taking a stance really here except to just say as I did in the OP: "Wow, those service members just got back pay and reinstatement for sticking to their guns, the odds and gamble they took to get here was like if the gamblers you hear about hitting a parlay" to paraphrase.
  21. And it's because of the massive wealth inequality. Everyone is basically like, well..."if he (USA) dies, he dies." because 99.99% of the people don't have much to lose compared to the .01%
  22. The Principal-agent problem, commonly referred to as an agency problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem
  23. Luckily the CFO is at Davos to figure it all out!
  24. The blame is on legacy election theory-- an incumbant does not give up the high ground of incumbancy. You saw it play out here where we were 50/50 on it EVEN after the debate.
  25. Bro, ngl-- that black pastor just ate and left no crumbs. Chills.
×
×
  • Create New...