Year: 2019

On the off-chance you’ve not yet seen Adam Schiff’s seven minutes.  Or read them.

This will go down as one of the great speeches in American history. Thank you @RepAdamSchiff. #MuellerHearings pic.twitter.com/9hcYvwEVAT

— Power to the People ☭🕊 (@ProudSocialist) July 24, 2019

The president has said over and over that your report totally exonerated him.  Did it?

MUELLER:  No. The president has been lying to the American people.

The president has said over and over that your report found no evidence of obstruction.  Was he correct?

MUELLER: No.  The president has been lying to the American people.

The president has said over and over that your report found no evidence of collusion.  Is that a fair reading?

MUELLER: No.  The president has been lying to the American people.

The president has said over and over that your office was conducting a witch hunt.  True?

MUELLER: No.  The president has been lying to the American people.

I haven’t used quotation marks above, but that’s what it boils down to.

Watch or read Adam Schiff’s seven minutes

More to come.

I’ll keep this super short to give you maximum time to watch Mueller’s testimony.  Volume II of his report makes clear to more than 1,000 former federal prosecutors that, were he not president, Trump would have been indicted on multiple felony charges.  Volume I makes clear that of course there was collusion!  Witting, unwitting, or slightly (dim?) witting, Trump is a Russian asset.

Note to herpetologists, following up on Friday‘s post: a defense of real snake oil.  (Thanks, Michael Rutkaus.)

Michelle Goldberg led off her July 1 column:

---

Say this for Donald Trump. He may be transforming American politics into a kleptocratic fascist reality show and turning our once-great country into a global laughingstock, but at least he’s humiliating John Bolton in the process.

---

Who could fail to read on?

That same day — I am so far behind! — Paul Krugman gave us The Moochers of Middle America.

The first two-thirds are definitely worth reading — the Democrats aren’t radical, he argues, Republicans are — but the final third is must reading:

---

. . . Last but not least, if your view is that the progressive agenda is morally wrong, that people shouldn’t receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes, you should be aware how many Americans are already “takers,” “moochers,” whatever. In fact, we’re talking about a vast swath of the heartland that includes just about every state that voted for Donald Trump.

I’ve been reading a recent Rockefeller Institute report on states’ federal “balance of payments” — the difference for each state between what the federal government spends in that state and what it gets back in revenue.

The pattern is familiar: Richer states subsidize poorer states. And the reasons are clear: Rich states pay much more per person in federal taxes, while actually getting a bit less in federal spending, because Medicaid and other “means-tested” programs go disproportionately to those with low incomes. But the magnitudes are startling.

Take the case of Kentucky. In 2017, the state received $40 billion more from the federal government than it paid in taxes. That’s about one-fifth of the state’s G.D.P.; if Kentucky were a country, we’d say that it was receiving foreign aid on an almost inconceivable scale.

This aid, in turn, supports a lot of jobs. It’s fair to say that far more Kentuckians work in hospitals kept afloat by Medicare and Medicaid, in retail establishments kept going by Social Security and food stamps, than in all traditional occupations like mining and even agriculture combined.

So if you really believe that Americans with higher incomes shouldn’t pay for benefits provided to those with lower incomes, you should be calling on “donor” states like New Jersey and New York to cut off places like Kentucky and let their economies collapse. And if that’s what you mean, you should let Mitch McConnell’s constituents know about it. . . .

---

In a recent post, I asked whether any of you had tried Sweet Defeat.

Dr. Richard Feinberg: “I was so curious about Sweet Defeat that I ended up trying it. As far as the biochemistry, it really works the way they say it does. Right after I chewed one pill, I could not stand the taste of anything sweet. And at least for some period of time, I did not have cravings for anything sweet just because I did not want to have any more of the yucky taste.

“Now the hard part . . does the biochemistry of Sweet Defeat translate to an effective approach to weight loss? I really can’t say. However, based on just my own experience plus prior work with many patients who wanted to lose weight, I am somewhat doubtful. I don’t believe that this is some sort of magic elixir and that all you have to do is just take a few of these every day and voila  . . the pounds just melt away. There is so much more involved in weight loss. Unless some of the motivational factors, movement and exercise, and psychological issues are able to be integrated into a weight loss program, I feel quite sure saying that Sweet Defeat will not work for most obese individuals. Things like a rebound effect are bound to occur in which people don’t take any pills during a part of the day or night in order to gorge out on sweets.

“This doesn’t mean that it won’t work for folks who want to lose, say 20 pounds or less. I have not tried using Sweet Defeat over a longer period of time with the express purpose of shedding some pounds. I would still think the more one includes other relevant factors and develops a realistic self-help program with tracking, the better the chances of success.”

→ For a lot of folks, help losing five or ten pounds could be worth looking into.  (Full disclosure: I own none of this, but the lead investor is a friend.)

Liar

Racist

Sociopath

Fascist

Russian asset

Who loves autocrats and kept a book of Hitler’s speeches by his bedside.

If you doubt any of these characterizations, click the links for proof.

And feel free to add your own: his megalomania, his cheating little people out of money they’re due, his treatment of women, his mob connections, his recklessness, his incompetence, his multiple bankruptcies . . . but aren’t the seven above enough?

Lindsey Graham, who in 2015 called Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic bigot undercutting everything we stand for” remains a backer.

The hideous senior senator from Kentucky remains a backer.*

Even my Ivy-educated LGBT septuagenarian friend of long-standing “Chris” (as I’ll call him or her) remains a backer . . . disgraceful though Chris acknowledges Trump’s behavior to be.

After a particularly frustrating phone call in which I enumerated the above — doesn’t it bother Chris that Trump is a liar and a fascist, etc.? — I sent a link to David Leonhardt’s, “So This Is Where We Are” . . .

. . . with this rant:

<< Yes, of course you’re not for dishonesty, fascism, bullying, the Russian mob, racism, or sociopathy, Chris – but if that’s what it takes to get Mexico to pay for the big beautiful wall to reduce gang violence on the streets of [Chris’s quiet little town, where there is no violence] while we cut aid to Nicaragua; if that’s what it takes to get everybody great health care at a tiny fraction of the price [which no one got]; if that’s what it takes to allow use of pesticide killing off the honeybees as we fire all the scientists in the Agriculture Department and put a fossil fuels lobbyist at the head of the Bureau of Land Management; if that’s what it takes to move away from our “free world” allies toward autocracies and exit the Paris Climate Accords; if that’s what it takes to appoint anti-LGBT, anti-voting-rights judges – well, then, in your view, so be it. Nothing comes without a price. >>

It’s just NUTS.

But so are world wars, eating Tide pods, and all sorts of other human folly.

So I will leave you with this:

Jim Burt:  “The ‘National Conservatism’ gathering was just held in Washington.  The sponsoring organization was the Edmund Burke Foundation.  I find two aspects of this gathering especially notable:

• The name, ‘National Conservatism’ strongly echoes Germany’s ‘National Socialism,’ and I believe that was a conscious choice.  They’re telling us, in essence, that their program is Nazism without the benefits.
• The sponsoring organization can call itself anything it wishes, but Edmund Burke, the prophet of classical conservatism, would have been revolted to learn that an ideological organization had coopted his name.  Classical Burkean conservatism utterly rejects ideology in any form, preferring a ‘whatever works’ approach with a strong bias in favor of not changing anything that is currently working.

“The attendees included the usual assortment of right wing goons, loons, and poltroons, including Missouri’s brand new Republican senator, Josh Hawley, whose keynote speech repeatedly denounced ‘cosmopolitan elites,’ a timeworn trope usually translated as ‘Jews.’  This is not likely to end well.”

→ But it can!  If you have the resources, chip in to make sure it does.

*I can’t bring myself to use McConnell’s first name — it sounds too friendly. “Hey, Mitch!”  “Hey, Bobby!”  “Hey, Scooter!”  How can one be friendly to a man who’s done such harm to tens of millions of people?  And if I only use his last name, some might not know to whom I refer.  So let’s just call him the hideous senior senator from Kentucky.

And while I’m at it — why does everyone call Trump by his first and last name?  We all know who you mean.  Adding the first name, besides wasting breath, fails to convey contempt.  And I say that as — ordinarily — no fan of contempt.  But for a vulgar, bullying, lying, cheating, fascist sociopath who is destroying the world?  Yes: I have contempt.  As Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and so many others once did.

But first: listen to the 7-minute trailer for The Asset podcast.  Riveting.

Yes, of course there was collusion.

And — not to embarrass you, but — are you the only progressive in America not to have read Tom Friedman’s column?  (“Trump’s Going to Get Re-elected, Isn’t He?“)  He just might get re-elected if we don’t all read that column.

And in my  ongoing crusade against food waste, I’m pleased to report that the unrefrigerated, unopened 20-ounce package of Kirkland Signature “Tart Montmorency” Dried Cherries recently discovered on a top shelf, and “best before May 4, 2012” (so barely 7 years ago), are fine.  I’ve been eating them all week.

And now on to snake oil, fish oil, super-fish oil, and fat-shaming.

Chris H.:  “I learned about AMRN from your column many years ago and have followed and invested since.  AMRN has a drug, Vascepa, that is a highly purified form of EPA.  It is well tolerated, affordable, and was shown in a 4-year double blind study to save people from heart attacks, strokes, and deaths when paired with a statin.  Wanted to highlight that they are expecting/hoping for FDA approval in September of an expanded indication that would make this a blockbuster drug.  It is already approved as a triglyceride drug and sales are surging 60% YOY.  Stock is currently in the low 20s and will go significantly higher with expansion.  Maybe longtime readers can benefit and use some profits for fairer and more responsible governance?”

→ Remember my two recent “Buy and Hold” columns?  Well, I checked back with Guru.  It might be wise t0 take your triple in this one and sell.  Yes, he says, it may well get FDA approval — but shouldn’t! — and yes, he says, it may get bought out a few points higher — but shouldn’t!

In small part:

---

. . . In the 1880s, they were hawking snake oil and we laugh at that. Snake oil: meet your fellow fraud, fish oil. And for what it’s worth, you can buy this exact same fish oil over the counter for a fraction of the price. If the FDA approves it, then there is some case to be made that there will be a buyout. Of course, it is fish oil, there isn’t a patent that can block anyone from making the same thing, any pharma company could “patent” a version of this and run a bioequivalency test to show it’s the same and get a quick approval from the FDA, so I don’t see where the long-term franchise (to quote Buffett) comes from. It is also still possible that truth matters a tiny bit to the FDA . . . If so, they should be saying something by August 3. If not, you should assume approval, and the stock probably goes up 3-7 points.

---

So if you want to get fancy, rather than sell, you could buy some mid-August puts to lock in most of your gain, if it craters.  Or sell (especially if you hold it in a tax-sheltered account) and take a little of the profit to buy some October calls.  But I’ve never done great with fancy.

Meanwhile, from the depths of the Antarctic comes a super-nutrient,”8X More Potent Than Fish Oil That Could…FIX Your Heart, Memory, And Joints In As Little As 7 DAYS!”

Click the link and see if it doesn’t intrigue you, if you have a heart, memory, and joints.

“Presumably quackery, given the marketing,” I wrote my pal Wipperman, “But what do you think?”

“Quackery indeed,” he responded, “but let’s dive in.  Do you have a favorite corporate logo? Mine is Cochrane‘s. Who in the name of Sackett (the founder of evidence-based medicine) is Cochrane? Well, it’s the organization that utilizes the most powerful tools in medicine to ask these sorts of questions, and nicely summarizes the results. The Cochrane logo is actually the tool itself. It’s called a ‘Forest Plot.’ It is the way researchers summarize the results of multiple clinical trials to make a definitive conclusion about some question in medicine. This is the best tool we have to gain new knowledge about whether some intervention works.  (E.g., ‘Do Omega 3 fatty acids benefit my memory?’)

“Here is their description of their logo. Basically, back in the day, it was unknown whether corticosteroids given to women about to give premature birth would save the life of the baby. There were some hints that this would work, but the clinical trials never panned out, and doctors therefore never adopted this practice. Then somebody pooled together the data from multiple clinical trials into a ‘systematic review,’ and determined that indeed, corticosteroids are good for saving the babies. Each horizontal line in the logo is a clinical trial from this actual study, and while each trial independently did not show an effect, collectively they did show a positive benefit.  The result is that little diamond at the bottom of the logo.

“Why bother telling you this? Because we’ve run a boatload of clinical trials on Omega-3s (that’s the magic that this dude is claiming is in Krill Oil).  In one recent systematic review, they looked at 79 clinical trials (!) and found virtually no benefit to Omega-3 intake.

“The response from the ‘Dr.’ in the offer you sent — who does not appear to have a PhD or MD, nor as far as I can tell, any training in medical biochemistry or evidence-based medicine — would be that these people weren’t taking his super-potent Omega 3s, and you have to buy his stuff in order to actually see a benefit. I would simply say, go eat a fish and exercise, and you’ll be fine. If he’s that passionate about his product, and there really is that much evidence of a benefit, perhaps he could use some of his profits to run a clinical trial of his own. That is the only tool we have right now to show that there is indeed a benefit to some intervention — so he can put some skin in the game, and fund one himself.”

→ And yet, if I had heart problems or joint problems or — what’s the third thing this stuff is supposed to fix? the Energy Department? — I might not wait for the clinical trial.

Such is the power of hope.

Marissa: “Re your post on fat shaming, here’s a study suggesting that kids whose parents encourage them to lose weight ending up fatter.   As a chubby person with one chubby and one thin kid, this is the stuff of my nightmares. Because I know that my son’s life will be easier both physically and socially if he doesn’t grow up overweight, but I also don’t want him to grow up hating himself if it ends up happening anyway.”

→ It is, for sure, a tough one. I love Obama’s mantra – “be kind and be useful” – and this problem challenges us to find a way to be both.  If kids grow up being offered healthy food (fruit instead of Twinkies) . . . and forced to walk or bike when it’s safe and practical . . . and if they get gentle “I’ll-love-you-no-matter-what-but-I-think-you’ll-have-an-even-happier-life-if-you-get-into-the-right-habits” advice . . . could that be a balance of kind and useful?

Also: anybody here tried SweetDefeat?

Have a great week-end!

My recent plea to “be logical and be generous” generated lots of dough (thanks!) but also this from a wealthy friend:

<< No $$$$ until I see if sanity prevails. Trump may be insanity but why waste money if we cannot nominate someone who can win? >>

Tough questions like that are truly appreciated — because there are answers:

1. You’d be investing in registration and turn-out that – even if we didn’t beat Trump — would help us hold the House, win the Senate, and flip state legislative chambers.  That last – the state races – is particularly important as it will determine redistricting for a decade after the 2020 Census . . . and as it could get the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact over the hump, effectively eliminating the Electoral College.  Thereafter, if we won the popular vote, as we generally do, we’d also win the White House.  What a concept.

2. Investing NOW is way more powerful than waiting, because the organizers we’re hiring will have that much more time to roll the “volunteer snowball” downhill.  It’s like planting seeds with plenty of time to take root and grow rather than the exact same dollar value of seeds a month before dinner.  Little snowball seeds; perhaps the ultimate mixed metaphor.

3. ANY nominee that emerges can beat Trump.  Almost no one thought HE could win last time; so it’s kinda defeatist – and self-fulfilling – to think that this time he can’t lose.  We just have to get our folks registered and to the polls, especially in these 7 states.  If we make the investment now, our odds go up.

4. Too much is at stake not to “risk” helping.  We only live once.  This is our moment to step up.

If YOU’RE in a position to be logical and generous, go ahead — make my day.  I’ll see it right away to say thanks.

My friend Bryan Norcross here recalls the moon launch as a (very young) part of the NASA family.  (If you don’t subscribe to the Washington Post, you can find it on Facebook.  But why would you not subscribe?  “Democracy dies in darkness.”)

My fellow classmate James Mann discovered this short, incredibly eloquent speech William Safire wrote that Nixon, thankfully, never had to deliver.

These were days when people believed government could do great things (and presidential “eloquence” was not unheard of).

Which brings us to . . .

Nathaniel Frank:  “Regarding your argument that Democrats stand for ‘fairness,’ I don’t think the focus on ‘fairness’ is the best approach. Research shows that conservatives feel that they stand for fairness, just as we feel that we do (it’s not fair that people cut in line to enter our country illegally; that people who earn lots of money have so much taxed away; that non-whites get chosen for jobs and colleges over others, and get government handouts they didn’t earn, etc.). Most of these may be myths, but that doesn’t make them any less resonant, and in fact I’d argue that resentment about perceived unfairness was a major reason Trump won and the GOP retains so much power.

“I think our best message is one that genuinely distinguishes us from them, rather than one that allows both sides to claim we are all for things that most humans say they value. So what do I think we stand for?

“Evan Wolfson and I argue here in Slate that Democrats are the party of robust government working for regular people, a government that provides equal opportunity, protects the most vulnerable (including the planet), and ensures a functioning democracy that checks corruption and concentration of power by the wealthy and well-connected. [It’s an important read, for those who have the time; ending with a timely quote from (Republican) Teddy Roosevelt. — A.T.]

“No, I wouldn’t advise every candidate to identify as the party of ‘big’ government today and tomorrow; but articulating a defense of this principle over time is crucial. Progressives need a long-term strategy that tells our story, describes what we stand for, and explains why folks should join us. Being honest and unapologetic about our support for active government (or call it ‘good government’) is critical to the future of progressivism and the Democratic party.

“Progressives want to rescue our democracy from the powerful interests that place themselves above everyone else.  Our nation and the world face enormous challenges that the current regime is bent on exacerbating through divisiveness, self-enrichment and deception. But united, a coalition of the decent can put progressives back in power to enact policies that solve our problems — including these five:

1. Dangerously high economic inequality.  Progressives endorse policies that grow the economy by creating and sustaining jobs (including investments in infrastructure, renewable energy and retraining); that make quality education affordable and accessible; that create a tax code in which the most fortunate are asked to contribute more to help their country thrive.

2. Access to health care.  Progressives embrace the Affordable Care Act’s success in expanding health insurance coverage to reach over 90 percent of Americans, and will work to rectify its shortcomings and ensure universal, quality health care to all Americans.

3. Prejudice.  Progressives endorse policies known to reduce prejudice (such as bias training among law enforcement, educators and others) and to mitigate its ongoing harms (including criminal justice reform; investment in early childhood education; the protection of women’s health and reproductive freedom; and legislation banning anti-LGBT discrimination).

4. Perversions of democracy.  Progressives seek to end partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the concentration of money in politics.

5. Climate.  Progressives embrace policies that restrict carbon emissions, invest in renewable energy, and incentivize research, development and business practices that contribute to reversing the warming of the planet.”

For one thing, it goes to fund these 1,000 rising college seniors the DNC is training to be organizers in 7 key states.

(We could win the popular vote by 20 million votes and still lose the Electoral College if we don’t win key swing states.)

But here’s a question: why 1,000 — why not 5,000?

It’s just a matter of money.

In this case, just half what Democratic donors gave to fight each other over Florida’s 2018 gubernatorial primary.

Which brings me back to the recent post in which I urged that we be logical.  (And generous.)

Don’t give to primary campaigns, or at most, give just a tiny bit.  Give to fund the early organizing — NOW, while the seeds have time to root and grow — that could win us the White House and, at the same time, the Senate and several state legislative chambers in advance of the next redistricting.

Ana Navarro is a Republican strategist:

Glenn Price:  “It astounds and depresses me that Trump could duplicate his 2016 victory next year. It’s beyond comprehension to me.  The Democrats have to play this election season very, very smart if the country is going to avoid the devastating consequences of a two-term Trump.”

→ Exactly.

But note that it’s not the leaders of the Democratic Party who need to “play 2020 very, very smart” (though they do), so much as it is you and me.

By that I mean, first: it’s not the DNC chair (or House Speaker or Senate Minority Leader) who selects our candidate — it’s we primary voters.

And it’s we who have to be logical in allocating resources, as I argued here Monday, at least as much as they.

Most importantly, it’s we who have to swallow hard, if our preferred candidate is not the nominee — harder still if it’s someone we consider “the lesser of two evils” — and work like crazy to get everyone to the polls to vote for her or him . . . and for all our Senate and House and state legislative candidates, our governors, our attorneys general, our secretaries of state — all of them.

I’m quite sure our nominee will be a person of competence, intelligence, and good will, who will surround herself or himself with an administration full of the same.

But I can say with absolute certainty our nominee will — at very worst — be by far “the lesser of two evils,” because none of our folks is a clinical sociopath or fascist who favors murderous dictators over democratic allies.

Earlier this month I posted about the guy who sold 10% of Apple, now worth $90 billion, for $800.  With hindsight, he should have held on.  Likewise, the contract itself — a “historic document” of sorts that he sold for $500.  It later fetched $1.59 million.

You may have noticed that that post was uncharacteristically — some might say blessedly — short.  Had I turned over a new leaf?  No.  A mini tornado had turned over my Internet tower.

I had planned to add the obligatory paragraph about Warren Buffett, and some stuff about stocks, but suddenly I was on a forced vacation.

So:

Warren Buffett has been compounding the value of his shares at around 20% since 1965.  Each $1,000 you invested in 1965 would have grown to nearly $20 million today — if you had simply bought and held.  But say you had sold the shares at the end of each year and then bought them back.  (No one would have done that; but lots of people do trade in and out of stocks all the time, chasing their dreams.)  And let’s say federal and state taxes would have eaten 25% of each year’s gain . . . so that instead of compounding at 20%, your money was compounding at 15%.  Each $1,000 would thus have grown not to $20 million but to $2 million — a tenth as much.

Granted, the $20 million would be subject to tax if you ever did sell it (unlike the $2 million, on which taxes had been paid along the way).

And granted, taxes are not levied on trades within a retirement account, if that’s where you hold your stocks.

Still it’s a point worth making.  And even in an IRA, while there’s no headwind from taxes, there’s still a breeze blowing against you in the form of the brokerage commissions you explicitly incur and the “spreads” not shown on your confirm but no less real.  (If you go to buy a stock that’s $3.68 bid, $3.70 asked, the “spread” is 2 cents, or, in this example, about half of one percent.  Trade in and out once a month and it mounts up.)

Of course, it doesn’t always work to buy and hold.  Lots of stocks go to zero and then disappear.  I have an empty drawerful.  (Empty, because they’ve disappeared.)   “Cut your losses and let your profits run” is the mantra that apparently serves some people well.

I’m just not wired that way.  If it seemed to be a decent value at $10, as some people thought YTRA was when I first bought some shares . . . and if another company recently flirted with acquiring it at $7, as this one did . . . perhaps it was an even better value when I first suggested it to you at $4 . . . and slightly better still yesterday at $3.70, where I bought some more.

SPRT is taking forever, down significantly from where I suggested it . . . but, again, I’ve bought some more.

Some call this the “catch a falling knife” method of investing, and I want to stress that they are often right.  For example, the PRKR I bought around a dollar is now around a dime.  The market has given up on it — most likely rightly so — but so had the market once upon a time given up on Audible.com that subsequently rose 20-fold and on the Boise Cascade warrants you could have bought for 2 cents and sell years later, when the stock recovered, for 50 times as much.

Most of the money you decide to allocate to the stock market should be in super-low-expense index funds or ETFs.

But it’s not crazy, as I’ve suggested before, to carve out 10% or 20% of that money to play with the kinds of stocks I’ve suggested here.

The disasters (PRKR) can at least be taken as tax losses (buy more at a dime, wait 31 days, then sell the shares you bought for $1?).

The big winners, if any, and if held for more than a year (our quintuple in FANH?), can be used to fund your charitable giving via the Fidelity Gift Fund or one of its competitors.

So think about it:

If you do badly with this 20%, at least you will be matching the overall market with the 80% you have in index funds — and that’s better than most investors do.

If you do well with this 20%, well, hot dog!

And if you merely break even, you come out ahead after taking into account the tax advantages.

Plus, for some of us, at least, it’s fun — and keeps us from less productive gambling, like the lottery.  Or gambling.