California has millions of illegal aliens. You'd think that we should wait and see what happens after they're deported before we go crazy trying to solve a supposed undersupply of housing.
Hedging is about protecting your downside. 100% long funds like your index fund may do well in a rising market, but when the market declines you may find yourself wishing you had a hedge fund instead.
A better and more meaningful question than whether the Dow is at an all-time high is whether the US economy is at its all-time largest.
And it is. It usually is, in fact, and when it's not it means things are going very badly.
But hey, nobody thinks Dow 20000 is anything but an arbitrary milestone. I don't know why people want to shit on it like people standing around at NYE parties loudly pointing out the arbitrariness of the celebration.
Maybe, but for those of us who aren't experts on constitutional law, it's difficult to ascertain exactly who is in the right, we have to decide which self-proclaimed experts to believe.
For this reason it's helpful to understand the motives of those putting forth a particular argument.
I have a rule, and I think it's a good one. When I hear some political rhetoric I ask myself "if the parties were reversed would this person still be saying the same thing?" If the answer is no, I ignore that person. This cuts out about 97% of all political discussion and saves a lot of time.
The argument that Trump is breaking the emoluments clause by (for instance) having foreign governments paying market rents as tenants in his building is ridiculously thin.
Here's the real trouble with these ridiculously exaggerated criticisms of everything Trump: there's nowhere to go from here. By the time Trump actually does something bad, everyone will be totally immune to the constant wailing, it will be impossible to cut through the noise and say "oh wait, this is actually bad".
It's similar to how we got the Iraq War: the left had been complaining about everything that Bush did from day one, so by the time he had a genuinely bad idea everyone just sorta ignored the criticism of it.
When everybody is Hitler all the time, nobody is Hitler.
Maybe, if you can turn them into an atheist. Challenge them on why they believe in one particular religion instead of the thousands of others, and force them to open their minds.
Once you can convince them that their religion was bullshit, they will no longer wish to kill for it.
Or more likely, if you're just a super-hater of Trump and/or Republicans and feel the need to claim that every single decision is terrible, disastrous, stupid etc. Let's face it, roughly 80% of political discourse comes down to this, from one side or another, and can safely be ignored.
It seems to me that if a group of people did come across some new land and decide to vote on what to do with it, they'd immediately vote to subdivide it amongst themselves. Leave some bits as public land for roads and parks and other stuff, and subdivide the rest equally so that families can build their own houses and grow their own crops or whatever with confidence.
Of course within a few generations of inheritances and sales that equitable distribution of land will no longer look like that at all.
A wall one mile long to protect one guy from trespassers is reasonable but a wall two thousand miles long to protect 250 million people is ridiculous, according to Zuck.
But the biggest cities in the world have problems with foot traffic and subway traffic.
I'm not sure that they still employ "pushers" in Tokyo but they very well might.
And that's with the benefit of Japanese culture where people are generally clean and polite. Japanese density plus American social problems sounds hellish.
But an acre of land in the suburbs costs hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, whereas an acre of land in a normal agricultural area far from a city costs a few thousand dollars.