Is the stock market going to tank?

[schuss]

I'm just kidding dork.

"Just a prank bro"
Give me a break. Own your viewpoints or shut the hell up. I'm so tired of shitty viewpoints getting trial ballooned then people pretending like it was for laughs when they get slammed.

As far as Montana - you elected a shithead that physically assaults journalists when confronted with tough questions. You're getting what you voted for.

[4matic]

6 week low in the ten year rate.

[summit]

Bought a lil BABA with the mad money account... in general I hate China stocks because I can't trust, but the price seems good.

And Intel is on sale still.

Otherwise I'm waiting. Lot's of open orders as things step down

[4matic]

When Powell immediately shook off .75 hike he knew there was no way. .50 in June is questionable now

[4matic]

DXY is 3% off it’s recent high. Good support a couple % lower. This is good news short term.

[Yonder_River]

Yeahman: not surprised, it's real fiscally conservative to spend money advertising on a product that's already flying out the window. I'm sure the working class stiffs will still vote him in again though.

[Toadman]

New home sales collapse. 9 month supply.

Finally, the housing supply shortage is solved!!!

On another note, airfare is insane - Paid $584 R/T RDM-DEN for mid-June. Used to be about $300.

[skaredshtles]

Finally, the housing supply shortage is solved!!!

On another note, airfare is insane - Paid $584 R/T RDM-DEN for mid-June. Used to be about $300.

Can confirm... had to pay over $500 to fly to DTW and back from DEN.

[sirbumpsalot]

Higher airfares are good....forces people to stop flying...reducing fossil fuels and promoting the idea of electric planes. Besides....an extra $200-300 for a flight is noise for you dentists building $1M custom homes. WIN WIN!

[summit]

Higher airfares are good....forces people to stop flying...reducing fossil fuels and promoting the idea of electric planes. Besides....an extra $200-300 for a flight is noise for you dentists building $1M custom homes. WIN WIN!

A good thing? While it isn't a big deal for me (and I'm no dentist or custom home owner), it is a big deal for most travelers.

With the exception of the last two years, about 50% of Americans travel by air every year, so this isn't some 1%er thing. These are people visiting their families, staying connected to the world, and yes occasionally taking their once a year vacation. 2/3 of <40K/yr households fly occasionally!

The environmental impact of air travel is small compared to other sources and negligible compared to its benefit of connecting the world.

In summary, shove your misplaced environmental concerns right up your pretentious ass.

PS, Fuel efficient airplanes have been a push for the last several decades. However, electric planes are a novelty, a nice idea to one day take over very short haul, but will never offer considerable range + speed.

[doebedoe]

So -- is this dip good or bad for taking a gig with a big RSU grant from Alphabet? Asking for a friend....seems like potentially getting stock at discount with potential upside.

[4matic]

Higher airfares are good....forces people to stop flying...reducing fossil fuels and promoting the idea of electric planes. Besides....an extra $200-300 for a flight is noise for you dentists building $1M custom homes. WIN WIN!

$1m doesn’t get you much house these days

[4matic]

So -- is this dip good or bad for taking a gig with a big RSU grant from Alphabet? Asking for a friend....seems like potentially getting stock at discount with potential upside.

It’s neutral as a compensation bonus because it’s a grant and not an option.

[doebedoe]

It’s neutral as a compensation bonus because it’s a grant and not an option.

Way they explained it to me was that they get X shares of stock based on the current price when they start -- that then vest over 4 years. So if say, 100k in stock 100k/current price = X shares. Seems if those shares go up 10% over next 4 years, then wouldn't it end up being $110k total value if they cash them out at the higher price?

[4matic]

Way they explained it to me was that they get X shares of stock based on the current price when they start -- that then vest over 4 years. So if say, 100k in stock 100k/current price = X shares. Seems if those shares go up 10% over next 4 years, then wouldn't it end up being $110k total value if they cash them out at the higher price?

Yes but you can’t assume anything. With an option you only make money if the price goes up. With an RSU it always has an intrinsic value.

[doebedoe]

Yes but you can’t assume anything. With an option you only make money if the price goes up. With an RSU it always has an intrinsic value.

Yep -- that's why they are consider the gig. Alphabet RSUs vs startup options / funny money.

[RoooR]

A good thing? While it isn't a big deal for me (and I'm no dentist or custom home owner), it is a big deal for most travelers.

With the exception of the last two years, about 50% of Americans travel by air every year, so this isn't some 1%er thing. These are people visiting their families, staying connected to the world, and yes occasionally taking their once a year vacation. 2/3 of <40K/yr households fly occasionally!

The environmental impact of air travel is small compared to other sources and negligible compared to its benefit of connecting the world.

In summary, shove your misplaced environmental concerns right up your pretentious ass.

PS, Fuel efficient airplanes have been a push for the last several decades. However, electric planes are a novelty, a nice idea to one day take over very short haul, but will never offer considerable range + speed.

Is responding to price signals not part of the plan to convert to more renewables? Was a carbon tax not part of the progressive plan until recently? What would THAT do to the cost of air travel.

[summit]

Is responding to price signals not part of the plan to convert to more renewables? Was a carbon tax not part of the progressive plan until recently? What would THAT do to the cost of air travel.

Auto transport is 74% of the transport carbon footprint in the USA. Fossil fuels and ICEs in cars and trucks have multiple substitutes on the market that are becoming more affordable with more on the horizon.

Air transport is 2% of the global carbon footprint. Substitutes for turbine combustion engines in air travel, especially medium/long haul, are not feasible in the near or intermediate future... perhaps not even in the long term.

Air travel is vastly more fuel efficient than your Pruis. Maybe when everyone is driving Teslas it will be different.

Priorities vs benefits vs substitutes? Air travel is literally at the bottom of my list.

Further fuel efficiencies are possible, and have been the driving point of aircraft development for decades because it is the number one variable cost. It is a natural point of continuous improvement absent environmental impetus.

There are options for sustainable and greener fuel options for aircraft. Here is an example https://www.bio.org/blogs/worlds-fir...thanks-biotech

[dunfree]

Way they explained it to me was that they get X shares of stock based on the current price when they start -- that then vest over 4 years. So if say, 100k in stock 100k/current price = X shares. Seems if those shares go up 10% over next 4 years, then wouldn't it end up being $110k total value if they cash them out at the higher price?

It’s an employee retention annual bonus plan with value tied to the stock price treated preferentially to cash by accounting and Wall Street. The compensation risk being transferred to your friend isn’t just from google stock price (which unless high up, they have little effect on), it’s also that they’ll still be at google a decision that may be voluntary or involuntary.

[RoooR]

Auto transport is 74% of the transport carbon footprint in the USA. Fossil fuels and ICEs in cars and trucks have multiple substitutes on the market that are becoming more affordable with more on the horizon.

Air transport is 2% of the global carbon footprint. Substitutes for turbine combustion engines in air travel, especially medium/long haul, are not feasible in the near or intermediate future... perhaps not even in the long term.

Air travel is vastly more fuel efficient than your Pruis. Maybe when everyone is driving Teslas it will be different.

Priorities vs benefits vs substitutes? Air travel is literally at the bottom of my list.

Further fuel efficiencies are possible, and have been the driving point of aircraft development for decades because it is the number one variable cost. It is a natural point of continuous improvement absent environmental impetus.

There are options for sustainable and greener fuel options for aircraft. Here is an example https://www.bio.org/blogs/worlds-fir...thanks-biotech

You're looking at totals, but people drive way more than they fly. Per person per mile air travel polutes more except for maybe really long travel: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

And what? Should we be subsidizing air travel?

[summit]

You're looking at totals, but people drive way more than they fly. Per person per mile air travel polutes more except for maybe really long travel: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

That story is absolute BS. A gallon of gasoline and a gallon of Jet A produce almost identical CO2 output (Jet A is about 5% more).

Short/medium haul air is about 50 pax mpg while long haul is more like 100 pax mpg.

You need a Prius or a truck with 3+ to outdo short haul air travel... and then you can consider time and productivity.

Now that we've cleared that up, you are right: I am looking at totals but also efficiencies and alternatives. You prioritize large and inefficient problems for which are better alternatives. Air travel is none of those.

[RoooR]

Multiple sources had similar totals to what I posted. Your just call BS and post no sources of your own...

And I don't "prioritize" anything beyond letting consumers respond to the natural price signals that are already taking place. I suppose I could be talked into a carbon tax but again that would make air (and car) travel even more expensive.

[yeahman]

"Just a prank bro"
Give me a break. Own your viewpoints or shut the hell up. I'm so tired of shitty viewpoints getting trial ballooned then people pretending like it was for laughs when they get slammed.

As far as Montana - you elected a shithead that physically assaults journalists when confronted with tough questions. You're getting what you voted for.

Lol. You dumb.

[summit]

Multiple sources had similar totals to what I posted. Your just call BS and post no sources of your own...

And I don't "prioritize" anything beyond letting consumers respond to the natural price signals that are already taking place. I suppose I could be talked into a carbon tax but again that would make air (and car) travel even more expensive.

Before that BS article, the only person I'd ever heard complain that long haul air travel is worse than a car was a whacko luddite chemtrail conspiracy dude. That article complains that long haul air is 2-6x worse than a car per paxmi. Hating air travel for enviro reasons has become vogue really in just the last 3 years. It is luddite BS. There are also some questionable claims out there eg that planes cause extra warming because they fly high, dubious, and often those making that anti-air claim ignore the severe non-CO2 pollution effects of surface transport (some of which occur even with non ICE vehicles).

Here are some sources for you that back my point and show that cars are typically less or much less efficient per paxmi (and CO2) than air:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/trave...ment-51166834/
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/as...er%20passenger.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/tr...uestion192.htm
https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10311
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31512



This Federal EIA graph in particular shows the increasing efficiencies over time (this shows all routes including ultrashort haul like LAX/SFO or BOS/NYC and small aircraft/prop routes). Aircraft are least fuel efficient per paxmpg, and therefore more expensive: the shorter the route, the older the plane, the smaller the plane, and the emptier the plane. Pandemic caused airlines to retire their older less efficient more expensive aircraft, so the efficiency graph has gone up considerably more since 2016.

Climate change is a critical issue. It is so sad to see such misunderstandings and misplaced efforts directed at air travel instead of much larger and more solvable climate issues.

[schuss]

Lol. You dumb.

Sometimes I worry about whether my kids are learning enough when I see examples of where a ship sailed long ago and all that's left is a dry lakebed.