stevenkesslar

Posted Fri, Oct 13, 2023 Find Cheap Gas In Venice Beach: Gas Prices Fall For 14th Straight Day @Charlie please tell me that headlines like this ain't gonna cause a mass migration to California, for cheap gas. I kind of like the out-migration of riff raff. And having the additional space and what not. Oh. "Cheap" is $4.99 a gallon? I recently spent a few weeks in Chicago. Even in the city, where prices are higher, it was like $4 a gallon. And @EZEtoGRU is saying more like $3 at Costco in Detroit. I guess that explains why everybody is flocking to Detroit and Chicago, and nobody wants to live in California anymore. 😉

Just saw it. Hysterical! As I had read, it was a great satire of everything that is politically correct. Including itself. How refreshing. Is it now safe to make fun of ourselves again? 😉 Speaking of which: DOWN LOW Official Trailer (2023) I love it that instead of queers having to commit suicide at the end of film, we can now just be gross and nasty like everyone else.

I was at a friend house. Not sure which service he used. I watch a lot of LGBTQ movies with him so I assume it was some queer streaming I don’t have.

Neither do I. I did not say Gays should be typecast. Of course they shouldn't. But they should be cast, period. I don't think we are close to equality on that score, yet. But we are making progress. There's some video I saw online of some unknown actor who comes out of Gay Casting Central - meaning he sounds very Gay - bitching about how neither of these queer RWRB roles actually went to Gay or Bi actors. It's a legitimate concern, I think. Turns out one of them did. But it is a sign of the times that even though it is 99.99 % clear that one of these actors is Gay and married, it is kind of sensitive to talk about it. I'll repeat my central point. I think since The Celluloid Closet came out in 1995 we have learned a lot about how to represent fictional queers on film. I think we're just starting to figure out how to talk about, and cast, actual queers in Hollywood. I agree with you that Straight men like Galitzine should not shy away from playing queer roles. I've been a fan since Handsome Devil. As I have made clear, I think it is a small victory that he came out as a Straight actor who plays queer roles. Given that it was an interview with a Gay reporter, I am pretty sure it was intended to get ahead of any possible nastiness like Kit O'Connor faced over the incredibly stupid idea of "queerbaiting." In addition, I don't think it's obsessive or stalking for what I'm guessing is about 99 % of his fans to wonder whether he is Gay. I do respect him more for just being honest about what he correctly said is a sensitive issue that many queers feel conflicted about. One fairy tale I think is incredibly stupid is the idea that fans won't be fans. Or that the Hollywood Fan Complex won't keep thriving by writing a gazillion articles about Joey King's wedding. I guess in theory "equality" would mean people are just as gaga about learning about all the details of Taylor's wedding. Mostly, if I were him, I'd just want to be able to go to Joey's wedding with my husband and be left the fuck alone. I don't blame him for wanting privacy. They all do. We agree more than we disagree, I think, based on what you have posted in several threads. I'm not sure whether I like RWRB more because it is a moving queer fairy tale. Or because it is very effective LGBTQ propaganda. Happily, I don't have to choose. But as far as propaganda goes, you have made the point that it is really nice to have explicit Bisexual representation, via Kit O'Connor in Heartstoppers. Matthew Lopez would emphatically agree. He's made a point in interviews to emphasize that G and B are two very different things. You've also made the point that what happened to O'Connor, at the age of 18, was truly cruel. I'll post again what Harry Styles, another victim or queerbaiting, said: We can have a debate about which is more cruel: queerbaiting, or X/Twitter. Both seem mostly cruel and stupid to me. In terms of Gays being typecast as Gays, here's another great example of the complexity: How Red, White and Royal Blue star Polo Morín bounced back from being outed That outing goes back to 2014. But it seems we are in pretty much the same place in 2023. As TZP just demonstrated. Specifically, on this point Morin made: If you read the whole story it gives several good examples of how, after coming out, Mexican TV did try to typecast Morin. As the Gay comedy character. Or as the "respectful" Gay character who did not kiss, act sexual, or do feminine things. On that basis, I don't think Lopez typecast TZP as the "respectful" Gay character who was asexual. We also agree that they just should have had more sex in the movie. Oh well. Maybe in the sequel. 😉 I think coming out is still a big issue for queer actors. And typecasting is at the core of it. Sadly, I may never get to see Luke McFarlane as a hunky Superman, being tormented with a kryptonite dildo in some Marvel blockbuster. Or something like that. Talk about an invasion of privacy! Another thing I think we are learning from this is that Straight women who are fans of movies like RWRB are not really that into learning all the details of Gay sex. Fine with me. They can just think of us as sweethearts who want to get married. But hell. Even Marvel is getting the memo. Maybe there is still hope for McFarlane, and my dildo fantasy. 😉 All Of The LGBTQ Characters In The MCU So Far

I'm so glad you mentioned that. Here's what I have been trying to figure out. You're a math whiz, so maybe you can help. Even at the 2022 low of 3500, the S & P 500 was way higher than it was at its highest point in 2018. Right now the S & P 500 is about 50 % higher than the 2018 high. Meanwhile, the FTSE, to name one European index, is about where it was in 2018. The DAX is doing better, up about 20 % from its 2018 high. But the US market is clearly kicking ass for math-oriented investors. I don't feel so bad about inflation when I check my bank and stock account balances. They did call it a "global" pandemic and a "global" inflation spike and a "global" supply chain crisis for a reason. Yet, for some strange reason, the US seems to be doing better than most. Whether we are talking about getting inflation back down to normal, or getting supply chains moving again, or having a festive stock market that makes mucho money for math geniuses like you, Bozo. (I suck at math, and am not ashamed to admit it. But I still know my accounts are growing.) One wonders why this could be. I can't figure it out.

Delinquencies: Delinquency Rates for All Banks That just reinforces what I posted above. Regarding why a recession is supposedly imminent, I do keep reading general notions that go like this: "The Fed always breaks something." Or, "something is going to break." Then when you get a little more specific, it gets down to ideas like this: 1) consumers are maxxed out on credit, or 2) lots of commercial loans will go bad because offices are clearing out, or 3) malls and hotels will go bust. Often these come with anecdotes about some mall or hotel in San Francisco. It just does not appear to be true. At least according to all the Fed charts on the page I hyperlinked. Residential real estate loans have delinquencies near all time lows. Commercial real estate loans have delinquencies near all time lows. Commercial and industrial loan delinquencies are at an all time low. Agricultural loan delinquencies are at an all time low. Delinquency rates on all loans by all banks are at an all time low. So maybe something will break. Because delinquency rates actually can't get much lower. None of this screams "broken" or "recession." As I said above, credit card delinquencies have "skyrocketed," if we want to use a scary word. But that is from a historic pandemic low to the same low they were at right before COVID hit. Credit card delinquencies are still under half what they were at the height of The Great Recession. Inflation and higher interest rates are causing a lot of people a lot of stress, for sure. And helping to blow up the federal deficit. But it makes sense to me that the bears are getting less bearish. Because there is no clear evidence that anything is really broken. At least not yet. There is also evidence that due to all that inflation lots of big corporations enjoyed record profits, as was reflected in the S & P 500 hitting a nice sugar high during the pandemic. Last year it did look to the smart guys like Michael Burry like 2022 could be the first part of a 50 % drop in the S & P, like from 2000 to 2003. It doesn't look that way anymore. You can put red lipstick on a rising stock market. But the color of money people like my nephew are making on tech stocks this year is still very green.

Just to be clear, what I specifically meant is that if inflation stays around where it is at, like 3 to 4 %, interest rates will drop eventually, too. I think we agree that rapidly rising interest rates are a problem that could cause a recession. As has happened many times. My point above was that lower interest rates will accelerate the economy, not throw us into a recession. So you are right that the question is whether anything breaks before we get to that point, presumably in 2024. My gamble is that it won't. And real estate is part of it. Most of my assets are real estate. And I'm shocked how well it has held up. First, when COVID hit, I emotionally prepared myself for the idea that values would plummet. And in some places, like Manhattan, they did temporarily. Not anywhere on the West Coast. And of course super-low fixed rate mortgages during the height of the pandemic explain why that happened. Then, second, mortgage rates soared. But the housing market is still holding on. Partly because nobody wants to move and swap a 3 % mortgage for one way higher. But none of this looks like the economy or housing market of The Great Recession. Another thing people say will break is overall credit use and delinquency. Maybe. But I already have a category for it. Here's three examples of bumper stickers the media used non-stop that seemed like really sloppy writing and research, but I read constantly: 1) Home prices never go down (circa 2005), 2) Home prices will never go up again (circa 2008), 3) Austerity is in and the rich won't show off their wealth anymore (circa 2010 - ha ha!). I've already put all the stuff about how people are maxxed on credit in that category. Having hit historically low credit delinquency rates thanks to all that bipartisan stimulus in both 2020 and 2021, we are now back to where we were when COVID hit: 2.7 %. And that was way below where they were during the GFC: 6.7 % If anything, based on this time series, credit delinquency in the range of 2-3 % seems like a sweet spot that ran for a whole decade while the stock market soared. So we agree that something could break. But it does not look imminent to me. And it seems possible that both inflation and interest rates could gradually cool down and lead to more economic growth, not a recession, in 2024. Then again, there is the inverted yield curve. So I'm not particularly confident, either.

I loved it, and downloaded it. In this case I'm not sure I would have been drawn to the music on its own. I like the music now because it emotionally resonates with the scenes in the movie. Titanic is the first movie that came to mind when I thought about other movies that many people loved, but many just thought was an over-rated mediocre film with a trite script and cartoonish characters. A simple answer to me is that fairy tales work well, if you want to believe in the fairy tale. If you don't, it just seems like a shallow fairy tale. I loved Titanic, which I took as a fairy tale, and was crying at the end. It won Best Song and Best Score in 1998. RWRB won't be winning many awards. But my guess is for those of us who were moved by the fairy tale, the score and borrowed songs like If I Loved You just deepened scenes that already resonated emotionally. It may not be quite the same as Jack and Rose on the boat. But the score from the scene in the museum is the one that really sticks with me. In terms of a sequel, speaking of Titanic, I hope they hire Lopez again and give him a bigger budget. Some of the things I liked least may have been rookie errors. But some were probably the budget he had to work with. The criticism made the most by fans of both the book and movie is it should have been a series. They could have gone both deeper and broader if they had ten hours rather than two. We'll see. But Lopez and Casey McQuiston both have made it clear they would love to collaborate and bring us more of Alex and Henry. I'm in for that.

Then again. ‘Bros’ star Luke Macfarlane on coming out: Honesty is more important than Hollywood I think I must have missed it. When did "honesty" become "creepy"? At least from a Gay actor's perspective? It is interesting that in the interview above McFarlane argued being Gay got him roles. Which I guess makes sense, if we are talking about Bros. When I first read that article a month ago, because I was really happy about the positive impact RWRB is having on Gays and Bi's in Hollywood, it felt savvy but not quite true for McFarlane to say being Gay is somehow a positive in Hollywood these days. When I Googled to find the article above again, I found this other one where McFarlane talks about the other side of the coin. Like, sorry. Why would anyone actually cast a Gay man as Superman? Like really? GAY? Like GAY? Superman? GAY? Come on. WTF? Everyone knows Superman can't be a homo, right? Next thing you know we'll have Gay princes and shit! So that is the world we live in. Still. But apparently McFarlane doesn't think it's "creepy" to be honest about being Gay. In the same article, he was asked about his romantic life, and he answered like this: Arguably, the first quote contradicts the second. But I think McFarlane is one of many Gay actors who are poster children for how to do it right. Now that he is a Daddy, in real life, it is kind of hard to hide that, too. So like every Straight star in Hollywood who is know for treasuring family privacy (Matt Damon comes to mind), he makes whatever accommodations he makes to let fans know some things. What seems really ridiculous to me is the idea that fans should not be fans, and Hollywood should not be Hollywood. I just hope, like McFarlane does, Gays and Bi's can now fit more openly into the system as it has always been. Kit O'Connor can't be used as fodder for any "one size fits all" solution. There is a big difference between being 18, and being a 31 year old Gay married man. Lots of the biggest Gay stars, like McFarlane, seem to have come out in their late 20's. Which makes sense to me. The push me/pull me they express between wanting to be honest and also be a Gay or Bi role model, on the one hand, but not wanting to destroy their careers, on the other hand, also makes sense. The problem is not that actors want to be honest about being Gay. The problem is they feel being honest about being Gay could destroy their career. Again, though, I don't think it helps much to compare Kit O'Connor to TZP in terms of what they are or are not emotionally ready for. Here's a perfect example of where it gets complicated, and even ridiculous. Google "Joey King wedding" and see how many pages you come up with. And, yes, arguably the definition of "stalker" in 2023 is "a fan who cares about Joey King's wedding." Why is it anyone's business? (For the record, I do not personally give a shit about Joey King, or her wedding.) Then again, if that's what stalking is in 2023, why is Business Insider, let along every fucking fashion or entertainment or gossip magazine or website in the world, running articles titled, "Joey King Shares The First Photos Of Her Engagement Ring." Does that mean Joey King is inviting invasions to her privacy, and even stalking? Or does it mean she is savvy about how Hollywood works, and what her fans want to know? I'll guess the latter. It's a perfect example because when TZP was interviewed by Glamour magazine when Kissing Booth 2 hit, he did what seemed like a very Gay thing. He deflected a question about whether he would date a fan by saying he wishes Joey King would date him. It's the Rock Hudson strategy, I guess. Again, if this is stalking, why is every magazine and website in the world making money by asking such questions? The happy ending to me is Joey got married, and the world knows. TZP attended her wedding with his husband, and it wasn't a big deal. Happily, he did not have to pretend he was Joey's groom, or wishes he could be. In general, it seems Taylor's strategy is to neither hide it, nor announce it. Which makes sense to me. In a perfect world, unlike the one we actually live in, it wouldn't be a big deal whether he is Gay or Straight or Bi. I take it as a victory that we can cast Gay actors to play Gay or Bi characters, at least. I also take is a victory that Gay directors like Lopez can cast Straight actors like Galatzine to play Gay princes in wildly popular movies. A Gay Superman - meaning either the character in the movie, or an actor like McFarlane who is cast to play him - may still be as hard as leaping tall buildings in a single bound. Forgive me for being optimistic. But it seems like we're actually making progress from the way Hollywood used to be. 🙂

Granted, I sucked at calculus. But I don't think the declines in inflation are the anomaly. I think what is an anomaly, at least right now, is the last month. And it is no surprise, given gas prices. It matters to me because of personal investing. Having decided I was wrong to put too much trust in the bears earlier this year, I'm now more into stocks than I have been in a while. And I think it is the inflation, stupid. So if my beloved clown is right, and we're headed back up to 9 % inflation or what not, the stock market will probably like it about as much as it did in 2022. It will not end well. The alternative view is that the global inflation problem is winding down. (Even the UK is down to "only" 6.8 %, compared to their recent 11 % peak.) Yet most Americans are still saying loud and clear it still sucks. If you ever want to buy a home or a car, that is. Or simply want to use a credit card you don't pay off at the end of the month. So if inflation is actually waning, a reduction in interest rates can't be far behind. The stock market will like that. I'm actually not worried about inflation. I'm worried about a recession. But a recession would be deflationary, at least. It just won't be very good for anyone invested in stocks. Then again, economists do seem to be great at being fundamentally wrong about their educated guesses. So it won't shock me if the recession predicted the longest in advance by the most experts ever simply doesn't happen. If it is true that you should trust the market, and not experts, the market has been saying all year long that things are getting better. Then again, I have always loved clowns. 😍 So I guess I'll just try to stay open-minded.

@Rod Hagen in case you did not see this article today. Not really good news .... for anyone. California tries for a different path than Florida on insurance

Wait. If I intentionally watched Salim get (you know what) by the boyfriend of the woman he is fucking while he is almost naked in a shower, that does kind of make me Gay. Doesn't it? It also proves that us Gay guys are far more gracious when we are being fucked by gorgeous men, I think. 😉

And not just iPhones. China, ‘factory of the world,’ is losing more of its manufacturing and export dominance, latest data shows The article puts a lot of the shifts on COVID, which was certainly a big factor. But even as COVID fades. getting corporate supply chains out of China seems to be accelerating. The big picture prognosis I keep reading in bits and pieces in various articles is that, over the long run, this drains China, and India is the big winner. I don't follow trade policy enough to have a clear opinion about it. But it seems like there will be more of these tit for tat, "You ban this and we'll ban that" measures. The other interesting thing, based on spending all of 10 minutes Googling it, is Apple's market share seems to be growing in China, regardless, especially among high-end users. Maybe that's why they are banning it. Apple at least seems to be winning customers, even as they move supply chains out. In the last quarter of 2022 and first of 2023 Apple topped 20 % market share, that hyperlinked article says. Xi, I wonder why! 🤔

Go ahead. Project all you want. I saw the bottom picture on some fan website and thought it was adorable. When I just Goggled "Nicholas Galitzine dog" it of course turns out there's a website for that. There are lots more if you Google it. NICHOLAS GALITZINE'S PETS Glad the movie moved you as much as it did me. I guess in the film Nick had no time for the dog. He was too busy pawing Taylor. 😉

So we mostly agree. But since this is not Twitter, and part of my job around here is to be verbose, I'll complicate things. Arguably, you are not the market. You are a handful of volatile tech stocks. Your mini-me is the market, which is everything else. 🤔 I brought Mike Green up because I think he is at least partly right. Index funds (or passive investing) have elements of driving a car up a hill with no brakes. It probably has helped inflate both the price and PEs of the stocks above. Although the same thing happened to Intel and Microsoft and Cisco in the late 90's, when passive investing was a small share of the market. Either way, as we've seen many times in the past, riding a car down a hill without brakes is a very different experience. While Green sees passive investing as dangerous, there's one thing about it I see as a big positive. It is almost patriotic. I have read critics say that Americans are investing in gaming platforms, and things like Google that basically help you find porn online. While China is building the best electric cars and AI technology that will run the world decades from now. I don't buy it. That chart above is proof. Index funds tend to plow capital - arguably too much - into the most cutting edge and innovative technologies of the future. But, as Warren Buffet says, lots of people lost fortunes eventually by investing in the cutting edge technologies of the past: railroads, airplanes, the transistor. Speaking of people who have lost fortunes, if Jack Ma is the future of China, which he used to be, China now has a big problem. Some book on investing I read years ago went through various types of investments, including real estate, in simple terms. I think, ballpark, it said something like homes appreciate 5 % a year on average, versus 10 % growth for stocks, including dividends. So your best simple bet is to go with stocks, and an index fund. My reaction to the book was thanks, but no thanks. Thanks to the magic of real estate leverage, I way outperformed stocks for decades in a row. For most people who only own their own home, like my deceased Mom and Dad, it still ends up being the biggest asset they own. Now that I am selling rental homes I'm trying to figure out whether, or even if, the stock market can make returns that are in the same ballpark. So index funds like the S & P 500 or tech-laden ETFs are my default moving forward. That said, on a practical basis, there's not a huge difference between VOO or similar funds which are the S & P 500, and FNGU or SOXL, which are ETFs loaded with the stocks in the pie above. With FNGU and SOXL, which are 3x leveraged, the drive up the hill will be faster and more fun, brakes or not. On the way down, I am planning to jump out of the car, though. If I don't survive, I'll miss y'all. 😉 My Millennial nephew has suggested that his generation will be the true guinea pigs for passive investing. I think he is right. My parents mostly avoided stocks. Except for my Mom who followed a very good stock tip to buy Baxter. Boomers and Gen X, in my family, mostly play with stock picking or have had active managers, at least in the past. Funds like Magellan and Peter Lynch, or Buffet and Berkshire, have shown they could make 30 % a year for a very long time. If passive investing ends up being a car without brakes, Millennials will be the ones who the crash permanently injures. If anyone is interested in engaging on a longer term and theoretical level, here's another way to look at whether the market is underperforming or overperforming: Around 9/11 I had a discussion with a stock broker, who I'd invited to speculate about when and where the 2000 bear market might end. He said that at some point the market would hit a single digit PE and bounce back up. And then we'd know the bear market was over. Over two decades later, that still has not happened. So if stocks have been overvalued for almost every year since the early 90's, can they really be overvalued? And if we have been in a bubble, or extreme bubble, maybe half the time since the early 90's, how can it even be a bubble? That sounds like "this is time is different." But, 23 years in, this century and the last decade of the past century have been consistently different. What Green got me wondering is that maybe it's less about the huge money flows into passive funds, and more about the even bigger flows into the stock market, period. Including stock buybacks. Those two charts show two different aspects of the huge increases in flow. The first one is about the growth in online retail trading. The most interesting thing about the second chart (which stops at 2000) is the explosion of the Nasdaq. It started in the early 1970's as a tiny fraction of the NYSE, and ended up surpassing it by the end of the century. Same time period as when stock buybacks made a roaring comeback (1982) and overall stock markets PEs soared to heights never seen before. I Googled to see if there were theories someone like Green have online about the PE impacts of overall stock volume, not just passive investing. The thing that made the most sense to me is William O'Neill's (Investor Business Daily) stuff about how picking individual stocks with low PEs makes little to no sense. Because often the stocks that perform best have what seem like nosebleed PEs. Even at the start of what end up being massive price runs. Nvidia is now a perfect poster child for the point O'Neill was making. When I checked a few months ago it had a PE of 221. Now, thanks to its last over the top earnings report, the PE is "only" 114. What all this makes me wonder is whether a set of concepts based on how stocks worked back in the 1970's, when the Nasdaq was newborn, even still apply. Passive investing is certainly one way in which everything has changed. If I go back to the idea that at some point a very long bull market will end, and the car with no brakes is probably bound to crash into a wall with a single digit PE, that's only a little better than a ticket on the Titanic. The same Millennials who felt screwed by the Great Recession will feel even more cynical. This Shiller version of the S & P 500 PE is my favorite market PE measure that I look at once in a while. Since it averages out long term (10 year) market PEs. The current PE is roughly double the historical mean and median. Which suggests that if Green is right, and passive investing is a car driving up a hill without brakes, we might be setting ourselves up for a hell of an awful ride. Worse, if I only look at 1880 to 1980, right now we are at the top of the hill. And the only time we were this high, in 1929, we were actually at the start of one of the worst crashes ever. If I focus on 1990 to 2023, the current PE of 30ish is smack dab in the middle of a "normal" range of 15 to 45. Which maybe makes sense, if the market is increasingly structured in a way that elevates the most profitable tech stocks with the highest PEs. Which it then tends to push higher. Whatever some stock broker at the end of his career told me two decades ago, that's not the world Millennials investing in index funds have ever lived in. Plus, it looks like the car is in fact still going up the hill, albeit with some bumps along the way. Who knows where the top of the hill even is? But if we're using Shiller's PE as a map, there is reason to think we potentially have a long way up to go. To make one last use of Green's analogy, you can do okay for a long time in a car without brakes. It still moves. You can't run a car without gas. (Well, Elon Musk can.) The nice thing about index funds and passive investing is it's like having a massive, growing, and permanent gas station strapped on to the fuel tank. It doesn't guarantee the car will always go up, as that retail trading chart above shows. But what we know right now is we are going up. And people are constantly putting massive amounts of gas in the car. And we are as far from the most recent top as we are from the most recent bottom. I'm not particularly scared about the brakes right now.

So I waited five days to comment on this. Partly to see if anyone else would. Meanwhile, the TZP narrative is advancing on TikTok and God knows how many other websites across the planet. The main purpose of all my rants is to heap praise on the book, the movie, and the actors. Both in terms of how they portray Gay and Bi men in the movies. And what they are doing in real life. I get why some people see this as a Hallmark movie with a Marvel-level script. But I think the book and film are wildly successful because McQuiston and Lopez did an amazing job of taking decades of hard fought and hard won LGBTQ wisdom, summarizing it, and dramatizing it. They are not only ahead of the curve. I think they moved the curve forward. Certainly in terms of LGBTQ representation in movies. But also, as it is turning out by the day, in real life. Heartstoppers, which I love, kind of did the same, in terms of representing Gay and Bi boy love. The difference is that Heartstoppers didn't really have a cultural agenda. Other than to say it is perfectly okay and sweet to be young, in love, and Gay or Bi. RWRB is helping move an entire way of thinking about being queer forward. That WGTC article is funny. The part I agree with is that it was cruel to bully Kit O'Connor on Twitter. To the point that he felt like he had to make a statement he did not want to make. And this concept of "queerbaiting," which led to the cruelty, needs to be flushed down the toilet immediately. The part of what WGTC is saying that I disagree with is their totally unrealistic fan-bashing. I'll put the verbatim quote below. But they are saying all of Harry style's fanbase are like vampires, lurking in the darkness. It's just stupid. What's even more stupid is WGTC is spreading the speculation, even as it disavows it. The WGTC article posted above decries speculation. It links to what I guess is supposed to be an example of this horrible speculation. Which is a different article in WGTC, written five days earlier, literally titled, "What Is Taylor Zakhar Perez's sexuality?" If WGTC thinks speculation is bad, why are they running headlines speculating about his sexuality? It's silly. I don't think it's realistic to believe fans, or non-fans, won't be curious and won't speculate. I've been wondering whether Galitzine is Gay since I watched Handsome Devil. I don't think that is evil. I know that as an escort, I had almost 100 reviews where people speculated about my cock, my balls, my kissing, my fucking, and many other things. Personally, I rather enjoyed it. But let's talk about real celebrities. Here are five things we all know about Brad Pitt. 1) He is Straight. 2) He dated lots of gorgeous women. 3) He married and divorced two of them. 4) He was an alcoholic. 5) He abused his wife. At least he didn't have people speculating about his cock. Oh, wait! Google "Brad Pitt small penis" and see how many articles you find. None of that has anything to do with his acting. Or whether he deserved to win an Oscar. Maybe it is all evil. But I don't think queer actors will, or even should, be treated differently. So let's be realistic, okay? Hollywood is Hollywood. For a better model, let's ask Taylor. Or the character he played. To summarize Alex's nice speech: 1) We don't like the forced conformity of having to be closeted. 2) Neither do we want to be outed. 3) We may not want to come out at all. 4) The principles we care most about are self-determination and privacy. If you stop there, and especially in the context of the movie, you could decide that means, "I'm queer. And it's none of your fucking business." But that's actually not what Taylor said. Arguably the most important line, both in the context of the movie and in Taylor's real life, was this: "I hope one day we'll have the opportunity to be public about our relationship on our own terms." Sounds great. But what does that really mean? How about we ask Luke Macfarlane? ‘Bros’ star Luke Macfarlane on coming out: Honesty is more important than Hollywood I think that speaks for itself, and makes Macfarlane even more lovable. But let me draw out a piece of subtext. You could take this to the other extreme, and read it as Luke saying he owed it to his fans to tell them he is Gay. I don't read it that way. The way I read it is that he is a pragmatist. He knows people are going to be speculate. So what he wanted to communicate is that I appreciate you being my fans, I respect you, and I want to be honest with you. Beyond that, leave me and my family in peace. The last part of course didn't need to be said. Let me also draw out one other important assumption kind of made there. Are many Gays, Bi's, and Lesbians "tortured and ruined by the lies they had to tell." That's kind of the entire history of Hollywood, one could argue. But do we have to worry about Taylor being tortured or ruined? I really doubt it. I think he'll be fine. This is not a one-size-fits-all process. I think this quote from Macfarlane is a great one, too: I think that is true. It obviously helps explains RWRB's success. To again draw out subtext, I think Macfarlane meant both the characters he plays, and him in real life. It would also explain why he came out. People like seeing the actors they love fall in love. Maybe that's not fair. But whether it is fair or not, it is going to happen, anyway. Ask Brad Pitt. Macfarlane simply got ahead of it, and made himself even more adorable. And the problem with that is? The funny thing about those WGTC articles is one says this: "it seems impossible for people online to enjoy LGBTQ+ content without pondering the sexualities of people involved in said projects." The other said this about Harry Styles: "he is constantly followed by a hailstorm of speculation." I think both statements are true. WGTC confirms them by publishing two stories speculating on TZP's sexuality. So why are they bashing fans for acting like fans? Or like human beings? Here's what WGTC says about Harry Styles fans: Here's what Olivia Wilde, who Styles is dating, says about his fans: Please. Give her and Harry the Luke McFarlane award for spreading pragmatism and good energy. But what I really love is what Harry had to say about Twitter: "it's a s---storm of people trying to be awful to people." Thank you! Which leads us to Kit O'Connor. Mostly that just seems like some asshole being an asshole. Even if you buy the logic of queerbaiting, what is the problem with a male who is portraying a character who is Bisexual holding hands in public with a woman? What does Bisexual mean? It makes no fucking sense. Other than that assholes are assholes. "Queerbaiting" makes no sense to me. One reason is that some asshole will then decide Luke Macfarlane was straight-baiting in Hallmark movies where he played Straight men, and attack him for that. Stupid. I ranted about this in a post already, but I will repeat it here. Lopez kind of baked a smart response into the cake (pun intended) by casting a charming Straight actor as a Gay prince. Who then sat down with a Gay Variety reporter and came out as Straight. No one is attacking Nick. The whole world is loving him. No more queerbaiting, hopefully. Thanks, guys. We needed that. I love what someone posted on Tik Tok today, responding to the raging debate about whether TZP is Gay: "Why are you hurt?? We finally have a queer actor play queer character, this is huge 🎉❤️❤️❤️ If it turns out Taylor is Gay, I could not agree more. Honestly, Lopez is turning out to be such a master of message that I wouldn't be surprised if he intended life to imitate art on this. Everything being said about Taylor maybe being a loving, kind and committed Gay man only makes him seem even more adorable. I have to assume there were some conservative Christian women who watched Hallmark movies who had a real moral problem with Macfarlane being Gay. Which is why he did the LGBTQ movement an awesome kindness. Maybe he got some of them to open their heart. The interesting thing about RWRB is it is hard to imagine anyone who likes it having a problem with Taylor being Gay (if he is, of course). Luke Macfarlane said in that article above that coming out helped his career. I think that's probably bullshit. But a very smart thing to say. That was 2008. In 2023, in the context of what RWRB is all about, what's happening around the movie may actually help advance Taylor's career. Too early to tell. But I sure hope so. I'll close with a few more paragraphs talking about Taylor and Momma Uma, as scripted by McQuiston and Lopez. I don't think comparing TZP to Kit O'Connor is very helpful. TZP is 31. I think he has two very good choices. I think what we are going to learn is that Taylor is living a real life fairy tale. Right down to the kind of fairy tale setting where me and millions of others like me are hoping Alex and Prince Henry get married in the sequel. Taylor and whoever he loves can say or do whatever they want. But if they don't make a sequel, I will super pissed! 😉 Momma Uma laid out one good choice for Taylor in the movie: You better think about this, and be sure. Because this will define you for the rest of your life. I think it's a safe bet that Luke Macfarlane thought that through in 2008. And that seems to be where TZP is at, as lots of his fans have noticed. He's not hiding anything, he's not denying anything, and he's not calling any press conferences. It's the Harry Styles approach, as Harry articulated in the article above: Taylor's other choice is to take the path of Alex, as portrayed by Taylor. I'll repeat the line, since it's a good one: ""I hope one day we'll have the opportunity to be public about our relationship on our own terms." If Taylor were Gay, why might he do that? Ask Luke McFarlane. He might feel it is more honest, and easier. Like Macfarlane, he would immediately be a role model. Like Macfarlane, he would be doing the LGBTQ community, and other queer actors, a kindness. Not in an "I'm a queer activist" kind of way. In a "I'm just a normal guy who fell in love with a guy" kind of way. Then again, maybe TZP values privacy above all else. It's his, or their, choice. Wait. Didn't we already go through all this stuff in the movie? I just fucking hate it when these trashy Hallmark movies are so much like real life! 😉 I think I am like most fans of RWRB, in terms of how I feel about the writer and director and actors who brought it to life. I admire them, and wish them the best. What I think Macfarlane captured, that WGTC doesn't get, is that this is a two way street. Lopez and Galitzine and TZP can be honest because we are going to admire them for who they are. Speaking for myself, I have very deep respect for McQuiston and Lopez. I'll respect TZP regardless of what he does, and just hope for a sequel. But if he does pull a Macfarlane, on his own terms, I will respect him even more.

I am posting this question separately since I didn't want it to get lost in my verbosity. You now have two answers saying: go index fund. But what are you invested in, and why do you think it is underperforming?

This is funny. I just posted an off topic video by Mike Green in a different thread. But it is on topic here. Green's point is that now that "brainless" (his word) passive investing .... like S & P 500 index funds ... has taken over roughly half the market, it has made life hard for active managers. Boo hoo! And added volatility to the market. He likens it to a car driving up a hill without brakes. Which could land us in something like another subprime crisis when we get to the downhill portion of the ride. He makes some good arguments, if you are interested and have an hour. But I don't buy it. The key point he never really addresses is why the market of stock buyers are speaking with their pocketbook. Three main reasons. It is more profitable. It is relatively safer. (We hope.) And it is easier. And Green's argument doesn't quite make sense. If passive investing is brainless, and active managers are so smart, why are they having such a hard time consistently outperforming brainless passive investors buying the S & P index funds? 🤔 Not all funds, of course, are index funds. But a lot of them are. I'm newly - like as of of a few weeks ago - into funds like SOXL and FNGU that are outperforming the market ........... for now. As I've said a few times, a nephew threw caution to the wind last October and is up about 300 % on one of those leveraged tech funds. Check back with me in a year, if we are in a recession. I am fully aware they will outperform the market on the downside as well. To use Green's analogy, I'm simply assuming I am smart enough to jump out of the car when it starts going downhill without brakes. To complete the analogy, buying into the S & P 500 ensures you at least have some brakes on the way down. Unfortunately, it still won't be a very pleasant ride. Here's two other words ........... Berkshire Hathaway. I don't own the stock. But it is one example of a way to beat the market consistently, by a gigantic amount. I do what I consider a form of Buffet Lite. Like I own Apple stock, which is Berkshire's largest holding. It has wildly outperformed the market for decades. Will that continue into the future? Who knows. What I do know is I am not as smart as Warren Buffet. So I figure if it is good enough for him, it is good enough for me. Green talks about the negative aspects of this behavior. But I think the positive side is that it rewards the winners, like Apple. And keeps or puts them in indexes like the S & P 500. Or some other index fund that will consistently produce good returns, like what you state. When they become losers, they are dumped. Which is why vast numbers of people keep buying them, as the chart above demonstrates. S&P 500: $100 in 1957 → $65,980.22 in 2023 Here's a fun little tool I found. You can plug in any number you invested, any year you invested it, and see what you would have made, including dividends, if you bought the S & P 500 instead. It makes it very easy to see why people like index funds such as the S & P 500. Two other words, which send most people, including apparently @Rod Hagen, screaming into the night ............. real estate. When I enter any down payment I made on any home in any year into that, I did way better than putting it in the S & P 500. That's thanks to the magic of leverage. Since I get 100 % of the appreciation even though I only put 20 % into it. Most normal people would consider this worse than driving down a hill in a car without brakes. I'll add one other test I just ran last week relating to the S & P 500. Precisely because I'm trying to decide how much risk I am willing to take in index funds versus tech ETFs versus some individual stock like Apple. I looked at the decade from 2000 to 2010. Because I figured that for any "buy and hold" strategy that's about as bad as it can get. So you can use that tool above to calculate that if you dropped $10,000 in the S & P in January 2000, you would have had a whopping return of 1 % a year by 2010. That was actually good, I thought. Dividends is what got it to at least break even, since in 2010 the index was still below where it was a decade earlier. Then I took the six stocks I own right now that were around in 2000 and did a simple calculation. What if I bought each one at the very market top in 2000, and held them until the end of 2010? Three tech stocks (like Intel) were way down. Two were up a bit up: Baxter and Raytheon. But I would have doubled my money, even during a really crappy bear market, simply because I owned Apple. AAPL peaked at a split-adjusted price of $1.29 or so in 2000 - can you believe it? - and was worth $9 at the end of 2010. Can you believe it? I knew someone who helped manage a venture capital fund for a long time. If I understood him correctly, this is basically how venture capital fund offerings work. In any offering they plan on having some losers, and some modest winners. The most important thing is they hope to have one big winner, which makes all the difference. So if you want to outperform the S & P 500, that's probably the thing to do. Pretend you're a venture capitalist and try to pick a big winner. Good luck.

I had not even thought of wildfires. The part of what I said about Sacramento and subprime that is relevant was that State Farm was looking to trim risk and exposure. I'm going to assume whoever your friend's current insurer is has said no. As @Rudynate said, ideally work with an agent he already knows. In my case, my history of lots of insurance premiums and only a few small claims with State Farm had to help. If whoever he is currently insured by says no - assuming he owns a home and car - saying I will go elsewhere with all my business, and doing so, might be an option. So I would go back to the idea of insuring it as a rental. "I inherited this home. I plan to rent. I think it will take a few months to fix it up. It may take longer." That's all they need to know. To be clear, it's not, "I'm there on weekends." I know for a fact insurance companies know that when people like me buy rentals, sometimes we fix them up before we rent them. Then it gets into, how long? I'll repeat that I vaguely recall my SF agent may have said something like if the house is still vacant in six months this could be a problem. If I were in this situations and State Farm did that to me, I would be pissed. And I'd let them know it. I had a fun time a few years ago crucifying a mortgage servicer with the California Dept. of Financial Innovation when they fucked up on a prepayment I made and refused to fix the problem after several months. As soon as the CDFI got involved, the mortgage servicer gave me the respect I deserved. Here's a website I found on a quick Google search that is NOT the California Dept. of Insurance but has basic info about them. In this case, based on a brief scan, it's probably not worth the bother. They'll just say it's our policy not to cover (x). But getting a letter from a government regulatory agency could help change their minds. I've read that most of the state of Florida is becoming increasingly uninsurable because of all the disasters. Maybe homes in wildfire-prone areas of California are the same. I was not aware that State Farm said in May that they won't write new policies in California until you posted that article. There's no getting around that. I guess the worst case scenario is your friend is going to have to settle for crappy insurance that is expensive. And then factor that cost into whatever his budget is. Also a tangent, but one of my brothers just inherited a home. Which he was melting down about having to sell with a few other friends of the deceased. I found a local realtor in his area that clearly bought homes to flip, rehab, or tear down. Bottom line is the house was sold quickly, without listing, for a discounted commission, and for maybe 5-10 % less than they might have gotten had they listed it for months and done lots of repairs. My brother and his partners were delighted. Point is that, because he inherited it, he basically viewed it as free money. He felt the additional money he might have made otherwise wasn't worth the likely major pain in the ass of listing and repairs and possible sale fails. In this case, your friend could decide it sucks I have to pay more for crappy insurance. If that is the best option. But it's a house I inherited. There are worse things that could happen. I'll reinforce another thing I said, which I thought maybe was TMI. I would advise him to assume the house will be broken into, and he will not even think of making a claim. I think when I wanted State Farm to insure a home I was flipping in a poor neighborhood during the massive subprime nightmare I might have said that to my agent. In reality, even if I wanted to make a claim on the two break ins I had, the loss was small enough that it would have been stupid to do so. But he does need insurance in case the house burns down. Or they screw up a pipe and it floods, which has happened twice to people I know doing remodels. This really gets into detail. But it might actually be better to go with FAIR Plan (which sounds like it only covers fire) or crappy insurance with somewhat broader coverage that he is 100 % sure will actually cover a few extremely unlikely scenarios. As opposed to risking that State Farm or some other big name insurer will deny a claim after a pipe bursts because the home was vacant and that was not properly disclosed. While we are at it, this website says earthquakes are a higher risk in LA County than wildfires. That's a whole different topic. I decided like 20 years ago I wasn't going to spend what by now would have been a small fortune to cover the risk of earthquake. So far it has worked out well for me. So part of your friend's decision can be what risks he's willing to take. Like I want protection if the house burns down, but not if a pipe floods it or an earthquake levels it. I'll end by going off topic for one paragraph, to address your allegation I quoted above. 😉 You're wrong. Since you have made it personal, I hope I can spend one paragraph responding. My nephew and I regularly exchange emails - like maybe a dozen this week - loaded with graphs about RSI divergences or trend lines or what Hussman thinks about the Fed. Mike Green, and his theories about the dangers of passive investing, is the victim of our current mind-numbing debate. We've already agreed when I visit Chicago later this month we will have to leave the room when we talk about this stuff. His wife, Mom, and Dad simply won't tolerate it. His problem is he scored 99 % on the ACT test for scientific reasoning. I think that's actually worse than being Gay. Or being a landlord. That said, many Gay men might actually enjoy YouTube debates about being passive versus active. 😉

I think Kevin is right. I was just about to hit post when I saw he posted. So this is my verbose and more detailed version of what he suggested. The question confuses me. I've owned a bunch of homes for decades, during which time State Farm insured them all. During that time some of them were vacant for more than a month. Either because I was selling them, or remodeling. State Farm never made that an issue. Perhaps because in most cases, like when I was selling, I never told them it was going to be vacant. But in a few cases I know I told them. Because I acquired the homes to flip them, as perhaps in your friend's case, and State Farm knew that. So if I were in a situation like that the first thing I would do is work with whatever company insures what I have, already. It's not like selling a home that stays vacant for months, or remodeling a vacant home to rent, is a rare thing. I Googled to see what State Farm said, and this is what I came up with: That may be part of the answer. That's on an owners policy. But it makes sense that whether the policy is owner or rental it really becomes an issue when you make a claim. I've only made a few relatively small insurance claims on any home in 25 years. So I assume State Farm knows that, and likes me for that reason. I've never made a claim on a vacant home. So I wonder if there is some element of "Don't ask, don't tell" in my history. Like we won't make it an issue, unless you make a claim after the home has been vacant for months. When I was actively flipping homes, I vaguely recall having a discussion about this with the State Farm broker in Sacramento, where I was flipping. It was right in the middle of subprime. So I recall him saying that losses were mounting, and it was a sensitive issue. And while I was flipping one home that was vacant I actively watched a house across the street gradually being dissected by thieves. Like stripping copper out of walls and making off with HVAC units. My vacant home that was being remodeled was broken into twice. One morning I showed up at like 7 am before an inspection and was wondering, "Why is someone mowing my lawn at 7 am with a bicycle?" I was half awake. It was some thief on a bike on the lawn who had cleverly strapped a vacuum cleaner and anything else with wheels on to their bike so they could haul their booty away in bags. Part of my point is nothing of real value was stolen. It was irritating enough that I decided that, even though flipping was profitable, it was easier, and more fun, to just get paid to go to Europe or Mexico with the clients we shared, and what not. 😀 I hope your friend realizes that break ins are a possibility. But very unlikely something that would result in a big loss or an insurance claim. Hopefully they know that whoever does the remodeling should not leave boxes of expensive stuff in the house overnight. Just assume someone can and will break in. For whatever reason, I'm guessing that I have been a good customer, State Farm just never made it an issue. The home I just sold, which was vacant for a few months, was insured as a rental. Again, I didn't call them to tell them I was selling it, and it would be vacant for a while. I'm not even sure how I insured the vacant homes I flipped. I'm guessing as rentals. Since I had an owner-occupied policy with State Farm at the time. I may also vaguely recall that they might have said they could insure it as a rental, knowing that of course rentals are sometimes vacant. But at some point if it stayed vacant forever that could be an issue. But, in reality, it never was. Vacant & Unoccupied Home Insurance When I Googled vacant home insurance I came up with that with Farmers, too. Again, I'm a little confused because, by definition, almost every rental home I've bought was vacant when I bought it. (in one case I inherited the owners who put it up as a short sale in 2008, who are still my tenants in that home.) You didn't say your friend just bought it. You said he "has" it. And he may rent or sell it. Regardless of the specifics, I guess what I would do based on what you posted is call State Farm or Farmers and say I have this house I want to rent. But I plan to fix it up first so I can charge more rent. Again, this is something very normal that happens every day. I'm guessing builders or developers who flip homes 24/7 may have some other arrangements with their insurers involving a Vacant Homes Policy. But if your friend is a Mom and Pop landlord, or just someone who for some reason came to own a home, at least based on my experience State Farm should be willing to insure it as a rental that the owner is doing some work on to rent it.

Sweetie. You of all people should know we can be both smart and sexy. Or, we can have our movie cake and eat our movie eye candy, too. Or at least imagine what it would be like to eat it. 😉 This is an awesome thread. I just read it, years after it started. For the record, if I had to name one LGBTQ masterpiece I'd go for God's Own Country. But below is my list of films that have not been mentioned once here, that I really enjoyed and I think are worth watching. There's several articles out now about movies to watch after RWRB, if you want more of the same. So this can be taken that way. None will be on a Top 10 list, including my own. I left out the great LGBTQ documentaries and dramas about serial killers. These are all either Gay love stories, or moving stories about families that involve a Gay father or son or loved one. Almost all have one form or another of serious eye candy, usually Straight guys playing Gay men. Which I named in parentheses. Akron (both male leads) Circuit (both male leads) Defying Gravity (both male leads) Eating Out (the whole series) Giant Little Ones (too bad Darren Mann isn't Gay) Jonathon (Jannis Niewohner, in anything. Or nothing.) Jongens / Boys (both male leads) Kapoor & Sons (Sidharth Malhotra) La Partida/ The Last Match (both male leads) Le Clan/3 Dancing Slaves (the whole male cast, but especially Salim Kechiouche and Thomas Kumerchez in the other even sexier boat house scene compared to Maurice. Unsolicited advice for RWRB sequel ..... steal this scene (we know TZP has a hairy ass), and the line "Rape me, but don't hurt me.") Le Fil/ The String (Salim Kechiouche, again, in anything ... ideally naked) Longtime Companions (the first time Dermot Mulroney broke my heart) Man Of The Year (too bad Dirk Shafer never had an Amazon movie budget to worth with) Maybe Maybe Not (not .......... but Til Schweiger is still pretty) Parting Glances (I still think John Bolger looks like a Ken doll) Presque rien/Come Undone (both male leads) Punch (Jordan Oosterhof knocked me out) Rocket Man (I always thought Bernie Taupin was cute, and Jamie Bell is adorable) Snails In The Rain (not as good as Yossi & Jagger, but Yoav Reuvani is even prettier) Someone Has To Die (which sucks, but they are still gorgeous) Sommersturm (Kostja Ullmann, who also looked good getting whipped in Punish Me) The Skinny (most of the cast) The Thing About Harry (both male leads, and even more brainless and fun than RWRB) Your Name Engraved Herein (both male leads) Unless I missed it, none of these were mentioned. Except for the last one, which was actually mentioned a few times in the thread, as "depressing." So I included it to say I loved it. I guess the depressing part is boy meets boy, boy loses boy, and boy never gets boy back. Or does he? I think that's left open to interpretation. It is the most successful LGBTQ movie in Taiwan ever, as well as the most popular Taiwanese film of 2020, period. I think it could be taken as a societal recognition of what was wrong in a world in which two guys couldn't just meet and get married when they were young, horny, and sexy as hell. It's a better world now. And the commercial success of this movie proves it, I think. I'm guessing almost every one of these movies, especially the older ones, was very difficult to get funding for. Hopefully this thread is just getting started. 😉

I thought this was a really great interview with Aswath Damodaran. It makes interesting points about several topics we have been discussing here, plus many others. Well worth half an hour. What caught my eye was the part about NVDA's valuation. So I have three points I want to make. Aswath gives two very different answers on his own version of market timing, and whether you should sell at the peak. At 15:00 in the interview he says this, relating to his own holdings in NVDA: "If you wouldn't buy them at today's prices, why wouldn't you sell them at today's prices? I have two words: California, and taxes." 🤑 LOL At 18:50 he gives a completely different answer. Which is that he's sold half his NVDA holdings for about 7x what he bought them for, sounds like back in 2018 or so. And the other half are "on watch," he says. But his argument has more to do with fundamentals than market timing. He says to be worth what it is today, NVDA would have to have 100 % of the $350 billion AI market, and also 100 % of a new market that doesn't exist yet. Where's the upside? The second point is I think he calmly knocks down some of these "sky is falling" ideas. Like about how inflation or inverted yield curves inevitably mean we are headed to a recession or some other form of doom and gloom. In a sense, he's just doing Buffet 101: pay attention to what the markets are doing, not what you think they are going to do. Or, in his own words, "trust markets over experts." I definitely feel I trusted the bears, like Mike Wilson, too much earlier this year, and sold a lot of stuff I regret selling. That said, I made money selling it. That of course doesn't mean buying now is smart. Buy my nerdy nephew and I have been seeing the same price bottoms and RSI divergences and buying more now, for better or worse. If only to prove guys way smarter than me can also be way more verbose than me, take a look at this blog piece Aswath refers to in that conversation, about the correlations between inverted yield curves and recessions and stock market performance. There's no getting around the fact that whenever a yield curve inverts, a recession usually follows in a few years. That said, so what? In his own words, in the piece: Third point. I view this guy as an anti-Jim Cramer. Way more modest. And not hawking advice that he is sure of. Until he is spectacularly wrong. I take this to be a fairly upbeat but cautious view of the short- and intermediate-term. Including ongoing volatility whenever Powell opens his mouth or some new jobs report comes out. I think he's more likely than not to be right that sectors that have not been part of the index recovery, or lagging stocks in sectors that have been part of the index recovery, are probably good ones to buy. That said, SOXL (which has NVDA as its biggest component) is worth one-third less than a month ago. Or, it was a few days ago, when I was buying it on the dip. To close with this idea of whether you sell and pay the taxes just because you think you are at a peak, I know my answer is fluid. A client of mine who owned NVDA told me years ago that he wasn't worried about a 20 % dip. But he was worried about a 50 % dip. As Aswath says, NVDA had a couple 80 % dips, and survived and grew both times. So we now know the correct answer was, "Hold, and buy more." But not every stock acts that way. Which is probably why a smart guy like Aswath sold half his shares and sent Gavin and Joe big checks. I have about half a dozen models in my mind of what the next recession could look like. But if I had to pick one, it's 1990. Brief and shallow recession that happened a few years after THE BIG DUMP (1987). Which some know-nothing investor named Stanley Druckenmiller humbly admits he thought was the start of a depression. My point about 1990 is that it was over and done in six months: three months for the indexes to drop 20 %, and three months for them to climb back to where they were. The index got back to its ATH right around the time the brief recession ended. In that case, we now know the party was just getting started. If I were not a dumb whore, or if I did have a crystal ball and I knew the market would ONLY dump 20 % during a 2024 recession - assuming there even is one - I would just ride it out and buy more. I did that with a lot of oil stocks I bought in 2019. To my utter horror in 2020, when they seemed to be headed to being worthless. I didn't feel so bad about it in 2021 and 2022. Other than the crazy fuckers took my pragmatic liberal card away for it. But that's not something we discuss here. 😉

‘Red, White & Royal Blue’: Wattpad is Taking Over Hollywood I realize the last three posts are mine. In part I'm assuming that, with an audience score of 93 %, most people are like the Gay friend I watched the movie with: we enjoyed it, so why bother picking it apart? I realize no one here is attacking the idea of a wildly successful LGBTQ film. But I'm posting thoughtful articles that are relevant to why some people are picking it apart. One way to start and end any discussion about RWRB is what the author says in the last paragraph: Although I'd add, based on what the book's author and film's director say, that it's also obviously for queers. And most queers love it. Since I'm having a fun debate with myself (I like to think of it as intellectual masturbation, which is almost as good as the real thing), I'll offer two rebuttals about Wattpad. The author says that if this is how we get our films moving forward, it will lead to films chock full of Marvel language. Fair enough. I'm a whore, not a prince. But I could relate to Henry saying "no more shame or secrets." The really nice thing about Wattpad is that it is NOT Marvel. If we were talking about which Marvel character we'd like to be dicked down by, that's a different thing. But other than some homoerotic fantasy about Thor, I have no interest in the Marvel Universe whatsoever. Yet most years those films (or Disney, or some sequel) fill out the Top 10 highest grossing list. This year, shockingly, Oppenheimer somehow broke through and is now #4. The nice thing about Wattpad is that, even if what we get is The Kissing Booth and RWRB, it is about actual human beings with actual human problems. Even if you feel Prince Henry expresses himself using Marvel language. (Arguably, Barbie - which is #2 for the year - is also about real human beings experiencing real human challenges. I consulted with @Kenny, who informed me that the movie does address very important themes. About Ken.) 😉 My second argument defending Wattpad is that if you believe in a free market of ideas, it's actually a good way for good ideas to rise to the top. Even if they are cheesy ones. I learned a lot of things about Latter Days I didn't know reading the Wikipedia post. That movie clearly depended on one Gay guy who made enough money writing a Straight script to cobble together funding for a low budget LGBTQ story to be filmed. RWRB delivers kind of the same thing. But in a way that opens up a much bigger and somewhat easier pipeline. I deeply appreciate the fact that several decades ago some errant queer Mormon was dedicated enough to single-handedly fight to make a Gay Mormon film that many Mormons would still condemn. But there is something very cool about the fact that RWRB ended up getting filmed precisely because so many young queers and Straights simply liked the ideas in it. Even if what we get is The Kissing Booth for girls and RWRB for young queers, that's cool. If their success opens up funding for Francis Lee to make more films, or for Matthew Lopez to write a script free of cheese or camp that will win an Oscar, even better.

The rant continues. Red, White & Royal Blue director explains the biggest changes between the movie and the book I'm fine with the idea that some people may feel this is how you take a piece of shit (shallow hollow internet trash) off Wattpad and turn it into a fart (film about real trash). Cheese is actually a good catalyst to make that happen. 😉 But it's interesting hearing why Lopez made the choices he made. (The article is full of spoilers.) Whether you agree with them or not, they were clearly intentional. I like most of the choices he made. Some comments on his choices, which I don't think involve any big spoilers. I particularly like his decision to keep Alex's family together so he could have a father and a mother who were in sync about supporting their son and his boyfriend. Period. I'm guessing most of us did not get the film version growing up. Arguably, this is LGBTQ or Hispanic cultural propaganda. Not art. I don't care. I love it, anyway. If I wanted to go after Lopez, I'd do it over Alex's sexuality. I'm guessing most of us can relate immediately to Henry's torment about being a closeted Gay man - whether we are famous or not. I can't relate to someone in his 20's nonchalantly discovering he's Bisexual. And efficiently deciding that's just swell. I know just enough about Broadway and Hollywood to argue that in a live theater you can't see people's faces well. But in films you can. So Lopez saying "I needed something that was act-able" may reveal his rookie Hollywood status. God's Own Country is an exquisite example of how much good actors can communicate without saying a word on film. But Francis Lee was not trying to make a rom com that would sell more LGBTQ films through Amazon. That said, there's a vibe out there (like from the moron at the Daily Beast) about how Galitzine is a real actor, and TZP was in over his head. I disagree. In the key scene where they had it out, I felt TZP's face in close up said, "I'm a queer man who is hurt and I'm trying to save my relationship with the man I love." Galitzine, arguably, was trying a little too hard to channel Laurence Olivier. That said, watch Handsome Devil or The Beat Beneath My Feet (his first film, in which he is naturally charming) and compare his facial expressions. In addition to having a very pretty face, he has grown a lot as an actor. I'd bet he's going for an Oscar. And he's probably going to get it, someday. Now for a somewhat unrelated rant about another great film. Last night I read that whole 15 page thread on favorite LGBTQ films. It's an awesome thread, which I won't pollute with a rant. Almost all my favorites were mentioned at least once. At some point I will add a list of LGBTQ films I loved that weren't mentioned and aren't the best. But that I still really enjoyed and found moving. God's Own Country was mentioned a lot. But I think the one that was mentioned more than any other was Latter Days. Which makes sense. Because it was equally heartfelt. And the most heartfelt and beautiful thing about it was Steve (or Max) Sandvoss, who was also mentioned repeatedly in the thread. So here's a compare and contrast which I think is revealing. Latter Days got a 48 % critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, but a 78 % audience score. I was surprised the critics score was that low. That said, it could easily be attacked for poor production values (really? this is supposed to be an airport?), some cheesy lines and contrivances, and I think some wooden acting (but not by Sandvoss, who was the heart of the movie). Wikipedia says it cost almost $1 million to make, and it made about that much at the box office. But it is the top-grossing film from its distributor TLA Releasing. Every Gay man I have met who has seen the film loves it. As do I. RWRB got a 75 % critic's score, and a 93 % audience score. God's Own Country got an almost perfect critics score, 98 %. But a somewhat lower (though still excellent) audience score of 87 %. Makes perfect sense to me. If you ask me to name one of these movies that's a masterpiece, that's a no brainer. God's Own Country. That said, I have a friend who loves musicals and rom coms, and will gladly watch his favorites half a dozen times. I once asked him if he'd seen God's Own Country. He told me he managed to get through it, and quickly forgot what it was about. There's a reason good Hallmark movies and musicals can do so well. Speaking of which, for those of us who loved Latter Days, its writer C. Jay Cox has an entry in Hallmark Hall of Fame. Hope I didn't spoil the movie for you. 😉 By the way, Bottoms as of right now has a 95 % critic score and a 100 % audience store. I like it when it just keeps getting better. Latter Days, and Sandvoss, have aged well. I think these other LGBTQ films will, too. While I was going down internet rabbit holes, I found this "Latter Days 20 years later" video on YouTube. It's in Portugese, but with English subtitles. In a way that's good. Because it demonstrates how queer-affirming movies like this have had a personal impact all over the world. It breaks my heart, actually. I would love to give Lopez the award for Cheesiest Gay Love Story Ever. But I feel like we have to give it to Sandvoss. After all, he really does make cheese for a living now. 😉

So here's a bit more data on that. I'll start with @mike carey's sound reminder that economists have predicted two of the last 23 recessions. I don't take any of these macro prognostications all that seriously. But the way I'm treating this thread is this: are there obvious warning signs in corporate earnings reports that the US economy is somehow broken, and on the precipice of recession? My answer is "no." Household Debt Service Payments as a Percent of Disposable Personal Income There have been lots of anecdotal articles about scary levels of debt, either consumer or corporate. Let's add to the list that Rite Aid, which I think is the third largest drug retailer in the US, is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. As I noted above, Walgreens ain't doing so well, either. On a macro level, that Fed data shows that all the stories about how consumer debt levels are rising are true. But what they usually don't mention is it is coming off historically low bases, thanks to all the pandemic savings. As you can see from that chart, once we recovered from the Great Recession, we managed to stay at consumer debt of roughly 10 % of disposable personal income. That level seemed to be relatively low, and very much sustainable. Delinquency Rate on Credit Card Loans, All Commercial Banks Same with delinquencies. It's true that delinquency rates are "soaring" compared to where they were a year or so ago. It's also true that where they were a year or so ago was an all time low. So my read of that chart is that, again, from roughly 2013 to 2019 we had recovered from the GR. And the economy and stock market were humming along within the context of 2-3 % credit card delinquency. Which is about half what it was during the Great Recession. What I think is almost common sense is that for maybe 12 to 18 months in 2021, especially 2022, and maybe part of 2023 inflation was outpacing wage growth. And people in the middle and low end especially were losing buying power. So it makes sense that something had to give. And in many cases credit cards did the giving. I've seen a growing number of reports that this tipped sometime around Spring or Summer 2023. Thanks to lower inflation, Americans are finally getting a raise For the first time since 2021, wage growth is now significantly outpacing price growth. Prices won't go back to pre-pandemic levels. But especially at the low end it sounds like people are gaining buying power back. We'll know a year from now. But it seems possible if not likely that debt and delinquency levels could start to stabilize at the levels they were at, which were quite sustainable, before COVID fucked up the world. Unemployment Rate+Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items in U.S. City Average That's the third piece of possibly good news in this data trifecta. From roughly 2015 to 2019 the US was in this nice post-GR sweet spot of having both low inflation and low unemployment. I keep reading these stories above how we're entering a dark ages of stagflation. But the data don't support it. The "misery index" is dropping like a rock. At 6.8 %, it is back to what are historically normal to low levels already. If these quarterly economic forecasts the Fed puts out are correct, it's possible it will be at about 6 % a year from now. Which would definitely put us back in the sweet spot. I would not bet that the Fed knows what they are doing. But neither would I bet against them. Then again, God hath no wrath like an inverted yield curve. We'll see.