1/10 I detest Warren simply b/c she's an inconsistent, low IQ, lying opportunist, & her "wealth tax" idea. What the majority of her stans fail to realize is that wealth doesn't mean money. Now she's on the wagon attacking retail investors-plebes. How do her actions hurt farmers?

2/10 Let's start w/ wealth tax. I believe I'm wealthy, but not in the financial sense. I have a loving family, patriarchs who taught me self reliance & the value of hard work, I've worked hard to get a good job, I have the most amazing fiance, I could go on but this is my wealth.
3/10 Yeah, we have acreage, cattle & goats, flocks of chickens, tracts of crop land & a fleet of 50+yo equipment/implements that have been purchased & repaired, then repaired again. We make modest salaries from our day jobs & are fiscally responsible. Farming isn't get rich quick
4/10 though, it's a break back life that sees you lucky to break out 15% in the black on your yields averaged. How does this wealth tax idea impact us? We already pay property taxes, fuel taxes, personal property tax on some equipment, income taxes when I report sold livestock &
5/10 crops, income tax on land leased to other folks, capital gains are applied to leased land too, then we have to title & tag the farm trucks that touch the road in any capacity, sales tax on supplies, feed & seeds, then sales tax IF I need to buy goods back. At the end of the
6/10 day that doesn't leave much of a profit margin, so thankfully we have good paying full time professions. How does the wealth tax impact this? Wealth isn't money, it's your assets. Bezos may take an annual salary of $80k from Amazon, but his "wealth" is tied up in assets.
7/10 As you can imagine, we have a lot of assets on the farm. The majority of these were either handed down or purchased 2nd, 3rd, even 6th hand for cheap & fixed. My 1941 Farmall is an asset, despite having to split the case & fix the engine, it's seen as wealth.
8/10 I'm also a musician, so my assets include (as I put on insurance forms) the antique guitars handed to me from my dad, or the Gibson I saved & bought 7 years ago. All assets, all taxable in her eyes. My '71 Ford F-100 that we never leaves the pasture? Taxable asset.
9/10 So apart from taxing indiscriminate wealth we want to punish, as outlined by her, the plebe retail investors who played by the rules of these investors & won. It's ok when folks who back & donate to you do it, but when somebody like me plays to increase financial wealth
10/10 & roll that over into my other stocks, ETFs, & crypto it's a crime. The concern was liquidity on the side of these clearing houses, but it's the credit card fallacy; if you don't have the money don't spend it, & if you don't have the shares then don't sell them.
BONUS: It's my hard earned money, I'm entitled to invest as I see fit. She's not freaking out that I take on the financial gamble of raising blind calves to sell as beef. Or purchasing 10dz quail eggs to incubate & hope enough hatch & survive to adulthood to sell. Same risk.

More from Trading

We have shared a lot of threads exclusively on Subasish Pani in the past year.

As this year comes to an end, here are the 11 most powerful threads on Subasish Pani exclusively compiled for you all.

Collborated with @AdityaTodmal

1/ Important concepts from Power of Stocks - Subasish


2/ Important concepts with video links of Subasish


3/ The 5 EMA


4/ The Bollinger Band set-

You May Also Like

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.