Funny… You Should Ask 

I gave up on Saturday Night Live after the original cast (including Dan Ackroyd, John Belushi, Chevy Chase, Jane Curtin, and Gilda Radnor) and the original writers were replaced by less talented performers and more politically correct writers. Over the years, SNL degraded from a quirky and sometimes brilliant comedic experiment that tested the boundaries of acceptable social satire to a weekly production of predictable softball spoofs of liberals and meanspirited mockery of conservatives.

Fundamental Rule of Comedy: Humor that mocks and condescends is not funny. It is insulting to those it targets, and energizes antipathy toward those it seeks to represent.

Great humor operates on a deeper level by highlighting human frailties, failings, and absurdities that are universal – follies that, being so common, tend to amuse and delight the full spectrum of audiences that are exposed to it. By identifying human folly in a loving way, it elevates and unites – rather than debases and divides – all those who partake of it.

While SNL was losing market share over the years by playing it safe and correct, a new form of social satire was developing by taking on the challenges that SNL had retreated from and by pushing the comedy envelope farther towards the edge of convention and respectability. It was every bit as bold and uncensored as the original productions of SNL, but, looking back at televised episodes now, I can see that in many cases it actually went further and cut more deeply.

Despite numerous recommendations from friends that I should investigate it, I didn’t because of the medium: cartoons. I dismissed the format as frivolous.

The one exception was Beavis and Butt-Head, which could be considered unifying only in the sense that its target is a stage of life that most of us experience for some portion of our adolescent and teenage years. It was silly and juvenile, and I thought it was hilarious.

That is why, when I came upon this video clip of a Beavis and Butt-Head bit on a recent episode of Saturday Night Live, I was curious enough to click on it.

While it was not in any way pushing any boundaries, it did make me laugh, and that gave me hope. It made me wonder if Lorne Michaels, after struggling for decades against SNL’s diminishing market share, may be redirecting the once-lauded series back to being as good as it once was.

It also made me wonder if Beavis and Butt-Head was as good as I remembered it.

I found this video online – “The 10 Funniest Beavis and Butt-Head Moments” – and took a look.

Unhappily, though I still thought it was funny, it wasn’t belly-laugh funny as it once was for me.

So I took a gander at some of the cartoons that I’d been ignoring for so many years – The SimpsonsSouth Park, and Family Guy – and, as my friends had claimed, they were very good. Funny without, I think, being divisive. But could that be because they tend to satirize the kind of ideas that I find in need of satirizing at this point in my life?

Continue Reading

The New Angst Over Grade Inflation

There are a few rules of life that anyone over 30 understands from experience. Among them is that making challenges easier for your children, your mentees, your employees, and your students will make them less capable of being successful after they’ve gone from your protective shield.

And yet, so many people that should know better continue to believe that lowering educational and other performance standards is a good thing because it will widen the circle of students that make it through school and emerge with diplomas.

The fact is, it is impossible to upgrade to a realm of equality for humanity in any respect. We humans are designed not just to be unequal because of the equipment we are supplied with at birth and the environment (culture) we grow up in, but also because each one of us develops his own point of comfort along the range of competence in any and every endeavor.

Lowering standards does not change the bell curve. At all. It only lowers the achievement levels of everyone on it, from top to bottom.

This article addresses the point with only a minimal understanding of what I’ve just said. But it nevertheless (and perhaps unwittingly) displays the impossibility of ever improving performance by lowering standards.

 

Big Win!

Good news for my family and all Americans building structures on land that they own. In the last several decades, state and local municipalities have begun to charge such landowners so-called “permitting fees” (cash fees and/or partial land compensation) for building on properties they may have owned for years. In the case in question, a homeowner was charged a permitting fee for an imagined future impact that was neither real nor even planned.

One thing that governments do well is to figure out ways of raising their budgets by inventing new fees and taxes. But this decision was 9 to 0 against that. Click here.

 

Debates That Work the Way They Are Supposed to Work

The Oxford Union debates have become increasingly popular in recent years because they require the debaters and the audience to follow strict codes of conduct. That discipline creates an actual “safe space” for participants to make their arguments and their rebuttals in a structured way that allows for both sides to fully air their views.

Click here to watch an example: Winston Marshall debating Nancy Pelosi on whether populism is a threat to democracy.

Continue Reading

Once Again, the Idea of a Wealth Tax Surfaces 

In the new global/socialist age, the desire to tax and redistribute income and wealth is greater than ever. And the good people of the UN and G-20 are doing everything they can to reduce the gap between the very rich and everyone else.

The latest brainstorm arrives in a proposal by four countries in the G-20 to impose a 2% wealth tax on the world’s billionaires. And don’t think this couldn’t happen.

“The tax could be designed as a minimum levy equivalent to 2% of the wealth of the super-rich,” write economic ministers of Germany, Spain, Brazil, and South Africa in The Guardian. They say the levy would raise about $250 billion a year from some 3,000 billionaires and “would boost social justice and increase trust in the effectiveness of fiscal redistribution.”

They plan to float this at the next G-20 meeting in June.

As you might expect, it would principally be a tax raid on Americans (the most numerous billionaires). It would also be taxation without representation – a body of global elites attempting to impose a tax on Americans without it being passed by Congress.

Chart of the Week: Sell in May and Go Away? 

Today, Sean gives us several graphs that depict one of the core insights of the Legacy Portfolio, which I developed with Sean and a small team of very smart analysts years ago. It’s proven itself over those years, and we’ve even made some tweaks to it that have boosted the returns a point or two. But the core strategy underpins the faith I have in the portfolio matching or exceeding historical returns in the future. – MF  

There’s an old adage among experienced stock investors: “Sell in May and go away.”

The “sell in May” saying supposedly originated in England, centuries ago. Merchants and bankers in London’s financial district noticed that investment returns generally did worse in the summer.

That is to say, the most profitable business months of the year occurred when aristocrats were in London doing business and not spending their summer trying to escape the heat.

In fact, the original saying went “Sell in May and go away, and come back on St. Leger’s Day” (a holiday in mid-September).

In America, it has essentially come to refer to the period between Memorial Day and Labor Day, the first Monday of September.

The historical pattern was further popularized by the Stock Trader’s Almanac, which found investing in stocks as represented by the Dow Jones Industriaal Average from November to April and switching into bonds the other six months would have “produced reliable returns with reduced risk since 1950.”

And in all honesty, when you look at the Stock Trader’s Almanac data, it looks impressive at first:

Following this strategy, with an added technical indicator called a “MACD crossover” (which is too complicated to explain at the moment), certainly produced exceptional results.

In fact, you’d have made over $3 million compared to the $1.8 million just buying and holding stocks – my preferred strategy most of the time.

That is, you would have made this money if you followed this strategy… for 73 years.

But I want to point something out that should be obvious:

The stock market in 2024 is not the same as the stock market in 1950.

We have computerized market makers now. And publicly traded derivatives. And passive index funds that definitely do not ever “sell in May.”

The market no longer depends on rich Lords being in London. There is, therefore, no logical reason why this strategy should be superior in the modern era.

To prove this, I looked at the data published by the Stock Trader’s Almanac.

Specifically, I looked at their S&P 500 results since 2002 based on the three portfolios they’re tracking: Sell in May, Buy in May, and Buy and Hold.

Let’s test this by investing $10,000 into each strategy in 2002.

Here are the results:

Both “Buy and Hold” and “Buy in May” had a rough start, due to the dot-com bubble collapse. “Sell in May” avoided that catastrophe.

But in most of the subsequent years, “Sell in May” actually underperformed – 2022 being a notable exception. “Buy and Hold” caught up and then surpassed “Sell in May” in 2019.

And even though we’re still waiting on 2024’s data, it still seems that “Buy and Hold” is dominating.

Over the last 10 years, the average return for “Sell in May” was 7.3%. But the average return for “Buy and Hold” was 12.7%. (“Buy in May” was 4.7%.)

In recent years, “Buy in May” has actually been outperforming “Sell in May.” In fact, during the recovery from the Corona Crash in 2020, “Buy in May” beat both “Buy and Hold” and “Sell in May.”

Long story short: “sell in May and go away” can help smooth out the growth of your portfolio, it seems, but it doesn’t beat simply buying and holding a basket of large, safe companies and weathering the slings and arrows of the market.

Especially when you consider how little time or effort you need to put in to make that strategy work.

But also, the stock market, more than most human endeavors, obeys Sturgeon’s Law: “Nothing is ever absolutely so.”

A strategy that outperforms for a decade can suddenly underperform for a decade, based on unpredictable shifts in demography, economics, or market dynamics.

Do not seek to find the best investment strategy. It doesn’t exist. Find, instead, the best strategy for you, your goals, and your temperament.

For me, that has almost always been “Buy and Hold.”

And I imagine that most of you will discover the same thing.

– Sean MacIntyre

Check out Sean’s YouTube channel here.

Continue Reading

Five Quick Bites 

Interesting. Makes your head explode! How much did we spend on illegal immigrants in 2023? How about homeless veterans? Click here.

Fun. Shark Tank’s best pitch ever. Click here.

Interesting. Attention old folks! Having trouble with your balance? Maybe it’s your glasses. Click here.

Fun. From Far Out Magazine: 10 movie scenes you’ll never want to watch again. Click here.

Fun and Interesting. AI-powered camera turns photos into poems. Click here.

Continue Reading

Portrait of Huli Tribesmen 

This was the “Readers Choice” winner in Smithsonian Magazine’s 2023 Photo Contest.

The Huli is an indigenous Melanesian tribe in the Hela Province of Papua New Guinea. There are more than 250,000 Huli, making it one of the largest of the 600 tribes in the country.

Continue Reading

Re my May 9 Special Issue on “Antisemitism vs. Free Speech and Peaceful Assembly” 

“Everything you said is right. Students and professors and non-students should not be able to shut down a public university by threats and intimidation. How do we protect the rights of the non-protestors? And what right does a university president have to negotiate with people calling for murder?” – BS

“I understand your point. Free speech doesn’t have to be the issue. Most of what’s going on can be responded to by the simple issue of property rights. You can say what you want, but you don’t have the right to take control of my property or inhibit my use of my property. When college campuses are the owners of the property, students are basically given an easement to use the campus property, but the easement has limits. Not blocking others’ ability to use the property is one of the limitations. Violating that limitation makes the user a trespasser. Colleges can feel free to remove trespassers, just as any property owner could. That being said, I think we should begin a national discussion on hate speech laws. The last I looked there were 29 countries that have enacted them, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

“These countries seem to operate just fine, despite some limitations on what their populations can say and do, to the benefit of all the members of these societies who are or would be the victims of hate speech. Have we in the US gone overboard in trying to protect the rights of our citizens to say nasty things? To what and whose benefit? And to whose detriment? What would the real risks vs. rewards be in adopting some hate speech laws in the US? Remember the Declaration of Independence and the right to the ‘pursuit of happiness.’ Would we have a better country if we put more emphasis on that pursuit and less on the right to speak hateful words?” – CA

“The problem with hate speech laws is in the interpretation of what constitutes ‘hate speech.’ In Germany in particular, dissenting opinions are being construed as hate speech and are being silenced. So much for Freedom of Speech! We have seen similar interpretations here in the USA.” – NW

 

From TM re my essay on Biden’s re-election strategy in the May 17  issue: 
“Why on earth are you suggesting how the Democrats could secure the White House in 2024? Is it because you think in pointing out this lunacy you feel it shows up the idiots they are?

“The only reason Trump lost in 2020 was because the SCOTUS put abortion on the ballot. Oh, and some minor election cheating, of course.

“Gavin Newsom is a fascist boob as proven by the total mess in California. How can you suggest that the man who helped destroy our largest state has any business in the White House. Sure, the sheep can be fooled into voting for him, but electability is not the main criteria of the job! Not only is he not qualified for the job, he is the most radical of leftists more interested in appearances and feelings than in fiscal policy and responsibility to protect our freedoms.

“You would really trust this [guy] to run any of your businesses? Elected by the same sheep that gave us Maxine, Kamala, Nadler, Boxer, Schiff, Pelosi, Feinstein, and perhaps 10 to 20 other clowns?

“I rest my case. The financial, political, and ethical values of the above and their cronies and backers will destroy this nation and possibly the world.”

 

From G re Big Pharma’s control of the market:

“Is there any doubt that Big Pharma controls many of the decisions made in this country? Total immunity from legal actions associated with faulty vaccines isn’t enough. The FDA approved a generic in 2019 for the drug Eliquis. An Eliquis three-month supply is over $1,800 and is one of the most common drugs prescribed to tens of millions of patients in the US. However, you can buy the generic in Canada for a mere fraction of the cost! And here you thought our government was looking out for you. Just pay your taxes, shut up and sit down.

“When will generic Eliquis be available in the US? According to the manufacturers, generics will not be able to hit the market any earlier than April 1, 2028. Watch it get extended. They won’t allow this cash cow to get away.

“In a normally functioning society this would not be tolerated. But then, this is not where we are today.

“End of rant.”

Continue Reading

After 40 Years in the Making, Francis Ford Coppola’s Megalopolis Makes Its Debut 

Coppola began working on this project in the ‘80s, and it was finally released this year at the Cannes Film Festival. You can watch the trailer here.

Continue Reading