The only substitute for wealth is power and for power is wealth (with a hefty conversion fee). Amassing power would be the alternative action taken by the driven billionaire types if you take away the possibility of amassing wealth.

A bunch of stymied billionaires amassing power leads us back to pre-nationalized Europe.

At least when people amass wealth, they generally do something valuable for others.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge

Fidelity offers one: https://www.fidelity.com/managed-accounts/separately-managed...

It'd probably take you an afternoon worth of time to research then enact it.

Any product provider, like Blackrock, would jump at the opportunity to sell them an S&P499 given the scale of those pension funds.

> Plus they'd put themselves in the crosshairs of a whole range of activists...

Not to mention putting their own jobs on the line if SpaceX outperformed the rest of the index.

The first point, that an S&P499 is easy for them but they won't do it, means they have no conviction. The second point (where I agree with you), that it's obvious we-tried CYA lacking any real teeth that'll go nowhere, means they have no courage.

They're an asset manager: put your money where your mouth is. If their hypothesis is that SpaceX governance will be bad then short the bloody thing and use the proceeds to buy the S&P499. It's not a complicated trade given their industry position and ability to call third-party providers.

If they have discretion, these pensions can replicate the S&P500 minus SpaceX if they don't like SpaceX's governance.

If they're forced to passively hold precisely the S&P500 then shaddup and stop active managing.

Next.

> [California] imports about 60% of its crude from overseas--up from 5% in the mid-1980s- about a third of which comes from the Middle East. About 15% of the state's refined fuels are also imported, much of which depends on Middle East crude.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/gavin-newsom-california-offshore...

1) Must plan to buy a meal out.

2) Must plan to take a vacation.

3) Must plan to buy a house.

4) Must plan to pass it on.

...and that these are useful subgroupings for large-scale discussion.

How sensitive is the Strouhal number to viscosity at Re = 100 indirectly via the shedding frequency? My hunch is not very and so the implicit diffusion from coarsening is not having a first order effect. See Implicit Large Eddy Simulation (ILES) as the reason I ask.

How bad is the Strouhal error under coarsening of a less fancy method?

Beware, my computational fluids is meh these days.

Many prominent conservative thinkers are not particularly big fans of Trump. They like portions of his initiatives and policies but not him as a standard bearer, because he does dumb, ill-principled stuff at odds with conservatism.

Peggy Noonan of the WSJ can't write two sentences without letting you know how much she disdains Trump, e.g.

Watch: Wilholt's essay consists of exactly and only one indefensible, rhetorical sleight of hand. Consequently, no one can honestly defend it. Attempts to do so are undeserving of serious scrutiny.

After tearing down a strawman, he claims high ground:

> The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

But you'll get a fair bit of support for Wilholt's so-called anti-conservative principle from a fair number of prominent conservative thinkers.

That would imply that increased demand strictly decreases prices, no?

Given fixed supply, no dice.

To expand supply, one would use incrementally more expensive mechanisms to generate the incremental supply. (Because, why wouldn't you already be generating via the cheapest supply?) Either all existing customers would pay the same and the new customer would pay the higher rate OR smear the incremental costs across everyone. Prices might hold steady under the former choice but they would not decrease.

Is the idea that the new customer would unlock some better generation capabilities through capital investment? Something not already incentivized by the distributed grid?

Or is the idea that one should soak the new customer to subsidize the existing ones? Maybe rejigger some pricing tiers to push more of the existing customers into lower tiers while charging the new customer more. My guess is you're proposing this last option. I otherwise can't see how to square your suggestion with supply vs demand.