Incorrect, it harms the families of addicts and the victims of crimes perpetrated to buy more cocaine, to name a couple externalities of cocaine use. This goes for alcohol, heroin, etc. I've been an addict and seen the damage that my use caused to others.

That being said, I think cocaine/heroin/meth should be legal and cheap, with drug counseling intake services offered at places that sell them.

Perhaps the trillions of dollars of stimulus money that has been distributed has something to do with it? Or maybe the generous unemployment benefits the federal government has passed out over the past four months to ensure people could pay their bills and purchase things to stimulate the economy?

Without those things we'd be in a completely different scenario. Things may get worse yet, we're not exactly winning the fight against COVID-19 in the US.

It absolutely is intellectual negligence, and there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. The standard answer trotted out is "charity" which is disingenuous at best, and completely impractical at worst.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out the logical flaws of people who secretly wish they were feudal lords or a pater familias in Ancient Rome, and wildly overestimate what their position or level of success in a theoretical 'Libertarian Society' would be.

[0] https://www.uspis.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/USPIS-FAQs....

The comments here are acting like all real world drug market transactions occur between strangers, which is so far removed from the truth we might as well be talking about something else.

A good way to describe selling weed is 'the only MLM where people actually want what you're selling'

There isn't vitamin e acetate in nicotine e-liquid because vitamin e acetate is used as a cutting agent in black market thc carts, and not used in e-liquid at all.

You can't regulate the black market, but you can make it smaller or eliminate it by legalizing marijuana.

I agree with you, when rates go up a large amount of zombie companies being held up by cheap money are going to go bankrupt, and it will have large ripple effects.

ETFs do have additional liquidity risk that mutual funds lack. If liquidity is lacking, it could lead to the bid falling below NAV, potentially quite significantly, and investors who chose to sell at that point in time would be losing additional money.

Mutual fund sales are processed at NAV at the end of the market day when the sale takes place, which ensures you will receive the NAV when you sell.

ETFs allow more flexibility, with the drawback of possibly trading below NAV or above NAV, which can be good or bad depending on if you are buying or selling.

If the price of the ETF falls too far below NAV, big traders will scoop up the ETF shares to redeem for the discounted underlying stocks as an arbitrage play, bringing the ETF's price closer to the NAV.

[0]https://us.spindices.com/documents/methodologies/methodology...

[1]https://us.spindices.com/documents/methodologies/methodology...

For instance, when an institutional investor gives SPDR say, $300,000,000 for a million shares of SPY, the fund goes out at purchases the underlying stocks in proportions that match the composition of the S&P 500, and then issues the SPY shares and holds the underlying and dividend payments in trust. SPDR does not have the option to choose the shares, they purchase a basket that replicates the S&P 500.

This is passive management, there is no one actively picking stocks, and when to buy/sell them.

Their shareholders, which includes management. Buybacks are essentially dividends in another form. Buybacks have the upside of not being expected to go up indefinitely, and there are no dividend cuts to upset investors.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6147796

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19465812

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4816010/

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2712270/

Patients are notorious liars