Is he even carrying the ball? Doesn’t look like it in that screengrab.

Yes, because it’s not realistic that literally everyone is going to invest in passive indexes anytime soon. But the theoretical case for why capital markets need more diversity than just indexes is still essentially correct, and for reasons much less snarky than those advanced by the OP.

He writes a daily newsletter as well, if you’re into that sort of thing.

Yea, it’s only hosted under the Deadspin domain, cross-posted to the main Deadspin site, and effectively impossible to avoid for anyone who wants to read Deadspin.

theconcourse.deadspin.com, to be specific.

I know you’re joking, but this is actually a noted concern with the proliferation of index funds. It’s individually rational for investors to passively invest in the market, but if everyone does it the market becomes stagnant.

I’m curious how many folks ragging on Rubio in the comments have ever been asked as part of job to commit to some minimum timeframe, only to leave 6 months later for a better job. Or refused to support Clinton in 2006 because she very conspicuously refused to commit to a full 2nd term in the Senate. God forbid he…

He’s also completely leaving out the fact that both Obama and Kerry were their party’s nominees.

Even aggregating her NT and club salaries, she earns less than a 25 year-old starting a big Manhattan law firm fresh out of school. Which is ludicrous.

So the Concourse’s transition to being the new Gawker is apparently so unsubtle that Hamilton Nolan isn’t even changing his title?

The question that keeps coming up in my head is it physically/mentally possible to masturbate while running?

So one of two things is going on here. Either Rodney Harrison has a very strange method for defining who is and isn’t black . . .

Not sure what you’re talking about—my clients are mostly management side, buddy.

I am not particularly concerned with what you meant. My correction was aimed at how your comment can be perceived, given that “workers of the world, unite”-style rhetoric tends to rely on an implication that unions look out for everyone, which is contrary to reality.

Considering unions’ ugly history of screwing over non-members (consumers, black people, etc.), I would say so.

The job of the CEO of a union is to maximize welfare of workers union members.

More jobs have been lost to automation and domestic competition (e.g., moving factories from Michigan to Alabama) than to foreign competition. Unions and their associated costs played a role there, but it’s a much more complex story.

You also can’t really leave one union to join another that you feel may better represent you, as by necessity industries usually only have one union to supposedly increase their bargaining power, which on top of that you often have large unions of not-related industries band together to further increase their power,…

Holy post hoc ergo propter hoc, Batman!

The fundamental difference is that CEOs must, by definition, extract as much from their workers as possible by paying them as little as possible