@racqueteer

I've cited three separate paths which WOULD be solutions, but not in 15 years.

You cited three different solutions--geothermal, tidal and microwaves--and dismissed all of them and complained about how other countries are failing so why should we even try? No politician probably in the history of politicians has probably set a timetable for a goal and expected it to be 100% achieved by then. So let's say we reach 50% of the goal, 75% in 15 years. That would still be valuable. The U.S. I believe has four possible choices:
1. Lead in the fight against climate change while others follow us- The moonshot goal, what America was once famous for. Would be great for America's image.
2. Follow other countries that are actively fighting climate change like Germany and other Western European ones. OK, acceptable, better than nothing.
3. Do nothing and deny anthropogenic climate change is real and that we have any way to influence it and waste time complaining "whatabout" China, etc.. This is the traditional GOP response. It's bad, very bad.
4. Actually go backwards, roll back environmental regulations already in place, drill baby bill and spend needless hours trying to "make libtards cry" while the planet dies. This is where we are with the current president who has rolled back environmental regs and did everything possible to sabotage environmental movements. It is absolutely dreadful.
You seem to be saying Biden's plan isn't feasible in 15 years. So what? Something in the right direction is better than where we are now and moaning about other countries' behavior. And if we support addressing climate change via solar, I'm sure scientists will consider other avenues along the way. Regulations must change as well, not just tech innovation. It needs to be more expensive to produce carbon emissions and consume plastic. There are many avenues for attacking the problem. But moaning about what other countries are doing or not doing as an excuse to do nothing is no longer acceptable.

Ok, last try for me... The issue is 15 years; what can be accomplished in that time. I don't think that we're likely to have any kind of solution in that timeframe. I've cited three separate paths which WOULD be solutions, but not in 15 years. The people who have been responding negatively to me have proposed ZERO 15-year (or longer) solutions. I remain willing to listen to some substantive plan for accomplishing this admittedly worthwhile goal. I have a decent idea what is going to be ATTEMPTED, and note that it ISN'T one of the actually DOABLE routes I listed, but the old standby: Earth-based solar power; something that has serious technological drawbacks unless we can get them into space; maybe at a LaGrange point. For me, just "doing something" in the hope that it'll work out is inefficient and a waste or resources as well as energy.

Thanks msf, very well thought out and I agree. Still, there is that nagging thought I have that "only cash is cash." My concern would be something totally unforeseen that causes a permanent and substantial loss of capital. I guess that's not really a real concern with a fund dating back to 1977 with no down years, but I still need to get past that mental block. ZIRP is getting me there.

"Clean" WHERE? This usually means solar power, and while a laudable idea, you have to have large tracts of surface available, good weather most of the time, and you need to manufacture the stuff (polluting THERE) in order to build the panels. This stuff doesn't magically produce and transport itself; nor transport its output magically either (wiring, etc). Geothermal would be great, but a major implementation problem. Tidal power, sure, but you have to produce the materials, transport them, install them, run wiring, etc. Off-loading all this construction and manufacture into space and transmitting microwaves back? Yeah, THAT might be a 'solution' EVENTUALLY, but 15 years (or 25)? Fusion power could do it, but not in that time period. Not bloody likely we're getting THERE from HERE!
And while we're making that viable, what is everyone ELSE doing? We become even MORE economically handicapped, lose MORE jobs to cheap labor elsewhere, and THEIR pollution simply blows HERE? And is it moral to simply export our environmental problems? We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.

Confused. So what? Just shrug? Do you have a point other than a kvetch about what you think is delusion? This is not even at the level the perfect defeating the good. What do you propose? What would you advise? I cannot tell if you actually keep up, what with your credentials.

Here's an interview with BlockFi founder and CEO Zac Prince about all things crypto:
https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2020/11/talk-your-book-investing-in-bitcoin/
Fidelity has also created a digital asset platform:
fidelitydigitalassets.com/overview

Graust
+10
Best,
Baseball_Fan

So, LewisBraham, the sum total of what you've got is: "We can do it", followed by the notion that we can do it ON OUR OWN, 'somehow'? Hmmm... You claim you "cant understand my commentary"? Admittedly, I used a couple big words, and didn't adhere to some preconceived notion you might have, but I think it was clear enough, and you STILL haven't supplied anything of substance - Good you have that "can do" attitude though! So what's your "can do" plan for doing ANY of this which doesn't violate the Laws of Thermodynamics, physics, or finance? Fusion would do it - eventually. So would geothermal - eventually. Solar will NOT unless we get it off-planet and it ain't going to happen in 15 years. You disagree? Then back it up with facts and plans; not hope and wishes.

+1
Stay Safe, Derf

Max drawdown of VWSUX was 3% between March 9 and March 20.
Max drawdown of VUSFX was 1.4% between March 11 and March 20
Vanguard Short Term Tax-Exempt Fund's inception was Sept 1, 1977. In 2001, Vanguard added Admiral shares. Doesn't matter, the fund did not have a down year all the way back to 1977.
As far as pulling the trigger goes, the question is: what risk is of concern? IMHO, the risk is not one of temporarily seeing one's balance decline (" I can also definitely withstand [a] drawdown"), but of having made less than the alternative when the cash is withdrawn. This is why, e.g. one might look at monthly drawdowns rather than true day-to-day drawdowns.
The longer the time frame, the greater the risk becomes of making less money with the MMF. Conversely, when used as a checking account, the risk of making less money with an (ultra) short bond fund increases. So keep three months, six months, even a year's cash in a high yield savings account or a bunch of no penalty CD (which insures against the risk of yields dropping).
Longer than that and the risk of making less money in the bond fund is rather small. Even it it returns less it won't be that much less; on the flip side, the risk of substantially underperforming with the bank/MMF becomes significant.

here is a basic econ review of the tradeoffs, sort of
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/opinion/trump-coronavirus-relief.html
So what we need at this time is
- drastic and disciplined behavioral policies (mandates, enforcement) to prevent disease transmission
- massive disaster relief to those harmed by the above

Agreed there is a definite need for government assistance. Both parties are acting like spoiled children, they want what they want or will stomp their feet and go home. That being said, and as these many posts point out, people can disagree on what's "disastrously wrongheaded." I'm no expert on what the best relief/stimulus package is but I can tell you personally, firsthand that expanded unemployment absolutely does contribute to some workers not wanting to return to work in the current setting. I don't know how prevalent the issue is nationwide, but it is a real issue. I would never have believed it before, I do believe people want to work in general. Perhaps it's legitimate fear over covid exposure at work...but I can tell you that for many whose expanded unemployment had them making close to or more than they were earning at work, they would prefer to stay home. Economists can use whatever data they want to show a "thoroughly debunked myth" but ask anyone who actually employs lower wage-earners if expanded unemployment led to workers preferring to stay home and see what you hear.

VUSFX is a taxable fund with an inception date of 02-24-15.
The fund's largest monthly loss was -1.08% during this past March.
Since 2016, VUSFX has generated only two monthly losses (other loss was -0.05%).

Correct, my posts were in reference to the tax free fund, VWSUX, but I actually own both and use both as you do, for a near cash alternative. I just can't pull the trigger completely and make either a really large position thought it's probably not the best investment decision to keep much in real cash these days.

here is a basic econ review of the tradeoffs, sort of
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/opinion/trump-coronavirus-relief.html
So what we need at this time is
- drastic and disciplined behavioral policies (mandates, enforcement) to prevent disease transmission
- massive disaster relief to those harmed by the above

VUSFX is a taxable fund with an inception date of 02-24-15.
The fund's largest monthly loss was -1.08% during this past March.
Since 2016, VUSFX has generated only two monthly losses (other loss was -0.05%).

I use VUSFX in lieu of a MMF.

I was thinking of starting a new topic on just this issue. I know in my head that VUSFX is virtually certain to be a better investment than a high yield cash account yielding around .66% these days. It's tax free, has a slight negative correlation to the stock market, and never had a down year since inception in 2001. I can also definitely withstand it's max drawdown of 0.65%. AND YET, my heart won't let me take my dedicated cash position and move it over to VUSFX. Back in the day, when you could still get some yield on cash this was not such a problem, but now, what's a fella to do?

I get my electricity - 100% Wind - a small contribution to the planet, will buy EV when practical.
R - no global warning, I get my flowers a bit early - fine, summers are hot - who care - I have central AC, keeps me cool always.
I get my subsidized flood insurance from FEMA - in hole 20Billion US$ - no global warning. I don't know why cultists are raiding this site. They already have Parler.

+1 rforno And there's much cheaper and easier ways to invest in value stocks, like VTV for example

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/99188/000110465920134148/tm2038239d1_defa14a.htm
FPA CAPITAL FUND, INC.
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90025
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT
WE NEED YOUR HELP
December 10, 2020
Dear Shareholder,
We need your help. The Special Meeting of Shareholders of your Fund, FPA Capital Fund, Inc., was adjourned until December 16, 2020 to provide shareholders who have not yet cast their proxy vote, more time to do so. Our records indicate that you have not yet cast your proxy voting instructions. It is critical that we receive your response so that we may proceed with the important business of the Fund.
PLEASE take a moment to cast your vote TODAY. We wish to avoid any further costs associated with following up on this matter.
As discussed in more detail in the proxy statement sent to you via hard copy or e-delivery, shareholders are being asked to vote on an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization. FPA Capital Fund’s Board of Directors and its investment adviser, FPA, believe that reorganizing the Fund into the Acquiring Fund is in the best interest of the Fund and its shareholders, as it will combine the strengths of two organizations. Specifically, FPA believes that the Reorganization will combine the expertise of the sub-adviser managing the Acquiring Fund using similar types of securities and implementing a similar investment strategy, with the experience and resources of FPA, will provide both FPA Capital Fund and the Acquiring Fund with greater potential to attract additional assets and will potentially allow shareholders to benefit from economies of scale. There is no increase in fees in connection with this proposal. The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote “FOR” the proposal.
For more information, please refer to the proxy statement, which can be found at https://vote.proxyonline.com/fpa/docs/CapitalFund2020.pdf. If you have any proxy related questions, or would like to cast your proxy vote by phone, please call 1-888-605-1957 for assistance. Representatives are available Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time. We very much appreciate your attention to this matter...

Another Value Perspective:
Unravelling value's decade-long underperformance (and imminent resurgence)
unravelling-values-decade-long

Join Research Affiliates’ Rob Arnott and I on a wide-ranging tour of the current state of markets. We make stops at the Tesla bubble, the growth stock frenzy, the bottom for value stocks, a look at small caps and interest rates and lots more.

+1