text:
Mohegan Sun – Stadium Table Games
I made a short visit to Mohegan Sun Sunday to play and review stadium gaming, where 30-40 players can play at individual stations at the same time, but with only one dealer per game needed.
Casino Game Evolution
One of the first Electronic Blackjack Multiple Player games. Still can be found at Twin River Casino.
In many ways, casinos seem to be the same as they were 30 years ago – table games, chips, slots, etc. But it has been a slow, continuous change not easily seen by the gambling eye. Some changes have been for the better. Remember when Ticket-In, Ticket-Out (TITO) was considered blasphemy because players supposedly wanted to use coins instead of paper, and wanted to hear the sound of coins dropping into coin bin? Until I looked down and saw my hands covered in filth from quarters, I thought so, too. Now? – TITO is just fine, thank-you.
Table games continue to evolve. New games are introduced, variations of old games continue, and additional side bets are invented. But who knew a hybrid form of table games would become so popular. Electronic table games began to be seen as soon as video slots became popular with the appearance of blackjack as an option. Soon, experiments with group roulette blackjack & bubble craps were seen in the casino. However, the latest evolution of electronic table games seems to be taking casinos and their patrons by storm across the country, and that was what I went to experience.
John Grochowski wrote in an early article of E-TableGaming for CasinoPlayer, "It's a matter of evolution, not revolution—they're not threatening to take over anyone's table pits, but they provide a way to bring more table-style games to more players, and player acceptance is on the rise." The Casino Answer Man's article can be found here – E-Table Evolution.
The games available at Mohegan Sun are produced by SCIENTIFIC GAMING called Hybrid Fusion. It features a live dealer and electronic betting interface, with a multi-game feature. This allows for up to four games to be played at once. This particular set-up included two blackjack games, one roulette and one baccarat. Each chair in the Stadium Gaming area of the casino (it takes up quite a bit of real estate) has its own interactive video display. Wagers are placed through the screens as live games are dealt by actual human dealers, nearby.
For another interesting article about stadium gaming, as well as a great podcast, visit Vegas FanBoy for his article, Stadium Gambling: It's a Big Footprint, but is it a Big Step Forward?
Five Advantages for Casino & Players:
Stadium Gaming has obvious advantages for the casino. It takes just a few members of the casino staff to serve all those players, dealers for each game and a floor manager. Low cost, high return, just the way casinos like it.
Planned time with friends can easily turn into a solitary evening since finding tables with multiple open seats can be nearly impossible. The "arena" makes strides to provide sufficient space for groups. While it'll be hard to find an entirely vacant row, even scattered seats still allow for bands of gambling friends to win and lose together. Additionally, pairs can enjoy gambling side by side on different games.
The arena is designed for a more social experience – is that millennials I hear rustling in the background, eager to gamble with their buddies? And rumor has it that one game expected to be found soon would be enjoyed by groups of 25 to 75 year-lds. The development in the future might include tournaments, tutorials, and yes – even Bingo.
Every bet can be tracked, leading to player rewards data on table games as accurate as casinos collect on slot players. There's no need for the pit supervisor to track buy-ins and estimate average bet and table speed to calculate a player rating. The data is collected automatically.
Players control their own pace, and can opt out a hand anytime. For some, it's a natural bridge between fully electronic table games and live table games. It also bridges the gap for players who prefer the solo experience, such as video poker, slot, and keno players by playing table games by oneself.
Multi-station electronic configurations add potential for games with lower betting minimums. A casino that can't justify $5 minimums at live tables might be able to swing it if one dealer—whether live or in a video representation—is serving 100 or more wagering terminals.
Mohegan Sun Experience
Mohegan Sun was the first casino destination resort in North America to offer their players the Scientific Games Corporation Stadium Blackjack game on the company's Fusion Hybrid electronic table system which connects four live-dealt games to Mohegan Sun's three on-property casinos.
How Blackjack Is Played
The game features shared starting hands for all players, followed by independent decision-making by each player as the hand progresses. For example, the usual procedure of receive a card, see the dealer's up card, then receive a second card is still true. However, after that, to stand or hit, surrender, double or split, remains the personal players decision. Then, "community cards" are dealt, one at a time until all players decisions are made. Finally, the dealer plays out his hand as the rules allow.
I was pleasantly surprised by the BJ rules. All were 3/2 (yeah, not 6/5 or even money!). Splitting, surrender and doubling rules are typical and match the casino rules. Three side bets are included. Undesirable rules includes: 1) dealer hits on Soft 17. 2) no double after splitting. Not a bad play, not great, but definitely beats 6/5 for a BJ.
All in all, it was fun. Not having to put up with pompous "know-it-all" or obnoxious drunks was another positive. But it does lack the camaraderie found at a traditional blackjack table. Depends what atmosphere floats your gambling boat. I found it to be very user friendly. It is easy to switch between games on a wide screen that's easy to navigate. If you know how to play the table game, it only takes a quick look to find the buttons needed such as table status, countdown, wagers and results.
Foxwoods is rumored to be the next New England casino to introduce stadium gaming in the Great Cedar Casino where the 360 slot area was. Most likely, it should be added to the Fox Casino, where one of the best night-clubs on the East Coast resides.
I can't see this being used for video poker, some other table/carnival games, and standard craps. Then again, I was against TITO when it first came out, so let the evolution continue!
Posted in: Mohegan Sun Resort Casino | Tagged: #blackjack @mohegansun, #blackjackvariations, #Casinotablegames, #ConnecticutCasinos, #electronictablegames, #Mohegan Sun @MoheganSun, #MoheganSun, #ScientificGamesCorporation, Blackjack Games, Blackjack Rules, Mohegan Sun, novelty table games, table games
Preakness Primer – 4 Questions, 4 Answers Each
9 Reasons to Visit a Casino – Besides Gambling


text:
ARTICLES MOVIES & TV 'BADASS' CHARACTERS WHO ARE ACTUALLY BAD AT THEIR JOBS
'Badass' Characters Who Are Actually Bad At Their Jobs
David Christopher Bell
Everyone knows that classic movie moment where Detective Guy HeroCop throws all the files off a desk in a rage, because The Zodiac Limb Bandit left another taunting murder riddle (this time, tattooed as a crossword puzzle on the mayor's severed head).
What the movies don't show you is the office peon whose marriage is falling apart because he has to stay until 11 p.m. daily going on a scavenger hunt for flying budget reports. Because, let's face it, someone like Dirty Harry is a pain in the ass to work with and probably sucks at every other aspect of his career that isn't directly related to shooting serial killers. This isn't a fluke, people -- many of the characters you know and/or love are secretly worse at their job than whatever dickwad co-worker you're picturing at this very moment.
6 Ethan Hunt Is The Opposite Of Secretive
The very first scene of the very first Mission: Impossible film involves Ethan Hunt interrogating a Russian agent while disguised in the series' signature rubber mask. After that, he infiltrates a party in the same manner, demonstrating once again how crucially vital these fake rubber faces are in covert situations. In fact, up until the first time he is disavowed by the IMF, Mr. Hunt is a regular George Smiley -- focused on the discretion that comes with being a spy. Then he's forced to blow up a giant fish tank and sprint away into the night like a maniac, and he never looks back.
He uses the same technique whenever a girlfriend says, "... I'm late."
After that moment, Ethan Hunt spends the rest of the franchise slowly backing away from tactfulness like it's a drunk 9/11 truther at a dorm party. Each new action becomes more and more high-profile as he opts less and less to use the ever-helpful face-disguising masks in their most needed moments. By the end of the first film, Ethan has successfully shown his face to a train full of civilians before blowing up a helicopter and nearly crashing into the conductor.
It's such a horrific event that we immediately see it on the news in the next scene ...
"A crash happened. And now, sports. Sports happened."
... where Ethan and his friend are toasting a job well done and listening to The Cranberries.
Because nothing says "thrill-a-minute action" like the soft-rock soundtrack from Milk Money.
Yes. Causing a shitstorm of destruction and nearly blowing your cover is declared a victory in this guy's spy book. It's something he continues to do throughout the series, never once thinking to mask his face while infiltrating the Vatican ...
... spying on a guy who knows who he is and what he looks like ...
... or even conducting the violent interrogation of a madman, something that ultimately puts his loved ones in danger.
Anyone else find it weird that MI:3 turned out to be the King Kong Vs. Godzilla of Scientology?
It's like he's trying to make every endeavor either personal or so elaborate and thrill-seeking that covert operations are guaranteed to end up with a media-rattling stuntsplosion. Hell, the most iconic feat of the series involves Ethan sprinting vertically down the tallest building in the world like a shit-housed Spider-Man suddenly realizing he dropped his keys.
Or Batman interrupting his daily climb because he suddenly has to take a dump.
This super-secret spymaster would be greeted by the Dubai PD and a slot on the front page of Reddit by the time he touched the ground. "But he was saving the world!" you note. This is true, but let's drop the pretense that Ethan Hunt is committed to the art of espionage in any substantive way. Dude's got an allergy to both cloaks and daggers. Ethan Hunt's not a spy. He's whatever the diametric opposite of a spy is, which makes him a, uh, Super Fucking Loud-Ass Adventure Man.
5 There's No Way The X-Men's School Would Stay Open
Before the Muppet Babies redo that was the First Class series, the first X-Men team was formed when Wolverine and Rogue were brought to the X-Mansion, a compound for mutant ruffians to learn their skills far from the Muggle world. In the films, it's the X-Men's primary home base and serves as the their training grounds and living quarters. Also, it's a goddamn school. As in, an actual functioning school with proms and crap. You might've known this already, but I'm not exactly sure anyone has fully appreciated what such an arrangement entails. For instance, here's a scene where all the mutants are being dropped off by their parents at the beginning of the year:
Every parent had the same mutant power of being totally embarrassing and lame.
To reiterate, those are parents leaving their children at a boarding school. Meaning that this isn't some clubhouse for runaway teens; it's a place where adults are dropping their kids off to learn shit like fractions and where the vas deferens is. We see multiple scenes where our heroes are teaching students in a classroom setting. One of the first times we see Storm, she's doing a lecture on the Roman Empire ...
"And that's how quickly I would've drowned Caligula had he tried any of his crap on me."
... which means that every single one of these characters has all the duties of a private school teacher. Right? That includes teaching full semesters, hiring a custodial and kitchen staff, and working toward a real diploma for these kids to graduate with. I can't stress enough how weird these movies get when you realize that a British mind-sorcerer is trying to run a state-accredited high school but keeps getting interrupted by a magnet man hellbent on race war.
Yes, when he's off firing eye lasers, Cyclops is presumably missing parent-teacher conferences and grading homework. Entire classes no doubt had to be canceled because one of their teachers died saving a rocket jet from a dam collapse. What I'm getting at here is that this is a terrible school where the student body is routinely put in danger (and is likely scoring in the negatives on their Regents exams).
This is their version of quiet study time.
I mean, shit, in X-Men 2, the government invades the mansion after the president of the United States is shown a schematic revealing the X-Jet hiding under the basketball court. Now, you could blame the movie's sinister government cabal for revealing this detail, but it's a pretty reasonable reaction. Why would a goddamn prep school need a souped-up Lockheed SR-71? How does every parent not pull their student after the POTUS declares war on the school? Can Xavier not educate hungry minds at a separate location from where he's also training immortal drifters to decapitate giant robots? The first thing Wolverine does in the X-Mansion is stab a teenage student in the chest during a berserker night terror ... and they employ this man as an educator.
Imagine what he does when he catches a kid chewing gum.
Remember: Save for a few students like Iceman and Kitty Pryde, the majority of these kids aren't going to join in on the mutant uprising. Most of them just want to graduate and go to college while learning how to keep their mutant powers under control so they don't wig out and level a supermarket. But they're barely going to be able to score a GED when their art teacher is having an apocalyptic god-war on Alcatraz Island, and all their art supplies have to be purchased by a headmaster who was recently disintegrated by an evil psychic bird. All that, plus the fact that every pubescent hormone sack in that school is forced to sit in long classes with an impossibly attractive teacher who can read their minds.
Wait ... which character did you think I was referring to?
4 Nero's Crew From Star Trek Would've Mutinied Immediately
Speaking of time-travel reboots -- J.J. Abrams' Star Trek franchise began when a terrier-faced Romulan named Nero overshot his time travel and accidentally killed Captain Kirk's father.
According to Old Man Spock in the first film, Nero went full tilt after his home planet Romulus was destroyed by a supernova star in 2387. Spock, having failed to stop the planetary holocaust in time, accidentally created a space rift with some jazzy goo called "red matter" -- the substance he intended to use to prevent Romulus' destruction if only he could've estimated his travel time more precisely and hadn't needed to stop every 15 space minutes to void his elderly bladder. Nero uses the very red matter to go back in time to 2233, where he waits for 22 years before eventually destroying Vulcan in 2255 -- his logic being that since Spock failed to save his planet, he will in turn wreck Spock's planet like some kind of giant space baby.
"If I can't have a world to live on, nobody can!"
So, Nero captured Spock to make him watch his planet explode for not saving the destruction of his ... which doesn't occur until 2387. If you're paying attention, you realize Nero traveled back to 2255 to detonate Vulcan, which means that his home planet Romulus hasn't actually exploded yet. It won't happen for another 150 years. That means that, during the entire 12-year span of Nero's search for Spock, Romulus has been quietly hanging out, holding their weird Romulan dicks and being blissfully unaware that everything around them is going to vaporize a century later.
Hey Nero, here's a revenge plot for you and your tribal tattoos: Go save your idiot planet. The only reason Spock failed before is because he didn't make it in time. You have the red matter and a 150-year head start, knuckleface! Why are you wasting literal decades, putting bugs in people's ears and murdering Winona Ryder, when you could save your other-world wife and kids a full century before they're even born?
Work first, insect torture second.
This seems as good a time as any to point out that Nero is the captain of a giant ship filled with other Romulans, all of whom presumably have yet-to-be-conceived friends and relatives waiting for them back on Romulus.
"Hey, want to save our civilization and be hailed as heroes?"
"Nah, let's spend the next 20 years masturbating in the dark."
How in the world wasn't Nero mutinied the moment he sharted out his elaborate scheme with everyone else? Did no one on the ship realize their Doc Brown advantage meant everything they loved had yet to be exploded in a galactic firestorm? Otherwise, I can't imagine a work environment with a more scathing suggestion box than this.
3 The Shadowy Government Cops In V For Vendetta Should Have Had No Problem Finding V
In V For Vendetta, the police regard our hero with the same frustrated mysticism as one would afford the ghost of Batman. V is always one step ahead and can come and go as he pleases during his year of notoriety as Public Enemy No. 1 ... but only because the dystopian police tasked with his disposal are so inept that they couldn't find a book burning in a blizzard. For starters ... just look at him:
He dresses like the kabuki Sheriff Of Nottingham, in a city that has wall-to-wall surveillance and corrupt night patrolmen.
We actually have wall-to-wall surveillance in the real world, and they're called smartphones.
For any other superhero, going anonymous is as simple as a wardrobe change. For V, his operatic rags are the only thing between the public and a six-foot-tall head-to-toe burn victim who dresses like ghost Zorro. And yet, for some reason, this caped tautogram master has managed to elude the city's extensive surveillance system for a solid fucking year. And I'm not talking about a year of Howard Hughesing it up in some windowless den; V is actively engaged in a high-profile killing spree during this time.
V's visceral vacation, very vicious. Verily.
It's no surprise a private residence or church wouldn't have surveillance cameras on the inside, but is no one in this Big Brother government watching from the outside? After all, V isn't quietly sneaking into these places through underground passages; he's flipping on rooftops like a goddamn Assassin's Creed character.
But if we spice up our parkour with a little righteous murder, suddenly we're the assholes.
Hell -- the dude takes over a TV station in the middle of the day, is seen on security footage kidnapping Natalie Portman ... and is somehow not tracked as he lugs her down flights of stairs like a wet sack of laundry? How does he even make it past the lobby? By reciting another impressive poem?
Or bribing the guards with vodka, veal, and venison?
Even if he's expertly avoiding detection somehow, any benefit of the doubt you might give these clowns instantly dissolves when London's most wanted terrorist manages to mail thousands of masks to every citizen through the government's own postal system.
When you absolutely, positively have to remember, remember the 5th of November overnight.
How did V even manufacture that many masks without setting off a series of red flags or leaving a paper trail? Did the postal service not find it weird that they were suddenly handling thousands of identical boxes without X-raying them or figuring out where they came from? Forget all the torture and oppression: If your tyrant government is thwarted by its own system for delivering greeting cards, it probably needed to be overthrown.
2 The Secret Service In Iron Man 3 Is Worse Than The Real-Life Secret Service
One of the most balls-out sequences in the Marvel Cinematic Universe comes from Iron Man 3, when Tony Stark is forced to save Air Force One passengers from a vertical splat by daisy-chaining 13 screeching civilians like an X-Games version of Red Rover. I can't stress enough how awesome this scene is ... even though the series of events leading up to it is as impossible to comprehend as the Hulk singing "Mr. Tambourine Man." Let's start all the way at the beginning ... with this guy:
Who ultimately failed because it's hard to fight when you can't put your arms down.
The Iron Monger suit from the first film was instantaneous proof that other people had the ability to re-create Tony Stark's design. From there to the first Avengers film, we saw multiple people not only steal the Iron Man suit technology but hijack entire suits piloted by other people. Additionally, there was the introduction of Loki, a living god with the ability to change his appearance to infiltrate any government installation or art museum.
So by the time we get to Iron Man 3, danger seemingly lurks every-fucking-where. There are alien portals, shapeshifting entities, and knowledge that a dude wearing an Iron Man suit isn't necessarily on your side. And yet, when an evil henchman disguised as Iron Patriot comes stepping up to Air Force One, the Secret Service and Army let him on the plane without a single security check. This catastrophic lack of protection is what sets into motion the entire last half of the film, when the Iron Patriot impostor kidnaps the president.
"Candygram?"
But here's what's infinitely weirder than no one questioning the villain casually boarding Air Force One: Even if it was Rhodes, why would they let an armored rocket man on the plane in the first place? You're harboring the leader of the free world, you simpletons ... why would you also invite a reactor-powered human tank into the same fuselage? What if he bumps his head while trying to take a dump and accidentally lasers a hole through the cockpit? Just the exhaust alone would hotbox them all with lung cancer.
And if they needed him that bad for protection ... what good is he inside the plane, anyway? Aren't the bad guys going to attack from the outside? Did everyone forget that the man who flew to board the plane can totally fly? From the sheer routine of the situation, I'm guessing this isn't even the first time they've done this. So either everyone who works for the president has the mind of a child or the commander in chief just wants an excuse to coax Rhodes into letting him wear his sweet rocket gloves.
1 Agent Fox Mulder Is A Goddamned Maniac
20th Television
I'm not going to sugarcoat it: Agent Fox Mulder is a porn-addicted sociopath who has never actually officially solved an X-File in his life and would be fired multiple times over (if not outright thrown in prison) for numerous very public acts of insanity. Let's start with Season 3, when this happens:
That's the carnage of a commercial plane crash that claimed the lives of everyone on board, no doubt affecting hundreds of family members and attracting the media -- all of whom understandably want answers. And when various law enforcement agencies conduct a meeting to sort out the wreckage, FBI Agent Mulder strolls in to interrupt a crowded room and announce that one of the passengers was a previous alien abductee.
"I will personally check every rapidly decaying ass for signs of probing if I have to. And because I want to."
They look at him like a talking marmot. But even if these people believed him, hundreds of civilians are dead -- the fact that one of them saw aliens isn't relevant to the rescue operation. The guy in charge even takes a moment to clarify whether Mulder is speaking for the FBI or just his own diseased brain. This pretty much sums up Mulder's interaction with the public as a whole -- at best, he's being asked multiple times to prove he's actually a government agent, and at worst, he's waving his gun at a crowd of veterans during a public rally because he saw an invisible man.
Crazy people don't need glasses to reenact They Live.
This is a thing that happens in the show -- and I can't imagine it didn't at least make the local paper with the headline "FBI Agent Has Public Breakdown, Screams At Ghost." But at least in this case, Mulder knew specifically what he was actually dealing with. In most cases, this wing-tipped loose cannon will have only a sliver of the story before wildly jumping to conclusions. Seeing him accuse a man mourning his child's death of being a baby-snatching demon has to make you wonder how many other times he's said this and been wrong. Like when he sweatily drives a wooden stake through a kid's heart thinking he's a vampire, only to discover he has fake fangs.
"You're ... killin' me ... Smalls ..."
This action lands the FBI in a whopping $446 million lawsuit. Only due to Mulder's superhero-like luck, the kid actually turns out to be a vampire in the end -- and his body goes missing from the morgue. And ... for some reason ... that's all it takes for the FBI to move on like one of their agents didn't just stab a teenager in the heart and probably steal his body to avoid prosecution.
In another episode, Mulder decides to let a serial child murderer out of prison, without informing any of his superiors, because the killer claims to know where Mulder's missing sister is buried (Spoiler: He doesn't know). Seriously -- Mulder just takes a dangerous monster out of prison and flies him commercial across the country ...
At least he's responsible enough to not spring for first class.
... before bringing him to a hotel, at which point Mulder falls asleep and has a vivid dream about letting the killer go, only to wake up and discover that he has actually let the killer go. The murderer then kidnaps a little girl and brings her to an abandoned bus.
Apparently, he didn't have the time to dream that little girl bludgeoning her kidnapper to death.
So just to recap: A child's life is in danger because Mulder broke a serial killer out of prison and then set him free in a dream. I can't stress this enough: When Scully and Skinner find Mulder, he actually says, "I must have let him go in my sleep," before everyone just moves on with the episode like that's not a jailable lapse of judgment. But it's OK, because our hero manages to track the little girl down and shoot the killer in the face six inches away from her.
"Don't worry; you'll feel better after a Disney movie or two. Let's start with Old Yeller."
Psychologically speaking, that little girl is now trapped in a bottomless pit. And yet, one episode later, everyone's completely forgotten about that time Mulder let a man out of prison before murdering him in a bus. How does he still have a job? Seriously -- Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files, I want you to explain to me why Mulder can hold down a job at the FBI. I don't care if he's the best criminal profiler they have -- every other aspect of this man's job is done with such overt insanity that even his field reports read like a chilling Facebook manifesto:
Aside from the perfect spelling, obviously.
This is from the end of an episode where Mulder finds killer cockroaches and helps blow up an entire building. After spending hundreds of dollars on travel and food expenses, Mulder's official FBI report reads:
"The development of our cerebral cortex has been the greatest achievement of the evolutionary process. Big deal. While allowing us the thrills of intellect and the pangs of self-consciousness, it is all too often overruled by our inner instinctive brain -- the one that tells us to react, not reflect, to run rather than ruminate. Maybe we have gone as far as we can go, and the next advance -- whatever that may be -- will be made by beings we create ourselves using our own technology. Life-forms we can design and program not to be ultimately governed and constricted by the rules of survival."
Jesus Christ. Look, I love this show -- but in terms of both square footage and the amount they'd save in public safety settlements, Mulder's basement office is worth way more to the FBI as an actual basement.
Talk dirty to Dave on his Twitter.
Also check out 6 High-Tech Movie Facilities That Make No Sense and 6 Stupid Characters That Hollywood Now Puts In Every Movie.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see why Indiana Jones has no business being a professor archaeologist in Why Indiana Jones Secretly Sucks At His Job, and watch other videos you won't see on the site!
Also follow us on Facebook and hate on famous movie characters with the rest of the gang.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Import doesn't work I have a wierd problem.  There are two apps in my django project . In one app one of the imports made in views.py is fine but in the other one the same import shows me an error.
Here is views.py  where import is fine:
from django.shortcuts import get_object_or_404, render_to_response
from models import Category,Product
from django.template.context import RequestContext
from django.core import urlresolvers
from cart import cart
from catalog.forms import ProductAddToCartForm
from django.http.response import HttpResponseRedirect
# Create your views here.

def index(request, template_name="catalog/index.html"):

    page_title = 'Extremely interesting and cheap goods'

    return render_to_response(template_name, locals(),
                              context_instance=RequestContext(request))

def show_category(request,category_slug,template_name='catalog/category.html'):
    c = get_object_or_404(Category, slug = category_slug)
    products = c.product_set.all()
    page_title = c.name
    meta_keywords = c.meta_keywords
    meta_description = c.meta_description

    return render_to_response(template_name,locals(),
                              context_instance=RequestContext(request))

def show_product(request, product_slug,template_name="catalog/product.html"):
    p = get_object_or_404(Product,slug=product_slug)
    categories = p.categories.all()
    page_title = p.name
    meta_keywords = p.meta_keywords
    meta_description = p.meta_description
    if request.method =='POST':
        postdata=request.POST.copy()
        form = ProductAddToCartForm(request,postdata)
        if form.is_valid():
            cart.add_to_cart(request)
            if request.session.test_cookie_worked():
                request.session.delete_test_cookie()
            url = urlresolvers.reverse('show_cart')
            return HttpResponseRedirect(url)
    else:
        form = ProductAddToCartForm(request = request,label_suffix=':')
    form.fields['product_slug'].widget.attrs['value'] = product_slug
    request.session.set_test_cookie()
    return render_to_response("catalog/product.html",locals(),
                              context_instance=RequestContext(request))

And here is views.py where import doesn't work:
from django.template.context import RequestContext
from django.shortcuts import render_to_response
from cart import cart

def show_cart(request,template_name="cart/cart.html"):
    if request.method == 'POST':
        postdata = request.POST.copy()
        if postdata['submit'] == 'Remove':
            cart.remove_from_cart(request)
        if postdata['submit'] == 'Update':
            cart.update_cart(request)
    cart_items = cart.get_cart_items(request)
    page_title = 'Shopping Cart'
    cart_subtotal = cart.cart_subtotal(request)
    return render_to_response(template_name,locals(),
                              context_instance=RequestContext(request))

The import I am speaking about is : from cart import cart. The second views.py is in the same django app where cart.py I am trying to import

A: you need to import the module of first app in the second app in this way
lets say, you cart.py is in catalog app.
# in catalog views
from cart import cart

and
# in cart app
from catalog.cart import cart

or vice versa depending where your cart.py is
assuming that apps are registered in INSTALLED_APPS like
..
'catalog',
'cart',
...

A: *

*rename your cart.py to something like carts.py

*remove cart.pyc

*change your code and  imports to "carts" instead of "cart" where
need

For ex:
from cart import carts
carts.add_to_cart(request)

etc.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
A "power of appointment" - what is that?
The Georgia Supreme Court recently handed down the case of Smith v. Ashford (full text below the break), in which it dealt with a testator's use of a "power of appointment."
What is a power of appointment?
In estate-planning parlance, a power of appointment is used when a benefit is given, together with a right (a "power," as it were) to decide who gets that benefit when the initial beneficiary dies. The possessor of that right has a "power of appointment."
In a common example, parents may leave their wealth in trust to a child, together with an unlimited power of appointment. The child draws benefits pursuant the trust during his lifetime and has the power to decide, in his own will, who will inherit his share of the trust when he dies.
Drafters of trusts governing large estates like to use powers of appointment when they trust the beneficiary (often their child) to decide who most deserves to receive the benefit of the trust years or decades into the future.
In Smith v. Ashford the Supreme Court interpreted a will in which the holder of a power of appointment sought to give the power itself to his wife. Without holding on the question of whether you can inherit a power of appointment itself (you can), the Court said that it didn't matter - the original power of appointment stated that it had to be exercised before its holder died. Since it was not so exercised, the power lapsed.
Myers v. Myers: Executor may not run estate as his personal business
The Georgia Supreme Court handed down the probate case of Myers, Executor v. Myers, today.
In some ways, the case is an unremarkable example of an executor using an estate as a cash cow for his personal expenditures and, among other things, granting himself
$53,000 in executor's fees while so doing.
The case books are littered with such fact patterns. Perhaps the most important take-away from Myers is the holding that an executor may not continue to run a single-member-LLC business in the estate, when that LLC's operating agreement calls for its dissolution upon the death of a member.
This is particularly useful information for the estate practitioner, because nearly all form operating agreement forms call for exactly this. Yet, it is common enough for an executor to continue to run and fund an estate business for months after a decedent's death. According to the Supreme Court today, so doing may be grounds for the executor's removal.
Full text of the opinion follows after the "read more" break.
Facebook at vanguard of digital inheritance
Image attribution: How to Start a Blog howtostartablogonline.net
Facebook users (of which this firm is not one) have long since realized that their accounts are digital journals of their lives. These records are valuable, not only to users, but to their posterity.
Responding to the needs of its consumers, Facebook now allows users to name a "legacy" contact who may use the deceased's page for certain purposes. Notably, this FB "executor" may not continue to make new posts. He can, however,
Respond to friend requests (presumably with information about the death),
Archive photos and posts, and
Make one, final post.
The new user may not, however, access private messages sent to the deceased.
This law firm has encouraged its clients to name a "digital executor" and to make online passwords and account information an essential part of their estate plan.
Another reason for a living trust: you have 79 heirs
In Georgia, most estate attorneys recommend use of a will rather than a living trust. Probate in this state is a simple affair, if the will is properly drafted, and living trusts are expensive to manage and administer during life.
The situation may differ when the testator knows she has 79 heirs.
In a recent case, we were called upon to probate a simple will, leaving an entire estate to the decedent's god-daughter. The problem? The deceased was one of twelve siblings, all of whom predeceased her. Not only this, but the decedent died at age 101, meaning that most of her siblings' children have already died.
The result has been that the decedent has 79 heirs at law. Why does this matter, given that there is only one beneficiary of the will? It matters because the Georgia Code requires service of the petition to probate upon all heirs at law, even if those heirs are not beneficiaries. And by "service," we typically mean a sheriff's deputy delivering the petition to the heirs' doorstep - although out-of-state heirs need only get certified mailings.
Living trusts are better estate planning devices in such cases. When the maker of a living trust dies, and the trust becomes irrevocable, the Georgia Code requires notice only to the beneficiaries of that trust, not to the heirs of the trust-maker (the "settlor"). OCGA § 53-12-242.
Tracking down 79 heirs is a daunting and expensive challenge. In our firm's present case, paying a little more to draft a living trust would have meant great savings for the decedent's heirs.
Probate court deadlines - In re Estate of Loyd
On Tuesday, the Court of Appeals of Georgia handed down its opinion in In re Estate of Loyd.
The details of that case are fairly mundane in the world of probate litigation. A will was challenged on grounds of undue influence by a disinherited nephew of the deceased.
This blog post is primarily to highlight the take-away from the case for would-be challengers to a will: you may still have rights even if a deadline to object to a will has passed, but the probate court has discretion to limit those rights.
In Loyd, the caveator (objector) to the will filed a late caveat, less than a week past its due date. He was in default, as it is known in our law. This situation can be cured. But, unfortunately for him, the caveator waited ten months before filing his motion to re-open his default as a matter of right.
The Court of Appeals made short work of the issue. The probate court had denied the motion to re-open default, and the Court of Appeals said simply that it had the discretion to do so.
Georgia changes to partition statute enshrine sentimentality in law
It is a time-honored rule of common law that parties are not usually compensated for emotional loss, and the rule is only overcome by statute, as in cases of severe emotional distress. Likewise, our land title law has so evolved to favor marketable, fee simple title, not family or emotional ties to land.
When it passed the new Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act, effective June, 2013, the Georgia legislature bucked the common law and enshrined certain "subjective factors" for judges to consider when determining how to partition "heirs property" land.
I will not address the motivation for the new law. It is done better here in the Georgia Bar Journal and here in a College of William and Mary law review article. Suffice it to say, there are millions of acres in the South that are fractionally owned in such a way that the costs of consolidating the title are prohibitive for their owners. Ethnic minority owners of land are particularly affected because of historical economic hardship.
The new partition statute, however, may go too far in its attempts to correct these ills. In attempting to honor the importance and sentiment tied to land ownership, the law requires judges in partition actions to consider, among other factors, "whether the land has ancestral or sentimental value to heirs; whether a co-tenant would be harmed if not allowed to continue to use the property in the same manner following the conclusion of the action; . . . and other factors relevant to the court."
Adding such factors will make it difficult for attorneys and land owners or investors to know how a partition will turn out and is likely to have a chilling effect on important legal work to consolidate land title.
Economically, land is a capital resource, and society gains when it is put to its highest and most valuable use. Placing sentimental, subjective considerations into our land partition law may have the perverse effect of raising the costs to consolidation and efficient use of land and, thus, stunt economic growth in the region.
He had a power of attorney; there's nothing I can do . . .
. . . or is there?
Often, a child or close friend of an elderly person will be granted a power of attorney to help the elder handle her financial affairs. Such power of attorney is usually quite broad, granting the trusted agent the ability to, among other things, sell property, open and close bank accounts, and the like.
Far too common is the case where the trusted person then uses the power of attorney for his own financial gain. Family of the exploited elderly person find out only later (often after her death) about the misdeeds.
Given that the wrongdoer was granted a full power of attorney to do anything they thought proper with the grantor's financial affairs, isn't it impossible to sue the agent for misappropriating money or property, for re-titling assets in the agent's name?
No. In Georgia, as in most other states, an "agent . . . cannot have any interest or do any act adverse to the interest of his principal . . ." Furthermore, "[t]he agent shall not make a personal profit from his principal's property; for all such he is bound to account." First National Bank of Paulding County v. Cooper, 252 Ga. 215, 215 (1984).
If a loved one dies and the family fears he has been exploited through misuse of a power of attorney, what can be done? Foremost, an attorney should be contacted immediately. Placing an injunction on distribution of mis-titled insurance policies and accounts early on can save an estate large sums. A "constructive trust" may likewise be placed over the assets of the wrongdoing agent to ensure the stolen property isn't dissipated before the case comes to trial.
Often, such matters settle early. Faced with the reality of their misdeeds and the plain wording of Georgia law, many power-of-attorney-abusing agents will simply allow the matter to progress without putting up a fight. Even in absence of a settlement, a court showing that an agent did some act contrary to the interests of his principal is not as difficult as - say - showing that a will signer was incompetent, and litigation is often worthwhile for the estate.
Whitney Houston indebted estate will not profit from royalties
Unlike Michael Jackson's, the Huffington Post reports, the Whitney Houston estate will not make much money from the bump her singles will inevitably get in radio play and record sales due to her untimely death.
But Dolly Parton will.
Parton was the writer of the popular Houston single, "I Will Always Love You," and as such commands a much larger share of the song's royalties than its singer, whose cut, according to the HP article, is diluted severely by, among other things, recording and promotion costs.
Because Houston never actually wrote her songs, most of her income streams would have been in the form of fees for tours and appearances, which of course cannot now continue.
Tanner Pittman, LLC is a Georgia law firm that handles probate and administration of complex estates.
In re Estate of Tarpley - the high price of executor misdeeds
Not infrequent is the case in which an executor of an estate or relative of a decedent begins to parcel out estate property before granted authority by the court.
In a recent case handled by this firm, the son of the decedent began giving furniture and heirlooms to grandchildren long before the will was found and probated. Fortunately for that son, the matter was settled before the son was could be sued for his misdeeds.
Explaining why family members of a deceased do this is not hard: they "know the deceased wishes" or are "just doing what's fair."
In the case of In re Estate of Tarpley, just handed down by the Court of Appeals, the high price of doing this is made manifest. In it, an executrix and sole heir of an estate sold an automobile belonging to the deceased for $12,000 before probate was complete. Later, and after the will was overturned for lack of testamentary capacity, the executrix found herself trying to cover up what was an improper disposition of estate property.
Before the appeal was finished in Tarpley, the executor (since removed from office) owed the estate $96,433.73 in compensatory and punitive damages.
About half of this damages award was overturned on appeal; nevertheless because of the Georgia law regarding executors de son tort, damages in the case of bad actors in estates can be quite harsh.
The full text of the case follows below. Click on the "read more" link.
Step-by-step guide to Georgia year's support
This firm also publishes content at the lawyer directory and rating site Avvo.com. Most recently, we posted a 16-step guide to petitioning for year's support in Georgia.
Year's support is the right of every surviving spouse or minor child of a deceased to inherit certain property from the estate, regardless of what is stated in the will. Attorneys have also used year's support as a strategic way of legally avoiding certain debts of the estate, ensuring a maximum tax break on certain real property of the estate, and quickly administering some intestate estates without the need for a full court-supervised administration and all of the complicated steps that can involve.
Tanner Pittman, LLC regularly advises clients and assists with petitions for year's support, year's support litigation, and other probate and estate matters.


text:
Apple Keyboard/Cover Case (Folio) for iPad Pro
MFR: MJYR2LL/A UPC: 888462794961 Condition: New
The Smart Keyboard combines an array of new technologies and materials to create a keyboard like no other. It's a full-size keyboard that's fully portable, and connects to iPad Pro with the Smart Connector, an innovative new interface that allows for a two-way exchange of power and data. Just att...
Your best price:
Earn up to 189 Gigs (points)!
2-day Free Shipping Get it faster with DataVision Dash
0% Tax Outside NY,NJ,MA,PA,MD,TN,MS & CA.
0 Tax on Shipments Outside NY,NJ,MA,PA,MD, MS and CA
No sales tax will be collected for any shipment outside of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maryland, Tennessee, and California. Since all of our items ship for free, your savings is much greater than at other retailers.
Free, Fast Shipping
Free Ground/Standard shipping included. Shipping times vary from 2 to 8 business days, dependent on the recipient's address. The majority of our packages ship from New York, and expedited services are available for a minor charge. We use a variety of carriers, such as FedEx, FedEx Smartpost, USPS, and LTL carriers. No pickups are made on Saturdays and Sundays and process following Monday.
Student, Military, First-responder Discounts
DataVision proudly supports all of the hardworking students and the incredibly brave military and first responders. At the bottom of our shopping cart, click for an official verification, and we will send you a unique, one-time-use coupon. Coupon amounts are fixed and are not stackable. Other coupon codes are available at our coupons page
Our number one priority is service. If you require a return, we are proud of our industry-leading 45-day return period. For more information and qualifying items, see our policies page
Why Buy from DataVision?
In addition to an industry-leading, 45-day return policy, DataVision is a vetted and authorized reseller for most brands, including Apple, Sony, SONOS, Canon, HP, Microsoft, Dyson, Samsung, Acer, Wilson, and more. DataVision is one of the largest independent consumer electronics reseller in the country, and has been in business almost 30 years. In addition to delivering competitive pricing, we offer a tremendous value in our coupons and VIP points program. All transactions are safe and secure, as we run on a Level 1 PCI DSS Compliant platform.
The Smart Keyboard combines an array of new technologies and materials to create a keyboard like no other. It's a full-size keyboard that's fully portable, and connects to iPad Pro with the Smart Connector, an innovative new interface that allows for a two-way exchange of power and data. Just attach the Smart Keyboard and start typing.
MFR: MJYR2LL/A
Style: Folio
Keyboard Localization: English
Exterior Material: Polyurethane
Spill Resistant


text:
Episode: 993January 12, 2023
Disney, Fed, inflation, interest rates
Daniel joins me to discuss today's biggest headlines, including the latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) data and activist investor Nelson Peltz's fight with Disney (DIS).
Today's inflation numbers came in as expected, with inflation at 6.5%. But the bigger story is still the Fed. I explain why the market is misinterpreting a pause in rate hikes with rate cuts… and how investors can not only protect themselves, but make a fortune as markets move lower from here.
Next, Daniel highlights a few inflation numbers that stood out to him and explains why he doesn't think the Fed has beaten inflation yet.
Turning to Disney, shares popped after activist investor Nelson Peltz said he's fighting for a board seat at the House of Mouse. I share why I'm surprised the stock is moving higher… why Peltz has an uphill battle… and what it would take for me to recommend DIS to subscribers.
Today's CPI was a "nothing burger" [1:15]
The best strategy for a painful market [3:40]
Daniel's highlights from the inflation report [5:05]
Why the Fed won't stop raising interest rates [11:00]
Nelson Peltz won't save Disney [13:50]
What needs to happen for me to buy DIS [24:00]
Frank Curzio: What's going on out there? It's January 12th. I'm Frank Curzio, host of the Wall Street Unplugged podcast, here to answer all your questions and tell you what's really moving these markets. It's Thursday, and I brought Daniel Creech back. We have the CPI number out today, wanted discuss that and the big, big CPI inflation. Waiting for this number, it comes out this morning. And holy cow, it came in exactly as expected. No surprises. Dow fluctuating up and down. We're doing this podcast early. Daniel, what'd you think? What'd you think of the number off the bat?
Daniel Creech: It's good overall because it's showing that inflation is moving in the correct direction, which is lower. Market reactions, I want to get into that. It's interesting to me that the market was heading higher so much into this print, as you talked about yesterday on the podcast, but the volatility… Do you want to get into it right now on what's going on?
Frank Curzio: Well, by the time we finish this podcast… It's kind of funny because we're doing this about 15, 20 minutes right after CPI.
Daniel Creech: Exactly.
Frank Curzio: So, by the time you get this, the Dow could be up or down 700 points.
Daniel Creech: Yeah.
Frank Curzio: I wouldn't be surprised if I had a guest right now… I like to do this because I like to just throw myself out there with predictions instead of saying to everybody, "You're playing Monday morning quarterback." But I would be surprised if the markets stay higher because the expectations for this number… We used to call it the whisper number, Dan, when we were younger. And I remember when Dell used to report was big back in the day and stuff and all these companies are like, "Well, here's the whisper number. Here's the numbers, but here's the whisper number. Here's the number that's really expected."
Frank Curzio: The number here was supposed to be much lower even though it came in. You have the consensus assessment, but even JP Morgan came out, and JP Morgan's like, "Listen, there's a decent chance," and I don't know if it was 20% or 30%, "that it's going to come in a little bit lighter." And 6.5% was the number, and it hit that right in the head. But they said if it comes in below 6.4%, it's like 6.3%, there's a good shot that the S&P could rise over 3.5%, 3%, 3.5%, in the day, right? And we've seen that, right?
Frank Curzio: But every single time in the CPI we see, almost the past few months… And I said this yesterday. And again, don't quote me on it, I'm almost positive though. I think it's three to four months now, that we saw, going into the CPI, the market was coming down, because the expectations were for a much higher number and it came in lighter. This is the first time I saw that where expectations were, "Okay, lower, lower, lower." And they should be, because inflation has no place else to go but lower. It has to go lower. With as fast as we're raising interest rates, it better go lower. But with this number, it indicates that the Fed's not stopping, okay?
Frank Curzio: The Fed's not stopping and, guaranteed… I don't know what the percentages are. I haven't looked because we're doing this, again, right after the CPI was announced, a few minutes later, in terms of the Fed fund's futures, but you have to expect at least two more hikes, right? So, we're looking at a terminal rate of above 5%.
Frank Curzio: But, Dan, I don't know if that's the big story here. Because the biggest story to me is, everyone's focused on the CPI and it's coming down. It's going to come down. Inflation's going to come down. It's not going to come down to the 2% anytime soon, but it is going to come down probably to the 4% level, 4.5% level, 3% level maybe by the end of the year. But there's this consensus out there that once the Fed stops, they're almost immediately going to cut, once they stop raising, and that's not happening anytime soon.
Frank Curzio: And I think we really need to understand that, especially if you're low in this market, because that's a scary thing. And I feel like that's not priced in, where you have this constant destruction of demand that's taking place, and it's getting deeper and deeper and deeper and worse every single month. And now, you have these high interest rates. And now, you have the Fed, which I don't know why nobody's talking about anymore in terms of QT, quantitative tightening, just hundreds of billions of dollars, shrinking their balance sheet every quarter. And that's going to happen for the next 12 to 18 months at least.
Frank Curzio: So, constant money being removed out of the system, where interest rates are going to be relatively high, it's hurting Americans. You're seeing it from retailers, you're seeing it in the best companies in the world, like Olay and Lululemon, whose margins have pricing power forever. They had that pricing power forever. You're even seeing those companies say, "Okay, whoa, we got to pull back a little bit."
Frank Curzio: So, consumers are closing their wallets. And if you think they're closing their wallets now, they're going to continue to close them at month over month over month as their savings continue to shrink, because that's going on right now. And that I don't think is factored into the markets right now in terms of earnings and earnings expectations, which is still well, well, well over $200. It's still $225 earnings expectations, which is insane. I think it's going to be more like $180, and that's not factored in. That's why I'm really worried about this market, and that's why I've been telling you to buy puts, long-dated puts.
Frank Curzio: But I am surprised that, as I'm looking at the market right now, and it's not open yet, but the Dow is up 140 on an end line number, which is pretty surprising. But, for me, I'm buying long-dated puts. I think there's a lot more pain ahead and, again, it's the CPI number that just came in exactly as expected.
Daniel Creech: So, the good news is not necessarily good news now, right? Because again, this is positive for markets and inflation in general. Not to rain on this parade along with the overall market in futures, what stood out to me, Frank, is, I'm crazy on energy, the index for gasoline was by far the largest contributor to the monthly all items decrease, more than offsetting increases in shelter indexes. This is from the Consumer Price Index Summary government website.
Daniel Creech: I point that out because we've had a great pullback in energy prices, which is helping this number. Under the radar though, shelter actually increased. Now, we've talked about this in the past, and Jeremy Siegel… Am I saying that right?
Frank Curzio: Mm-hmm, Siegel, yep.
Daniel Creech: He was on CNBC earlier this morning, and he was reiterating what he said a couple weeks ago or a month about how real-time data is actually negative or showing… It's much different than what the Fed is looking at, a lagging data, in the shelter index.
Daniel Creech: My whole point to that is to say, a couple months ago I went out on a limb and said, "Listen, inflation is going down, you're exactly right. I'm not ready to throw in the towel that it's going to continue to trend lower because of this: Energy was…" Six months ago, Frank, a barrel of oil was around $100, okay? Today, it's in the $70s, but that's up over the last couple of trading days because… Well, forget the reasons why, but oil is trending higher again.
Daniel Creech: The issue I have with these reports, and to bring us all back down to reality, inflation is still running, on the government's stat, at 6.5% year-over-year.
Frank Curzio: That's crazy.
Daniel Creech: Hell, that's a lot better than 9%, don't get me wrong.
Frank Curzio: Oh, yeah.
Daniel Creech: However, 6.5%, the longer that stays as the new normal, the longer that stretches out, it's only going to squeeze more and more individuals. And to your point, it's going to cause changing habits. It's going to cause how people think about the future going forward in sentiment. As you pointed out a lot in the past, sentiment, just like expectations with this number, is what drive markets. We're all emotional, and that's what's happening.
Daniel Creech: The crazy thing for me is seeing the market sell off… And I told you right before we started this, Bitcoin was up $500, $600, a couple percent, to over $18,000 before this printed. It wouldn't have shocked me or, I think, anybody else, once that number hit and the markets and everything else sold off, Bitcoin pulled back a little bit. And again, this could all change by the time you guys get this, but the fact that gold is continuing to hold onto gains, the fact that Bitcoin is continuing to hold onto gains, and energy is holding onto its gains, that is something that you want to think about in going forward on how to position yourself. Because as you just said, we joked about this yesterday, even if this number was in line with JP Morgan estimates and the market took off and absolutely rallied 1%, 2%, 3%, or 4%, that doesn't change a single thing that's going to happen in a couple weeks.
Daniel Creech: When the Fed meets at the end of this month, it's not going to change a single thing as more sanctions go across geopolitical ties in oil and energy, it's not going to change a single thing about all the hot wars and rumors of hot wars going on, as normal. We get to talk about this all the time, one of the difficulties is trying to wait until those events. But it's good overall. I am a little surprised that the market sold off as quickly as it did on an inline number because that just means expectations are way out of line with the Fed and the coming policies.
Frank Curzio: Yeah, you said a lot of things there, where, no, the expectations are a lot of points. It's like the expectations, for me, this tells me going in… So, this is a monthly number. So, it didn't do anything, right? It would've been really nice to see a number coming down sharply because now, you can have expectations, "Okay, the Fed's finally going to stop."
Frank Curzio: I mean, after this number the Fed's not stopping. It's definitely at least two more hikes, probably three, and who knows? Because if next month is like this and we're still seeing over 6%, then you're looking at 5.5%. And that's an important number to understand because that means it's 5.5%, 6%. That's getting thrown out there, 6,% as a terminal rate. That's how high short-term rates are going to be. It's very dangerous, the higher we go, because they're going to stay there for a long time, and that's what's very, very dangerous.
Frank Curzio: So, I thought that this number would be much better. Again, shelter is kind of wishy-washy. I covered that. I went through it, the math and everything and how the Fed made sure of that. They changed the way they calculated that since the '80s. This way, they can manipulate inflation and keep it lower forever, probably so politicians could spend as much as they want and keep inflation low, right? But now, it came back to bite them in the ass because we've never seen real estate go up, rentals go up, the way they went.
Frank Curzio: We saw real estate go up high during the credit crisis, just before with all the bullshit leverage and everything. But now, we've never seen rentals go up. Like 13%, 15% year-over-year, we've never seen that and that's not supposed to happen. And now, it's biting them in the ass because shelter's such a huge component and rental's such a huge component of CPI. And that's why they're going to probably fix it again and then change the methodology, and that's what Siegel's talking about.
Frank Curzio: But we have to be careful. Because if you remember, six months ago I was telling you how the Fed needs to slow down. I was telling you how there's a lot of deflationary indicators and pointing them out. But there's still inflationary indicators; the Fed can't stop. And I'm going to say, the way I hear Jeremy Siegel talk on TV is like there's zero inflation out there and it reminds me of another economist that locks himself in a room and doesn't… I don't know if that guy ever took a plane in the past six months. I don't know if he's went to Vegas. I went to Vegas last month, okay? I went to Vegas-
Daniel Creech: Still talking about Jeremy?
Frank Curzio: Yeah, Jeremy.
Daniel Creech: Okay.
Frank Curzio: All right, I went to Vegas last month. If you're staying at a hotel… First of all, the hotel I stayed at, as soon as I got there, I didn't even know, they charged me $100 extra per night for incidentals, that were no incidentals, okay? There was nothing there. I mean, they're banging you out.
Frank Curzio: You're looking at flights, you're looking how much flights are, the travel industry. I'm pointing out some of the things that are not coming down. You're not seeing food prices come down tremendously, right? Energy prices have come down because, miraculously in Europe, it's not cold in Europe right now, but that's changing. That's changing. They're talking about Davos and everything and how it's going to be pretty cold next week. Because they're all going to be there in CNBC in nice little coats and heaters and stuff, and how cold it's going to be with these big heaters on them.
Frank Curzio: But the CPI, and even with Jeremy Siegel-like point, there's still inflation in the market, okay? And there's no signal, there's no indication that, you know what, the Fed's going to come here and say, "All right, we need to slow down," or, "We're not going to raise anymore," they already said they're going to slow down. There's no indication of that. And we definitely got at least two more hikes on the way, maybe three, and that's what surprised me about this number.
Frank Curzio: So, the market's doing okay right now. I don't know where it's going to finish, we'll see. And again, this is all trading and back and forth and algorithm shit and everything, but, long-term, I think the fact that it's still 6.5% at the core, I mean, it came in in line. People will say, "Well, we're trending in the right direction." We're not trending in the right direction fast enough, based on the data that they look and how they calculate it, which that's all that matters.
Frank Curzio: I don't give a shit what Jeremy Siegel says, I don't care what any economist says, the only thing that you need to understand is the Fed is looking at the CPI or the core CPI and it's not really coming down as fast as they want. And that's what they're looking at, meaning they're going to continue to raise rates. That's what you need to focus on.
Frank Curzio: You could look deep into the data and come up with your own thesis, and it doesn't matter. It's that simple. What does the Fed look at? They're looking at CPI, looking at wages. Those two, stumbling high; inflation's stumbling high. Meaning that they're not going to stop, I don't think, before March. Definitely not before March, and it could be even longer after I see this number.
Daniel Creech: Right. I mean, they've already said they're getting to over 5%. They're at 4.5%, 4.25% to 4.5%, excuse me, right now. So, we know they're going to raise at least another half a percent or one full percent. To your point, Frank, food at home year-over-year is growing at 10.4%. That's literally eating at home, just like it sounds. Food away from home is growing at 11.8% year-over-year.
Frank Curzio: Amazing.
Daniel Creech: To your point, eating out in Vegas. One last thing before we get to your favorite whipping boy, Frank, you want to talk about inflation. This hike in inflationary times is, quote, "a financial hardship for many." The Irish Prime Minister, I'm not even going to try to butcher his name, is upset because Guinness is raising the price of a pint by 12 Euro cents per pint. Now, that's under the 17 Euro cent increase that Heineken did, so at least you can point to your neighbor and say you're better than them.
Daniel Creech: But the Irish Prime Minister says this could cause financial hardship on many. And they are trying to get the Diageo plc, parent company, to move it back. They're saying, what, Frank, "Hey, we can't absorb these rising costs and inflation anymore; we have to pass them on." And of course, Bloomberg comes in as a whack-a-mole and says, "Diageo reported a profit of $4.1 billion during the last fiscal year." Those evil, greedy corporations, Frank.
Frank Curzio: Unbelievable.
Daniel Creech: So cheers, everybody, even though it's a little bit more expensive. All right, let's get to your favorite whipping-
Frank Curzio: You can raise alcohol and cigarettes as much as you want and people are still going to pay for… The vices have unlimited pricing power.
Frank Curzio: All right, so the other story I want to get to is Disney. You guys know how I felt about Disney for a while. And as wrong as sometimes I am on other things, that was one of the ones I got to pat myself on the back with, saying that Chapek was going to get fired, Disney lost its way, and the stock was going to crash, and streaming was terrible, or whatever. But now, we have Nelson Peltz out there saying that he wants a board seat because he accumulated 9.4 million shares. I think that's around… I forgot how much it's a percentage of a company. I think it's maybe 4% or something like that, I'm not too sure. I think it's almost a billion dollars' worth.
Frank Curzio: So, he wants a board seat, which they have 12 board seats. And now, they eliminated one, so there's only 11, and they're not getting another board seat. What they did is they promoted… Who was it? The Nike chairman, who he's the executive chairman of Nike, Mark Parker, they elected him the new chairman of Disney. And Nelson Peltz, because he has a stake in it, wants a board on it. I mean, he wants a seat on the board, which Disney's up a little bit on.
Frank Curzio: I don't know how people interpret the news. Nelson Peltz is still a very big name out there, I get it, and he deserved it, but I'm going to tell you what you're not going to hear on CNBC, okay?
Daniel Creech: Here we go. Here we go.
Frank Curzio: All right? They don't tell you this shit on CNBC, thank God, because if they do, then these people will not come back on.
Daniel Creech: I don't have any popcorn, but I have coffee.
Frank Curzio: But I'm sorry, I got to say it. So, his fund try and fund… They only have like four long positions, I think, in the portfolio, and Wendy's and GE are two of them. And GE-
Daniel Creech: He's been in that for a long time.
Frank Curzio: He's been there since 2015, okay? He's owned GE, and it's been a disaster for him. And I know better on GE because I lost money on GE a while back and, yes, I took my lumps for that and I always talk about it as a learning experience or whatever, right? So, I believed the CEO, that they were going to earn over $2.20, and they earned, whatever, 30 cents. And it was just restructuring, it was terrible. But the whole entire time, he's had that one since 2015. I mean, you could have basically bought any single stock in the S&P 500 since then, and you would've outperformed GE. I'm talking about 499 stocks. You're pretty close to that. Maybe it's 498, maybe? Maybe I'm wrong by one stock, but you could have bought any stock.
Frank Curzio: So, what happens in 2017… And this is what you have to look at, right? Because it's like Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan's the greatest basketball player in the world, he's unbelievable, he's great, but it doesn't mean he's going to be the greatest baseball player, right? And just like when you look in the markets, where… I love when economists start talking about stocks, or you have a guy that works for the CIA and all the sudden, you think he's a stock analyst. He doesn't know nothing about stocks, right? If you're a bond expert, you don't want to listen to him about equities, right?
Frank Curzio: Nelson Peltz took a board seat. And this is why I look at it. Well, what happened last time he took a board seat, okay? When someone takes a board seat, makes these changes, and turns it around… Remember, Ford and Mullaly? I mean, Ford was going to go bankrupt and, I forgot, it was 2000 during a credit crisis. And man, he just came in and said, "Everybody's freaking fired. This is what we're doing," and turned the company around and whatever. It was unbelievable. They got someone from the outside; unbelievable what he did. I mean, he made a fortune doing it and that's great. So, if he went to another company, you'd be like, "Holy shit, this is a turnaround guy, you should buy it."
Frank Curzio: But you got to go back to the history of him being on the board. The last time, he was on the board in 2017, gee, what happened? It's still shit. So, he wants a board on Disney and because he's not happy with what's going on. I love these guys who accumulate this big position and then they shit on the company. It's just ironic to me. Like, "Oh, this company's…" Well, why'd you buy billion dollars' worth?
Daniel Creech: I like it better when Icahn does it.
Frank Curzio: Why'd you buy a billion dollars' worth?
Daniel Creech: Yeah, exactly.
Frank Curzio: "Well, I want to change the whole thing." Well, if it's shitty… Because that's what he's doing. He's saying, "Yeah, I try highly to believe the poor strategy operations, poor capital allocation, recent performance conflicts, the hard truth, that the company's in crisis."
Daniel Creech: Check, check, check.
Frank Curzio: This is what they're saying and you're buying a billion dollars of worth, which I love, all right? That's hilarious on its own. Listen, I'm going to tell you something, and it's this simple. If Disney continues to put streaming at the forefront and goes all in to streaming, this is companies… I don't care if you have… Excuse me, I'm Catholic, because I can say it. I don't care if you have Jesus Christ on the board.
Daniel Creech: Now, Frank.
Frank Curzio: If Disney continues to stay into streaming the way they're into streaming right now, his stock should not be bought. It's a $60 to $70 stock, okay? The money that's going to pour out of that company into streaming and the value that they get out of streaming, it's not there. They don't know streaming. They don't know how to do it. They're not Netflix. Their best content cannot come out on streaming, which puts them at a significant disadvantage, okay? They're not at HBO, which you're seeing Time Warner do great. You're seeing other streaming platforms start to pick up steam here, where Netflix is up, I think, 100% from its low; it just got upgraded today.
Frank Curzio: They haven't figured out streaming. Their new content, their greatest content, whether it's Pixar, whether it's Marvel, it comes out in the movies, they generate billions of dollars for it, and then their streaming platform gets like… Okay, you can go to Mandalorian was good, a couple… But the amount of money, and what you have to pay these actors, and what you have to do to get on the streaming platform, and the competition, you have no pricing power in it. You have zero pricing power. That's why it was at $4 for average revenue per user. It's a terrible business for them. If they buy Hulu, short the shit out of this stock even at $100. They should be getting rid of Hulu, which has been around forever and still loses billions of dollars every single year, okay? Which shows you that it doesn't work. And Hulu's one of the better sites with very good content next to, I would say, Netflix and HBO+ when you're looking at that.
Frank Curzio: Streaming is a terrible business for them. They had to get into it. We understand, they had no choice. I know Chapek lied to us and said, "This is the greatest thing ever. We're going to have a multiple like Netflix." You had no choice, okay? Everything was shut down. You got hurt more than anyone, other than Boeing, when it came to Covid.
Frank Curzio: So, what I'm looking at Disney here with Nelson Peltz, one, you're trashing a company, you're buying a billion dollars' worth, you want a board seat. What are you going to do, right? Unless you get out of streaming, that company's going to bleed cash and continue bleeding cash. Their balance sheet is terrible. I'm surprised their credit ratings aren't getting cut right now. They're never going to pay a dividend again. Again, Disney isn't a great, great company. You have to get out of streaming. It's the greatest marketing company in the world. They have great properties. Streaming is a disaster for them. You have to get out of it, and hopefully Iger sees that. Not only that, get out of political world. I know it's very hard to do, but that's your core market. This isn't ESPN, which is a different market, and you could go as left as you want and that's your market. When you're talking about families and things like that, get out of politics because it's affecting you.
Frank Curzio: I know personally because, even a lot of my friends in New York, they're like, "I'll never go to Disney again," who are super conservative, because they hate Disney and that stance. You don't want to be political. Especially kids, you don't want to talk about. That's their bread and butter, kids, children going to these parks, taking your families there. Stop talking about families, stop talking about politics, get the hell out of politics. They should stop talking about it immediately because it's hurting their company and it's going to continue to hurt that company.
Frank Curzio: So the initiatives are there, the writing's on the wall. I don't know why it's going up on Nelson Peltz. Especially a guy that owns four stocks, GE, Wendy's, and stuff like that, and hasn't made any difference being on a board at GE at all, I don't know what he thinks he's going to do with this company, but they have to get out of streaming.
Frank Curzio: Maybe he gets on and he tells him to get out of streaming. I know he's close with Iger and that's why he might get a board seat. They're saying, "No," but for me this isn't news. And he's actually on TV right now, I'd love to hear him, but what he is going to say just would not convince me at all. And I'm being honest with you, he just-
Daniel Creech: Let's play devil's advocate here. I think that the stock is rallying because, you just made a lot of great points, investors have to, I would assume… You know what that does when you assume. How do you not think he's going to come into the… Let's say he gets a board seat. He has to push for cutting some assets. Now, I don't know if he's going to want to spin off ESPN, or if he's going to put a stop to buying the rest of Hulu, or if he's going to get out of streaming, or whatever, but I would have to say the investors must think he's going to shake some things up. He's going to go back to his old roots.
Daniel Creech: And I read a headline about he backs a plan for a new CEO within two years or in two years, because Iger was brought back in just as a temporary guy and all that kind of stuff. I'm sure he wants a say in who the next CEO is and why and what they're focused on. I'll be honest with you, I don't understand. I mean, listen, he's a great, respectable guy. I have two questions for you. One, how do you think he's managing his huge positions? I got a lot of respect for guys that pick a very limited number of stocks and make big concentrated bets. Buffett does it, Icahn does it, Bill Ackman does it, a lot of people do it. If you've held GE since then, the stock price there, you got to be doing something with options. You got to have some derivatives. You got to do something, you would think, to kind of balance that.
Daniel Creech: Anyway, that's not really what I want to ask you. I want to ask you is, what would it take for us to recommend Disney in a newsletter? Would they have to just say, "Hey, we're out of…" Because the most exciting thing about finance… One of them, not the most. One of them, to me, is that you hate the stock price, not the stock or the company; it's not personal. You talk about that a lot in the past. My point is that there could be a time in the future where events change, data changes, and we change our mind.
Frank Curzio: Absolutely.
Daniel Creech: And that's what's fun to think about in terms of just a big picture thing. So, let me set this up for you. They're going to have a new CEO within the next couple years. Do you need to see a complete commitment to getting out of streaming altogether? I guess, quickly, what do you need to see to where it's like, "All right, this is what's…" And I know getting out of politics and all that kind of stuff, but is it just the streaming thing? "Hey, if you guys tell me you're out of streaming or you're not committing $10 billion a year to this ridiculous idea to compete with the other guys that have your lunch…" You just need them to get back to their core: Run parks, make movies, stream your content, pay a dividend, and be quiet, right?
Frank Curzio: It's a good question, Daniel. I'm not telling them to just get rid of streaming. I'm telling them that it can't be your growth model, because it's not growing. The easiest thing for me to buy, if I would tell you to buy the stock, I think immediately one is you just spin off ESPN. It's an incredibly valuable property. Sports will always be incredibly valuable because it's one of the only things in entertainment that's unscripted and people are going to watch forever no matter what, right? It's just the entertainment-
Daniel Creech: Plus, they're going to watch it live. They'll sit through commercials.
Frank Curzio: Yeah, they're watch it live, it's unscripted… I mean, that's one of the things that's massive, right? And I feel like streaming hasn't really figured that out yet. You know what I mean? You're starting to see it now with football, where YouTube just bought the NFL package. You saw it with Amazon, where they're streaming the Thursday night football, which is good. And you're seeing the difference.
Frank Curzio: I mean, Amazon, that was a great deal. They paid a shitload of money and a lot of billions of dollars to it, but that's a great deal because they added tons of Prime members. They're figuring out a good marketing strategy. What Disney needs to do, and nobody is calling for this… Even today I heard Faber say it. Because they work for NBC Universal, who owns a part of Hulu, so they're like, "Yeah, they're going to pay," whatever, "$8, $9 billion." You know what? Sell Hulu to Comcast, that's what you need to do, and scale down.
Frank Curzio: That's going to bring in billions and billions of dollars. That's going to help your balance sheet. Now, you spin off ESPN. And now, your balance sheet is very, very strong. Now, you become the acquirer, right? Now, you become that Disney. Now, you become that powerhouse. They're nothing without that balance sheet. They've never had this much debt on their balance sheet in the company's history. No one's talking about it. It's one of the only companies in Dow that hasn't got back and returned a dividend.
Daniel Creech: Right.
Frank Curzio: It's one of the only ones, right? Because they can't. Because they don't have the money for it. Because they have bleeding, bleeding, bleeding, bleeding cash, bleeding billions of dollars, and that's going to continue with streaming. You're going to see those numbers come down. They fooled everyone out there showing that, "Oh, we have 100 million new subscribers," and nobody cared about the average revenue per user, which, eventually, that's how much money you make and flows to the bottom line, nobody cared. Now, everybody cares. So, nobody cares about the 10 million of international clients you're going to add for $1.50 a client. Nobody cares about that, okay? Especially when the average revenue per user is $11, $12, $13, $14 for a lot of your competitors.
Frank Curzio: You can't compete on that level just because you can't have your best content. So, that puts you at a significant disadvantage right off the bat. It's not like, "Hey, I got this cash, and I'm Apple. I'm going all in on streaming. I don't care if I lose money because I have a great balance sheet." You don't have a great balance sheet; you can't afford this. If you sell that stake and you limit Hulu, now you go into streaming, now you make it more specialized, right?
Frank Curzio: And now, not only that, everyone, all these streaming platforms, what do they need? They're in dire need of content. You are a great content producer. License out this content. You can make a fortune off of it. Why do you have to become the actual provider of streaming for all this stuff. All the Disney content, all the Star Wars content, I mean, that's what a little bit keeping that streaming, Disney+, alive a little bit. But imagine being able to put that on other platforms and how much money they're going to get. I mean, they're dying for content and it's very, very expensive. So why… I don't understand the model of the billions and tens of billions of money that you spend, which is actually $30 billion they said they were going to spend on streaming and new content this year, and then you're charging people an average revenue per user of $4.25. It doesn't work, the numbers don't work.
Frank Curzio: But you have assets there. Spin off ESPN, you're going to get your balance sheet great if you sell Hulu and keep Disney+ and the rest of it, that's fine. But if you're really going to… I don't know where they're going to get the billions. They could obviously raise money in the debt market and stuff like that and further crush their balance sheet, but if they're going to continue to go into streaming, just admit it, "We're wrong." Because that stock will go to $200 if they do this over the next 18 months, probably two years, if they would do that. But they're not going to do that, and they continue to pour billions and billions and billions into streaming, which really only one company has figured out, which is Netflix. But I don't see that happening. And the reason why, they're very controlling.
Frank Curzio: Disney is a controlling company. I told you that when I did the back tour, or whatever, where J.K. Rowling wanted to put, what was it, Harry Potter, the whole Harry Potter thing in Disney Because he's like…
Daniel Creech: Right?
Frank Curzio: Yeah.
Frank Curzio: Well, no, the world, the whole, entire world, right?
Daniel Creech: Oh.
Frank Curzio: So, like they have in Universal, they have the whole… It's beautiful there, and it's one of the biggest attractions. Universal, it's amazing. But the reason why, they went to Disney first, and they said, "Hey, we want to put this in Disney Park." And they said, "Okay." And Disney said, "We're going to put Disney everywhere, all over it." She said, "No, I don't want that." They were like, "Well, the hell with you, we don't want you then."
Frank Curzio: Okay, they are control freaks. People forget, Dan Loeb not too long ago wanted a board seat. Same thing, billion dollars, wanted a board seat, they gave him the finger. "Nope." Now, Peltz, it's up on this. They're not going to give him the board seat. But even if they did, here's a guy, got a board seat in GE in 2017. What did he do since 2017 in GE? Nothing. It's not like this guy… If Icahn got it, it's different. You don't want to mess around with Icahn. There's changes that he makes. And he has that track record of, when he gets on a board, significant changes are made and those companies do better. That's different.
Frank Curzio: But you have to look at Peltz's history of taking a board seat. It's not that good, right? So, I don't know why this news is good. And that expertise or coming in, I mean, he's talking right now. I'm just interested in hearing his comments. Because now you have a… This is what's funny, right? And Dan Loeb did the same thing. I'm sorry to go off on this, but this is interesting, right? You take a billion dollar stake in the company. He's on there trashing the company. I can see the headlines right now at CNBC. You're going to trash the company. I just read it, he's trashing the company. So, does that mean if you don't get the board seat, you're going to sell it, right?
Daniel Creech: Just going to sell that.
Frank Curzio: You got to sell it out of the position. So, is that a negative? I don't know.
Frank Curzio: But he's not going to get the board seat. They're not going to give it to him because they don't like people controlling them. They want to control themselves. And it's very, very bad, especially when things are bad, when you don't want outside help. And that's why Iger had to come back. He didn't want to come back. Are you kidding me? The guy's free. Why would he want to come back to this? Are you out of your mind? That guy's got the greatest life ever in the middle of nowhere. He's got to come back and fire this guy that they just signed a three-year contract six months ago, it's Chapek, because he's all over the place and he's lying through his teeth, which I told you about, for nine months.
Frank Curzio: But I think this is no news, but it's a good question, Dan. For me, it's all about… I don't hate Disney. I hate where it's trading. It's trading at 23, 24 times forward earnings. Why do you deserve that premium before when you have a crappy balance sheet, you can't really grow earnings right now? To me, buy Netflix. It's much, much better. It's cheaper. It's growing. They can put their best content out, which people run home to watch. And you don't do that for Disney. Disney doesn't have that power; that stuff has to come out in the movies.
Frank Curzio: But overall, things need to change. You have to get out of streaming. Streaming, I understand why they did it, they had to do it. They sold it like it was this great thing and then it wasn't that great. It's something you had to do because you weren't generating revenue from… Parks were closed, theaters were closed, cruises were closed, Broadway was closed, parks, everything across the board was closed for them. And it was closed much longer even when things opened, with the capacity constraints and stuff.
Frank Curzio: So now, you have a chance to get out of it. Stop going with something that's not working. Stop being stubborn, okay? It's the biggest flaw of very brilliant people. You have this stubbornness, and you think you have to go. Just take a step back and see it's not working. The numbers are there. It hasn't worked for a year and a half, streaming. Stop doing it and then Disney will be a buy. For now, avoid it. If you really like this, go to Netflix.
Daniel Creech: Buy Netflix, I like that.
Frank Curzio: Netflix is much cheaper, it's better, pure streaming, great company. There's too much nonsense going on here. There's just too much nonsense going on here.
Frank Curzio: But I can't wait to listen to what Peltz is saying. Again, I have a respect for Peltz. That shouldn't be relevant news, of a guy taking a billion dollar position, trashing the shit out of the company, and then, if he does get that board seat, he doesn't have a history doing anything when he does have a board seat, especially with that company. Man, I can go on and on about this. I really could.
Daniel Creech: I know you can.
Frank Curzio: I feel bad because he's-
Daniel Creech: It's good though. It's timely, it's in the news. I like it. Yeah.
Frank Curzio: Yeah, and I stopped talking about it-
Daniel Creech: I can't wait till they make some changes and we write that up and our subscribers open it up and be like, "What?"
Frank Curzio: I'll be the first to recommend it. It's not personal. That's the thing. I've learned-
Daniel Creech: I know, and I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying, this is the fun back and forth about it.
Frank Curzio: And that's what I learned, and I was fortunate to learn that with my dad kind of being a perma-bull. Cramer was a… Perma-bear, my dad, and Cramer was a perma-bull. And having both of them and seeing, this is the way they are all the time, there's a big middle. I mean, you got to be willing to change on a dime in this market, okay? And if you do, especially in this market, where every news matters now and it gets CPI numbers out. One second, the whole world, the whole market's up 300 points, down 300 points, that you got to be willing to change, especially if the thesis changed.
Frank Curzio: The thesis for why Disney's coming lower? It hasn't changed. They're still going on and streaming, they're losing a fortune, their depositions horrible. Nothing has changed with that company, other than Iger, but let's see. He just got there. Let's see what's going to happen, let's see what he does, let's see if he's able to change the culture. Because right now, it's still too early to buy that stock. It's going up along with the rest of the market. But overall, when that company reports earnings, you're going to see those earnings continue to be horrible going forward.
Frank Curzio: Daniel, thanks for coming on today on a Thursday. I really appreciate it.
Daniel Creech: Yep, thank you. Always great to be here.
Frank Curzio: And thank you, everyone. Nice to be back in town after Vegas, gone for a week, and get some electronic show stuff and everything. Turned out two newsletters this week, so hopefully you guys enjoy all of the research and the hard work we're all doing over here. And if someone wants to get in touch with you, Daniel, to yell at you, what's your email address?
Daniel Creech: Dan… I was going to make a comment, daniel@curzioresearch.com, daniel@curzioresearch.com.
Frank Curzio: Or you can email me, frank@curzioresearch.com, guys. Thanks so much. Thanks for all the support. Have a great, wonderful weekend, and I'll see you guys next week. Thank you.
Announcer: Wall Street Unplugged is produced by Curzio Research, one of the most respected financial media companies in the industry. The information presented on Wall Street Unplugged is the opinion of its host and guests. You should not base your investment decisions solely on this broadcast. Remember, it's your money and your responsibility.
Episodes about Portfolio Management
CES 2023: Justin Bieber, Napster, and the metaverse in your home
The metaverse's impressive presence at CES 2023: An upcoming Justin Bieber concert... The return of Napster... And the metaverse on your smart TV. Plus, the University of California's $4 billion investment in Blackstone looks a lot like a bailout.
The critical choice investors must make this year... Why energy stocks have a lot of room to run in 2023... And why Coinbase's settlement with regulators paves the way for long-term growth in the crypto space.
One of the most important events ever for tech companies
Why this year's Consumer Electronics Show (CES) is more important than ever for tech companies... The problem with electric vehicles... The metaverse makes its CES debut... And how to follow Frank's trip to CES 2023.
Why everyone should invest like David Tepper... How to win big as other investors get wrecked next year... The most shocking part of the FTX debacle... And why the company's collapse is good for crypto.
Prepare for these 3 critical 'surprises' in 2023
Investing legend Byron Wien is known for his annual list of 10 market "surprises"... and his ability to correctly predict what's coming down the pipeline. Here are the 3 most important predictions from his 2023 list.
2022's biggest trends… and what they mean for 2023
Last January, Genia highlighted Byron Wien's three most important predictions for 2022. Today, she shares whether they came to fruition... and what they mean for your portfolio going into 2023.
Is our government lying about the jobs data?
Why Frank would short Nike after its latest earnings results... The alarming discrepancy in the government's revised jobs numbers—and what it means for interest rates... Plus, how the latest rental data could impact Fed policy.


text:
0800 779 7688 - 24/7 CUSTOMER SERVICE|Email: info@andrews-waste.co.uk
Garden Waste Removal
Ways to Get Rid of Unwanted Furniture
If you're looking to dispose of your old furniture, here are networks and charities that can be of help.
That hideous, heavily stained sofa you left outside your house certainly didn't go unnoticed. What with the disapproving looks of people passing by, having an opinion about the piece of dumped furniture that's giving the neighbourhood a bad look? Well, I became very uncomfortable myself by the next day.
The sofa belonged to me. I had just dropped it on the pavement in front of my house hopeful that it'll be whisked away by someone who needed it. But that didn't happen and I can understand why.
However, I have to take responsibility for taking the lazy and easy way out of dumping stuff on the street and thinking someone else would take it upon themselves to properly dispose of the TVs, chairs, tables, bookshelves, sofas and other household items.
In the part of London where I stay— and, certainly, all around the UK — there's an easy but faulty way to dispose of furniture and it has become quite popular over the years: dumpsite visitation. Then again, the council calls it, the 'centre for household waste recycling'.
However, such visits aren't fun. In fact, it can be quite depressing. First, you have to deal with the long Saturday morning queue to get in as cars in their different sizes gradually ease their way up the ramp and then get into the dumping ground proper, where lots of huge bins are waiting to be filled.
The dumpsites have different dumping areas for different kinds of rubbish, for instance, garden waste, household waste, timber, electrical waste, etc. I find the electrical goods container for the most part, disturbing.
Items such as radios, toasters, microwaves, heaters, printers, computers, video recorders, flat-screen TVs -all still in good conditions- are thrown in together and the people doing the tossing appear to be getting a kick out of it.
So, people feel good with themselves because they think they have de-cluttered, forgetting that in about a year and a half, their shiny, brand new TV will meet the same fate as soon as a newer model comes out.
When I shared my shameful sofa experience to a colleague of mine, she immediately introduced me to The Freecycle Network. Up until that point, I had never heard of them.
The Freecycle Network was founded some 13 years ago in Tucson, Arizona. Today, they operate in 110 countries and have about nine million members from all over the world. According to the organisation, its members comprise a charitable movement of people, giving and receiving items for free in their locality and also ensuring that the good stuff are kept out of the dumpsites.
It costs absolutely nothing! All you have to do is join a local group FOC (they might need to work on simplifying the registration process though, found it a bit tedious), and then if there's anything you wish to dispose of, you simply post it in the group.
There are volunteer moderators who screen each item posted and the members also have a means of making specific requests from fellow members.
Some people may find that giving away unwanted items through charity shops might not be as easy as going to the dumpsites, especially as parking space is a major problem, but it is a very effective method of recycling and you'll also be supporting a good cause.
However, there are other alternatives. If you want to find out if there are suitable charity shops close to you, Charity Retail Association is your surest resource. The Charity Retail Association was created in the 1990s under the umbrellas of the Charities Advisory Trust and currently enjoys the support of over 8,300 shops countrywide.
It also offers useful advice. For instance, if a shop close to you no longer has enough space for furniture, it'll ask you to contact the Furniture Re-use Network or electrical goods.
According to the CEO of Furniture Re-use Network, Craig Anderson, 'we're like a furniture bank, in times of hardship, we're here supporting low-income families or people going through some tough time.' They already work with over 200 charities.
They believe that getting rid of properties by destroying them makes absolutely no sense, especially when some families are sleeping are in need of those items. When people want to dispose of unwanted goods, rather than think of how it might benefit someone else, they just think of getting rid of it.
This is of particular concern to the Furniture Re-Use Network because they know that over ten million household items are disposed of at the dumpsites yearly, of which some three million could be salvaged and reused by the less privileged in society.
Kate Blake from Too Good to Waste says they have about three vans that go out daily in South Wales alone and they always return filled with discarded furniture.
There are so many people who get rid of their sofa because it no longer fits the new paint colour of their living room. They are usually still in perfect condition and so it's better to find it a new home rather than sending it to the recycling centre.
Alternatively, Andrew Waste offers furniture disposal in London. You can contact them today on 0800 779 7688
By Andrews Waste®|March 28th, 2020|Rubbish Removal Tips|
The fastest and most environmentally friendly way to get rid of your unwanted items
How To Get Rubbish Removal Services In London
info@andrews-waste.co.uk
Commercial Waste Collection
Domestic Rubbish Removal
Wait and Load
© Copyright 2019 - | Andrews Waste | All Rights Reserved | Andrews Waste® is a trading name | Rubbish Removal & Collection London