tjs8rj

29 ms·

241.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
No it doesn’t. The appeal of index funds is that they are perfectly average. Sure, beating the index every year is a challenge, but who cares about that? The game is making money turn into more money, not trying to get 1% more than the S&am
242.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
I don’t know if you’re genuinely confused or just willfully leaping to assumptions. I’m going to assume you just genuinely misunderstand what I’m saying. My original point was to argue the idea that journalist aren’t some innocent class of
243.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
These are separate: media has a financial incentive in crises, media has on several occurrences taken recent actions that stir up their crises more than reasonably incident in getting the facts. These two are separately supported, one does
244.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
Sure, and so are developers, but surely the business side gets passed down and percolates through management. Not to mention I made no assumptions about HOW the business side percolates, but noted that there is observational evidence of jou
245.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
The argument against this is noting that the media has a clear financial interest in riots (crises boost viewership), and it could be argued that many media outlets have worked to foment this kind of outrage by stirring the pot, running emo
246.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
Good point. There has to be a better way than price caps though, price controls are well studied and have a tendency to reduce aggregate consumer surplus
247.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
I wonder if it would make more sense to just have a profit cap. Like “internet must be provided to low-income New Yorkers at cost + 10%”. That way it’s always at least profitable to reach more people. The predictable result of the above is
248.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
That’s exactly my point. He and others aren’t trying to divide Americans as some coordinated scheme to prevent revolution or something, they just make a lot of money from clickbait and outrage. It’s independent profit seeking division only
249.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
I always wonder with this point: who is doing the dividing? Do rich people coordinate on some scale like this? Is this done by powerful groups like “The Clinton’s” or well connected financiers? You could make an argument that all these grou
250.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
Why not do both in parallel? A few decades of pausing space progress now could have a much bigger impact than later, and it’s not like space travel is so easy that we’ll suddenly wake up colonizers of the entire solar system. Did you fully
251.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
The abstract mentions women self-assess more accurately than men. As a man and thinking about my own mindset with self assessment, I wonder if the definition of “self-assessment” itself might differ between men and women on average. For mys
252.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
These points seem to forget about income mobility. How about the fact that almost nobody under 40 is a millionaire (rich), but just about 20% of Americans over 65 are? We can’t all be rich at the same time, but we can all be rich by taking
253.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
I get the sense that you’ve read a lot of theory without any observational facts. The vast majority of the 1% and 0.1% get most of their income from labor nowadays. This is a phenomenon called “The Rise of the Working Rich”. This looks like
254.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
About half the companies you mentioned are cash-flow positive, so their economics work, they just have accounting for depreciation and other lines on their balance sheet. They are default alive companies using accounting practices to avoid
255.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
Netflix and Airbnb are profitable, and as far as I can tell the others could be profitable but aren’t because they want to stay huge / have the capital access to do so. When you have unlimited money pouring in, whats the point of profi
256.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
I was making the opposite point actually: markets ARENT moral, and what they support isn’t moral. It isn’t necessarily immoral either. They’re just systems of consensual transactions where everyone collectively decides value. The parent com
257.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
A sharper metric: it tends to do with whoever is responsible for the success of the company at the least cost to shareholders. Imagine a company starting out. If they need you to join or they fail, and they can get you for 1% of the company
258.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
If not, then I have no idea what the point of the mandate was/is. Texas still strongly encourages mask wearing, the governor said so the day they lifted it. Many states did require masks on public property, at the threat of removal
259.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
I’m usually in total agreement about blockchain just being stuffed anywhere, but observationally, there must be a good reason why blockchain shows up in these situations so often. There’s definitely the hype factor, but blockchain does have
260.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
For your second point: it’s not racist, but not because the US was funding it, but because it’s possible to criticize a regime and failures of a country without criticizing the ethnicity of people. The only reason racism ever gets conflated
261.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
That, combined with the fact that humans are capable of making individual risk assessments. A mandate was lifted, that just means the state can’t punish you for not wearing a mask, that doesn’t mean it isn’t strong recommended, or required
262.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
To be clear: qualified immunity is about civil liability. It doesn’t protect from criminal liability. Qualified immunity isn’t the reason cops don’t go to jail for murder, because it doesn’t apply at all for criminal procedures
263.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
I'd agree with this. Although in the US there was recently added another exemption to become an accredited investor: passing a knowledge test. What interested me was: republicans are in support of removing accredited investor status ma
264.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
Like everything else is a free economy, it was a consensual transaction. If Zuck offered me $1 mil for my small apartment, and said I could live in it, I'd take the deal. He purchased their homes and then leased them back to them, what
265.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
The npr source said 5% of Americans will be in the 1% for 2 consecutive years, so the Cato numbers aren’t far from what you might expect.
266.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
Keep in mind the level of churn. An implicit bias easy to make is forgetting that these are percentiles, not people, and most people move through different percentiles at different times in their life. 11% of Americans will be in the 1% for
267.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
Maybe this is pedantic to some but I despise the inequality comparisons with pure savings. Sure, if you stuffed your post-tax $500k into a savings account it’d take 2 and half decades to be in the 1%. More realistically, if you simply inves
268.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
With Limited Liability, your private assets as an agent are shielded, but only if you don't pierce the veil. Criminal acts pierce the veil, and the government is usually pretty happy to scoop up money when possible. I suspect there&#x2
269.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
I’d be surprised if the anti vax sentiment has really flipped that much, as in: remember when then vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris said on tv that she doesn’t trust the vaccine? Or when the governor of California said he wouldn’t
270.
by tjs8rj 6y ago
Surely you understand there are more considerations than just what public health experts say right? They are a part of the answer, not the whole.

More ›