Gyroscopic Investing

Thanks for digging this up, Vinny. Of course in the three years since I wrote that post, those things have continued to get worse. Since then, I've arrived at a personal conclusion. You don't have to agree, it's just how I've started to explain this stuff to myself:

We're seeing the decay of a late-stage capitalist democracy. We know the symptoms; they're all around us. The cause is what was discussed earlier in the thread: our elites have betrayed us.

They used the staggering complexity of modern institutions to conceal corruption, fraud, theft, and money laundering on a vast scale. Then they rewrote the laws of the land and twisted the economic and popular cultures to systematically channel wealth and power towards themselves and away from everyone else. They imported poor people from around the world to build a new class of domestic economic slaves who could work the factories and meat processing plants and landscaping companies. To protect these gains, they built monopolies, gerrymandered congressional districts, suppressed voting, and corrupted government at all levels with armies of lobbyists and think tanks and bribes. Then, using unprecedented waves of super PAC advertising, megachurch propaganda, control over TV news networks and social media, they tricked the people en masse into turning on one another over divisive but pointless social issues, ensuring that the populace wanted to fight one another more than they wanted to look upwards and comprehend the true cause of their suffering.

I used to be in the "both parties do it" camp. It was comforting not to take sides and blame everyone equally. But over time I had to notice that the forces of the right seemed to be systematically plowing forward 100mph with this stuff, while the forces of the left were divided among those who tepidly supported it, those who tepidly opposed it, and those who advocated wholesale opposition to it.

Then I started seeing it everywhere. Whenever a politician goes down for some huge scandal involving a breach of the public trust or misallocation of funds, the perpetrators increasingly seemed to be Republicans. It's the right that wants to make it harder to vote--no matter the reason of the day (though ironically, the only recent concrete evidence of the kind of voter fraud they talk about was actually committed by them). The right gerrymanders ten times more and more effectively than the left. The right denied a sitting president the ability to appoint a supreme court justice, allowing a new right-wing president to appoint an extra right-wing justice. It was right-wing justices on that court that gutted the Voting Rights Act and first opened the floodgates to unlimited political advertising, which the elite forces of the right then uses much more effectively than the left. It's the right that opposes efforts to raise the minimum wage, make it easier for workers to form unions, require employers to give workers more time off, or any other kind of laws that would require more humane treatment for labor. The right also opposes any efforts to hold polluting companies responsible for their pollution or even put a market-based price on it, and in even goes so far as to pass laws stripping the ability of states, counties, and cities to hold polluters responsible or do things like ban single-use plastics. The right constantly pushes to flatten the tax system, making it effectively more regressive in that poorer people will wind up sending a greater fraction of their much more limited income to the government, while wealthier people will end up sending less or their much more abundant income. In general, the right systematically pushes for the duties of institutions to be devolved into personal, individual responsibilities, knowing full well that this means a certain fraction of people will fail and suffer the consequences, while the biggest winners will be smart and canny people who can take advantage of the new system to zoom ahead of the rest. It's been the elites on the right who were and are the principal architects of nearly 20 years of wars in the Middle East that have greatly enriched oil and defense companies, while killing hundreds of thousands of people and immiserating hundreds of millions. And up until recently, the right has fervently supported immigration of unskilled 3rd-worlders--both legal and illegal--because these people make perfect indentured laborers in dangerous workplaces. Now that Trump has taken over the party, this policy has been replaced with one of inflicting maximum cruelty on those same people, while of course inflicting no sanctions on the companies that employ them.

I could keep going on and on and on. Needless to say, eventually a pattern became clear. It was the right that was championing everything bad about what's happening in our society that came from the degeneracy of elites. Now, maybe the left is weak and pathetic and sometimes does a watered down version of the same thing. Maybe they can be infuriatingly preachy and sanctimonious and out of touch. Maybe they fail to oppose the right as strongly as they should. Maybe they're easily distracted and plagued by disunity. Maybe they're annoying.

But god dammit, If there's a choice between the overwhelming evil empire and the scrappy longshot rebel alliance, I know which side I want to be on.

So now I have my personal answer for how to fix all the problems outlined in the original post: elect more Democrats to legislatures at the state and federal level. They're not perfect. A lot of them suck, or turn out to have some corruption problems of their own. Some of what they do I'm not thrilled about. But as a party, in general, they at least seem to be trying to point themselves in the direction of good, not evil. To me it seems like they are trying, in their own flawed way, to drag our country towards the light and away from the darkness.

Again you don't have to agree with me on this. I know that this is not exactly a bastion of liberalism. I'm just saying that it's how I've explained this stuff to myself in a way that makes sense to me.

The Dems in Illinois and California etc. do all the same things. It's what people in power do.

Recognize that I'm a confessional Christian when you read this post. I value life from the moment of conception and see everyone as a child of God worthy of kindness, respect, and love who will hopefully receive the gift of faith and join God's eternal family after death. The new heaven and earth will be awesome - no more death, no more killing, no more war, sickness, famine, strife, etc. Thus:

I believe families are the bedrock of a healthy society. I might be tempted to support Democratic candidates IF they stop activities that are aimed at breaking up families, the big one being murder of the unborn, which seems to be the central mantra of Democrat party leaders. I cannot support anyone in either party that believes murdering over 60 million babies since 1973 is OK ( http://www.numberofabortions.com ), or those who turn a blind eye to what is really happening. Many of us have been sold a bill of goods that "choice" is good, not evil, and that a woman working full time outside the home is more valuable than raising her own children. I agree with Pointedstick that we are in the late stages of our societal sickness and death is near. We have stage 4 numbness to the truth.

100% of us are going to die. If there is a God as described in Christian Bible, the consequences of unrepentant thumbing your nose at him (e.g. supporting abortion) are quite severe. The Good News is if one repents and turns back to God and his Word, no matter how horrendous the acts that have been committed, God forgives for the sake of what Christ did for us, he is a merciful God. If there is not a such a God, I have lost nothing by having believed there is. If there is such a God and I refuse to believe in his promises, I will have lost everything.

I don’t post often, but I’ve been on the sidelines long enough and I can’t help it.

Note: I really have no intention of “calling people out”, not overtly or covertly. I hope no one takes serious offense. I also have no intention of taking sides or getting too involved in the political discussions. Things I’m going to say are broad for a reason...

First, and most important- voices like PointedStick and TennPaGa are critical here. There are others that are greatly missed and who I hope return, but these two seem to have left for roughly the same reasons and have spoken up recently, which is why I’m using their names specifically. Your concerns are valid. Maybe not in their entirety, but enough that I think more frequent posters should ask themselves how they want to structure public discourse on this website. For the most part the conversations, including moderating, have been very good, but if once strong users feel like they no longer call this place home we can do better. As far as I know, like the PP, the main thesis of this website hasn’t changed probably because it shouldn’t.

Now I’ll address this thread using PS’s comment as a backbone. Like I said earlier I’m not trying to explain my views or justify anyone else’s, but give my take on some broader ideas.

It seems like the way people can “move forward” in life can really be broken down to 4 major categories:
1. Innate ability/talent/skill (those born with the brains, muscles, height, motivation, endurance etc.)
2. Acquired ability/talent/skill (those who work to match group 1)
3. Cutting corners (“connections”, lying, cheating, bribing, etc.) [important note: this is not necessarily malicious or evil, as with the example of connections. You’re leveraging a contact to help you, but there’s not denying it can be a form of cutting corners, pushing you forward to gain an edge.]
4. Fate/chance/coincidence (Mountaineer, you might want to leave this for another thread.)

#4 is beyond our control, so we’re going to leave that out of the discussion.

#1 and #2 are what society strives for, but #3 is just so tempting. And money, power, and status make #3 not just tempting, but fairly easy. Most people, most of the time, want to accomplish things they want with as little effort as possible. Couple that with social justification from those around you and cutting corners becomes a very appealing way to handle personal and interpersonal affairs.

It’s funny how people can stand back-to-back, in exactly the same spot, yet see things so differently, even polar opposite. Flyingpylon’s comment is relevant here: “If the past 3-4 years have taught me anything (not to mention this thread), it’s that everyone we meet is living in “opposite world” on at least one topic. Once you realize that, it’s almost entertaining.”

I’ll also allude to Xan’s comment where he brings up a point you’ve made here: “You must harden your heart and crush them remorselessly”

I can’t speak for him, but to me it seems he’s highlighting the actually very similar position you’re taking along with certain people on this forum. But where your light is in preserving an individuals right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, their light is doing the same within the bounds of a designated country, namely the US in this case. As heartbreaking as it is, why should the US be responsible for the welfare of other citizens? People who may have no intention of seeing the US as anything other than a hollow shell giving them the casing they need to pursue what they want (a form of #3 cutting corners). I am not stating this is what I think, but I am saying it’s fair to see this as a concern. And if it is, maybe the answer is more aggressive foreign policy to keep other countries in check? Or at least more transparency between borders and between governments and their citizens.
Easier said than done. Look at whats been happening in China. I said this won’t be political so I’ll be brief here. People are voting, every day, with their money. Every decision to buy something is taking a vote. That’s sort of the point of free-market. We may not be able to change China’s moral or political structure, but we do have major influence on their financial incentives. There’s a case to be made that buying anything made in China is bolstering their economy and hurting our chances at fighting for our values. Are we doing our part? In that regard, the consensus is no.

There’s a delicate balance between values and (economic) value.
The thread “Service economy inspires crappy design” is somewhat related.

Back to PS’s point about the right. I understand a lot of your frustration. I’m frustrated too. But what you’re describing is more the consequence of money, power, and status. The problem you’re seeing is that the right has an easier time justifying that individuals should be responsible for themselves. And the bigger issue is that the more money, power, and status you have, the easier it is to make more of it. Especially when a society becomes too comfortable with cutting corners.

Bill Bernstein highlights the catch-22 of investing when young (in relation to risk):

“Theres a big problem with the theoretically appealing concept of hyperaggressive stock exposures early in the life cycle. Young investors, in my experience, may well have lower tolerance for risk than older investors do. The academic literature on risk tolerance and age is ambiguous on the subject, but the data are crystal clear on one point: risk tolerance increases with wealth. A 50% fall in the value of a 401(k) plan whose $25,000 balance represents the major liquid asset of a young saver will devastate her. She’ll likely be gun-shy about stocks in the future, her multimillion-dollar human capital notwithstanding.”
-Rational Expectations, pg 135

There’s a connection between risk and wealth. And when many pillars of finance say “risk is necessary” for wealth, you can imagine how those already in a good position can allow themselves more opportunities (via risk) for a better position.

This is not a problem of the right. It is a problem in general, but I can understand why you think the right gives it more wiggle room to flourish.

It would be nice to hear what different people think the answers are to these problems. By the posts, it sounds like California has it’s own dirty laundry from the same fundamental issues, expressed in different ways.

PS, hopefully you and others like you stick around regardless. As someone who usually doesn’t post, I appreciate your input and it makes the conversation here more nuanced and holistic. If voices like yours die out here it would be a shame and this place really will turn into an echo chamber.

LC475 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:25 am

Desert wrote:

LC475 wrote: I already answered. Read again.

How about *you* stick *your* neck out and make a claim, and then maybe I'll think about "backing up" some of mine.

Maybe.

Claim: Somebody needs a nap.

I generally just ignore all these meaningless posts, being above them.

But since several of you -- including a Moderator! -- having determined that Economics, Civilization, Moral Norms, and the panorama of all Human History are insufficiently interesting topics for discussion in this thread, are bound and determined to make the thread instead a conversation about Needling an Anonymous Internet Personality Named LC475 and Endlessly Obsessing About How Meanie-Pants He Has Been (Even Years and Years Later!), I will allow myself one (1) question:

What is the purpose of this post, Desert?

~~~

Back to the topic, and answering your question (an answer to which you will probably never respond to):

Standard deviation is a measure of variance. (Go ahead and go all MangoMan on me and be Righteously Insulted and tell me how you have a PhD in Statistics)

I already told you there is "a lot" of variance in intelligence levels both Africa and the rest of the world. That seems more than specific enough for the conversation at hand. If you have in mind a thread of inquiry you'd like to pursue involving more decimal places, then by all means lay it out! I shall gladly follow.

Oh dear I am hilarious, aren't I.

I see so many of these other, ahem, participants have apparently left in a huff at some point over the years and deleted all their posts, tarnishing the sanctity and continuity of the thread! A shame.

So... anybody wanna talk about intelligence, history, humanity, and How To Save Civilization?