No where to hide

General Discussion on the Permanent Portfolio Strategy

Moderator: Global Moderator

Pet Hog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: No where to hide

Post by Pet Hog » Fri May 15, 2015 2:41 pm

Cortopassi wrote: When I have my self driving car, I am all for traffic lights going away...
Self-driving cars was also my first thought when the traffic lights argument was raised.  If we don't have a government controlling traffic, we might devise alternative methods for road safety that don't involve lights at all.  Self-driving cars might obviate the need for any road signs.  It would be a completely private solution to a public problem.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7623
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: No where to hide

Post by moda0306 » Fri May 15, 2015 3:27 pm

Pointedstick wrote:
AnotherSwede wrote: What's with government and traffic lights?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFOo3e0nxSI
OMG CHAOS!!!!!!!!!! Don't you see! We need more CONTROL! Spontaneous order from chaos is an impossible, non-existent concept! Without a central authority we'll all be doooooooooooomed! Never mind that it appears to be working… it's just a ruse designed to lull you into a false sense of complacency! Soon there will be unspeakable, unimaginable calamities!
Doesn't that all seem a bit odd to you?

First off, there's congestion down the road somewhere screwing up the whole thing. Is that another place where the light was changed to a stop?

Further, it appears that their IS a requirement to stop by a couple parties, so it's not just a free for all. And I think it's common knowledge that one-way stops are more efficient than lights as long as they don't get too over-crowded on the stop sign and favor the highway goers over those trying to get on it too much.

To me, lights are about balancing the traffic of what would be a completely one-directional congestion. They're not meant to actually reduce it overall. For the most part anyway. Obviously accidents factor in.

In my experience, four way stops and lights suck, but are necessary to balance congestion amongst various directions. Roundabouts are where it's at. :)
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 701
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: No where to hide

Post by flyingpylon » Fri May 15, 2015 3:49 pm

moda0306 wrote: In my experience, four way stops and lights suck, but are necessary to balance congestion amongst various directions. Roundabouts are where it's at. :)
I live next to the roundabout capital of the U.S. and although they have their own issues, roundabouts do work pretty well, certainly better than 4-way stops.  But surely there is someone somewhere that will fight to preserve the status quo to save the union jobs at all the traffic light and stop sign factories.
User avatar
Stewardship
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 6:31 am

Re: No where to hide

Post by Stewardship » Fri May 15, 2015 5:27 pm

Traffic could undoubtedly be optimized if the government weren't in charge of it.  Traffic signals could function under better algorithms that allow traffic to proceed more efficiently for everyone.

This discussion reminds me of local candidates 20 years ago, before we had rush hour congestion, promising to prevent Los Angeles style traffic here in Las Vegas.  What we have now is Los Angeles style traffic.  No apologies from anyone there.
In a world of ever-increasing financial intangibility and government imposition, I tend to expect otherwise.
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: No where to hide

Post by MachineGhost » Sat May 16, 2015 3:29 pm

Wow, 16 pages of hand wringing again in just a bit over two weeks?  I'm not going to even bother reading.

Some people need to get out of the PP.  There's no shame in admitting defeat.  There are less risky portfolios.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Sat May 16, 2015 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
Stewardship
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 6:31 am

Re: No where to hide

Post by Stewardship » Sat May 16, 2015 4:27 pm

MachineGhost wrote: There are less risky portfolios.
Such as?
In a world of ever-increasing financial intangibility and government imposition, I tend to expect otherwise.
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: No where to hide

Post by MachineGhost » Sat May 16, 2015 5:17 pm

Stewardship wrote:
MachineGhost wrote: There are less risky portfolios.
Such as?
Burn's Fat Tail Minimization Portfolio.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
ochotona
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3214
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:54 am

Re: No where to hide

Post by ochotona » Sat May 16, 2015 5:22 pm

MachineGhost wrote:
Stewardship wrote:
MachineGhost wrote: There are less risky portfolios.
Such as?
Burn's Fat Tail Minimization Portfolio.
Larry Swedroe?
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5995
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: No where to hide

Post by Libertarian666 » Mon May 18, 2015 8:29 am

MachineGhost wrote:
Stewardship wrote:
MachineGhost wrote: There are less risky portfolios.
Such as?
Burn's Fat Tail Minimization Portfolio.
I looked for that briefly and couldn't find it, so does it have any significant amount of gold? If not, I don't consider it low-risk.
rickb
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 762
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:12 am

Re: No where to hide

Post by rickb » Mon May 18, 2015 10:19 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
MachineGhost wrote:
Stewardship wrote: Such as?
Burn's Fat Tail Minimization Portfolio.
I looked for that briefly and couldn't find it, so does it have any significant amount of gold? If not, I don't consider it low-risk.
MG must mean Swedroe's Fat Tail Minimization Portfolio (Burns is the Couch Potato guy).  Swedroe's Fat Tail Minimization Portfolio is 30% stock (half small cap value and half emerging markets), 35% TIPS, and 35% short term treasuries.  No gold (Swedroe does not like gold).
User avatar
Stewardship
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 6:31 am

Re: No where to hide

Post by Stewardship » Mon May 18, 2015 2:23 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: I looked for that briefly and couldn't find it, so does it have any significant amount of gold? If not, I don't consider it low-risk.
+1
In a world of ever-increasing financial intangibility and government imposition, I tend to expect otherwise.
LC475
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 427
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:23 pm

Re: No where to hide

Post by LC475 » Wed May 20, 2015 2:13 pm

Ad Orientem wrote: Harry Browne was a smart guy but he was not infallible. Stating that government never works is just silly.
Well, I guess from that we can say that government works for you.  Bully.

That's great you have an opinion and are not afraid to voice it.  I am happy to allow you your opinion.  My only wish -- it is a simple wish -- is that those of your point of view would allow me to have mine.

Seems only civilized.

But then, perhaps I'm "just silly."
Post Reply