311–320 of 324 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the comment didn't claim that. Rather that it didn't start from scratch in a barren land, instead it started by abusing those people for advantage.
But ex-slavery states in the US are not the wealthiest and economically often in the bottom half. If abusing people gave an advantage the effect should be the strongest there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To be honest, so is every successful country. That is why they are successful, because they once had or still have power over others. I'm curious, do you include Hong Kong in that classification? How about Estonia? I'm curious what 'power' you consider those countries have, or exert, over others.
Hong Kong is tricky one, but I wouldn't classify Estonia as such. While Estonia is successful considering its past, they are nowhere on the level of other developed Western countries. (yet)
Please elaborate, I'm genuinely interested in why you consider them an, exception(?), or example, to your blanket rule that successful countries have power over others.
> While Estonia is successful considering its past , they are nowhere on the level of other developed Western countries.
So Estonia hasn't met your criteria for a 'successful' country (what is your criteria btw?). Is their relative success compared to neighbouring baltic states a result of them exerting force or power over their neighbours or others? Or something else?
> (yet)
Is the only thing stopping them from becoming successful, exerting force or demonstrating power over others, or are they currently suffering from an oppressive regime doing likewise to them (which is holding them back)?
> We may in time experience a decline in float. If so, the decline will be very gradual – at the outside no more than 3% in any year. The nature of our insurance contracts is such that we can never be subject to immediate or near-term demands for sums that are of significance to our cash resources. This structure is by design and is a key component in the unequaled financial strength of our insurance companies. It wi…
I think he's saying that Berkshire's insurance is so large and diversified that even something like a earthquake in California would not have a big impact on its cash position. I'm surprised it would be capped at 3% though.
There's one particular passage I'd like to point out, on page 5: Our efforts to materially increase the normalized earnings of Berkshire will be aided – as they have been throughout our managerial tenure – by America’s economic dynamism. One word sums up our country’s achievements: miraculous. From a standing start 240 years ago – a span of time less than triple my days on earth – Americans have combined human ingenu…
they all represent a net gain for Americans from the barren lands, primitive structures and meager output of 1776. Starting from scratch, America has amassed wealth totaling $90 trillion. This was a gain that was achieved not by starting from scratch but by stealing lands from indigenous people and forcing Africans to work that land. I'm not sure if you can describe the kidnapping, murder, rape and ultimately genocid…
One of the hard lessons our society has learned is that putting so much energy into holding a group of people back hurts both those people and society as a whole. Of course, lately I'm wondering whether we need to relearn that lesson.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this situation you are probably right. However, it's very problematic as a general statement. There are too many atrocities committed by violent majorities against powerless minorities that come to mind. This blanket statement gets into victim shaming really quick.
Agreed. Atrocities have happened and will most likely happen again with innocent victims. But even with violent majorities there is usually a justification of the behavior that somehow involves something the minority party is doing (or not doing) that justifies the action. Not that this makes it any more morally palatable (or true) from an objective viewpoint but the division may exist to be seized upon. I'd also arg…
It's somewhat concerning that there political situation has reached a point where many statements are assumed to be about Trump.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the big boost was started by the industrial revolution Exactly. Now, lets look at some of the causes of the first Industrial Revolution First, large tracts of lands in Britain, largely held in the commons, were stolen from the peasantry and given to private individuals and landlords, as part of the Enclosure movement. This forced the peasants to look for work in cities en masse, providing cheap labor for the capita…
One might consider that if Enclosure did not increase total food production productivity per person, then the peasants would have had to just keep working the land like they did before. I'm not saying the peasants had better lives as industrial workers than as feudal farmer workers (they probably did not), but maybe in the long run more people will have better lives. Same problem today with automation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually having a giant amount of money to throw at a hedge fund is counterproductive. In order to invest all that money, a greater number of investments will need to be made. And the more investments one makes, the more likely it is for them to revert to the mean, performance-wise. It's a simplification, but if a hedge fund manager finds a fantastic investment for $100mn, but they have $100bn to invest, they have to…
Yes I'm aware of that, but it doesn't change the reality that hedge funds have an incentive to have more money from fewer investors, even if they have to be careful not to take on too much money overall.
Hedge funds are at best going to net break even as an industry after fees, quite probably negative. So to look at "Funds of funds" and say they're a good idea is pretty mind boggling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, join or start a hedge fund and take the fees from the investors. That's how you make money actively trading.
The whole point of this particular branch of the thread is that hedge funds underperform passive investors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the people in it suck, the government they built sucks, and the ideals they aspire to suck, and that the solution is to deal out cruelty to the right kinds of people. Amazing reality inversion. Trump never said anything like any of these. He has said politicians and the political class suck. Not 'Americans'. Hillary and others on that side consistently say Americans suck (deplorables), US traditional culture is evil…
You're just a loser listening to a bunch of bunk. Trump is about business. Business is about winning. Trump likes winners. Losers suck. Winners make America great. Trump is a winner, Trump is for America, so America will be great again. Clinton and her gang accurately tagged the collection of treasonous fascists, racists and conservative losers surrounding Trump as deplorable. Unfortunately for everyone, she was inca…
Is that the kind of business you're engaged in?