31–40 of 111 posts
Those who criticize the behavior of "greedy Wall Street bankers" underestimate their tendency to do the same thing if offered an eight-figure salary.
You have to be greedy to go into Wall Street banking in the first place. Most of us deliberately didn't become bankers because we aren't motivated by greed. This makes bankers fair game for criticism.
I've learned that we can't tell the difference between luck and skill. Out of millions of investors, a few will be phenomenally successful due to luck alone, yet no one is willing to admit they are one of the lucky ones.
I recall reading this statement written in different words in a few articles and essays from PG and others.
Mostly insightful, but this bit: Those who criticize the behavior of "greedy Wall Street bankers" underestimate their tendency to do the same thing if offered an eight-figure salary. You have to be greedy to go into Wall Street banking in the first place. Most of us deliberately didn't become bankers because we aren't motivated by greed. This makes bankers fair game for criticism.
Especially because you don't need to be a Wall Street banker to do just like them. They just have more power, but people should consider their actions regardless of salary.
> I've learned that there's a strong correlation between knowledge and humility. People who spend 10 minutes on Google studying monetary policy think they have it all figured out, while people with Ph.D.s and decades of experience throw up their hands in frustration. The more you study economics, the more you realize how little we know about it. This is the problem with Congress making decisions about science, the in…
what decisions about science would you be referring to?
> I've learned that there's a strong correlation between knowledge and humility. People who spend 10 minutes on Google studying monetary policy think they have it all figured out, while people with Ph.D.s and decades of experience throw up their hands in frustration. The more you study economics, the more you realize how little we know about it. This is the problem with Congress making decisions about science, the in…
what decisions about science would you be referring to?
I disagree with this one: I've learned that Winston Churchill was right when he said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing -- after they've tried everything else." Congress is a basket case 99% of the time, but when things are truly at the precipice it gets things done. The "right" thing is pretty subjective, and I would argue that if we were doing the "right" things, we could have avoided a parti…
> I've learned that short-term thinking is at the root of most of our problems Greedy (aka "short-term thinking") algorithms provide optimal solutions for many (but not all (obviously)) problems.
Moreover, long term solutions encompass the solution space of short term ones - so if short term thinking is required then you can choose the short-term thinking solution that optimises for the long view outcome.
Why? Because the reason most people are worried is based on something that they've read which is often because of this:
"I've learned that journalists' need to write far exceeds the number of things that need to be written."
The root of all opinion is generally what people are exposed to and what is written by a third party (not even an expert) as opposed to what they have actually figured out independently on their own or heard from multiple experts (who may have differing opinions). In other words their bias doesn't come from experience or informed opinion but merely what they are read that others have written.
That's why polls are not as important as they look. Even if accurate they merely measure what people read in the paper, online, or see on the nightly news.
I don't think it's true that "The country is richer than it's ever been." According to this graph, that would be in 1999, not now. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Median_US...
But whether we go with total wealth or median income, really the point here is the following sentence in the article: I don't think it's as happy as it's ever been.
I think the author is taking the long view here, not comparing the present to 1999 or 2009. The claim is that despite having more wealth (by either measure) in the last, say, 20 years than at any other period in our history, we aren't happier because of it. I'm inclined to agree.
> I've learned that there's a strong correlation between knowledge and humility. People who spend 10 minutes on Google studying monetary policy think they have it all figured out, while people with Ph.D.s and decades of experience throw up their hands in frustration. The more you study economics, the more you realize how little we know about it. This is the problem with Congress making decisions about science, the in…
Who would you expect to do better than Congress in making those decisions, and through what process would they jointly make those decisions? (I'm genuinely curious, because I can think of three or four different ways to go in policy-making to respond to your concerns, but I think I'll understand your point better if I thoughtfully read your suggestion about different approaches to making decisions about those issues.…
Parent comment is interesting given this regarding the internet:
(per wikipedia)
"In 1992, the U.S. Congress passed the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1862(g), which allowed NSF to support access by the research and education communities to computer networks which were not used exclusively for research and education purposes, thus permitting NSFNET to interconnect with commercial networks.[47][48] This caused controversy within the research and education community, who were concerned commercial use of the network might lead to an Internet that was less responsive to their needs, and within the community of commercial network providers, who felt that government subsidies were giving an unfair advantage to some organizations"
Obviously Congress doesn't always get it right. Edit: This was a case where they did, right?
But a blanket "that's the problem" make no sense either.
I'm reminded of this every time I see a "man on the street" interview talk about the issue of the day in which is their opinion seems to be formed from something they overhead from someone in the coffee shop or something they read in the local paper. Because for sure we just want those people using their great data source to form policy. I mean why don't we just vote on each and every issue out there. Because ordinary people are definitely qualified to digest and come to the right conclusion. (Or better yet hey just crowdsource or wisdom of the crowds because it's the answer to everything).
> I've learned that people are twice as biased as they think they are, which is precisely why biases are dangerous. This is a bit backwards. It's more like an inverse relationship - if you don't think you have any biases you are likely to be the most biased. It's probably a factor of 2 for those who admit a level of bias, and a much greater factor for those who don't admit bias.
