Charlie Munger has died • Hacker News Board

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#441

Post by steve_adams_86 » Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 3:40 PM UTC

corethree wrote: post #436

kamaal wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your parent comment argument is a flawed argument, of course. By definition everything that ever happens, happens from cause-effect conditions. So if you end up winning, everything that happened that led to it, in some way is responsible. But that's splitting hairs. I have seen these situations even in other relationships. There are these cousins, or uncles who would have dropped you to an interview, or lent you some…

Exactly. Especially in modern times. Women have equal rights now... which is hugely deserved.... but they don't have equal responsibility? That later part no longer makes sense.

I’d argue that equal rights aren’t yet global nor fully manifested even in places where they’re intended.

Look at studies around division of labour within North American homes and it appears women are still tending to take on most homemaking responsibilities. There are interesting psychological and potentially biological factors involved.

One take on this is that women do a lot of “hidden” labour. What men do is often very obvious and readily apparent. Women take on tasks more related to planning, preparing, organizing, or otherwise using mental energy and time to improve quality of life for their families. For the family it just seems like things are normal; it isn’t evident that a person went out of their way to ensure things went better. This work is actually quite demanding and often invisible and unappreciated. It can often lead to reduced time for self care, sleep, eating, etc.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#442

Post by steve_adams_86 » Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 3:44 PM UTC

corethree wrote: post #434

barry-cotter wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s probably an exaggeration. He wasn’t literally living on the street. Also, his wife was still taking care of two children.

She got the house. Usually for American families that's the majority of their wealth. A huge majority. A split would mean selling the house. But that didn't happen.

In my family, my wife would get the house because although she has 5 degrees and a relatively good career with the federal government, I typically earn 2x more than she does. I can buy my own house if necessary. She can’t. It’s not for lack of trying. She earns more than all of her friends, and most of my friends for that matter. She would get the house because any other option would harm her and the kids.

This could have been the case for them as well. It seems likely to me. Getting the house when you have low income potential isn’t a “win”; it’s being thrown a life boat.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#443

Post by michaelcampbell » Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 8:35 PM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #426

malwarebytess wrote: post #135

As smart and rich as this guy was, and I know very little of him besides his critique of cryptocurrencies, I wonder about his empathy. That dorm design... https://youtu.be/VKXOQ8duhRg

The reason for the design was to put the communal areas by the windows so people would come out and mix. It seems popular at the one they built https://youtu.be/LzsjKdGehb0

This sounds like an academic version of the "return to office" mandates.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#444

Post by corethree » Fri, Dec 01, 2023, 2:42 AM UTC

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #441

corethree wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Especially in modern times. Women have equal rights now... which is hugely deserved.... but they don't have equal responsibility? That later part no longer makes sense.

I’d argue that equal rights aren’t yet global nor fully manifested even in places where they’re intended. Look at studies around division of labour within North American homes and it appears women are still tending to take on most homemaking responsibilities. There are interesting psychological and potentially biological factors involved. One take on this is that women do a lot of “hidden” labour. What men do is ofte…

Women aren't obligated to do the work you describe. They often do but they don't need to do it.

The man needs to fill his gender role fully by raw obligation. It is not a choice. It's a biological requirement expressed by women in mating preferences. It's a strong preference and pretty much Universal behavior among women.

Men impose no such requirement on women. So what you will see is that whether women do what you say or not varies widely. I lived in a family where my mother didn't plan anything and she wasn't diligent about making sure everything was smooth. She was chill about everything. Didn't mean our family was dysfunctional. That's just her, and she could be this way because my dad didn't care. But if my dad wanted to become a house husband? The marriage is over if that choice is ever made.

Either way. The split should be made by proof of work. Not hypothetical anecdotes from either of us. Historical Income is the only raw evidence of it.

And I'd go further to say. If a woman doesn't demand equal responsibility then she doesn't deserve equal rights. That goes for men too. Unfortunately male dating preferences are rather lax, but that's another story about another problem.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#445

Post by corethree » Fri, Dec 01, 2023, 2:49 AM UTC

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #442

corethree wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She got the house. Usually for American families that's the majority of their wealth. A huge majority. A split would mean selling the house. But that didn't happen.

In my family, my wife would get the house because although she has 5 degrees and a relatively good career with the federal government, I typically earn 2x more than she does. I can buy my own house if necessary. She can’t. It’s not for lack of trying. She earns more than all of her friends, and most of my friends for that matter. She would get the house because any other option would harm her and the kids. This could…

Why would it harm her kids? You can buy a house anytime according to uou. And why should she get the kids? She's better than you by virtue of you being male?

How about people make that judgement based off of evidence not gender.

Additionally my stance isn't that men should get everything. My stance is wealth should be divided according to contribution. Which is in alignment to what you're describing.

My point still stands though. For the overwhelming majority of people and likely munger, the house is the majority of wealth.

And the best case for the kids in this scenario is for the parents to divorce but allow charlie munger to still own half of the house and live in it. That's best for the kids. Best for the kids is not meeting his wife's demands of forcing him to move out and making her own daughter watch him become pathetically destitute. I would hate my own mother if she did that, I cannot respect that even in my own parent.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#446

Post by steve_adams_86 » Fri, Dec 01, 2023, 7:01 AM UTC

corethree wrote: post #444

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue that equal rights aren’t yet global nor fully manifested even in places where they’re intended. Look at studies around division of labour within North American homes and it appears women are still tending to take on most homemaking responsibilities. There are interesting psychological and potentially biological factors involved. One take on this is that women do a lot of “hidden” labour. What men do is ofte…

Women aren't obligated to do the work you describe. They often do but they don't need to do it. The man needs to fill his gender role fully by raw obligation. It is not a choice. It's a biological requirement expressed by women in mating preferences. It's a strong preference and pretty much Universal behavior among women. Men impose no such requirement on women. So what you will see is that whether women do what you…

I agree, to a point. Everything should certainly be a case-by-case basis.

We’re also in complicated times because social norms aren’t as dependable as they were, once. Family structures are changing. Roles are changing for many people. My kids experience around the home is already far different from mine, and I believe it’s the case for most of their friends as well. Family structure in 20 years could be significantly different from what it was 20 years ago. The need to evaluate case-by-case will probably only increase.

Your point about equal responsibility and equal rights is a good one. I suppose my position is that a lot of hidden labour can be responsibility, and it can often be important and overlooked. Yet, it’s not as though men never share in this, or that being a primary provider doesn’t come with its own hidden labours. For example, the insane amount of learning required to stay competitive and relevant in my role - we’d very likely have a smaller income if I didn’t fit this in and move my career forward. It’s all very complicated, nuanced stuff.

At the end of the day though, I agree. If someone isn’t actively pursuing equal responsibility for themselves and their partner, they’re likely not equally entitled.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#447

Post by steve_adams_86 » Fri, Dec 01, 2023, 7:09 AM UTC

corethree wrote: post #445

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my family, my wife would get the house because although she has 5 degrees and a relatively good career with the federal government, I typically earn 2x more than she does. I can buy my own house if necessary. She can’t. It’s not for lack of trying. She earns more than all of her friends, and most of my friends for that matter. She would get the house because any other option would harm her and the kids. This could…

Why would it harm her kids? You can buy a house anytime according to uou. And why should she get the kids? She's better than you by virtue of you being male? How about people make that judgement based off of evidence not gender. Additionally my stance isn't that men should get everything. My stance is wealth should be divided according to contribution. Which is in alignment to what you're describing. My point still s…

Right, it seems like we’re mostly on the same page.

I definitely don’t mean to imply my wife would get sole custody. I think both parents should be given equal opportunity to do their best, and anything else will inevitably harm the kids in some shape or form.

What I meant is that if my wife didn’t have adequate housing, it would be bad for her bad the kids on her time with them. If we separate, I could readily use my income and credit to find adequate housing in a way that she couldn’t. As such, finding some arrangement in which she keeps the house would be best for her financial situation and for the kids’ experience as well.

I definitely don’t think moms are entitled to more time or more wealth. I’d expect equal custody of our kids. The housing part is just a result of our particular situation; it would work fine for us. This might not work well at all for others, and if that’s the case, they should do something else. Hopefully that makes sense.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#448

Post by mdp2021 » Fri, Dec 01, 2023, 10:20 AM UTC

alexb_ wrote: post #58

mdp2021 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That linked is the revised version A transcript of the original speech at Harvard, June 1995, should be e.g. at https://jamesclear.com/great-speeches/psychology-of-human-mi... A recording of the original speech is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv7sLrON7QY

It was revised and updated by Munger - it's better than the original because it has more experience and information. The old one is fine too, but is harder to read and a bit more dated.

Others will find the speech (transcript) more direct.

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#449

Post by spfzero » Sat, Dec 02, 2023, 1:28 AM UTC

vlovich123 wrote: post #219

spfzero wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a counter-argument, you usually need to read a lot into the reported numbers, for example read the 10K notes for multiple years in the past. That's the only way to know that the 3B in assets showing up on the balance sheet for "goodwill", to use one easy example, are not really worth 3B. There are many more-nuanced factors that work alike. The reported numbers are what the accountants think might fly under GAAP, a…

> If a stock goes up 20% in a year, the market might have undervalued it last year, or is overvaluing it this year. It's unlikely the it was correctly valuing it at both times. In the absence of a Covid-19 pandemic, act of god, etc. of course. Or the company has grown its revenue by 20% in 1 year which isn't necessarily unheard of. Or they significantly beat the expectations of analysts / their own guidance. In all o…

Sure which is why I said "unlikely", rather than "unheard of".

Re: Charlie Munger has died

#450

Post by spfzero » Sat, Dec 02, 2023, 1:48 AM UTC

corethree wrote: post #297

spfzero wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a counter-argument, you usually need to read a lot into the reported numbers, for example read the 10K notes for multiple years in the past. That's the only way to know that the 3B in assets showing up on the balance sheet for "goodwill", to use one easy example, are not really worth 3B. There are many more-nuanced factors that work alike. The reported numbers are what the accountants think might fly under GAAP, a…

>To test whether markets are perfectly efficient, just look for large movements over time. If a stock goes up 20% in a year, the market might have undervalued it last year, or is overvaluing it this year. It's unlikely the it was correctly valuing it at both times. In the absence of a Covid-19 pandemic, act of god, etc. of course. This is technical analysis not value investing.

It's not the investment thesis, it's a thought experiment to test market efficiency. It's a test to see whether markets are always efficient, and to me demonstrates that they are not, and that value investing might be an interesting thesis to pursue still.

People have been saying for decades that value investing is not possible since the market is too efficient. My point is that it is not efficient enough to prevent value investing from being a successful strategy.