wolverine890

I just finished this. One thing I was surprised by was Musk's focus on cost. I am curious was to what Munger would have thought of him had he read this book. In some ways he reminds me of a manager that Munger and Buffett would have enjoyed in their younger days... then in other ways not so much.

I really enjoyed accidental superpower and then felt like his following books were capitalizing on one good book. Their quality and ideas weren't nearly as good as the first.

That is true. Many of the chapters can be dull. However, they bring up a couple of interesting ideas regrading personal capital and risk taking strategies via haghani's experience with this wealth and investment in LTCM. after almost a week of reflecting on the book to I think its worth reading? Maybe a couple of chapters. But I wouldn't waste my time reading it, in it entirety, again.

Luck is a funny thing. I played twice with the same strategy. first time ~$400 and second time >$700.

Ya, my bad @KCLarkin I didn't have the book in front of me. but you are correct.

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/09/21/how-to-avoid-a-common-investment-mistake

Saw this book review in the economist last week and picked it up. It's pretty good. The authors begin with Andrew Carnegie's net work at the time of death: $317M. He then explains that if each of his descendance and their descendance on down the line; would have taken their inheritance, invest in the US markets and only spent 2% year then they would each have a net worth of $5B. However, as far as we can tell no living member of the Carnegie fortune is worth anything close to this number. So he ask the question where are the missing billionaires? The book is a pretty good rundown of risk management explains that humans are terrible at it. highlighted in the first couple charter by an experiment the authors ran where they had students participate in a coin flipping game where the odds of heads were 60% and tails were 40%. Each student was given $25 and allowed to make a 1:1 bet for 30 mins with the goal of maximizing their wealth. The crazy thing that happened was 28% went bust and I believe it was 40% ended with less money than they started. The authors highline that the solution to approaching this game is not intuitive for most people. You can play the game yourself on their website: https://elmwealth.com/coin-flip/

You could always try them raw...

i bonds

Why not? Chapter one goes through the history of trader joe's and shares the story of Theo Albrecht's (Albrecht family owns Aldi) purchase of Joe's.

I really enjoyed this book. I grabbed it because of a research project I have done on the food industry. Lorr's approach is very hands on. He could have been very good investigative journalist. He follows people in the industry and move topics from farms, to delivery and actual grocers. He leaves the reader with a great left hook that I found incredibly insightful.

This video is how I was introduced to this book: I really have enjoyed his analogy of "building muscle as a type of retirement account". I bought the tonal 2 years ago and between that and a treadmill I have dropped about 10/15% of my body fat and increase my lean muscle by ~10%. Because of this book I talk to my doctor about getting a CT anagram, DEXA scan and VO2 max. I have also started to take creatine, fish oil and I may start on statins. I am 36 and in the best shape of my life. There are a ton of other great takeaways from this book and i can't recommend it enough.

I think you might want to move away from sexuality for a moment and consider taking a member of our society's life in order to understand @RichardGibbons' point. Citizens of Greek and Rome who were fathers had total control over their household. If they decided their child no longer deserved to live, they were allowed to do what they saw as necessary, same went for servants. This is because they weren't viewed as a part of society. To hit this point home for myself I ask, "what group might we not include as a part of our society today that future generations will judge us for?" The simplest answer to me is a pig. I am a carnivore. I eat meat, I invest in companies that might abuse animals and that for sure kills them for a profit. Do I personally have a problem with that? The abuse, yes. The killing, no. This is because I don't view animals as part of our society. Kill a pig, it is fine. I like bacon. However, my daughter (age 3) might have a huge problem with this one day. Will she be right or wrong? I believe, if everyone agrees with her and mandates that pigs can no longer be killed for food but only had as pets (or whatever), she would be correct. My belief about a pig's inclusion into society doesn't matter. Society has determined that a pig is part of it therefore I shouldn't kill it or eat it. Now what is ironic about the pig argument is that this was a moral law from God. Then Christians claimed it to be okay, mostly because they realized how good bacon was, but a little bit because they misinterpreted God when he told Peter to eat the unclean meat. Then Paul got all "moral relativist" by saying that Jews need to keep the law and gentiles don't need to. But that could be a topic for later. Do I personally believe I have the capacity to view a pig as part of our society and thus taking its life is morally wrong? No. However, do I view my daughter as part of my society and would prefer to do things to not upset her if I view them as benign? Without a doubt. To me, that's how society evolves. Enough children convince enough parents that an aspect of society is worth compromising on and society becomes change. Eventually all the bacon lov'en holdouts will die and now the pig is a part of society, killing them is and was always wrong and the whole of humanity will judge us and our forefathers; this will become a proof that Muslims and Jews were correct and everyone else was wrong.

No they haven't. I made a guess at what they meant by the following:

Greg, I agree with TdoubleC & Spook. In my opinion the fed has been consistent since their October meeting with the path forward. My takeaway from that meeting was threefold: 1) the fed would like to see unemployment go from the mid 3s to the mid 4s. 2) They would like to see new job openings cut in half (from Oct. numbers) 3) they would like to see housing prices fall by ~20% from their peak. Once the fed converted to the belief that the data no longer lead to the conclusion that inflation was transitory, they have been consistent that unemployment, new job openings and housing would be their three main factors in determining when their dual mandate was accomplished. The think the main way we get a "soft landing" if those three targets are correct is an increase in the labor force participation rate. IMO, that is what Mr. Powell was trying to share before congress, but those monkeys needed to dance, and he wasn't providing them with any music. IDK, that's my opinion and it has helped me interpret them. But take it with a grain of salt because I like the fed. I think it’s a great institution. Also, did anyone else follow the greekjordan on twitter? I always appreciated his commentary on the fed. But, one day he was gone.