-
Posts
456 -
Joined
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Blugolds
-
-
42 minutes ago, rohitc99 said:
My takeaway from the thread - how expensive raising kids is. No wonder population growth is slowing and even dropping. I am sure my kids and their generation is already on the fence on having kids of their own and it is showing up in the stats already
From a pure economics standpoint, marry - dont have kids and you can retire 20 years early
Could also have kids later than previous generations (also a trend) that way your early years are spent socking as much as possible away to get a large chunk put to work, get a jump on getting to "hockey stick" territory, later in life earnings go up and the expense of childcare is not such a large percentage of your monthly net.
Sometimes this is planned, sometimes its not. But if you are young, earnings are the lowest they will be in your career (theoretically) and a large percentage, or even majority of your earnings or that of your partner is going to childcare that puts a tremendous damper on how much you are able to put away and you lose out via mind numbing opportunity cost.
-
We went with a foreign Au Pair. Was cheaper than daycare by a couple hundred a month, but the real "value" is in the flexibility, no need to take and pick up from a location outside the home. can set their hours as you wish, up to 46/week I believe and if you do the math, it works out to be like $8/hr. Work hours can change week to week so if parents want to plan a getaway they can for an evening etc. Also, they can watch more than one child, and thats when the savings really pile up, rather than paying for two kids in daycare.
Childcare costs are staggering no matter how you slice it.
-
I share the same way of thinking as @thepupil, if you're top 5% of income you should be pretty comfortable. Combine that with taste/spending habits that are less than the avg top 5% of people and you're even more comfortable.
Remove the big ticket expense trap that the majority of people fall into. (Hopefully childcare is done), new expensive vehicle upgrades regularly, other toys, and even if you have a note on your home, hopefully you locked in when rates were unbelievably low, or you've had the note for long enough and area rents have increased exponentially that the payment has became insignificant...you're set.
There is also a human tendency to always think "comfortable, wealthy, rich" (chose you're adjective) is just a "little bit more". Tendency to think just a little bit more and then you'd REALLY not have to worry.
EX:
$500k → $1M
$1M is alright but you'd need $2M to really not have to worry
$2M but you dont feel rich/wealthy, but think those with $5M are
$5M you know you're doing fine, but you need double digits to really be considered "wealthy" ( >$10M)
$10M + and You know you're good, but the real "Wealthy" make 5X what you have as a bonus every year...
$100M probably consider yourself up there...but you're not in the Billionaires club
Billions...and then you start playing the "list" game, jockeying for position
So like @Jaygo said, its all relative, and thats human nature.
To me personally, when you can conservatively cover all your living expenses via passive income/investments, and it allows you to participate in the activities you enjoy regularly without feeling like you have to be concerned or super mindful of spend within reason..then I'd say thats it. If you're activities are sitting in a canoe, camping and fishing...thats quite different than if you "need" to have a six figure yearly country club membership and dine out every night @ a couple hundred $ a pop.
I honestly dont find the specific number as interesting as the human psychology of it all. When someone feels comfortable, take the foot off the gas, transition from building to spending/enjoying..the ability to say, thats enough. Thats different for everyone and there are many influences, including childhood, social circle etc. If "wealthy/rich/top 5%" in your area is $250k/year...but your closest cohorts are all making $50k/year and you're pulling down $100k...you're the "rich" guy/friend and you might not feel rich but your circle is going to disagree.
This can be a challenge personally, the majority of my circle comparatively, I feel a certain way...but there are a handful that make me feel inept. Depends on who you chose to use as a baseline. Hard to remember that those few making me feel inept, if used as a baseline for 99% of people would make them feel the same.
-
I would SP500 ETF, set and forget. No need for crystal ball, a lot can change over 20 years, look at the popular names from 20 years ago, majority have fallen from grace or are not even around any more, even those thought to be a slam dunk at the time for long term hold. Technology and industry changes and will continue to do so, business will look very very different 2 decades from now. We havent even really seen the impact of AI on business yet and there will be winners and losers.
For ease of "management" and not knowing what the future holds, I'd follow Warrens advice in this instance and use an ETF SP500. Also, not to be morbid, but if you start a portfolio for your son, that needs a lot of "tending" and heaven forbid, something happens to you along the way and you are no longer around to advise/manage and it sits there, thats a risk IMO. With SP500 ETF there is no risk, it can sit there for the next 50 years with no changes necessary or at least as long as it takes for your son to figure out how to manage it intelligently.
Im in a similar boat, and these are the things I have considered. What can I guarantee will be around for as long as its needed, takes the least amount of hands on involvement in the event that Im no longer around. Also, with such a long horizon, you dont have to shoot for the moon on returns, with enough time (and he will have a good jump on the majority of people) you dont need mind blowing returns yearly to grow to a decent size. Play with a returns calculator, or read articles on retirement saving that show the difference between someone starting to save at say 25 fresh out of college without much money, but able to save even $100/mo vs someone who delays and then starts at 30 or so after kids and tries to play catch up, the differences are insane even if you assume the same yearly return, even if you drop the yearly return for the early starter by a couple points per year, still does well. Time in the market is a HUGE advantage and forgives a couple years of lousy returns.
-
1 hour ago, Jaygo said:
I think this goes for lot in our economy. Just look at heavy duty trucks. That’s not a $95,000.00 super duty. It’s only $1,200.00 a month.
without borrowing our current economy would stop dead in a week.
Agreed, the price of the "asset" doesnt matter, neither do rates really because they just extend the term. The same is/has been happening in the boat/RV markets. Auto loan terms of 72mo are becoming more and more common vs previous 60 mo considered "the long option", especially with rates increasing. Boat and RV loan terms are already able to go out 10 years. These will only increase.
Might come a time when the traditional 30yr mortgage becomes 35-40.
When the majority of your potential buyers (middle class America) wages have not kept up, and in fact are losing purchasing power, prices of goods/materials continuing to rise to maintain profit margins etc, rates rising..the only option is to extend the term in order for them to buy. The entire economy hinges on monthly payments. With manufacturers increasing prices and profit margins and the fed increasing rates, length of the note is the only lever to keep the music playing and the party going.
-
4 hours ago, Spekulatius said:
A lot of people can’t pass the marshmallow test and we don’t teach it on school either. If anything, I suspect a lower percentage of people pass the marshmallow test than decades ago, thanks to more social media envy and perhaps other factors.
If you don’t pass the marshmallow test, you are unlikely to become wealthy or even stay wealthy they in case you are well off already.
Passing the marshmallow test is probably a better indicator of your chance to become well thy than intelligence, education or even be a hard worker.
Agree 100%
And the attitudes are changing to reward those who take the marshmallow now, there is no consequence for taking it now and it is encouraged. Even if its not your marshmallow.
They want their marshmallow now, they want your marshmallow, and they want the pile..all of it.
There is a happy balance and finding it can be hard, both for spenders and savers.
-
I think China would be the one in the meat grinder if Taiwan puts up even a mediocre defense. Beach landings are archaic, and honestly I think China is smarter than that. IMO China is probably discussing how they can get Taiwan to WANT to re-unite. How to they make it in Taiwan's best interest to WANT to come back under Chinese umbrella. Brute force wont work here IMO, just like Russia would never be successful in holding Ukraine, just like the US in the middle east, you can come in and turn the place into a pile a rubble, sure, beat them into submission, but then spend the next several decades occupying with military and dealing with uprisings, guerilla tactics etc, just not a reasonable or desirable long term plan if the people dont WANT to be occupied.
Also, if you're the smallest kid on the playground and getting picked on by the bully, you dont have to start lifting weights and taking karate classes, you just have to be friends with a kid that is as big or bigger/tougher than the bully. This is more Taiwans strategy I think. They would have support of the US and other neighboring countries. China knows this also and thats why I say the brute force tactic seems unlikely, sure threaten it to keep them on their toes and test defenses but the reality is China would get closer to their goal using sugar rather than salt. If there is any possibility at all.
I thought Ray Dalio article was interesting and probably accurate on many points. Both sides dont want war and not in best interests, but both sides unwilling to back down, being spurred on by comments it almost becomes a self=fulfilling prophecy and can itself lead to war. both sides should be spending more effort on avoiding conflict and working together rather than posturing and preparing for what the other could do. the best offense is defense they say, pray for peace, prepare for war and all that, but I also worry that once the snowball takes off down the hill, building along the way (and arguably the snowball is already rolling) it can be very very hard to stop.
You make a goo point though as to elements that may be there that havent been taken into consideration, in addition to the Taiwanese resolve to fight, the inverse of that is the Chinese will to fight and suffer tremendous casualties as well as those not fighting, dealing with sanctions etc. Xi wants common prosperity and a strong Chinese economy is how he gets that, is the juice worth the squeeze, is the cost of getting Taiwan back worth setting the avg mainlanders life back a decade, upsetting everything else. Dunno, tough to say. How important is Taiwan.
Maybe there is a different way to approach it. China plays the long game, chipping away at the US, positioning themselves to control resources around the world until its in the best interests of Taiwan to WANT to join China, and they remove the teeth from the Lion (US) so that Taiwan doesn't have the big/tough friend on the playground. China is much better playing the long game and has the "advantage" of long term leadership that can implement a plan and spend a decade working it without a los in continuity from changing leadership.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, ValueMaven said:
Author lost me at “Proposed changes to state’s power market would be costly, and undermine wind and solar”.
Wind and Solar, the answer to everyone’s problems, as long as they dont use logic or math…
-
4 hours ago, Parsad said:
Great episode of Bill Maher today that covers exactly what all of us were talking about...frankly, I agreed with Piers Morgan and Bill Maher.
Really, the world is looking for a centrist politician that makes rational decisions. I think all of us can get behind that type of politician. But can we find one?!
Cheers!
I agree 100%, thats really what the world is looking for, and what you would THINK everyone would get behind...but there are 2 problems that I think prevent it from happening, maybe ever...
The term "centrist politician" has became an Oxymoron!
Both sides literally HATE each other, and if you are not 100% riding with them, you are a sell out. A Rhino, or whatever the hell they call a leftie who leans right. Look what they did to Mitch Romney, regardless of what you think of the guy, he was one of the only few who wasnt afraid to buck the right when they bent the knee to Trump and all fell in line. Or Tulsi Gabbard who wasnt afraid to call the Dems out on BS they were pulling. You're either far right/left or they turn their back on you shunned. Other career politicians see this and dont want to be a victim, so they toe the line and fall in. It becomes a cycle and perpetuates the problem. Very very hard to turn that around on either side once that snowball is rolling down the hill.
Second, and this is a big one. The type of candidate you describe, Democrat or Republican (because who really cares what party they belong to, if they are truly RATIONAL it shouldnt matter!) would likely never want to run! The best man or woman for the job is the one who would never want it or wouldnt want to get involved in the sh*tshow that it has become.
Thats the paradox of politics.
-
20 minutes ago, Parsad said:
I can't speak to specific shows, but drag/homosexuality has been around as long as human beings. Hijras have around in India for 2000 years plus. I'm sure this has existed in most cultures for millennia.
Are there those that push an agenda that might not be prudent for society...for sure! That is done by both sides. And while certain things may seem worse, for the most part, the world is becoming a better place to live for all...including those that are disenfranchised, suffering from centuries of economic disparity and lack of poor healthcare. The world just got through a global pandemic relatively intact! Not sure that would have been as successful 100 years ago.
What intrigues me is why drag or transgenderism is such a hot topic among conservatives. They account for less than half of 1% of the population, yet conservatives feel that their spouse, kids and pets will all be converted in some way! If the Mormons and Jehovah's Witness haven't had such success, why would transgenders?
Thirty years ago, I would have been like most young people and been uncomfortable around homosexuality, drag queens or transgendered people. A real twat! I'm glad that thirty years later that discomfort and unintentional bigotry is gone. Mainly due to one of my brother's close friends coming out as gay after high school, and I watched my brother go to gay bars to support his friend as a wing man, who for years went to straight bars to support my brother as his wing man...how enlightened my brother is! Another family friend had struggled for years with his gender and it showed up in mental issues because of the ambiguity...a destroyed and sad life because it was not diagnosed until his 40's.
I'm glad I'm no longer an ignorant twat! All I can say is Castanza...don't be an ignorant twat! History will not be on your side.
Cheers!
I agree with this, has always been around and arguably MORE rampant. Before the proper days of Pride and Prejudice, you had the Greeks and the Romans and anyone who has looked into history knows that anything went for them, Spartans were the same with their boy toys. We dont watch human gladiators fighting to the death anymore, so I guess that is progression! Im not saying things cant get to extremes, and perhaps some has, but it has always been around, social media and media today in general just makes you more aware of it, you arent listening to a radio anymore or getting everything from a newspaper, and that radio and newspaper isnt giving you straight facts, its a scripted news show that caters to like minded folks based on sensationalism and painting the worse possible picture of the "other side".
"If the Mormons and Jehovah's Witness haven't had such success, why would transgenders?" This cracked me up, imagine transgenders going door-to-door!! Oh the uproar!
-
When my grandfather was a kid they brough their guns to school, nd placed them in the back of the room, it just meant they were going squirrel hunting after class.
When i was a kid we had a "cowboy" day at the local fairgrounds as a class trip. I was in kindergarten. (This was midwest also, not Texas etc) Every kid had a straw cowboy hat and wore a bandana with their "brand" that they designed on it. I remember my elementary school principle was also there dressed as a cowboy with a fake Sherriff badge. Over his arm, with the action broke open was an unloaded double barrel shotgun as part of his costume. It was real and I remember asking him about it. That would never fly today.
Bombs/explosives = illegal and strict rules for possession and we still have bombings, although they are (thankfully) rare.
Yes when comparing the drinking age at 21 to firearms at 18 it makes it seem out of whack. But the other side of that argument is to invert, its possible that the drinking age of 21 isnt doing much either and could still be 18. Indeed there are several countries in the world with a drinking age of 18, and some that it is not even enforced and they dont seem to have the issues that we do in the US.
I would say that with regard to alcohol and firearms there seems to be a cultural element there out of whack. What has changed since my grandpa was in elementary school, or since I was? Without getting the root of the problem and addressing mental health issues, drug abuse/treatment etc I dont think you can litigate your way out of the problem.
But like I said, if raising the age for firearms to 21 would help I would fully support it. Or other more stringent requirements. I think its more of a cultural problem, mental health, perhaps social media contributes, sensationalism, before when kids were teased or struggling maybe they acted out in a different manner maybe those with mental health issues committed other egregious acts. Nowadays its like they default to thinking about going on shooting spree. I dont know what has changed over the years to cause that. To make them immediately think to find/acquire a gun and go shoot up innocents someplace. I just cant fathom it.
-
1 hour ago, Sweet said:
Lots of other countries have widespread gun ownership, but something about mass shootings, and murder rates in the USA that is sort of unique to Western countries.Plenty of other countries with much higher murder rates than the US, but normally countries run by gangs.
I understand the pro-gun side, why should responsible owners give up their guns. But I also think that if they are to keep their guns some sensible restrictions are going to be necessary. Nobody with priors for serious crimes, or someone with certain types of mental illness, should ever own a gun.
There is bound to be some laws that a large majority can get behind.
Many other countries with widespread gun ownership also have better provisions for mental health issues. Finland/Switzerland/Norway etc. Look at how they live, they get many things "right" IMO that cant even get discussed in the US and wouldnt have a chance. They are different cultures and mental health overall in the pop is probably better I would imagine in general. (I have no facts to back that up) But looking at the overall happiest countries list, Finland is the reigning champ for half a decade at least and the other Nordic countries are right behind them.
I think the problem as far as litigation is concerned is the same as the political divide now. There is no rational/reasonable common sense discussion looking for a solution. Anti-gun folks call everything a "high powered rifle" as if there were any "low" powered rifles. Everything is an "assault rifle, even though any semi automatic rifle fires just as fast as an AR. A Corolla and a Ferrari with the same engine will have the same top speed.
Pro-gun folks say, drugs are also illegal and yet there are users on every street corner, if someone wants a firearm they will still get one. There are already provisions to guard against those with prior serious crimes from owning a firearm, they still get them. And ultimately, they worry that if they give an inch it will be the beginning of the gov slowly picking away more and more with added restrictions. I think thats the big one, everyone knows that the gov starts small, and then gradually over the years they want more control etc. We see it in many different areas that they have their fingers in.
I also think/I believe polls show, that the avg gun owner DOES support increased regulation. Hell I have a gun safe full of firearms, including "assault rifles" and I dont care what you want to make me do to get one. Doesn't bother me, it wont be worse than hoops you have to jump through to obtain/purchase a suppressor. Backgrounds, cool off periods, fine, doesnt bother me. But I honestly dont think it will help, but if it would make people feel better that SOMETHING is being done, I welcome it. The issue is that when these shooting continue to happen, they will want to take the next step, and the next step, and the next step.
I dont have the answer, but I see both sides, and I think the majority of people are for a reasonable/rational attempt/discussion. As with many things, the extreme viewpoints, with neither side willing to give an inch creates a stalemate and nothing gets done. No real desire to reach a compromise and both sides blaming the other. And here we are.
-
44 minutes ago, rkbabang said:
Sometimes you need the tide to go out to find this stuff out. But with crypto it's hard to sympathize with the victims. I know they are completely ignorant, but shouldn't their lack of knowledge make them hesitent to invest large sums of money?
"The money was intended for her grandchildren's education, but she lost all but CA $10,000 ($7,300).'What Aiden has done, I think, is awful — and I don't know how he can live with himself.'"Crypto is supposed to be trustless. If you are investing a ton of money based on trust into crypto, you are doing wrong.I agree with you, "a fool and their money soon parted".
Really what this comes down to is greed right? Never underestimate basic human behavior. There has been A LOT of money lost over the years to "slam dunk, cant lose, get rich quick" pitches to the ignorant/unaware. Probably since humans have been around, in some form.
How many people bought "meme stonks" based only on stories of others 3x,4x+ they heard/read with no clue what they were doing. The pumpers already made their money and got out, stocks crater and they are left holding the bag, unwilling to acknowledge they made a mistake and leaving the paper loss, with a hope it might rebound "someday".
As long as there are humans, there will be those who are uneducated and vulnerable, and the sharks who are pitching "opportunity" playing on emotions of the weak and taking advantage of the situation.
Literally unlimited examples of this with the same underlying story. Hell isnt this the same thing the States realize and take advantage of? For the nominal "investment" you have the chance to be set for life? State lotto anyone? The difference is, they only take a relatively small amount from the the masses $5/$10 for a ticket on the chance to hit it big, rather than someones entire nest egg and leave them destitute. The sums are different, but the basic premise is the same. Its a rigged game in favor of the house aka the state. Revenue in the form of lotto ticket sales, and then even if/when someone wins, the real winner is the state, because the winnings are taxed.
Tbh, she says, "what he did is awful, and I dont know how he can live with himself" but IMO she should do some self reflection and say, crooks are gonna crook, I dont know how I could have let that money go so easily and how I was duped". I agree what he did was terrible, and he is a crook, but if it wasnt him, she would have likely fell for another sham, only a matter of time. A lion will always be a threat to the gazelle.
-
-
-
3 hours ago, MMM20 said:
https://rationalwalk.substack.com/p/berkshire-hathaways-2023-proxy-statement
Rather than insulting the reader’s intelligence with meaningless self-congratulatory verbiage and virtue signaling hypocrisy related to various trendy political and social issues, Berkshire’s proxy focuses on matters that are actually relevant to shareholders. The company refuses to engage in typical corporate “diversity” initiatives and rightfully focuses on merit and skin in the game rather than the color of one’s skin:
“Berkshire does not have a policy regarding the consideration of diversity in identifying nominees for director. In identifying director nominees, the Governance Committee does not seek diversity, however defined. Instead, as previously discussed, the Governance Committee looks for individuals who have very high integrity, business savvy, an owner-oriented attitude, a deep genuine interest in the Company and have had a significant investment in Berkshire shares relative to their resources for at least three years.
Berkshire does have women and minorities on the board, but rather than insult them by treating these highly accomplished individuals as props to generate a checkmark on some diversity grid, the proxy emphasizes that they were selected due to what they bring to the table in terms of experience and ownership. In response to a shareholder proposal that is intended to force Berkshire into the practices of most other large companies, the proxy responds with the following statement:
“Berkshire’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion and the effectiveness of our companies’ related programs starts with our leaders, including our Board of Directors, of which four members are female and two members are racially or ethnically diverse. However, it should be noted that these directors were not selected for diversity purposes. To ensure long-term success for our shareholders, Berkshire encourages its leaders to execute diversity, equity and inclusion strategies that are tailored to the unique aspects of their businesses.” [Emphasis added]
Readers of the biographies covering Mr. Buffett’s life know that he was an advocate for civil rights from the earliest days of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He has also made numerous comments over the years about the loss to individual businesses and to society as a whole when women are discriminated against in employment markets. None of this seems to matter to politically driven pressure campaigns intended to intimidate businesses to elevate skin color, gender, and sexual orientation over ownership and business acumen when it comes to corporate governance.
Rational, logical, a voice of reason. I'd expect nothing less from Omaha. As someone racially/ethnically diverse, its refreshing to read that BRK #1 priority is shareholder benefit. I dont need the board to have an African/Asian, LBGTQ director on the Board, I need them to have the best person for the job. If that person happens to also be African/Asian LBGTQ, good for them. But you cant get your board seat on that merit alone...
The people who demand that there is diversity for diversity sake on a BOD are essentially demanding what they are attempting to combat. A BOD full of diversity with no merit is just as bad as a BOD with zero diversity full of rich old white guys aka "yes" men who got the position based on the good 'ol boy network or their alma mater. Swinging to one extreme is no better than the opposite extreme they are attempting to replace. Its madness.
As mentioned, Omaha should be the least of their concerns, as they have always been a lighthouse of integrity in the turbulent ocean of deceit that is wall street. Said simply, their barking up the wrong tree.
-
53 minutes ago, CorpRaider said:
I sold some BERK because some outstanding limit orders filled and cash was getting too low. I feel like Berk below book is coming again anyways.
Curious what you estimate BRK book to be if you think below book is coming, I think we'll probably get a good shot at much more favorable ratio...but I would be surprised to see below book without some significant event/crisis.
Dont get me wrong, the cheaper BRK gets the happier I am, and I would be ecstatic to see those opportunities..but based on my conservative estimate of book, I think ability to buy below book might be a little optimistic.
Personally I like to see BRK <$300, but IMO its not in "sexy" territory yet, another $25-$30/share drop before I start getting super excited. Even at todays prices Im estimating P/B (not that its as solid a metric as it used to be) around historical average 1.36...I dont start licking my lips until =< 1.2.
-
14 hours ago, stahleyp said:
Theory 3: God is real and, as Jesus predicted, false prophets would come.
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits."
Matthew 7:15-20
14 hours ago, rkbabang said:Yes, I forgot. Theory 3: Out of all the religions any human has ever believed in, yours just happens to be correct.
Ok.
Cliff Notes:
Im the only one telling the truth
The other guy is lying
Their lies are as obvious as a rotten piece of fruit
You're smart enough to recognize a rotten apple arent ya?
Good then you agree they're liars.
But just in case you were wondering if you could eat around it, just remember, rotten fruit, and the tree it grew on gets "cut down and burned" hint hint...
Isnt that like the ULTIMATE gaslight?
"Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that hinges on creating self-doubt. “I think of gaslighting as trying to associate someone with the label ‘crazy,’” says Paige Sweet, Ph.D., an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Michigan who studies gaslighting in relationships and in the workplace. “It’s making someone seem or feel unstable, irrational and not credible, making them feel like what they’re seeing or experiencing isn’t real, that they’re making it up, that no one else will believe them.”
Gaslighting involves an imbalance of power between the abuser and the person they’re gaslighting. Abusers often exploit stereotypes or vulnerabilities related to gender, sexuality, race, nationality and/or class.
“The most distinctive feature of gaslighting is that it’s not enough for the gaslighter simply to control his victim or have things go his way: It’s essential to him that the victim herself actually come to agree with him,” writes Andrew D. Spear, an associate professor of philosophy at Grand Valley State University in Allendale, Michigan, in a 2019 paper on gaslighting in Inquiry.
(...)
When gaslighting gets partisan, politicians may use the power of messaging to create false narratives, explains Latif. They may even try to undermine constituents’ sense of reality for supporting an opposing idea or questioning the perpetrator’s narrative in the first place."
Gaslighting is defined as an “elaborate and insidious technique of deception and psychological manipulation” used to “undermine the victim’s confidence in his own ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, right from wrong, or reality from appearance, thereby rendering him psychologically dependent on the gaslighter”
-
Wrote/writing BRK puts
-
1
-
-
@rkbabangyeah thats an interesting thought and IMO makes perfect sense...potential for behaviors/traits to develop and pass along through the generations that are not necessarily a positive contributing to advancement and "selected" to lead and continue...but also not bad enough to be weeded out. Interesting to think about where that "line" might be and maybe those things/traits that arent a hard NO for advancement, but also arent a strong YES will eventually fall off, but maybe it just takes longer to weed out.
I dont know if you are familiar with the Russian farm fox experiment, I first read about it in a big article in National Geographic many years ago.
The interesting thing to me, and what made me think about and remember this was what you said about insignificant side effects or unintended results that arent a game changer either way...showing up.
And thats exactly what has happened with these fox. Breeding based ONLY on level of tameness, and the continuation and encouragement of that trait alone. But other traits that were "insignificant" but shared with current domesticated dogs started showing up. Changes in color of the coat, ears started drooping, tails started curling, craniofacial morphology, the face of the fox started to change to a more juvenile look.
-For the last 59 years (2018) a team of Russian geneticists led by Lyudmila Trut have been running one of the most important biology experiments of the 20th, and now 21st, century. The experiment was the brainchild of Trut’s mentor, Dmitri Belyaev, who, in 1959, began an experiment to study the process of domestication
-Every generation he and his team would test hundreds of foxes, and the top 10% of the tamest would be selected to parent the next generation. They developed a scale for scoring tameness, and how a fox scored on this scale was the sole criteria for selecting foxes to parent the next generation.
-Belyaev knew that many domesticated species share a suite of characteristics including floppy ears, short, curly tails, juvenilized facial and body features, reduced stress hormone levels, mottled fur, and relatively long reproductive seasons. Today this suite of traits is known as the domestication syndrome. Belyaev found this perplexing. Our ancestors had domesticated species for a plethora of reasons—including transportation (e.g., horses), food (e.g., cattle) and protection (e.g., dogs)—yet regardless of what they were selected for, domesticated species, over time, begin to display traits in the domestication syndrome. Why? Belyaev hypothesized that the one thing our ancestors always needed in a species they were domesticating was an animal that interacted prosocially with humans. We can’t have our domesticates-to-be trying to bite our heads off. And so he hypothesized that the early stages of all animal domestication events involved choosing the calmest, most prosocial-toward-human animals: I will refer to this trait as tameness, though that term is used in many different ways in the literature. Belyaev further hypothesized that all of the traits in the domestication syndrome were somehow or another, though he didn’t know how or why, genetically linked to genes associated with tameness.
-Belyaev was correct that selection on tameness alone leads to the emergence of traits in the domestication syndrome. In less than a decade, some of the domesticated foxes had floppy ears and curly tails (Fig. 2). Their stress hormone levels by generation 15 were about half the stress hormone (glucocorticoid) levels of wild foxes. Over generations, their adrenal gland became smaller and smaller. Serotonin levels also increased, producing “happier” animals. Over the course of the experiment, researchers also found the domesticated foxes displayed mottled “mutt-like” fur patterns, and they had more juvenilized facial features (shorter, rounder, more dog-like snouts) and body shapes (chunkier, rather than gracile limbs) (Fig. 3). Domesticated foxes like many domesticated animals, have longer reproductive periods than their wild progenitors.
Anyway, some of that is basically what I was trying to say regarding horses. And the insignificant traits in the fox could also have similarities in humans. If you understand these basics, the concept that the SAME thing is/has happened to humans over thousands of years, IMO it makes more sense.
The article goes into more detail regarding explanation of genetics, brain chemistry if you want to look into it further. I find it really fascinating.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, rkbabang said:
You don't understand evolution very well. It isn't by sheer chance that we don't get high off of murder or rape. If wiring us that way gave us an advantage that's the way we'd be, the fact that most of us aren't wired that way tells me that having the moral compass we have is what gave us a survival advantage. There is nothing in the universe that cares about humans, except for humans.
^^ this, I tried previously to explain this with the analogy.This is pretty basic stuff here. Maybe a simpler analogy instead of eskimos, horses.
You have a stable full for racing. You make them all run 1 mile and record times. Each year you do the same, and you take the bottom 25% with slowest times and you kill them. The fastest horses are kept and breed and each year the cycle repeats. Race, time, cut the bottom 25%. After several cycles your avg overall 1 mile time for the stable as a group will increase.
This is a management style taught in business school. Continually cut the bottom performers, refresh and reevaluate, and do it again. The winners remain and the losers are gone and the overall performance of the company by whatever metric you choose increases in the direction you want.
Human behavior to advance civilization is the same, just stretched out over thousands of years.
Hard to see how this is not so obvious. But to be fair, the other side of the discussion probably feels the same way about my viewpoint. At the end of the day, who cares, if it’s working for someone and improving their life to believe the way they do, good!
-
38 minutes ago, Longnose said:
Turned this post into a rap via ChatGPT. seemed appropriate....
Haha WOW, I dont know whats more impressive, the rap, or my strong feelings of inferiority from ChatGPT's mic drop.
-
5 hours ago, MCR said:
Just saw Adam Mead Tweet about ROIC.AI: "It's like ValueLine for free."
What do you think? https://roic.ai/company/BRK-AI like the layout but wonder why you cant create a portfolio of stocks you want to keep tabs on rather than always having to search each individually. Seems like a pretty basic offering that all the other info providers have ie. Finviz, yahoo, google.
-
Morality evolved because it is what is necessary for the majority to adhere to for civilization to progress. Its the natural result of thousands of years of trial and error. To have a functioning, progressing society, the major moral pillars are necessary and they were figured out years ago and passed down as a blueprint for what works. Call it natural selection, evolution, whatever, the winners survive, the losers dont.
Lets look at it from a different angle, rather than "morality" ie no stealing, no killing etc etc lets just look at the most basic survival. You have a "tribe" that lives in the northernmost part of the globe, the inughuit, formerly known as "polar eskimos" they are a group of Inuit. For this example let these folks represent ALL of humanity. This tribe is split down the middle, half of the tribe wants to hunt/gather/work together and make shelter to escape the elements (let this represent acting "morally" as most would define it today). The other half of the tribe doesnt make shelter from the elements a priority, doesnt hunt/gather to store food and refuses to work together to accomplish these things for the good of all of their half of the tribe (let this behavior represent acting immorally). Without a supernatural being telling this tribe that they should store food/shelter themselves from the severe elements and work together...it works itself out. Those who figure out what "works" (what is moral) survive and continue, learn, work together and progress and those who do not, probably die or see what they are doing isnt working, the other half of the tribe has a better quality of life, so they change and adapt behavior proven to work.
You put a group of people together, some believe "anything goes" and they steal, rob, kill and behave in all sorts of immoral ways. This becomes absolute turmoil, and the other half of the group says, hey, these guys are a pain, we cant get anything done, they're wrecking everything we have worked hard for etc and they are outcast, killed, or maybe they just dont survive because rather than helping their neighbor, conducting commerce honestly, working hard, they are out throwing a wrench in everything productive and structured, so they fail...the "good/moral" group flourishes and progresses either ending the bad group (maybe they are outcast and cant survive without working together, maybe they are killed) or the "moral" group just surpasses them by such a large margin that the bad group becomes insignificant or alters behavior to mimic what works.
Divine intervention isnt needed for this to happen, it would happen naturally. Nazis, honor killings dont last because that isnt what progresses civilization. You cant have a tyrant attempting genocide that lasts for very long before the rest of the group (on earth) says HEY! You're F*ing up a good thing here! And throwing a wrench in the normal balance of things and stops it. A group that continually kills for honor, pretty soon doesnt have people left to kill, fizzles out, people figure out that doesnt work, and that idea/belief/experiment is found to be faulty and falls by the wayside. Civilization adapts/learns...and progresses without those extreme beliefs/ideas.
This has been evident throughout history. Extreme views fizzle out when they upset the status quo. Humans crave stasis/equilibrium, we want to be comfortable, and severely "immoral" behavior is not conducive to what has allowed civilization to progress this far.
Thats why I think its funny that people too often people add unnecessary complexity to a topic and it makes for less rational thinking. The above is the most rational explanation for morality "aka rules/guidelines how we should live, what works". The idea that there is an all powerful being that previously made himself accessible or presented himself (depending on what you believe) to everyday common folks regularly, provided these "guidelines/rules" and then disappeared for thousands of years just isnt logical.
If there is one true religion, and one all powerful being that wants people to live a certain way, then why the mystery? If humans have free will, why nothing recent? Why not regular interaction (present day) so that there was not 1000's of interpretations all claiming to know unequivocally the "right/true" answer. Just lay it out there...do this, no secrets, no confusion...do it or dont, your choice but no guessing.
Why the stark difference in temperament between the new testament and the old. "God is love" but trolls Abraham to slit the throat of his son and then burn the body. Pretty messed up really. If there was a cult leader today that told a follower to trick his son to go with him up on a mountain, then tie him up, lay him down on an alter, put sticks on his chest and just as he is about to slit the poor kids throat, the cult leader is like...WHOA dont do it...yeah I was just kidding, just wanted to see if you would really do it man.
What is moral about that? You'd think the guy was pretty sick. And what about Isaac, imagine you're a young boy, your hero, your dad, wants a male bonding camping trip up on a mountain, and you're excited...you get up there and he jumps you, ties you up, puts you on an alter, and walks over with a torch and a knife, by this time you're freaking out, probably pleading with your dad. Dad! What are you doing! You said we were going camping! I love you! Your dad raises the knife up above you, laying there, tied up, vulnerable, cant move, crying and just as Dad is about to deliver the death blow, stops...says he heard a voice tell him not to do it. Takes the rope off you, helps you hop off the alter and says...alright! lets camp! How would that affect your relationship with your dad? How would that traumatize you. You would either never speak to him again, run away, or think that your dad was a schizophrenic psychopath.
Genesis 22
- 1
- Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.
- 2
- Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."
- 3
- Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about.
- 4
- On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance.
- 5
- He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you." (Doesnt tell these two guys what he is up to)
- 6
- Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together,
- 7
- Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" (Wait a sec, somethings not right here!)
- 8
- Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together. (Not telling Isaac what he's in for)
- 9
- When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.
- 10
- Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
- 11
- But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.
- 12
- "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
-
What about 2 Kings 2:24? Some "small boys" tease an old guy for being bald, he cant take a joke and asks God to take care of these punks, so he sends 2 female bears to tare 42 (FORTY TWO) to shreds...maul them! What is moral about that?
Plenty of other examples in the Bible of behavior that anybody today would call irrational and immoral.
I can acknowledge proof of intelligent design. I dont think this entire set up (nature, math, galaxy, human body systems) came about via an accident, but if there is/was a grand architect, they seem to have grown bored with the project and moved on to something else. And maybe, the work is done, maybe the sand castle is built, and it was never meant for anything more than to enjoy for a bit and then for the tide to come in and wash it away, maybe its just an experiment to see how long it takes.
You have billions of people for thousands of years pleading with a supernatural being for help and leadership. "They kingdom come, they will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." H E L P U S !!! Man cant rule himself, govern us. Put an end to this suffering, we're struggling, you created all this, its a mess, please fix it, we want you to fix it! Nothing...crickets. All the problems in the world, the struggles of mankind and nothing...but he wants you to honor your father and your mother, only pray to him for help, dont use his name in vain when the help doesnt come and remember the day he took a break. Why?
EDITED: Seems like Richard and I share the same sentiment and he was faster on the draw/submit button.
-
1
How much does it take to be ‘rich’ now?
in General Discussion
Posted
Costco also sells great Wagyu at a great price! One of their "luxury" items available that has been written about extensively.
https://ca.style.yahoo.com/costco-carrying-worlds-most-expensive-161700818.html
Costco offers some of the best of the best wagyu beef. Wagyu typically refers to a specific breed of cow from Japan and has a reputation for having some of the most flavorful, marbled beef in the world. It's also known for being the most expensive—starting at around $250 per pound.
The name is typically misused by imitators trying to hop on the bandwagon, but Costco's Wagyu is the real deal. They import their A5 Wagyu (the highest quality distinction available) from the Kagoshima Prefecture in Japan. They offer several different cuts at steep discounts. For example, their thinly sliced striploin is sold for $99.99 a pound, less than half the price at specialty butcher shops