Essay - Building Social Wealth

[racemize]

This is not a financial essay, but almost everything in it comes from value investors, so I thought it might of interest.  Enjoy!

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EeBUXv3UnOpcmkMaHPB01k0W4zBy7hvy

[Liberty]

Good read, thanks for writing and posting, Joel!

[Cigarbutt]

To prune or not to prune? That is often the question.

Thank you.

 

[Jurgis]

The essay has some nice aspirational goals.

 

Couple thoughts though:

 

If you ever think you may

have encountered this person, you are going to probe and probe and test and test to

make sure that they are real, that you’re not being fooled. And the paradox is that it

looks like you’re probing for weakness, but you’re not. You’re probing for strength. And

the worst day of your life is if instead of strength you get back weakness. And now you

feel betrayed. You know why? You’ve got to start your search all over again.

 

Maybe I should talk to Peter about what he meant, but IMO this is quite bad way to approach relationships with people.

Nobody in the world is a saint who is

trustworthy, ... principled, and courageous, and competent, and kind, and loyal, and understanding, and forgiving, and unselfish

all the time.

So if your attitude is to probe and probe and probe, you will hit a bad day or bad spot or whatever and become upset and disillusioned with the person.

Instead, if you see that a person embodies a lot of qualities you are looking for, then you should accept that sometimes they won't. And ideally you'll be able to be with them at these times and perhaps help them to become a better person. And not just abandon them and go looking for some ideal that does not exist.

 

Prune the takers, keep the matchers, and cultivate the givers.

 

Just be aware that (commonly?) a lot of people are already hanging onto the givers. Can you support the giver?

 

Another note is that the taker/matcher/giver categorization is incredibly simplified. There are people who are great givers within certain area of their life but not in other(s). There are people who are givers for some people but are indiferent-sers for others. And there's the perception issue too: what someone regards as giving another person may regard as nothing (I find the whole taker/matcher/giver categorization extremely limiting  8))

 

Peace.

[racemize]

The essay has some nice aspirational goals.

 

Couple thoughts though:

 

If you ever think you may

have encountered this person, you are going to probe and probe and test and test to

make sure that they are real, that you’re not being fooled. And the paradox is that it

looks like you’re probing for weakness, but you’re not. You’re probing for strength. And

the worst day of your life is if instead of strength you get back weakness. And now you

feel betrayed. You know why? You’ve got to start your search all over again.

 

Maybe I should talk to Peter about what he meant, but IMO this is quite bad way to approach relationships with people.

Nobody in the world is a saint who is

trustworthy, ... principled, and courageous, and competent, and kind, and loyal, and understanding, and forgiving, and unselfish

all the time.

So if your attitude is to probe and probe and probe, you will hit a bad day or bad spot or whatever and become upset and disillusioned with the person.

Instead, if you see that a person embodies a lot of qualities you are looking for, then you should accept that sometimes they won't. And ideally you'll be able to be with them at these times and perhaps help them to become a better person. And not just abandon them and go looking for some ideal that does not exist.

 

Prune the takers, keep the matchers, and cultivate the givers.

 

Just be aware that (commonly?) a lot of people are already hanging onto the givers. Can you support the giver?

 

Another note is that the taker/matcher/giver categorization is incredibly simplified. There are people who are great givers within certain area of their life but not in other(s). There are people who are givers for some people but are indiferent-sers for others. And there's the perception issue too: what someone regards as giving another person may regard as nothing (I find the whole taker/matcher/giver categorization extremely limiting  8))

 

Peace.

 

I don’t think Peter is saying that is how you should act, he’s saying that is how people feel or do act most of the time.  His perspective is to be that person you want, not be the wanter.

 

On the categorization—it can be as nuanced as you want, and I’m sure everyone views things differently. So, it’s fine for that categorization to be unique for each person or relationship I’d say. I know lots of people who accidentally surround themselves with people who take all the time and don’t give back, so that’s mostly for them.

 

For supporting the giver, if you are doing what Peter recommends, then you would also be giving back.

[frommi]

Thanks! Was a good read, maybe you should start a blog with all the content you are producing? :)

[Liberty]

Thanks! Was a good read, maybe you should start a blog with all the content you are producing? :)

 

http://www.joelstevens.net/

 

(or was that smiley supposed to be a wink and you already knew that and were being ironic?)

[John Hjorth]

Exactly, Liberty,

 

Furthermore the observant reader will note, that there is no Austin Value Capital logo on the front page of this essay. Joel's financial essays are available on the Austin Value Capital website here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[frommi]

Thanks! Was a good read, maybe you should start a blog with all the content you are producing? :)

 

http://www.joelstevens.net/

 

(or was that smiley supposed to be a wink and you already knew that and were being ironic?)

 

No. Thanks!

[DooDiligence]

Nice!

 

May I post a paper copy of this on the physical bulletin board in the music department at PSC?

 

Also, may I Tweet it?

[racemize]

Nice!

 

May I post a paper copy of this on the physical bulletin board in the music department at PSC?

 

Also, may I Tweet it?

 

Sure. Maybe retweet the one from @austinvalue would be preferred.