FLG happened to be staying at the Minneapolis Hilton while some sort of Democratic convention / conference was going on.
On separate days, he saw Ed Rendell and Hillary Clinton.
On separate days, he saw Ed Rendell and Hillary Clinton.
Lincoln, who actually grew up on a backwoods farm, saw little there but drunkenness, rowdyism and endless, mind-numbing labor under the rule of his loutish and illiterate father. He made his escape from the farm as soon as he turned 21, opened a store (which failed) and finally went into law, that great enforcer of commercial contract. “I was once a slave,” he remarked, “but now I am so free that they let me practice law.”FLG starts compiling the data for the presidents, but always gets sidetracked. Here's what he has so far:
The Treasury Department announced Wednesday it will replace the main image of its own founder, Alexander Hamilton, on the $10 bill, with a woman as yet to be determined. Mr. Hamilton will remain on the bill in a diminished way.
The ultimate goal of Marxism, in its purest, Platonic form, is Leisure. Leisure in this case means the ability to pursue one's goals free from constraints. Those constraints could be cultural, economic, or political. Which explains the animus with which the intellectuals mentioned in the essay hate the bourgeois virtues, capitalism, and the American political system.
The nexus of economic statism and cultural libertarianism is not some odd pairing derived from unique circumstances, but a direct product of the end goal of Marxism. Economic statism is the preferred policy because it offers the false hope of spreading the wealth in a way that liberates the entire population from economic constraints in pursuing their goals. This is particularly appealing to people like artists and intellectuals whose activities are not relatively highly valued by capitalism. Cultural libertarianism removes the societal and cultural boundaries that repress and constrain the intellectuals and artists.
The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents. It is a place where leisure is a welcome chance to build and reflect, not a feared cause of boredom and restlessness. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community.
since the modern liberal mind is trained to ask for spreadsheet-ready projections and clearly defined harms, and the links that social conservatives think exist aren’t amenable to that kind of precise measurement or definition. How do you run a regression analysis on a culture’s marital iconography? How do you trace the downstream influence of a change in that iconography on future generations’ values and ideas and choices? How do you measure highly-diffuse potential harms from some cultural shift, let alone compare them to the concrete benefits being delivered by the proposed alteration? How do you quantify, assess and predict the influence of a public philosophy of marriage — whatever that even means — on manners and morals and behavior? Especially when there are so many confounding socioeconomic variables involved — enough of them, in fact, to enable left and right to argue endlessly about whether something as nebulous as “culture” really shapes marriage and family at all, or whether everything is just economics all the way down.
stock-market bubbles pull gains into the present from the future. Toward the end of a secular cycle, the crowd becomes aroused and starts paying attention. Collectively, they begin to recognize how much money has been made during the past few years, and how much of the move they missed. So the crowd begins to pile in, somewhat late in the cycle and at somewhat elevated valuations. Inevitably, they do worse than those who were early to the show.
If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present.FLG is on the other side of both those points of view, which probably explains why his politics differ so much from Brand, but very interesting nonetheless.
Depending on who you ask, seersucker season starts either on Memorial Day or Easter (most say Memorial Day, while some will insist on Easter).
A key theme in the development of the West is the increasing value placed on 1) the individual, and 2) the factual. As such, the idea that the narrative is “what we really need to be talking about” sounds insightful, but is actually a veiled argument that moral advancement means fighting the Enlightenment.
The legitimacy of US leadership depends on our resisting the temptation to abuse it in pursuit of parochial interest, even when that interest appears compelling. We cannot expect to maintain the dollar’s primary role in the international system if we are too aggressive about limiting its use in pursuit of particular security objectives.
Innovation is not simply a technical matter but rather one of understanding how people and societies work, what they need and want. America will not dominate the 21st century by making cheaper computer chips but instead by constantly reimagining how computers and other new technologies interact with human beings.
Every time Facebook spend a billion dollars on some startup with three employees, or whenever a venture capitalist makes an investment that values some company you never heard of at tens of billions of dollars, it would be great if people simply would say:
“I don’t understand that!”
among the American-born chief executives of the top 100 companies in the Fortune 500, just about 30 went to an Ivy League school or equally selective college.
elite college and universities, however, they enroll fewer than 6 percent of U.S. college studentsSo, elite school graduates are roughly 5x over-represented from what one would expect from a random draw, which sorta makes it harder to argue that there isn't that much value in attending those schools. FLG made a note to look at more of the data, but he knew he'd never get around to it.
[Robo-advisers] basically combine simple asset allocation formulas with slick user interfaces on the Web to encourage people to put in their money and leave it there. The algorithms are mostly so simple that a finance doctoral student could implement one in less than a day of coding. That, after all, is the key to passive management.FLG, who is not a finance doctoral student, could probably implement a Robo-Adviser in less than a day. Well, maybe two days. He hasn't coded in a while.
The real value proposition of robo-advisers is behavioral. Investors are subject to an array of biases, including the temptation to chase returns and to try to time the market. Robo-advisers, with their fancy user interfaces and user experiences, hope to be able to cancel out these biases.FLG used to be very interested in optimizing his portfolio. Or perhaps not optimizing, but rather understanding how to optimize it for when he started really looking into his portfolio. Then one day he realized there are rapidly diminishing returns to getting to optimal. So, now his portfolio consists of a Total Market Fund, an Ex-US Total Market Fund, and a US bond fund with super low expense ratios.
If you think about it, this must be the value-add of robo-advisers. After all, just buying a few ETFs and index funds on ScottTrade, and then forgetting about them for 20 years, will generally give you just as good a return as what the robo-advisers are offering, for slightly lower fees. Index funds basically are robo-advisers without the front-end. Robo-advisers add value if -- and only if -- investors find it much easier to give their money to a robo-adviser than to do the procedure I just described. That’s why robo-advisers are, fundamentally, applied behavioral finance technologies.
The world view underlying this report seems to be that a lot of what the financial industry does is extract unproductive fees for itself from ignorant consumers, and that you can crack down on the fees -- and save consumers money -- without reducing the incentives for any socially productive activity. This, it goes without saying, is a hugely popular theory. I feel like it is generically wrong, but there may be many, many places where it is specifically correct.
For most banks the real profits now come from late fees, balloon payments, default interest rates, and a host of other tricks and traps. In other words, making a profit has become an exercise in misdirection and misinformation. Sneaky has become the norm.