100%. i ran a trading desk predicated on this strategy, and know a couple of others who are still successfully running similar strats.
1,020 karma · joined June 28, 2020
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5259427
> Passive capitalization-weighted index funds now surpass active management in aggregate investor allocations. Flows into passive strategies cause unrelated stocks to move synchronously, undermining diversification and potentially increasing systemic risk. New flows into passive products mechanically overweight overvalued stocks and underweight undervalued stocks due to market-price weighting, exacerbating momentum-driven price distortions. Rebalancing at the stock level to non-price-based anchor weights may mitigate these distortions and enhance long-term returns.
This is likely why large-cap stocks have outperformed over past decade.
Why don't you live by your principles and return to Bangladesh? To use your own argument (not mine), your culture is both inferior to the American culture and Americans have voted to not have "your kind" here.
One way or another, you are being disingenuous, either through your words or your actions.
isnt this just mcp servers hosted by the saas provider?
you seem to not understand my point so ill give it one more try:
senate was indeed formed as a bulwark against populism, but the founders didnt anticipate a 68 to 1 population difference between the largest and smallest states (california vs. wyoming), nor the vast differences in composition of their populations. when a tiny fraction of the population holds that much disproportionate veto power, the senate no longer checks populism, it actively empowers a specific, rural populist minority to override the majority.
that only works if the smaller states are not representative of the larger majority of the population.
instead, nowadays the smaller states are actually over-representative of the populist mass - e.g Wyoming is 80% white.
Though I agree with many of your points, what I think the OP was gesturing at was the idea that billionaires are more avaricious than the average person; hence we shouldn't be surprised that Paul Graham is wary about paying an effective tax rate that would put him on par with majority of tax payers in this country.
This isn't an new or particularly controversial observation: e.g. "Money never made a man happy yet, nor will it. The more a man has, the more he wants. Instead of filling a vacuum, it makes one." Benjamin Franklin
"The love of money grows as the money itself grows." Juvenal
Having worked for several billionaires and seen them in their day-to-day, those quotes resonate with me.
I've observed the same thing; But my theory is taste in food is shaped by how recently a families lineage transitioned to processed foods and industrialized agricultural practices. e.g. I've observed a deterioration in taste in South Asia over the past 20 years, which I attribute to the same effect.
Can you please expand? This is an expansive claim.
I interpreted the comment to mean that Tesla model Y is currently the most widely sold car in the world, not historically. model y is less than 10 years old.
i think it shows that tesla is actually able to ship cars at a high volume, which was the point of the thread.
Countries become rich because of stable, competent institutions, not because they can maintain a military empire.
Ireland, Singapore are both examples of this.
> You will need to protect your supply lines if you are an actor in a globalized world. So you have to become that country if you want to stay independent, and want to be supplied with the goods that you depend on.
Protect supply lines from whom? how are military bases in Turkey, Germany, Poland, etc protecting "supply lines"?
one of the most important supply lines for europe (hydrocarbons from russia) has been stifled for the past 4 years - why havent our bases or military been able to keep it open?
similarly, why are our numerous bases in Middle East failing to protect supply lines?
i would argue that in both those cases, our aggressive military expansion (nato, israel expansion + gulf bases) caused the closure of those critical supply lines.
I don't agree with him a lot of the time but I think his request is reasonable and I share his skepticism about the idea that US military presence and interventions are somehow beneficial to the American's wellbeing, both the median American and the polity as a whole.
why should i not be skeptical? the first order effects of military are inherently destructive - why should i assume that having more military makes anyones lives better? its not obvious at all and requires a better explanation IMO.
i think next moves of us-israeli-uae axis will be against Turkey and Qatar. we are already seeing this rhetoric in democratic party and in israel.
Fair enough, and it seems that polls of Taiwanese support this view as well.
Brookings Institute has a series of papers about Islamist movements around the world: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rethinking-political-isla...
which includes both analyses from Western academics as well as responses from members of Islamist parties.
> It absolutely follows that intolerant populations can systematically elect intolerant leaders who then cause instability.
Intolerant of what, and what do you mean by "instability"? If the ideology of the political parties and institutions reflects that of the (vast) majority of the population, why would we expect "instability"?
Democracy can descend into demagoguery; I believe that occurs when the "people" feel like the state has been captured by an elite (oligarchy) that doesn't represent their interests (i.e. interests of the majority), "intolerant" or not - e.g. Gracchi brothers, Hugo Chavez, etc etc.
Realism has more way explanatory power in geopolitics than idealism. Idealist explanations are typically incoherent (e.g. above thread).
you said
> Arab democracies are unstable because they will elect Islamists.
whereas my claim is that governments (democracies or not) that run afoul of their local hegemon tend to have a short shelf life. this is not unique to US hegemony.
see: Brezhnev doctrine (USSR), or the canonical example of Athens and Melos from Peloponnesian war
> Rise up for El Generalissimo! Enlist your sons in the blood struggle, that will definitely improve things!" /s Much sexier to be a revolutionary fighting shadowy foreign forces than to actually fix any of your own problems. No, no, tomorrow's problems will be America's fault too.
I'm sorry, you seem triggered by this discussion, it doesn't seem productive to continue on my end.
I'd add the US to that as well. Both the UAE and Israel are highly (practically solely) dependent on US for their military tech and supplies.
that pattern is hardly unique to middle east/islamists though. look at central/south america. guatemala, chile, brazil etc all had democracies overthrown by "elite" coups.
like almost every instance in the middle east, there is actually a common denominator between these coups... resistance to the US-led order magically seems to invite instability.
and secular/socialist/monarchic dictatorships have arguably worse effects on their neighbors and citizens - e.g. Saddam, Assad, Nasser, MBZ in UAE, MBS
ennahada (tunisia), pks (indonesia), jui (pakistan) are all examples of islamist parties that have compromised or reached across the aisle at various points just off the top of my head.
besides, isn't the point of democracy to allow people to be led by those who represent their principles? if they are in power, why should the majority expect their elected leaders to compromise those principles?
Its clear you have only been getting your information from a certain set of sources. a lot of civilian infrastructure has been destroyed in Iran.
One of Israel's goals is to cripple the economy of Iran.
"Israeli leaders, including Defense Minister Israel Katz, have ordered the military to carry out strikes on targets that cause economic blows to the Iranian regime."
"This included a strike on major Iranian gas infrastructure in the country’s south nearly two weeks ago, and strikes on two of Iran’s largest steel factories on Friday. "
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-shifts-to-hitting-irans...
"Missiles also struck one of Iran’s biggest state-run pharmaceutical companies, Tofigh Darou, destroying its production and research and development units, state media said on Tuesday, blaming the strike on Israel. It’s a major producer of anti-cancer drugs and anesthetic in Iran"
"A century-old medical research centre (Pasteur Institute) set up to fight infectious diseases like plague and smallpox has been heavily damaged in strikes on Tehran"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-securit...
In addition, one of my friends who lives in Iran reported that a dialysis center, a refrigerator factory, a public park (that had "police" in the name), a popular chicken restaurant, and an entire apartment building full of people were each separately targeted and destroyed (apartment building was double tapped, killing rescue workers)
the above is just a small selection, universities, factories, bridges, oil infra has all been targeted as well.
would you consider US Steel factories, universities that do research for the military, factories or companies that make components that go into US weapons, apartment buildings where one military leader lives as military or civilian infrastructure?