f.haeder.net

Search

Items tagged with: money

Just How Much Money Do “Influencers” Make?


According to a study at Offenburg University, 96.5% of YouTubers don’t make enough annual ad revenue to reach the U.S. federal poverty line.

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17339127
Posted by pmcpinto (karma: 14336)
Post stats: Points: 120 - Comments: 105 - 2018-06-18T15:48:36Z

\#HackerNews #how #influencers #just #make #money #much
Article content:




According to a [1]decade-long study by a professor at the Offenburg University of Applied Sciences in Germany, 96.5 percent of YouTubers don’t make enough annual ad revenue to reach the U.S. federal poverty line. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that all but a handful of YouTubers live under highway overpasses and film themselves showing off their morning dumpster haul, but it does mean that for every [2]Zoella, there are around 27.57 other vloggers and video-makers who don’t reach $12,140 a year from ads. To put that into perspective, if you flip burgers at McDonald’s, you [3]can expect to make $5,000 more per year if you’re working full time. And don’t forget to like and share that stat.

As juicy as this nugget of information seems, it’s also a little deceptive. Although only the top three percent of the most-viewed YouTube channels bring in more than $16,800 a year in advertising revenue, social media ads aren’t the only source of income open to YouTubers — or all other digital influencers, for that matter. You might be tickled by the idea of poverty-stricken influencers living lives of squalor, but it’s not really one with much basis in reality. It does, however, raise some interesting questions about the profitability of influence.

So how much do influencers really earn and how do they make their money? It’s a bit like asking, “How long is a piece of string?” because it depends on the influencer, the size of their influence, their general savviness, and myriad other factors. According to the [4]Financial Times, “an influencer with 100,000 followers on Instagram can charge around £2,000 per picture (approximately $2,700), while celebrity influencers with between four million and 20 million followers can charge £5,000-£13,000 ($6,700-$17,500).” But of course this all varies.

“Jake Paul has gone on record that [5]he is going to be a billionaire,” says Brendan Gahan, founder of Epic Signal, a New York-based social media marketing agency. “I doubt he’ll be a billionaire, although he’s already extremely wealthy. Undoubtedly some influencer at some point will become a billionaire.”

Nailing down precise earning figures is near enough impossible for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the social media age is barely a decade old, so there isn’t a whole lot of data to work with. Secondly, it’s in an influencer’s interest to project an aspirational image at all times, even if it doesn’t really match their everyday reality. In the fashion sphere especially, influencers’ entire personas are dependent on a glamor that still feels attainable and relatable, yet is distant enough to hold followers’ fascination. So it’s only logical that an influencer would lie to cover up their true worth while maintaining a glamorous facade.

This is certainly true of Gaby Dunn, an influencer turned actress and author who, in a [6]blog post titled “Get Rich or Die Vlogging: The Sad Economics of Internet Fame,” wrote, “My Instagram account has 340,000 followers, but I’ve never made $340,000 in my life collectively.

[7]Highsnobiety / Eva Al Desnudo

“The high highs and low lows leave me reeling. One week, I was stopped for photos six times while perusing comic books in Downtown LA. The next week, I sat faceless in a room of 40 people vying for a menial courier job. I’ve walked a red carpet with $80 in my bank account.”

It’s sometimes hard to avoid the impression that there’s a heavy dose of con artistry to the influencer industry. I reached out to a handful of influencers to research this article, but their initial enthusiasm gave way to evasiveness when I started asking about their earnings. Do these people have something to hide or is discussing money just plain vulgar? I suppose we’ll never know. But what we do know is that there definitely are influencers out there making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year by monetizing their influence.

In 2016, the Financial Times [8]profiled NYC-based fashion and lifestyle influencers, [9]Amra and [10]Elma Beganovich, who, at the time of the FT‘s report, had 658,000 and 617,000 followers on Instagram respectively (that figure has now risen to 857,000 and 705,000). According to the people employed by the Beganovich sisters, the pair earned around $714,000 each in 2015.

“We factored in medians and averages to better represent the monthly variation,” said the Beganovich employee quoted by FT. “Blog earnings: $30,000, average per month $2,500; Instagram posts: $480,000, median per month $5,000 per post, with eight posts per month on average; Twitter posts: $60,000, median per month $2,500 per tweet, with two posts per month on average; event attendance: $144,000, median per event $6,000, with two events per month.”

The thought that people are making nearly three-quarters of a million dollars annually from social media sounds utterly ridiculous but this isn’t even close to the upper limit of influence-based earnings. One influencer marketing expert who agreed to speak off the record said that they’ve heard “through reputable sources” that one particular YouTuber earned “$40 million last year” and that “the really well-known folks are definitely making seven figures.”

“Mid-six-figure brand deals are not uncommon for that top-tier talent,” the source adds.

This doesn’t all come from social media ad revenue, though. According to [11]The Outline, YouTube pays monetized channels, which require a minimum of 1,000 subscribers and 4,000 hours of watch time over the last 12 months, between 35¢ and $5 for every 1,000 views. This is only really lucrative for the most gargantuan channels, which is why 96.5 percent of YouTubers generate below-the-poverty-line earnings. Influencers would probably be better off focusing on selling merchandise rather than relying on ad revenue from content, which is what a lot of them have started to do.

[12]Highsnobiety / Eva Al Desnudo

According to [13]The Daily Beast, viral merch site [14]Fanjoy sold more than 800,000 items last year. The site, which produces gift boxes for celebrities and influencers that are then hustled off to adoring fans, raked in $1.2 million in earnings in 2016. How much this works out per influencer on average is unknown, but it’s safe to assume that a $20 phone case or a $25 T-shirt is likely to offer greater profit margins than 1,000 YouTube views. And getting those views isn’t easy work, it has to be said. Taking a selfie might look like the easiest thing in the world, but building a fan base and making content varied enough to enable you to quit your day job is as challenging as making it in most professional fields.

“Oftentimes, people think that influencers have an easy job or that they were an overnight success. I’ve never found that to be the case,” Gahan says. “Instead most creators are dedicated to creating content, learning, seeing what works and what doesn’t, and showing up day in, day out and grinding it out.”

How an influencer monetizes their following depends on the market they cater to. A fashion influencer is likely to sell brands via sponsored posts. Beauty blogger Sazan Hendrix has her own subscription box service, “[15]Bless Box,” which mails out boxes full of makeup, skincare, accessories, and other knickknacks to paying followers. Joe Wicks, aka [16]The Body Coach, built up his following by posting workout routines on his YouTube channel and healthy recipes on Instagram. He offers users personalized workout programs for a price and has authored a million-selling cookbook series, Lean in 15, making Wicks considerably wealthier than the average personal trainer.

Counterintuitively, income doesn’t always directly correlate with the number of followers an influencer has. Gahan says he has friends “who have been hit up for brand deals after getting a few thousand or so subscribers or Instagram followers,” which really isn’t many. But if a popular influencer isn’t particularly marketable, it’s natural that they’ll earn less than social media users who project the sort of image brands are looking for, even if they have fewer followers. “Some creators are just so far from being brand-friendly that they can’t get brand deals,” Gahan continues.

This might sound disheartening to any budding social media darlings out there, but there are means beyond brand sponsorships for influencers to turn followers into cash.

“I’ve written about this a little bit on my [17]own blog,” Gahan elaborates. “Outside of direct platform ad revenue, some common ways [influencers]generate money is from appearances and tours, merchandise, [subscription platform] Patreon, affiliate links and sales, writing books, making movies, lots of [18]direct-to-consumer ones, also [19]major motion pictures, [20]developing apps.”

[21]Highsnobiety / Eva Al Desnudo

To answer the question posed by this article — How much money do influencers make? — the answer, then, is quite a lot. Potentially. The numbers vary from influencer to influencer. They can become millionaires or find themselves relying on social media to supplement their income while working another job. But influencers have higher earning potential than a commercial model, which is the profession they have most in common with.

According to [22]Bizfluent, commercial models (the type that appear in brochures and ads, not runway models) can expect to make “in the range of $75 to $150 per hour or $400 to $950 per day in a small- to medium-size market.” But that figure can rise to $250 per hour in larger cities such as San Francisco, where jobs across all industries tend to pay better. But unlike influencers, the average catalog model is unlikely to snag a book deal, Patreon funding, or find anyone willing to buy their gift boxes.

What this reveals is how social media has helped to corporatize the individual. Models are fundamentally just workers, exchanging their particular form of labor and talent for a wage. Influencers, meanwhile, are more like companies than employees. The savviest of influencers have multifaceted business models that draw profit from a multitude of different sources. So while their YouTube ad revenues are less than the federal minimum wage, it’s unlikely that all 96.5 percent outside the influencer elite are living in poverty.

[23]

[IMG]References

Visible links
1. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0cq4wtxm83s95t2/10.1177@1354856517736979.pdf?dl=0
2. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWRV5AVOlKJR1Flvgt310Cw
3. https://www.indeed.com/salaries/Crew-Member-Salaries-at-McDonald%27s?period=yearly
4. https://www.ft.com/content/fc964254-155f-11e7-b0c1-37e417ee6c76
5.
6. https://splinternews.com/get-rich-or-die-vlogging-the-sad-economics-of-internet-1793853578
7. https://www.instagram.com/eva.al.desnudo/
8. https://www.ft.com/content/f6e925ea-9f50-11e6-891e-abe238dee8e2
9. https://www.instagram.com/clubfashionista/?hl=en
10. https://www.instagram.com/elmabeganovich/?hl=en
11. https://theoutline.com/post/4349/influencers-still-need-to-hawk-shit-if-they-want-to-make-money?utm_source=FB&zr=jodmfxtu&zd=2&zi=m47qqs76
12. https://www.instagram.com/eva.al.desnudo/
13. https://www.thedailybeast.com/whos-getting-rich-off-all-these-loud-teen-youtube-stars-this-guy?ref=scroll
14. https://fanjoy.co/
15. https://blessbox.com/about-bless-box/
16. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAxW1XT0iEJo0TYlRfn6rYQ
17. http://brendangahan.com/how-to-make-bank-as-a-youtube-creator-diversify-your-portfolio/
18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smosh:_The_Movie
19. http://www.businessinsider.com/fault-in-our-stars-box-office-phenomenon-2014-9
20. https://www.tubefilter.com/2015/03/30/toby-turner-tobuscus-adventures-game-app-store/
21. https://www.instagram.com/eva.al.desnudo/
22. https://bizfluent.com/info-7852091-yearly-salary-model.html
23. https://www.highsnobiety.com/author/aleks-eror/

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 115 - Loop: 241 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 73
 
Image/photo
#Music was my first #love and it will be my last.
#finance #money #art #life
 

#Bitcoin: Much of bitcoin's 2017 #boom was #market #manipulation, research says


source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/13/much-of-bitcoins-2017-boom-was-market-manipulation-researcher-says.html

#money #warning #danger #news #problem #internet #currency #crime
 

The Psychology of Money


Let me tell you the story of two investors, neither of whom knew each other, but whose paths crossed in an interesting way. Grace Groner was orphaned at age 12. She never married. She never had kids.…

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17221379
Posted by dsr12 (karma: 20436)
Post stats: Points: 144 - Comments: 18 - 2018-06-03T19:49:23Z

\#HackerNews #money #psychology #the
Article content:




Let me tell you the story of two investors, neither of whom knew each other, but whose paths crossed in an interesting way.

Grace Groner was orphaned at age 12. She never married. She never had kids. She never drove a car. She lived most of her life alone in a one-bedroom house and worked her whole career as a secretary. She was, by all accounts, a lovely lady. But she lived a humble and quiet life. That made the $7 million she left to charity after her death in 2010 at age 100 all the more confusing. People who knew her asked: Where did Grace get all that money?

But there was no secret. There was no inheritance. Grace took humble savings from a meager salary and enjoyed eighty years of hands-off compounding in the stock market. That was it.

Weeks after Grace died, an unrelated investing story hit the news.

Richard Fuscone, former vice chairman of Merrill Lynch’s Latin America division, declared personal bankruptcy, fighting off foreclosure on two homes, one of which was nearly 20,000 square feet and had a $66,000 a month mortgage. Fuscone was the opposite of Grace Groner; educated at Harvard and University of Chicago, he became so successful in the investment industry that he retired in his 40s to “pursue personal and charitable interests.” But heavy borrowing and illiquid investments did him in. The same year Grace Goner left a veritable fortune to charity, Richard stood before a bankruptcy judge and declared: “I have been devastated by the financial crisis … The only source of liquidity is whatever my wife is able to sell in terms of personal furnishings.”

The purpose of these stories is not to say you should be like Grace and avoid being like Richard. It’s to point out that there is no other field where these stories are even possible.

In what other field does someone with no education, no relevant experience, no resources, and no connections vastly outperform someone with the best education, the most relevant experiences, the best resources and the best connections? There will never be a story of a Grace Groner performing heart surgery better than a Harvard-trained cardiologist. Or building a faster chip than Apple’s engineers. Unthinkable.

But these stories happen in investing.

That’s because investing is not the study of finance. It’s the study of how people behave with money. And behavior is hard to teach, even to really smart people. You can’t sum up behavior with formulas to memorize or spreadsheet models to follow. Behavior is inborn, varies by person, is hard to measure, changes over time, and people are prone to deny its existence, especially when describing themselves.

Grace and Richard show that managing money isn’t necessarily about what you know; it’s how you behave. But that’s not how finance is typically taught or discussed. The finance industry talks too much about what to do, and not enough about what happens in your head when you try to do it.

This report describes 20 flaws, biases, and causes of bad behavior I’ve seen pop up often when people deal with money.
  • Earned success and deserved failure fallacy: A tendency to underestimate the role of luck and risk, and a failure to recognize that luck and risk are different sides of the same coin.
    I like to ask people, “What do you want to know about investing that we can’t know?”

    It’s not a practical question. So few people ask it. But it forces anyone you ask to think about what they intuitively think is true but don’t spend much time trying to answer because it’s futile.

    Years ago I asked economist Robert Shiller the question. He answered, “The exact role of luck in successful outcomes.”

    I love that, because no one thinks luck doesn’t play role in financial success. But since it’s hard to quantify luck, and rude to suggest people’s success is owed to luck, the default stance is often to implicitly ignore luck as a factor. If I say, “There are a billion investors in the world. By sheer chance, would you expect 100 of them to become billionaires predominately off luck?” You would reply, “Of course.” But then if I ask you to name those investors – to their face – you will back down. That’s the problem.

    The same goes for failure. Did failed businesses not try hard enough? Were bad investments not thought through well enough? Are wayward careers the product of laziness?

    In some parts, yes. Of course. But how much? It’s so hard to know. And when it’s hard to know we default to the extremes of assuming failures are predominantly caused by mistakes. Which itself is a mistake.

    People’s lives are a reflection of the experiences they’ve had and the people they’ve met, a lot of which are driven by luck, accident, and chance. The line between bold and reckless is thinner than people think, and you cannot believe in risk without believing in luck, because they are two sides of the same coin. They are both the simple idea that sometimes things happen that influence outcomes more than effort alone can achieve.

    After my son was born I wrote him a letter:

    Some people are born into families that encourage education; others are against it. Some are born into flourishing economies encouraging of entrepreneurship; others are born into war and destitution. I want you to be successful, and I want you to earn it. But realize that not all success is due to hard work, and not all poverty is due to laziness. Keep this in mind when judging people, including yourself.
  • Cost avoidance syndrome: A failure to identify the true costs of a situation, with too much emphasis on financial costs while ignoring the emotional price that must be paid to win a reward.
    Say you want a new car. It costs $30,000. You have a few options: 1) Pay $30,000 for it. 2) Buy a used one for less than $30,000. 3) Or steal it.

    In this case, 99% of people avoid the third option, because the consequences of stealing a car outweigh the upside. This is obvious.

    But say you want to earn a 10% annual return over the next 50 years. Does this reward come free? Of course not. Why would the world give you something amazing for free? Like the car, there’s a price that has to be paid.

    The price, in this case, is volatility and uncertainty. And like the car, you have a few options: You can pay it, accepting volatility and uncertainty. You can find an asset with less uncertainty and a lower payoff, the equivalent of a used car. Or you can attempt the equivalent of grand theft auto: Take the return while trying to avoid the volatility that comes along with it.

    Many people in this case choose the third option. Like a car thief – though well-meaning and law-abiding – they form tricks and strategies to get the return without paying the price. Trades. Rotations. Hedges. Arbitrages. Leverage.

    But the Money Gods do not look highly upon those who seek a reward without paying the price. Some car thieves will get away with it. Many more will be caught with their pants down. Same thing with money.

    This is obvious with the car and less obvious with investing because the true cost of investing – or anything with money – is rarely the financial fee that is easy to see and measure. It’s the emotional and physical price demanded by markets that are pretty efficient. Monster Beverage stock rose 211,000% from 1995 to 2016. But it lost more than half its value on five separate occasions during that time. That is an enormous psychological price to pay. Buffett made $90 billion. But he did it by reading SEC filings 12 hours a day for 70 years, often at the expense of paying attention to his family. Here too, a hidden cost.

    Every money reward has a price beyond the financial fee you can see and count. Accepting that is critical. Scott Adams once wrote: “One of the best pieces of advice I’ve ever heard goes something like this: If you want success, figure out the price, then pay it. It sounds trivial and obvious, but if you unpack the idea it has extraordinary power.” Wonderful money advice.
  • Rich man in the car paradox.
    When you see someone driving a nice car, you rarely think, “Wow, the guy driving that car is cool.” Instead, you think, “Wow, if I had that car people would think I’m cool.” Subconscious or not, this is how people think.

    The paradox of wealth is that people tend to want it to signal to others that they should be liked and admired. But in reality those other people bypass admiring you, not because they don’t think wealth is admirable, but because they use your wealth solely as a benchmark for their own desire to be liked and admired.

    This stuff isn’t subtle. It is prevalent at every income and wealth level. There is a [1]growing business of people renting private jets on the tarmac for 10 minutes to take a selfie inside the jet for Instagram. The people taking these selfies think they’re going to be loved without realizing that they probably don’t care about the person who actually owns the jet beyond the fact that they provided a jet to be photographed in.

    The point isn’t to abandon the pursuit of wealth, of course. Or even fancy cars – I like both. It’s recognizing that people generally aspire to be respected by others, and humility, graciousness, intelligence, and empathy tend to generate more respect than fast cars.
  • A tendency to adjust to current circumstances in a way that makes forecasting your future desires and actions difficult, resulting in the inability to capture long-term compounding rewards that come from current decisions.
    Every five-year-old boy wants to drive a tractor when they grow up. Then you grow up and realize that driving a tractor maybe isn’t the best career. So as a teenager you dream of being a lawyer. Then you realize that lawyers work so hard they rarely see their families. So then you become a stay-at-home parent. Then at age 70 you realize you should have saved more money for retirement.

    Things change. And it’s hard to make long-term decisions when your view of what you’ll want in the future is so liable to shift.

    This gets back to the first rule of compounding: Never interrupt it unnecessarily. But how do you not interrupt a money plan – careers, investments, spending, budgeting, whatever – when your life plans change? It’s hard. Part of the reason people like Grace Groner and Warren Buffett become so successful is because they kept doing the same thing for decades on end, letting compounding run wild. But many of us evolve so much over a lifetime that we don’t want to keep doing the same thing for decades on end. Or anything close to it. So rather than one 80-something-year lifespan, our money has perhaps four distinct 20-year blocks. Compounding doesn’t work as well in that situation.

    There is no solution to this. But one thing I’ve learned that may help is coming back to balance and room for error. Too much devotion to one goal, one path, one outcome, is asking for regret when you’re so susceptible to change.
  • Anchored-to-your-own-history bias: Your personal experiences make up maybe 0.00000001% of what’s happened in the world but maybe 80% of how you think the world works.
    If you were born in 1970 the stock market went up 10-fold adjusted for inflation in your teens and 20s – your young impressionable years when you were learning baseline knowledge about how investing and the economy work. If you were born in 1950, the same market went exactly nowhere in your teens and 20s:

    [2]Screen Shot 2018-05-30 at 8.39.21 AM.png

    There are so many ways to cut this idea. Someone who grew up in Flint, Michigan got a very different view of the importance of manufacturing jobs than someone who grew up in Washington D.C. Coming of age during the Great Depression, or in war-ravaged 1940s Europe, set you on a path of beliefs, goals, and priorities that most people reading this, including myself, can’t fathom.

    The Great Depression scared a generation for the rest of their lives. Most of them, at least. In 1959 John F. Kennedy was asked by a reporter what he remembered from the depression, [3]and answered:

    I have no first-hand knowledge of the depression. My family had one of the great fortunes of the world and it was worth more than ever then. We had bigger houses, more servants, we traveled more. About the only thing that I saw directly was when my father hired some extra gardeners just to give them a job so they could eat. I really did not learn about the depression until I read about it at Harvard.

    Since no amount of studying or open-mindedness can genuinely recreate the power of fear and uncertainty, people go through life with totally different views on how the economy works, what it’s capable of doing, how much we should protect other people, and what should and shouldn’t be valued.

    The problem is that everyone needs a clear explanation of how the world works to keep their sanity. It’s hard to be optimistic if you wake up in the morning and say, “I don’t know why most people think the way they do,” because people like the feeling of predictability and clean narratives. So they use the lessons of their own life experiences to create models of how they think the world should work – particularly for things like luck, risk, effort, and values.

    And that’s a problem. When everyone has experienced a fraction of what’s out there but uses those experiences to explain everything they expect to happen, a lot of people eventually become disappointed, confused, or dumbfounded at others’ decisions.

    A team of economists once crunched the data on a century’s worth of people’s investing habits and concluded: “Current [investment]beliefs depend on the realizations experienced in the past.”

    Keep that quote in mind when debating people’s investing views. Or when you’re confused about their desire to hoard or blow money, their fear or greed in certain situations, or whenever else you can’t understand why people do what they do with money. Things will make more sense.
  • Historians are Prophets fallacy: Not seeing the irony that history is the study of surprises and changes while using it as a guide to the future. An overreliance on past data as a signal to future conditions in a field where innovation and change is the lifeblood of progress.
    Geologists can look at a billion years of historical data and form models of how the earth behaves. So can meteorologists. And doctors – kidneys operate the same way in 2018 as they did in 1018.

    The idea that the past offers concrete directions about the future is tantalizing. It promotes the idea that the path of the future is buried within the data. Historians – or anyone analyzing the past as a way to indicate the future – are some of the most important members of many fields.

    I don’t think finance is one of them. At least not as much as we’d like to think.

    The cornerstone of economics is that things change over time, because the invisible hand hates anything staying too good or too bad indefinitely. Bill Bonner once described how Mr. Market works: “He’s got a ‘Capitalism at Work’ T-shirt on and a sledgehammer in his hand.” Few things stay the same for very long, which makes historians something far less useful than prophets.

    Consider a few big ones.

    The 401(K) is 39 years old – barely old enough to run for president. The Roth IRA isn’t old enough to drink. So personal financial advice and analysis about how Americans save for retirement today is not directly comparable to what made sense just a generation ago. Things changed.

    The venture capital industry barely existed 25 years ago. There are [4]single funds today that are larger than the entire industry was a generation ago. Phil Knight wrote about his early days after starting Nike: “There was no such thing as venture capital. An aspiring young entrepreneur had very few places to turn, and those places were all guarded by risk-averse gatekeepers with zero imagination. In other words, bankers.” So our knowledge of backing entrepreneurs, investment cycles, and failure rates, is not something we have a deep base of history to learn from. Things changed.

    Or take public markets. The [5]S&P 500 did not include financial stocks until 1976; today, financials make up 16% of the index. Technology stocks were virtually nonexistent 50 years ago. Today, they’re more than a fifth of the index. Accounting rules have changed over time. So have disclosures, auditing, and market liquidity. Things changed.

    The most important driver of anything tied to money is the [6]stories people tell themselves and the preferences they have for goods and services. Those things don’t tend to sit still. They change with culture and generation. And they’ll keep changing.

    The mental trick we play on ourselves here is an over-admiration of people who have been there, done that, when it comes to money. Experiencing specific events does not necessarily qualify you to know what will happen next. In fact it rarely does, because experience leads to more overconfidence than prophetic ability.

    That doesn’t mean we should ignore history when thinking about money. But there’s an important nuance: The further back in history you look, the more general your takeaways should be. General things like people’s relationship to greed and fear, how they behave under stress, and how they respond to incentives tends to be stable in time. The history of money is useful for that kind of stuff. But specific trends, specific trades, specific sectors, and specific causal relationships are always a showcase of evolution in progress.
  • The seduction of pessimism in a world where optimism is the most reasonable stance.
    Historian Deirdre McCloskey says, “For reasons I have never understood, people like to hear that the world is going to hell.”

    This isn’t new. John Stuart Mill wrote in the 1840s: “I have observed that not the man who hopes when others despair, but the man who despairs when others hope, is admired by a large class of persons as a sage.”

    Part of this is natural. We’ve evolved to treat threats as more urgent than opportunities. Buffett says, “In order to succeed, you must first survive.”

    But pessimism about money takes a different level of allure. Say there’s going to be a recession and you will get retweeted. Say we’ll have a big recession and newspapers will call you. Say we’re nearing the next Great Depression and you’ll get on TV. But mention that good times are ahead, or markets have room to run, or that a company has huge potential, and a common reaction from commentators and spectators alike is that you are either a salesman or comically aloof of risks.

    A few things are going on here.

    One is that money is ubiquitous, so something bad happening tends to affect everyone, albeit in different ways. That isn’t true of, say, weather. A hurricane barreling down on Florida poses no direct risk to 92% of Americans. But a recession barreling down on the economy could impact every single person – including you, so pay attention. This goes for something as specific as the stock market: More than half of all households [7]directly own stocks.

    Another is that pessimism requires action – Move! Get out! Run! Sell! Hide! Optimism is mostly a call to stay the course and enjoy the ride. So it’s not nearly as urgent.

    A third is that there is a lot of money to be made in the finance industry, which – despite regulations – has attracted armies of scammers, hucksters, and truth-benders promising the moon. A big enough bonus can convince even honest, law-abiding finance workers selling garbage products that they’re doing good for their customers. Enough people have been bamboozled by the finance industry that a sense of, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is” has enveloped even rational promotions of optimism.

    Most promotions of optimism, by the way, are rational. Not all, of course. But we need to understand what optimism is. Real optimists don’t believe that everything will be great. That’s complacency. Optimism is a belief that the odds of a good outcome are in your favor over time, even when there will be setbacks along the way. The simple idea that most people wake up in the morning trying to make things a little better and more productive than wake up looking to cause trouble is the foundation of optimism. It’s not complicated. It’s not guaranteed, either. It’s just the most reasonable bet for most people. The late statistician Hans Rosling put it differently: “I am not an optimist. I am a very serious possibilist.”
  • Underappreciating the power of compounding, driven by the tendency to intuitively think about exponential growth in linear terms.
    IBM made a 3.5 megabyte hard drive in the 1950s. By the 1960s things were moving into a few dozen megabytes. By the 1970s, IBM’s Winchester drive held 70 megabytes. Then drives got exponentially smaller in size with more storage. A typical PC in the early 1990s held 200-500 megabytes.

    And then … wham. Things exploded.

    1999 – Apple’s iMac comes with a 6 gigabyte hard drive.

    2003 – 120 gigs on the Power Mac.

    2006 – 250 gigs on the new iMac.

    2011 – first 4 terabyte hard drive.

    2017 – 60 terabyte hard drives.

    Now put it together. From 1950 to 1990 we gained 296 megabytes. From 1990 through today we gained 60 million megabytes.

    The punchline of compounding is never that it’s just big. It’s always – no matter how many times you study it – so big that you can barely wrap your head around it. In 2004 Bill Gates criticized the new Gmail, wondering why anyone would need a gig of storage. Author Steven Levy wrote, “Despite his currency with cutting-edge technologies, his mentality was anchored in the old paradigm of storage being a commodity that must be conserved.” You never get accustomed to how quickly things can grow.

    I have heard many people say the first time they saw a compound interest table – or one of those stories about how much more you’d have for retirement if you began saving in your 20s vs. your 30s – changed their life. But it probably didn’t. What it likely did was surprise them, because the results intuitively didn’t seem right. Linear thinking is so much more intuitive than exponential thinking. Michael Batnick once explained it. If I ask you to calculate 8+8+8+8+8+8+8+8+8 in your head, you can do it in a few seconds (it’s 72). If I ask you to calculate 8x8x8x8x8x8x8x8x8, your head will explode (it’s 134,217,728).

    The danger here is that when compounding isn’t intuitive, we often ignore its potential and focus on solving problems through other means. Not because we’re overthinking, but because we rarely stop to consider compounding potential.

    There are over 2,000 books picking apart how Warren Buffett built his fortune. But none are called “This Guy Has Been Investing Consistently for Three-Quarters of a Century.” But [8]we know that’s the key to the majority of his success; it’s just hard to wrap your head around that math because it’s not intuitive. There are books on economic cycles, trading strategies, and sector bets. But the most powerful and important book should be called “Shut Up And Wait.” It’s just one page with a long-term chart of economic growth. Physicist Albert Bartlett put it: “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”

    The counterintuitiveness of compounding is responsible for the majority of disappointing trades, bad strategies, and successful investing attempts. Good investing isn’t necessarily about earning the highest returns, because the highest returns tend to be one-off hits that kill your confidence when they end. It’s about earning pretty good returns that you can stick with for a long period of time. That’s when compounding runs wild.
  • Attachment to social proof in a field that demands contrarian thinking to achieve above-average results.
    The Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting in Omaha attracts 40,000 people, all of whom consider themselves contrarians. People show up at 4 am to wait in line with thousands of other people to tell each other about their lifelong commitment to not following the crowd. Few see the irony.

    Anything worthwhile with money has high stakes. High stakes entail risks of being wrong and losing money. Losing money is emotional. And the desire to avoid being wrong is best countered by surrounding yourself with people who agree with you. Social proof is powerful. Someone else agreeing with you is like evidence of being right that doesn’t have to prove itself with facts. Most people’s views have holes and gaps in them, if only subconsciously. Crowds and social proof help fill those gaps, reducing doubt that you could be wrong.

    The problem with viewing crowds as evidence of accuracy when dealing with money is that opportunity is almost always inversely correlated with popularity. What really drives outsized returns over time is an increase in valuation multiples, and increasing valuation multiples relies on an investment getting more popular in the future – something that is always anchored by current popularity.

    Here’s the thing: Most attempts at contrarianism is just irrational cynicism in disguise – and cynicism can be popular and draw crowds. Real contrarianism is when your views are so uncomfortable and belittled that they cause you to second guess whether they’re right. Very few people can do that. But of course that’s the case. Most people can’t be contrarian, by definition. Embrace with both hands that, statistically, you are one of those people.
  • An appeal to academia in a field that is governed not by clean rules but loose and unpredictable trends.
    Harry Markowitz won the Nobel Prize in economics for creating formulas that tell you exactly how much of your portfolio should be in stocks vs. bonds depending on your ideal level of risk. A few years ago the Wall Street Journal asked him how, given his work, he invests his own money. He replied:

    I visualized my grief if the stock market went way up and I wasn’t in it – or if it went way down and I was completely in it. My intention was to minimize my future regret. So I split my contributions 50/50 between bonds and equities.

    There are many things in academic finance that are technically right but fail to describe how people actually act in the real world. Plenty of academic finance work is useful and has pushed the industry in the right direction. But its main purpose is often intellectual stimulation and to impress other academics. I don’t blame them for this or look down upon them for it. We should just recognize it for what it is.

    One study [9]I remember showed that young investors should use 2x leverage in the stock market, because – statistically – even if you get wiped out you’re still likely to earn superior returns over time, as long as you dust yourself off and keep investing after a wipeout. Which, in the real world, no one would actually do. They’d swear off investing for life. What works on a spreadsheet and what works at the kitchen table are ten miles apart.

    The disconnect here is that academics typically desire very precise rules and formulas. But real-world people use it as a crutch to try to make sense of a messy and confusing world that, by its nature, eschews precision. Those are opposite things. You cannot explain randomness and emotion with precision and reason.

    People are also attracted to the titles and degrees of academics because finance is not a credential-sanctioned field like, say, medicine is. So the appearance of a Ph.D stands out. And that creates an intense appeal to academia when making arguments and justifying beliefs – “According to this Harvard study …” or “As Nobel Prize winner so and so showed …” It carries so much weight when other people cite, “Some guy on CNBC from an eponymous firm with a tie and a smile.” A hard reality is that what often matters most in finance will never win a Nobel Prize: Humility and room for error.
  • The social utility of money coming at the direct expense of growing money; wealth is what you don’t see.
    I used to park cars at a hotel. This was in the mid-2000s in Los Angeles, when real estate money flowed. I assumed that a customer driving a Ferrari was rich. Many were. But as I got to know some of these people, I realized they weren’t that successful. At least not nearly what I assumed. Many were mediocre successes who spent most of their money on a car.

    If you see someone driving a $200,000 car, the only data point you have about their wealth is that they have $200,000 less than they did before they bought the car. Or they’re leasing the car, which truly offers no indication of wealth.

    We tend to judge wealth by what we see. We can’t see people’s bank accounts or brokerage statements. So we rely on outward appearances to gauge financial success. Cars. Homes. Vacations. Instagram photos.

    But this is America, and one of our cherished industries is helping people fake it until they make it.

    Wealth, in fact, is what you don’t see. It’s the cars not purchased. The diamonds not bought. The renovations postponed, the clothes forgone and the first-class upgrade declined. It’s assets in the bank that haven’t yet been converted into the stuff you see.

    But that’s not how we think about wealth, because you can’t contextualize what you can’t see.

    Singer Rihanna nearly went broke after overspending and sued her financial advisor. The advisor responded: “Was it really necessary to tell her that if you spend money on things, you will end up with the things and not the money?”

    You can laugh. But the truth is, yes, people need to be told that. When most people say they want to be a millionaire, what they really mean is “I want to spend a million dollars,” which is literally the opposite of being a millionaire. This is especially true for young people.

    A key use of wealth is using it to control your time and providing you with options. Financial assets on a balance sheet offer that. But they come at the direct expense of showing people how much wealth you have with material stuff.
  • A tendency toward action in a field where the first rule of compounding is to never interrupt it unnecessarily.
    If your sink breaks, you grab a wrench and fix it. If your arm breaks, you put it in a cast.

    What do you do when your financial plan breaks?

    The first question – and this goes for personal finance, business finance, and investing plans – is how do you know when it’s broken?

    A broken sink is obvious. But a broken investment plan is open to interpretation. Maybe it’s just temporarily out of favor? Maybe you’re experiencing normal volatility? Maybe you had a bunch of one-off expenses this quarter but your savings rate is still adequate? It’s hard to know.

    When it’s hard to distinguish broken from temporarily out of favor, the tendency is to default to the former, and spring into action. You start fiddling with the knobs to find a fix. This seems like the responsible thing to do, because when virtually everything else in your life is broken, the correct action is to fix it.

    There are times when money plans need to be fixed. Oh, are there ever. But there is also no such thing as a long-term money plan that isn’t susceptible to volatility. Occasional upheaval is usually part of a standard plan.

    When volatility is guaranteed and normal, but is often treated as something that needs to be fixed, people take actions that ultimately just interrupts the execution of a good plan. “Don’t do anything,” are the most powerful words in finance. But they are both hard for individuals to accept and hard for professionals to charge a fee for. So, we fiddle. Far too much.
  • Underestimating the need for room for error, not just financially but mentally and physically.
    Ben Graham once said, “The purpose of the margin of safety is to render the forecast unnecessary.”

    There is so much wisdom in this quote. But the most common response, even if subconsciously, is, “Thanks Ben. But I’m good at forecasting.”

    People underestimate the need for room for error in almost everything they do that involves money. Two things cause this: One is the idea that your view of the future is right, driven by the uncomfortable feeling that comes from admitting the opposite. The second is that you’re therefore doing yourself economic harm by not taking actions that exploit your view of the future coming true.

    But room for error is underappreciated and misunderstood. It’s often viewed as a conservative hedge, used by those who don’t want to take much risk or aren’t confident in their views. But when used appropriately it’s the opposite. Room for error lets you endure, and endurance lets you stick around long enough to let the odds of benefiting from a low-probability outcome fall in your favor. The biggest gains occur infrequently, either because they don’t happen often or because they take time to compound. So the person with enough room for error in part of their strategy to let them endure hardship in the other part of their strategy has an edge over the person who gets wiped out, game over, insert more tokens, when they’re wrong.

    There are also multiple sides to room for error. Can you survive your assets declining by 30%? On a spreadsheet, maybe yes – in terms of actually paying your bills and staying cash-flow positive. But what about mentally? It is easy to underestimate what a 30% decline does to your psyche. Your confidence may become shot at the very moment opportunity is at its highest. You – or your spouse – may decide it’s time for a new plan, or new career. I know several investors who quit after losses because they were exhausted. Physically exhausted. Spreadsheets can model the historic frequency of big declines. But they cannot model the feeling of coming home, looking at your kids, and wondering if you’ve made a huge mistake that will impact their lives.
  • A tendency to be influenced by the actions of other people who are playing a different financial game than you are.
    Cisco stock went up three-fold in 1999. Why? Probably not because people actually thought the company was worth $600 billion. Burton Malkiel once pointed out that Cisco’s implied growth rate at that valuation meant it would become larger than the entire U.S. economy within 20 years.

    Its stock price was going up because short-term traders thought it would keep going up. And they were right, for a long time. That was the game they were playing – “this stock is trading for $60 and I think it’ll be worth $65 before tomorrow.”

    But if you were a long-term investor in 1999, $60 was the only price available to buy. So you may have looked around and said to yourself, “Wow, maybe others know something I don’t.” And you went along with it. You even felt smart about it. But then the traders stopped playing their game, and you – and your game – was annihilated.

    What you don’t realize is that the traders moving the marginal price are playing a totally different game than you are. And if you start taking cues from people playing a different game than you are, you are bound to be fooled and eventually become lost, since different games have different rules and different goals.

    Few things matter more with money than understanding your own time horizon and not being persuaded by the actions and behaviors of people playing different games.

    This goes beyond investing. How you save, how you spend, what your business strategy is, how you think about money, when you retire, and how you think about risk may all be influenced by the actions and behaviors of people who are playing different games than you are.

    Personal finance is deeply personal, and one of the hardest parts is learning from others while realizing that their goals and actions might be miles removed from what’s relevant to your own life.
  • An attachment to financial entertainment due to the fact that money is emotional, and emotions are revved up by argument, extreme views, flashing lights, and threats to your wellbeing.
    If the average America’s blood pressure went up by 3%, my guess is a few newspapers would cover it on page 16, nothing would change, and we’d move on. But if the stock market falls 3%, well, no need to guess how we might respond. [10]This is from 2015: “President [11]Barack Obama has been briefed on Monday’s choppy global market movement.”

    Why does financial news of seemingly low importance overwhelm news that is objectively more important?

    Because finance is entertaining in a way other things – orthodontics, gardening, marine biology – are not. Money has competition, rules, upsets, wins, losses, heroes, villains, teams, and fans that makes it tantalizingly close to a sporting event. But it’s even an addiction level up from that, because money is like a sporting event where you’re both the fan and the player, with outcomes affecting you both emotionally and directly.

    Which is dangerous.

    It helps, I’ve found, when making money decisions to constantly remind yourself that the purpose of investing is to maximize returns, not minimize boredom. Boring is perfectly fine. Boring is good. If you want to frame this as a strategy, remind yourself: opportunity lives where others aren’t, and others tend to stay away from what’s boring.
  • Optimism bias in risk-taking, or “Russian Roulette should statistically work” syndrome: An over attachment to favorable odds when the downside is unacceptable in any circumstance.
    Nassim Taleb says, “You can be risk loving and yet completely averse to ruin.”

    The idea is that you have to take risk to get ahead, but no risk that could wipe you out is ever worth taking. The odds are in your favor when playing Russian Roulette. But the downside is never worth the potential upside.

    The odds of something can be in your favor – real estate prices go up most years, and most years you’ll get a paycheck every other week – but if something has 95% odds of being right, then 5% odds of being wrong means you will almost certainly experience the downside at some point in your life. And if the cost of the downside is ruin, the upside the other 95% of the time likely isn’t worth the risk, no matter how appealing it looks.

    Leverage is the devil here. It pushes routine risks into something capable of producing ruin. The danger is that rational optimism most of the time masks the odds of ruin some of the time in a way that lets us systematically underestimate risk. Housing prices fell 30% last decade. A few companies defaulted on their debt. This is capitalism – it happens. But those with leverage had a double wipeout: Not only were they left broke, but being wiped out erased every opportunity to get back in the game at the very moment opportunity was ripe. A homeowner wiped out in 2009 had no chance of taking advantage of cheap mortgage rates in 2010. Lehman Brothers had no chance of investing in cheap debt in 2009.

    My own money is barbelled. I take risks with one portion and am a terrified turtle with the other. This is not inconsistent, but the psychology of money would lead you to believe that it is. I just want to ensure I can remain standing long enough for my risks to pay off. Again, you have to survive to succeed.

    A key point here is that few things in money are as valuable as options. The ability to do what you want, when you want, with who you want, and why you want, has infinite ROI.
  • A preference for skills in a field where skills don’t matter if they aren’t matched with the right behavior.
    This is where Grace and Richard come back in. There is a hierarchy of investor needs, and each topic here has to be mastered before the [12]one above it matters:

    [13]Screen Shot 2018-05-30 at 3.01.12 PM.png

    Richard was very skilled at the top of this pyramid, but he failed the bottom blocks, so none of it mattered. Grace mastered the bottom blocks so well that the top blocks were hardly necessary.
  • Denial of inconsistencies between how you think the world should work and how the world actually works, driven by a desire to form a clean narrative of cause and effect despite the inherent complexities of everything involving money.
    Someone once described Donald Trump as “Unable to distinguish between what happened and what he thinks should have happened.” Politics aside, I think everyone does this.

    There are three parts to this:

    * You see a lot of information in the world.

    * You can’t process all of it. So you have to filter.

    * You only filter in the information that meshes with the way you think the world should work.

    Since everyone wants to explain what they see and how the world works with clean narratives, inconsistencies between what we think should happen and what actually happens are buried.

    An example. Higher taxes should slow economic growth – that’s a common sense narrative. But the correlation between tax rates and growth rates [14]is hard to spot. So, if you hold onto the narrative between taxes and growth, you say there must be something wrong with the data. And you may be right! But if you come across someone else pushing aside data to back up their narrative – say, arguing that hedge funds have to generate alpha, otherwise no one would invest in them – you spot what you consider a bias. There are a thousand other examples. Everyone just believes what they want to believe, even when the evidence shows something else. Stories over statistics.

    Accepting that everything involving money is driven by illogical emotions and has more moving parts than anyone can grasp is a good start to remembering that history is the study of things happening that people didn’t think would or could happen. This is especially true with money.
  • Political beliefs driving financial decisions, influenced by economics being a misbehaved cousin of politics.
    I once attended a conference where a well known investor began his talk by saying, “You know when President Obama talks about clinging to guns and bibles? That is me, folks. And I’m going to tell you today about how his reckless policies are impacting the economy.”

    I don’t care what your politics are, there is no possible way you can make rational investment decisions with that kind of thinking.

    But it’s fairly common. Look at what happens in 2016 on this chart. The rate of GDP growth, jobs growth, stock market growth, interest rates – go down the list – did not materially change. Only the president did:

    [15]Screen Shot 2018-05-30 at 1.07.11 PM.png

    Years ago [16]I published a bunch of economic performance numbers by president. And it drove people crazy, because the data often didn’t mesh with how they thought it should based on their political beliefs. Soon after a journalist asked me to comment on a story detailing how, statistically, Democrats preside over stronger economies than Republicans. I said you couldn’t make that argument because the sample size is way too small. But he pushed and pushed, and wrote a piece that made readers either cheer or sweat, depending on their beliefs.

    The point is not that politics don’t influence the economy. But the reason this is such a sensitive topic is because the data often surprises the heck out of people, which itself is a reason to realize that the correlation between politics and economics isn’t as clear as you’d like to think it is.
  • The three-month bubble: Extrapolating the recent past into the near future, and then overestimating the extent to which whatever you anticipate will happen in the near future will impact your future.
    News headlines in the month after 9/11 are interesting. Few entertain the idea that the attack was a one-off; the next massive terrorist attack was certain to be around the corner. “Another catastrophic terrorist attack is inevitable and only a matter of time,” one defense analyst said in 2002. “A top counterterrorism official says it’s ‘a question of when, not if,” wrote another headline. Beyond the anticipation that another attack was imminent was a belief that it would affect people the same way. The Today Show ran a segment pitching parachutes for office workers to keep under their desks in case they needed to jump out of a skyscraper.

    Believing that what just happened will keep happening shows up constantly in psychology. We like patterns and have short memories. The added feeling that a repeat of what just happened will keep affecting you the same way is an offshoot. And when you’re dealing with money it can be a torment.

    Every big financial win or loss is followed by mass expectations of more wins and losses. With it comes a level of obsession over the effects of those events repeating that can be wildly disconnected from your long-term goals. Example: The stock market falling 40% in 2008 was followed, uninterrupted for years, with forecasts of another impending plunge. Expecting what just happened to happen soon again is one thing, and an error in itself. But not realizing that your long-term investing goals could remain intact, unharmed, even if we have another big plunge, is the dangerous byproduct of recency bias. “Markets tend to recover over time and make new highs” was not a popular takeaway from the financial crisis; “Markets can crash and crashes suck,” was, despite the former being so much more practical than the latter.

    Most of the time, something big happening doesn’t increase the odds of it happening again. It’s the opposite, as mean reversion is a merciless law of finance. But even when something does happen again, most of the time it doesn’t – or shouldn’t – impact your actions in the way you’re tempted to think, because most extrapolations are short term while most goals are long term. A stable strategy designed to endure change is almost always superior to one that attempts to guard against whatever just happened happening again.

    If there’s a common denominator in these, it’s a preference for humility, adaptability, long time horizons, and skepticism of popularity around anything involving money. Which can be summed up as: Be prepared to roll with the punches.

    Jiddu Krishnamurti spent years giving spiritual talks. He became more candid as he got older. In one famous talk, he asked the audience if they’d like to know his secret.

    He whispered, “You see, I don’t mind what happens.”

    That might be the best trick when dealing with the psychology of money.
References

Visible links
1. http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/10/you-can-rent-a-grounded-private-jet-to-take-instagram-photos.html
3. http://amzn.to/2yQ6qbl
4. http://www.collaborativefund.com/uploads/Collaborative%20Fund%20SB%20Vision1.pdf
5. http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/sandp/?iid=EL
6. http://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/the-greatest-story-ever-told/
7. http://news.gallup.com/poll/211052/stock-ownership-down-among-older-higher-income.aspx
8. http://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/the-freakishly-strong-base/
9. http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=ian_ayres
10. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/24/white-house-obama-briefed-on-markets-turmoil-mindful-of-potential-self-inflicted-wounds.html
11. https://www.cnbc.com/barack-obama/
12. https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/07/09/needs.aspx
14. http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Images/gdp_vs_tax_rate.jpg
16. https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/05/the-best-presidents-for-the-economy.aspx

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 102 - Loop: 141 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 59
 
#banking #CEO #financial #money #capitalism #corporations #debt #politics
 

#Terrorism is the #war of the poor.

War is terrorism with a higher budget.

"War on Terror" is the war rich against poor.


#quote #poverty #humanity #problem #politics #fail #elite #power #military #system #conspiracy #money #banksters
 

The more valuable your #work is to #society, the less you’ll be paid for it


Source: https://mspsteem.com/life/@lennstar/the-more-valuable-your-work-is-to-society-the-less-you-ll-be-paid-for-it

#job #justice #system #money #capitalism #economy #labor
 
post originally made on 5.31.2017
A ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF INITIAL WRITING…
Image/photo
made a couple updates to the original post over the past couple days that some may find significant.
Last updates regard economic related happenings over the month of May 2018.

Quick summary of original post:
The Cryptocurrency sphere has proven to have held numerous points of vulnerability exploited over the course of at least 2013-2018. The current global nation state markets also proved to have held numerous points of vulnerability that were exploited and/or continue to be exploited into current. Collectively, the effects have led to a centrally controlled and administered form of global eco-politics (“technocracy”) not only independent of global nation states, but to which global nation states and their collective populations are subservient.
Numerous points of market vulnerabilities and review of exploitation with some of the resulting effects are covered.

Quick summary of May updates:
Vitarik Butrin, a co-founder of the Ethereum blockchain/cryptoc publicly questions if central bank models and parties such as the Rothschild are now redunant. Morgan Stanley announces “A.I.” will be used to calm important clients in event of major economic change. Google debuts “Duplex A.I.” and publicly demos it making calls and accomplishing various tasks while posing as human well enough to fool those interacting with it. Apple (via their subsidiary name of “The Verge”) releases a “Google leak” on Youtube (owned by Google). In the video Google proposes/outlines a functional architecture of a new global eco-politico order driven by “A.I.” based behavioural analytics, behavioural modification (“behavioural sequencing”), with mention also to gene sequencing. Google confirms the authenticity of the video. The “Blockchainist Papers” are released proposing a break from the U.S.A. to begin in Nevada for a new country that functions on a blockchain (and arguably “smart city”) basis managed by “A.I.” The cross planetary expansion is proposed.

Be Excellent To Each Other
no fear
Do Not Obey


#Economics #Jubilee #Politics #AI #BehaviorAnalytics #ITSec #BehaviouralAnalytics #NetSec #BehaviorModification #Thought #Security #Google #MorganStanley #Cryptocurrency #HFT #Algo #Algos #Psy #Psychology #Technocracy #Space #Apple #S&P #DOW #Stocks #Bitcoin #Zcash #CicadaFoundation #CicadaWhitePaper #Nevada #Blockchainist #BlockchainistPapers #Blockchain #Ledger #SelfishLedger #Alien #Sophia #Technology #SmartCity #Smart #SmartDevice #SmartDevices #5G #Intel #CentralBanks #Money #MonetaryTheory #Asset #Assets #AssetClass #YouAreTheProduct #DoNotObey #Government #Control #NoMagick #FreeWill #Magick #UnderstandingArchitecture #KnowMagick
 
On The #GoldFish Report No. 230, #Winston prepares us for #NESARA by discussing his recent article " The Sin Against #Money" and another article that discusses the #history of NESARA. As Winston has discussed in previous #CountryRoads reports, #money can be a #gift or a #curse and that there is #karma associated with being the steward of money that you did not earn but that you may become the steward of through the Global Currency Reset through the Prosperity Programs such as the Saint Germain Trust. Individuals who become involved in these projects are to create humanitarian projects that will improve the quality of #life for #humanity, especially those in #poverty and without access to clean #water, #food #shelter and infrastructure projects.That is the intention of these funds and misusing these funds for other purposes will have a negative effect on those misusing them. Winston explains the history of NESARA/GESARA and the many attempts of those #who were hell bent on #hijacking the process and #enslaving #humanity. Winston shares his own participation in this process and tells us we should now prepare ourselves for the implementation of NESARA, and more. Thank you Winston for sharing your worldly Wisdom with us! For more information about Winston's Solutions in Commerce visit www.wssic.com.
 

The Try Hards (parts 1-3): "Trying to become a Famous Instagram Model" by Nerd City


Damn! What an elaborate ~~project~~ #joke(?)

The amount of #money, #time and #effort put into this is #mindblowing*... and I also love the way they mock #popculture and #mainstream #ideals... so much juicy salt! >=)

~*(These~ ~people~ ~really~ ~deserve~ ~more~ ~subscribers)~
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVonsjaXkSpeKL1IoHUCKYb-v5FpZQ9lW

Each part Separately:
1.
2. [Yoga Pants, Photoshop & Vacations: Become An Instagram Star Using Celebrity Tricks (TryHards Pt 2) - Nerd City]
3.
#humor #video #butt #butts #ass #Photoshop #fake #fakery #acting #deception #social #media #socialmedia #instagram #experiment
 

Not Everyone Should Code - PolyMatter


Well... after attending that techweek event mentioned here: [POST], I find myself agreeing to this video:

https://youtu.be/EFwa5Owp0-k

#code #programming #education #computer #tech #technology #money #video
 

#India: How To Successfully #Bribe The #Media


The journalists posed as political operatives and approached more than 27 media houses. They then offered to pay billions of dollars in return for favourable coverage of the ruling party in the run-up to the 2019 general elections in India.

The media houses were asked to further a Hindu fundamentalist agenda that would favour the party in power, BJP, and also asked to show opposition leaders in a bad light.

Without putting up much resistance, many media owners accepted the offer.

source: / https://hooktube.com/watch?v=pB7UAUP72xg
#freedom #press #journalism #news #documentary #story #politics #corruption #crime #democracy #election #propaganda #system #information #money #power #manipulation
 

#Turkey's #Lira Takes a Dive and #Inflation Soars


source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevehanke/2018/05/24/turkeys-lira-takes-a-dive-and-inflation-soars/
I measure the implied annual inflation rate on a daily basis by using PPP to translate changes in the TRY/USD exchange rate into an annual inflation rate. The chart below shows the course of that annual rate. At present, Turkey’s annual inflation rate is 39.2%. So, my measured rate of inflation is 3.6 times higher than the official rate of 10.85%.
#economy #problem #news #currency #money
 


Malicious Cryptominers from GitHub


by Denis Sinegubko - December 7, 2017.

github.io and pages.github.com should not be considered trusted domains.
This article explains the techniques used by the bad guys to exploit these platforms, with real-world code examples that even a child can test.




#crypto #miners #btc #bitcoins #monero #ethereum #dogecoins #developers #hacking #cracking #money #resourceabuse #DoS #HTML #iframes #javascript #js
 
Image/photo
Image/photo
Image/photo
Image/photo
Image/photo
Image/photo
Image/photo
Image/photo
Image/photo
Image/photo

MEANWHILE


IN MATHLANDIA.....
Two recent articles follow bellow. The first regarding a study in relation to the "median" U.S. population's ability to afford sustainable living. The second article regards what can be shown of central bank QE programs initiated to prop global economies back up post the 2008 housing bubble crash. Collectively, it is here suggested that while the later article provides a glimpse into "cause", that it's former article offers glimpse into "effect".

These quotes, both taken from the authors of the article's, possibly sum up the "cause" and "effect" (glimpses) best.

"So long as monetization continues, the impacts will be enriching the minority with significantly higher asset valuations and rental income while impoverishing the vast majority as costs rise significantly faster than most incomes."
- Chris Hamilton

"United Way has done a study on a group of Americans they call ALICE: Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. The study found that this group does not make the money needed “to survive in the modern economy....
Between families living below the poverty line due to unemployment or disability and ALICEs, the study discovered that 43% of Americans were struggling to cover basic necessities like rent and food.”

- Daisy Luther

There is a selection of past entries at the bottom of this post to supplement these two articles.
-A. A23P




https://www.theorganicprepper.com/americans-rent-food-economic-collapse/
alternately
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-21/when-43-americans-cant-pay-food-and-rent-we-can-safely-say-economic-collapse-here
by Daisy Luther
see links for original version, this version edited some for length

You know all those reports about how lots of Americans can’t afford a $1000 surprise expense like a medical bill or a car repair? Well, forget additional expenses. It turns out that nearly half of the families in America are struggling to pay for food and rent. And that means that the economic collapse isn’t just “coming.” It’s HERE.

United Way has done a study on a group of Americans they call ALICE: Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. The study found that this group does not make the money needed “to survive in the modern economy.”
  • ALICE is your child care worker, your parent on Social Security, the cashier at your supermarket, the gas attendant, the salesperson at your big box store, your waitress, a home health aide, an office clerk. ALICE cannot always pay the bills, has little or nothing in savings, and is forced to make tough choices such as deciding between quality child care or paying the rent. One unexpected car repair or medical bill can push these financially strapped families over the edge.
  • ALICE is a hardworking member of the community who is employed yet does not earn enough to afford the basic necessities of life.
  • ALICE earns above the federal poverty level but does not earn enough to afford a bare-bones household budget of housing, child care, food, transportation, and healthcare.
Between families living below the poverty line due to unemployment or disability and ALICEs, the study discovered that 43% of Americans were struggling to cover basic necessities like rent and food.
Where are families struggling the most?

Some states have more families living in ALICE levels than others. The 3 states with the most families barely surviving paycheck to paycheck are California, New Mexico, and Hawaii. Each of these states saw 49% of families struggling. North Dakota had the lowest ALICE percentage with 32%. You can check how your state fares right here. Despite the lowest unemployment rate since 2000, families all over the country are barely getting by.

While many families are still doing okay, the specter of poverty looms over many of us. Many of us know that we’re one personal financial catastrophe away from disaster. I wrote recently about my own family’s struggle with a large medical bill.
Obviously, I’m not telling you about our financial saga to make myself look bad. I’m telling you because I want you to know that no matter how much you try to do everything right, financial problems can happen to anyone, at any time. Whether you have $100 in the bank or $100,000 in the bank, something can happen that wipes out your emergency fund just like it did mine.
This doesn’t mean that you failed financially – it means that circumstances can affect you, just like they do everyone else, no matter how careful you are.
Before my daughter’s illness, I was doing everything “right.”
I had enough money in my emergency fund to carry me through 3 lean months
I had numerous credit cards with zero balances
My only debt was my car
My kids are going to school without student loans
I opted out of health insurance because it was more financially practical to pay cash (and I still agree with that decision)
Everything was great.
Until it wasn’t.
This is a story that probably rings true to more and more familiar to a growing number of families every week.

While my income hasn’t dropped – it’s grown – I am still struggling to pay off those bills and recover. I’ve taken on a significant amount of extra work to get things back under control, and still, I worry it won’t be enough.

Sound familiar?

There are similar stories in the UK (where the taxpayers can still fund a 45 million dollar wedding but poor families can’t afford to eat every day), Argentina, and Cyprus.

Jose wrote for us about the warning signs that the collapse of Venezuela was approaching and they’re eerily familiar. Food rationing began, the cost of medical care became prohibitive, the health insurance system began to fail, and people began to make difficult choices about rent versus food.

I don’t know how it could be any more clear than the fact that nearly half of the American population is also making that decision each month.
What’s the answer?

While the United Way hopes to boost the minimum wage, I don’t feel that is the answer because it will drive businesses to let employees go when they can’t afford to pay them. We have seen this happen in fast food establishments in which humans are on their way to being replaced by self-service kiosks and burger-flipping robots.

I believe the only answer is to begin to produce more than we consume. Currently, Americans are like a horde of locusts, working at jobs that produce nothing, but consuming rabidly the imports that feed us, clothe us, and entertain us. We’re looking at economic tariffs on imports that may increase their price up to 40% and our own exports will be subject to tariffs in return.

If you find yourself in a tough spot, these tips from The Cheapskate’s Guide to the Galaxy may help.
  • Audit your situation. See where all your money is going, see how much debt you’re in, and see what the most immediate ramifications will be.
  • Take care of the most important things first. In most situations, keeping your home paid for (rent or mortgage), paying utilities, and making your auto and insurance payments should come first. Take care of the things that will have the most immediate ramifications first.
  • You may have to make some late payments on less vital things. If so, communicate with those to whom you owe money and try to make arrangements. This may affect your credit, but by communicating with them, you can keep damage to a minimum.
  • Cut your expenses. When you audit your situation, you may find some places that you can slash your regular expenses. Don’t hesitate to reduce services that are unnecessary or to whittle down your monthly obligations. (More ideas here)
  • Put a little money back into your emergency fund as soon as possible. This may sound counterintuitive but having a bit of money for minor emergencies means that you won’t need to rely on credit cards for these things, putting you even further in the hole.
  • Pay off your debts. Use the snowball method to attack your debts. Start paying these off AFTER you pay for the things I recommended in step 2.
  • Use the things you have on hand. Delay a trip to the store for as long as possible by planning a menu using the food in your pantry and freezer. (Think about the stockpile challenge we did and use those strategies. Get some ideas for meals from your stockpile in this article) Use the shampoo, soap, and personal hygiene products that you have already instead of buying new products.
  • Raise extra money. This may come from selling things you don’t need, taking on some extra work, or by creating a product or service to sell. However you do this, use the extra revenue wisely to get out of debt and to rebuild your emergency fund. There are more ideas for making money quickly in this issue.
And to harden yourself against the collapse that will only get worse, make these changes to help your family survive.

What can you store?” is not the right question to ask.

“What can you make?” – that’s the right question.

Your focus has to be on long-term sustainability, frugality, and self-reliance. Don’t get me wrong – a stockpile is sensible and an essential course of action. It should definitely be part of your preparedness plan.

However, you need to also be ready for the time when the supplies in your well-stocked pantry are no longer available. You need to be able to meet as many of your own needs as possible or you’ll end up being one of those people wearing dirty clothes because you can’t find laundry soap or going hungry because you can’t find any food at the stores – or can’t afford it if you can find it. You need to be ready for the end of a consumer-driven lifestyle, because quite frankly, there may soon come a day when there are no consumer goods to be had. Here are some ways to work on your

Here are some ways to work on your self-reliance:
  • Looking for the thrifty answer using things you have on hand, instead of purchasing a solution to every problem
  • Fixing things that are broken instead of replacing them
  • Eating simple food you prepare from scratch
  • Producing as much of your own food as possible
  • Learning to forage
  • Using “old-fashioned” alternatives for disposable things like diapers, wipes, feminine hygiene supplies, paper towels, and the like
  • Learning to make cleaning supplies and soaps, especially from accessible supplies (like vinegar, ash, and foraged natural ingredients)
  • Learning to make pantry basics like vinegar, sourdough, and cultured dairy products
  • Learning to preserve your harvests to see you through the lean days of winter
  • Providing your own services like heat, garbage disposal, and water
  • Learning about natural remedies from accessible sources
  • Learning to protect your family and property
It’s only by reducing your need for the things sold in stores that you can exempt yourself from the chaos and desperation that will erupt when everyone realizes that an economic collapse has occurred.

What Was The Real Purpose Of QE?

The story goes that quantitative easing was instituted to "bridge" the financial and economic systems across a "rough patch". Via QE, the Federal Reserve conjured new "money" into existence (if we did this, its called forgery...not QE) & exchanged this new "money" to the largest banks for US Treasury bonds and financial assets (Mortgage backed securities). Banks were left flush with cash, the Fed holding $4.5 trillion in Treasury's and MBS. The suggested goal of this exercise was that QE would lower interest rates and this would settle the economic system and subsequently boost asset valuations.

How'd it work out? As far as asset prices, generally they have soared 300% to 400% but the part about lowering interest rates...not so much. The chart below shows the Federal Reserve holdings of over 5yr to 10yr US Treasury debt versus the yield on the 10yr Treasury. The Fed increased its holdings of 5 to 10yr US debt from $100 billion in early 2009 to nearly $900 billion by early 2013...and then lowered it back to just $290 billion currently. And the correlation on the 10 year yields...essentially zero.
Image/photo
#1 - January 2009
Fed held $97 B 5+ to 10 year US Treasury debt vs. 10 year debt yielding 2.36%

#2 - January '09 to March '10
Fed adds $120 billion, yields rise 160 basis points...wrong

#3 - March '10 to June '12
Fed adds $500 billion, yields fall 250 basis points...right

#4 - June '12 to May '13
Fed adds $160 billion, yields rise 23 basis points...wrong

#5 - May '13 to October '13
Fed ceases adding but maintains peak holdings of $890 billion, yields rise 122 basis points...wrong

#6 - October '13 to July '16
Fed rolls off $440 billion, yields fall 161 basis points to a modern day record low of 1.37%. This is so contrary to the rationale offered by the Fed to initiate QE...wrong

#7 - July '16 to May '18
Fed rolls off $160 billion, yields rise 174 basis points...right

Which is to say, there seems to have been no correlation or even a negative correlation of the Fed conjuring nearly $4 trillion with which to buy (and sell) unprecedented quantities of Treasury's (particularly the 5 to 10 year variety), and the direction of interest rates.

In fact, the lowest rates seen on the 10 year were while the Fed was systematically rolling off $450 billion in 5 to 10 year debt in mid 2016! Which leaves a very uncomfortable question...is the Fed filled with the dumbest smart people in America who just haven't seemed to realize this...or did they have a different goal all along?

QE did have massive impacts, just not where it was "supposed to". If the Fed's goal to was transfer power and wealth to an ever shrinking cohort, seems the Fed has achieved its goal. My best guess of what QE was all about and who benefitted and continues to benefit...HERE and HERE.

As long as we are discussing the Fed, might as well take a look at the balance sheet. Last week the Fed reduced its total balance sheet by $20 billion and the total reduction is about 2.8% since official "normalization" began. But the real story continues to be the how. Fed Treasury holdings fell by $8 billion last week in a convoluted process of rolling off $31 billion of 1yr to 10yr Treasury's while buying $10 billion in 10+ year debt and $12 billion in less than 1 year short term holdings.

As the chart below details, the Fed holdings of over 5yr to 10yr Treasury holdings continues declining, now down a massive 68% from peak holdings.
Image/photo

While the holdings of over 10 year Treasury's is down less than 6% from peak holdings and essentially unchanged since normalization began.
Image/photo

The change in the short term holdings is fascinating, the Fed fully round tripping, "normalizing" the short end to what it held pre-GFC (as of '07). Since Operation Twist ended, the Fed has been on a tear purchasing over $400 billion of short term debt. The massive short end bid coupled with the huge roll-off of 10yr debt should have been pushing the short end rates considerably higher and middle down...perhaps pushing toward an inverted yield curve?!?
Image/photo

The trend of fast shrinking 1 to 10 year Fed holdings, significant buying and growth in holdings of less than 1 year, and maintaining nearly all long bonds.
Image/photo

A quick aside, showing the Fed Treasury holdings versus the 10yr minus 2yr spread.
Image/photo

Finally, just to round out the picture, last week the Fed's holdings of MBS was essentially unchanged while the Fed has sold just 2% of its MBS since peak holdings.
Image/photo

Finally, just to round out the picture, last week the Fed's holdings of MBS was essentially unchanged while the Fed has sold just 2% of its MBS since peak holdings.

But interestingly, while the Fed has rolled off $60 billion in over 10yr MBS, it has simultaneously purchased $30 billion in 5 to 10yr holdings...for a net total decrease of $30 billion since peak holdings.
Image/photo

Make of all that what you will.

SEE ALSO:
I. MESSage201805
II. Beyond The UN, Trump, and coming leaks...
III. Time to...
III. WTF
IV. Goldman Sachs Introduces Captain Obvious
V. Blue Man Group presents the Keynes/IMF Bancor argument…
VI. 2018

#Economics #Politics #America #US #USA #Market #Markets #Money #MonetaryTheory #QE #Fiat #Imagination #Thought #Gentrification #Food #Housing #Rent #Cost #Import #Export #UnitedWay #UnderstandingArchitecture #2018 #MESSage201805 #A23Supplement #WTF #WTFN
 
Today is Car Day

My daughter's filthy Honda. Step one: Clean engine.

Next replace: Spark Plugs, Coolant, Brake Fluid, Tranny Fluid, Oil & Filter, wash, wax, and detail interior.

This is going to hurt my poor old bones, but I will be earning $100 per hour. :-)




#Honda #Car #Maintenance #Mechanic #DIY #Money #Frugal
 

Giving #Free #Software a Bad Name


I see the #FSF (#Free #Software #Foundation) is #groping for #money today.

They lost me when they ran the below #internship that I looked into
for some students -- only to find that they PRECLUDE being a #white male or #straight.

I mean, how is THAT not #racist and #discriminatory?


(lunatics saying that it is not racist to discriminate against whites need not respond).

And the offending FSF internship was:

You must meet one of the following criteria:

* You live any where in the world and you identify as a woman (cis or trans), trans man, or genderqueer person (including genderfluid or genderfree).
  • You live in the United States or you are a U.S. national or permanent resident living aboard, AND you are a person of any gender who is Black/African American, Hispanic/Latin@, Native American/American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander.

Nothing #Creepy There, huh?..


https://www.outreachy.org/apply/eligibility/
^ The page was saved in case the Free Software Foundation alters #history by deleting it;
as they did with my comment on their post.

I guess that #FSF is not concerned with #Free #Speech.

Creepy → Image/photo

I wonder if `ol #Richard #Stallman approved that #FSF internship?
 
Why are we focusing so much on low #unemployment rates and creating as many #jobs as possible, even if they're meaningless? Isn't the whole point of #progress to work less? To let machines do the work for us? The point of establishing #society was to get us out of the cruel jungle, but it seems to me that we're just creating yet a different kind of #jungle, with survival of the fittest still in place. We've just shifted from fighting with clubs to fighting with #money.

What do you think about this? Should we have #basicincome? A basic human #right to just exist, even if they're #lazy, or for whatever reason simply can not #work? Total banishment and #death may have been an appropriate penalty for not working in middle ages, but should it still stand in our modern society? In a society that prides itself on #freedom?

Don't get me wrong, we should definitely greatly reward work, but unlike in the earlier ages we're not struggling anymore. I really think we shouldn't let people die on streets, beg for food and suffer from diseases if they don't work, for whatever reason. The wealth of the rich is so enormous they cannot possibly spend it in many lives and wouldn't even notice if some of it went to setting a minimum guaranteed level of dignity for a human life.

Could the real reason for this work obsession be the fear of slowing down in the perpetual race between the great powers? The constant #war game? Should we say no? Or do we have to push ourselves to our limits in order to not lose the lead? Is it worth all the health issues and even deaths that come with the current state of things?

Would most people drop from from work or would they just be less scared of losing their jobs?

What are your #opinions?

What would you do if you were free not to work? :)

#showerthought #discussion #capitalism #socialism
 

ISPs Lying That They Don’t Make Enough Money


HN link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17040275
Posted by davegauer (karma: 316)
Post stats: Points: 327 - Comments: 121 - 2018-05-10T16:20:40Z

\#HackerNews #dont #enough #isps #lying #make #money #that #they
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 258 - Loop: 208 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 48
 

or possibly also aka "Why The F Not Theory?"


just for thought
Image/photo

For the longest, would seem to me most folks in the world have functioned on the basis of [url=http://web.archive.org/web/20180130131531/http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm]Hegelian dialectics[/url]...
That is to say dualist choices of dilemma...
“good” or “evil”, “choose lesser of two evils”, and/or often paired with expectations of “now that you have ‘some’ knowledge, suspend any need for ‘understanding’ and just give ‘faith’ in this external whatever that granted you some knowledge” (in other words, a promotion toward both superstition and faith in some third party king alien presidential scientist cult of personality god thing whatever). It is here theorized that the split between these "good" or "evil" dilemma mindsets resulted in a sum of "Evily good" results and where we globally stand in the current.....some would argue this was purposely done by elites, some would say it came by chance draw, some would say it's actually what folks want, but I would argue, "If in a bunch of Evily good, and Evily good sucks? WHO THE FU CARES WHO'S FAULT IT IS! GET ON WITH THE GETTIN OUT OF THE EVILY GOOD!"

So opposing Hegelian dialects per the Evily good results, I’d lean toward “probably” the only good dilemma is when the dilemma is one of “If I put time toward one excellence it may negate chance to experience another excellence.” Basically, as opposed to a “win”/“lose” dilemma, there’s a “win”/“win”.
“Do I take time to play around on flying skateboards with the gang or jam out on this new nifty synthesizer with the band?” could serve as a generic EXCELLENT dilemma in my case. “Do we kick it having good times together while preparing food for the homeless or while building tiny homes for the homeless?” is also an Excellent dilemma I've been faced with in the past.
Image/photo

At this point it's assumed clear to the reader that most the whole darn world has entered into some bizarO nonsensical, notably as so many “fundamentals” of supposed truth have been ripped out from under the carpet.
Try reasonin this "normality" out for example


Subsequently, I personally see no real reason to bother risking the NEGATIVE outcome dilemma’s of Hegelian dialectics any further…
“Be Excellent To Each Other
no fear
party on
& DO NOT OBEY”
As it looks like the sum of all those “lesser of two evils” and similar choices turned out to not much of a good Set of choices at all…
I mean, less one consider a Fuckushima that's now contaminated over 2/3rds of the ocean, completely rigged markets, a White House Jersey Shore edition, and a Hollywood and global politics meets the TMZ sex scandal show extravaganza sensible direction.... (meh, remarkably, the absurdity shows no signs of letting up from this view point either)
so maybe, just maybe consider holding out for when the “dilemma” (if it can even be called that) is actually a choice between excellent and excellent. You win, the others win, everybody wins and everyone can combine the wins for some total unimaginable WTF of wins.

OH, BUT WHAT IF THERE IS NO CLEAR PROOF TO "WIN"?
WELL HOW BOUT THEN SO WHAT?
Personally, I'd say probably best to consider "unknown uknowns" as better options than "personally learned or observed recollections of history that yield 'sucky outcome likely'". That seems to be part of what goes along with excellent anyway, no one quite totally saw the excellent coming, so when it came, IT WAS EXCELLENTLY EXCITING.
I'll never forget seeing , it was AMAZING! But ya know, watching others do it since, while cool, was never quite the same as that first surprise of EXCELLENT! I even more so love that about jamming/improving with other artists, we have no real idea of what's coming.... Seems there's always some surprise to when MOST EXCELLENT happens. Some amount of "they said Excellent couldn't be done..." or "No one ever thought it possible...." and then EXCELLENT happens!
There's a certain amount of daring that goes into achieving Excellent.
A certain amount of defiance to "the experts" (which we'll return to "experts" here shortly).
Plus anyway, when surrounded by a globe of nonsensical morans bent on
Image/photo
good chance that ones closest idea of a "Utopia" just might have to start with their self.
Plus at least that way, they can run with an honestly true excuse of
"Hey, I took no part in these shenanigans, not pointin any fingers, jus sayin ya actually truly can completely and totally blame some else for once."
lot of people tend to love pointin fingers these days, anywhere but at self, it seems. Pointin no fingers n just folks given an honest "I don know what ya talkin about, I was off over here tryna be excellent n had no part in such shenanigans" may be a nice change of pace n tempo.

So in moments like these, when so much "supposed" truth of the world has been flipped on it's head, when so much HIStory has been proven false, may be it's a good moment to change course, and when some part of you is going “wait, something feels funny about this course I'm on, I don’t understand, and no one's bringing me to understand”, consider that a sign you may have entered into the Hegelian dialectic and rather than “choose” within the very construct that's brought us all into whatever this WTF of global historical nonsense shite is, maybe just ignore that Set of choices… like seriously, DO NOTHING, walk past it, ignore it, presume lack of promoting the action won't yield any worse results than carrying through with the action, whatever. Consider maybe, just maybe, there’s actually a “Be Excellent” choice that’s being overlooked and hold out for it because, eh, "why the fu not?"

Now, perhaps something else to consider in this age of "WTF bullocks"....
It seems the devil tends to be in the details…
That is, whole lot of devilOPments seemed to come out of unnecessarily over complicating stuff.
May be grant some partiality to the idea that the first sign of a great teacher isn't some academic degree out WTF academia, but instead the ability to explain the most complex of things to a 5 year old simply and to the extent they can demonstrably repeat observable results (may be consider any confusions on the kids part a show of how inept the teacher was). May be worth also considering that Truth tends to be direct and not in need of a bunch of complicated whatevers.
Western law stands as a great example of what I mean here…
Lot of people went to law school for “higher” education, lot of those even got PHds, and it all lead to pages upon pages upon pages of laws with legal declarations of things like:
“Pizza is a vegetable and you can have a conversation with a currency note.”
(seriously, both are U.S. laws..... as is IBM and Walmart being biological homo-sapiens. talk about some serious WTF?)
All that education and all those details just to reach obvious nonsense.
Expert level nonsense at that..... and there's plenty of obvious expert level nonsense to go around these days.

With so many “fundamentals” of supposed truth and HIStory now obviously wiped off the table for anyone that cares to bother looking in nearly any direction, rather than pretending everything is remotely normal or that ones favorite Set of cult of personality has it ALL remotely figured out, maybe, just may be, NOW is as good a time as any to drop superstitious faiths, look to recognize Hegelian dialectic dilemmas, and where such appear (or even "feel" likely), just not even bother with them beyond pointing them out as possible light grenades.

Just an idea…
just food for thought…
nothing but silly theory on how to may be get on to some excellent....
but admittedly, i’m just an idiot noise architect/musician lookin out for some be excellent....
at very best I know a whole lot ABOUT VERY LITTLE; Set as a great General go to for likely nonsense
my opinion is also admittedly biased and also probably not fair
so by all means, I myself highly suggest



#2018 #UnderstandingArchitecture #ConspiracyTheory #Illuminati #Academia #Government #Economics #Money #CryptoCurrency #Bullockschain #Experts #Environment #Business #Icons #Saviour #Aliens #Jesus #Daemons #Angels #God #Gods #Faith #IllumiNaughty #BeExcellentToEachOther #NoFear #Love #Truth #WTFTheory #DoNotObey #WTFN
 

Commentary: My $200,000 #Debt Should Not Disqualify Me For #Governor of #Georgia



source: http://fortune.com/2018/04/24/stacey-abrams-debt-georgia-governor/

#money #politics #usa #news

Commentary: My $200,000 Debt Should Not Disqualify Me For Governor of Georgia

If elected, Stacey Abrams would be the first black female governor in the U.S.
 
Image/photo
#FunFact: #Minions is the first non-Disney animated film that earned more than $1 billion worldwide.

You see, #capitalism is all about #money and not good #movies.
 

Comptroller: #Pentagon’s First #Audit Will Be Worth Its Nearly-$1B Pricetag



source: http://www.defenseone.com/business/2018/03/pentagons-first-audit-will-be-worth-its-nearly-1b-pricetag-comptroller/146573/
#Defense Undersecretary and Comptroller David #Norquist—under questioning by Senate Budget Committee members seeking efficiencies and defense budget reforms—said the price of $367 million in contract audit costs just in fiscal 2018 is about 1/30th of 1 percent of the Pentagon’s #budget. That is “less than what Fortune 100 companies such as General Electric, Proctor & Gamble and International #Business Machines Corp. pay their auditors,” he said.
#military #finance #usa #politics #news #money #bureaucracy

Comptroller: Pentagon's First Audit Will Be Worth Its Nearly-$1B Pricetag

At a Senate hearing, DoD's David Norquist defended the cost of the first-ever financial accounting and provided new details about the effort.
 
Image/photo

What's The Color of #Money?



->
 
newer older