Things have been going well lately, and I now have a surplus of cash for the first time in a while. Err, rather, I have both a surplus of cash and some high consistency predictable future income. That's nice! I envy all you salaried people when I think about predictable future income. Having a decent chunk of cash, but no predictable future income means you don't really have a surplus of cash.
Anyways, I was thinking of what to invest a small bit of money in, and reading some papers and analyses and such. I'm reading a mix of finance, investment, politics, diplomacy, and history lately, which makes for a nice mix. It also has me interested in the topic.
Today, I read a really fantastically convincing argument, enough so that I was immediately ready to go buy a small amount of what the author was advocating.
Then I stopped myself! Wait, the author isn't necessarily correct - he's merely convincing.
I went back through the piece I was reading, which was quite a long piece. I started counting the number of premises the author had, and it went something like this:
If A, B, C, D, E, F, then G.
If G, H, I, J, K, then L.
Therefore, invest in L.
It was super convincing. But then it dawns on me, convincing doesn't mean correct. For instance, though the author doesn't explicitly state it, two of his premises are that the United States and Chinese economies, political leaderships, objectives, and currencies are going to be doing roughly similar things over the next 20 years to how they're doing now, maybe with a little bit of change but nothing drastic.
Perhaps that's not true! I don't know much about the current governmental leadership of China, who the next projected/potential leadership is, and their thoughts and objectives. Also, American economic, political, and monetary policy can change fast, and would it really surprise anyone if 2012 or 2016 brought in someone with significantly different monetary views than recently?
So, two of the author's biggest unstated premises are that China and America will behave roughly how we expect China and America to behave over the next 20 years. And if he's wrong, the entire analysis might fall apart.
It was a super convincing argument, but there's a problem with any argument that has a lot of premises chained together - if even one premise is wrong, then the whole conclusion might be faulty.
Convincing doesn't mean correct - it just means convincing. Stay skeptical. Keep researching.
John T. Reed claims that gambling and investing are just dictionary definitions that add up to the same thing.
When you move into to an environment that is chaotic enough for changing opportunities, then you can cheat the house if you play your cards right.
I'm pretty skeptical of whether researching investments is a good idea for non-professionals. Financial speculation is fun, but you are competing against specialists who have spent their whole lives studying the subject, have teams of researchers, and are betting so much that they can afford to buy the best computers, data, etc. I think almost everyone should just buy the Vanguard Target Retirement 20X0 fund.
The exception is if you're in the startup world & you know people who you trust & respect who are doing startups, angel investing in them w/ 10%-20% of your income makes sense to me. At worst you'll lose a little money & learn a lot about who to trust & how startups work. Another is if you know a city/region/country very well and want to own property there - ownership has advantages (ie we have done extensive customization of our cohousing community here in Mountain View) and since it's such a big asset it's definitely worth researching.
Image credit: Zarah.
The RPG computer game genre stretches back 30+ years. As time passed, the complexity of missions, quests, objectives, and plot information grew and grew.
Around the late 1990's, games started having a "Journal" function - you'd press "J" and you could see a recap of information from recent important dialogs.
Before that, if you forget info - well, that's really tough...
It is often speculated that the modern human spends half of his life (or more) on the internet or connected to a screen of some sort. As we continue to go deeper into these new structures of reality and technology makes its way deeper into our workplaces how does management keep up with these ever advancing systems? How do leaders adapt to a world outside, but within our tangible existence?
There are instances in today's work places where people can be on a team together and never have met face to face. Some managers have to train their team through virtual simulation instead of with a hands-on skills they used to teach. Some of the most lucrative companies in today's market offer something called web 2.0. What does this mean for the face and practice of management?
In the Harvard Business Review blog Jim Champey (2010) makes a startling revelation about leadership in the digital age. As an executive he argues that his leadership style has not changed very much over the years even though he's more technologically connected. But he's also careful to state, "I worry more that the world of web 2.0 — and what comes after — will distract, not add, from the skill of leaders, make them more, rather than less, remote." He ends his article with the argument, "Real leadership requires relationships and personal engagement. Nothing I see in technology has yet to replace these qualities. I believe that technology will enable new business models, but not 'new leadership'."
I'm not sure this is a fair assumption.