What's Your Hottest Take?
Was recently asked this and fumbled around without answering.. was curious what y'all come up with.
Trending Content
Career Resources
WSO Free Modeling Series - Now Open Through
May 31, 2024
9 Free Financial Modeling Lessons
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
Republicans, democrats, its all the same. They continue to work together to create conflict for Americans to obsess about, and the media doubles down on it so that the truly important issues can be swept under the rug. Democrats and republicans work hand in hand to make Americans hate one another, get nothing done, all the while the politicians continue to get richer and pass policies that benefits those who fund them (e.g., lobbyists and large corporations). Did you notice how all the big companies came out of the pandemic stronger, yet it was the mom and pop shops that all permanently shut down?
The government wants you to focus on less important issues (e.g., any social issue) and to disagree with 50% of America when in reality, 95% of us all agree on the same core issues. We all agree that family is extremely important, that upward mobility matters, education is key for success, and that the healthcare system is fucked. The government uses shit like Roe v. Wade to distract the American people from the much more important issues at hand (e.g., inflation through the roof, no one can afford anything, minimum wage has been the same for 30 years, majority of Americans living paycheck to pay check).
When republicans are throwing up their hands at democrats and vice versa is when the politicians are happiest. Also the news now is so completely censored it is basically just the government hinting at the conclusion they want you to reach. All news is fucked and unreliable.
Republicans and Democrats rely on each other heavily to make sure that each party doesn’t need to fulfill ideas that they proposed. If a certain party stayed in power for too long, the people would lose trust because these parties never intended to fulfill many of the laws they promised. Instead, both parties blame their inefficiency on the short terms that each president gets. Overall, I agree and think that politics hurts the country a lot
Incredibly based. We've even reached a weird meta now where just saying this will have the intellectual dregs (don't want to get specific but think places that rhyme with "schmeddit") screech that you can't possibly say "both sides" are bad, you must pick red/blue team!
Since we’re on WSO you might as well throw in that politicians provide cover for increased offshoring by PE firms + wage compression/increased prices via market consolidation through M&A activity and an increased concentrated investment in real estate (consolidation via property management companies) leading to poorer service and higher prices. People know things are getting worse, but they don’t know why it’s getting worse.
Wrong forum kid. High finance is paradise! I don’t care what impact I’m having on the world.
How would you have the news do better?
Well for one I would diversify the news stations so that the majority aren't owned by 7 massive media conglomerates. Further, I would have more truly independent and politically neutral sources (e,g., BBC News in the UK). I would also focus much more on the data.
Imagine a news sources that called out both parties for the absurdly ludicrous policies and decisions made. Bush, Obama, Trump, have all made plenty of careless or hasty decisions yet find me one news source that calls out both sides equally.
News today is made to trigger readers, further cementing thier positional alignment with one party or the other. The allegedly non-biased services do a horrendous job of hiding it.
I tend to agree with economist Tyler Cowen we have at best 800 years before nuclear war wipes out most of humanity (not total extinction). I believe he put it best when he said something like, "It's a small probability event, but given enough time it will happen... Acquiring/building nukes will become cheaper/easier as the clock ticks, and you can't always beat Hitler."
Other random hot takes:
- Climate change is a problem, but not even close to being a true existential threat (Not even a hot take, I think this is just common sense to anyone who's done some digging, but to people who are not as familiar, they might see this as crazy).
- Humans won't be able to solve AGI, because it requires understanding the brain at a level I don't see possible. Solving the perception problem may actually be unsolvable, people argue on this though. A conclusion that I have drawn from this, is that Elon's attempt at full-self driving, will fail, if he is attempting to solve it in the way that attempts to build human-like perception in silicon form, which he began indicating in 2021/2022 ("Need to solve biological neural networks"). There will be too many edge cases that ANNs will not be able to solve. Solving intelligence, which is different than solving perception, is also incredibly difficult. I think it's possible but not likely to happen within the next century.
- China will invade Taiwan before the end of 2024. (not that much hot of a take).
- One really hot take just for fun... US and Canadian electrical grid will be taken out within next 100yrs due to a solar flare (fairly common event), even though we have the money and time to upgrade our grid to withstand such an event. Lack of incentive / inability to move quickly with bureaucracy means if there is such an event, we won't be prepared. Consequences of an event would be near catastrophic.
Agree with the rest of your points but curious why you think China invading taiwan is not much of a hot take… what evidence do you have? Genuinely curious
I don't think it's a hot take, not necessarily because of a high percentage probability of this occurring, but because its rather talked about a lot and not really an original take. I am also not crazy knowledgeable about the situation, but am informed by my reading and fascination with the history of Communism in China (as well as Russia).
Only "evidence" that exists is Xi Jinping's statements on the matter itself. Take this for example, from his July 2021 speech at the celebration of CCP's 100 year anniversary. "Resolving the Taiwan question and realizing China’s complete reunification is a historic mission and an unshakable commitment of the Communist Party of China. It is also a shared aspiration of all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation. We will uphold the one-China principle and the 1992 Consensus, and advance peaceful national reunification. All of us, compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, must come together and move forward in unison. We must take resolute action to utterly defeat any attempt toward “Taiwan independence,” and work together to create a bright future for national rejuvenation. No one should underestimate the resolve, the will, and the ability of the Chinese people to defend their national sovereignty and territorial integrity." Some argue that his use of peaceful national reunification, means war is not inevitable. I completely disagree. Xi and CCP do not prefer war, but are definitely prepare to go there if Taiwan will not submit, and they most certainly will not.
Besides his remarks, increasing build up of military activity in the south china sea is also a pretty worrisome sign. Moreover, I don't think people understand Xi's commitment to Communism. He is a true admirer and scholar of Stalin and Mao (this is terrifying). Taiwan is essentially a fully operating liberal democracy, which is the antithesis to where Xi and the CCP are headed. Xi also understand that he is operating on a timeline as well. Niall Ferguson makes this point I believe, maybe Matt Pottinger (not positive, don't quote me on this one), but if the US is serious about protecting global democracy we will take what we learned from Russia/Ukraine and begin arming Taiwan immediately. I think it was yesterday or today, that China got pissed and demanded we cancel our $100mm weapons/arms deal with Taiwan we just passed last week. So, it is to Xi's advantage to strike sooner than later, as the longer he takes, the more the US can strategize and actually arm Taiwan. Moreover, economic outlook does not look favorable for either country, in my view this will lead US to strongly consider not engaging in another war or at least hesitate, and, I also don't remember where I heard this but I thought it was a strong point (Ferguson or Pottinger probably, they are my go to on China/Russia)... China's growth will inevitably slow, and I think that's happening now, and this will lead Xi to base the legitimacy of the CCP on nationalism leading to the showdown of Taiwan. (I think you can find this argument in one of the hoover institute goodfellows podcasts, I think they had one based solely on China)
Besides the arguments from others above that have persuaded me, I don't think we have enough leverage to deter China from invading. My personal view is that, taking into account what I said above, I believe China knows that if it were to invade Taiwan tomorrow, at this moment the US may hesitate and not be fully committed to an all out war.
Militarily, arguments from both sides who think the war will and won't happen, seem to both agree that Taiwan will put up a fight but nothing compared to Ukraine. I don't have the expertise to speak on this, but something to consider.
Am mainland Chinese, anyone in China knows what xjp (the fact that I’m typing in shorthand you know whom I’m talking about) is up to. The guy changed constitutions and basically made himself sitting on the spot indefinitely. Dude is up to something big, and as far as I recall, the slogan kids (also me) growing up kept being taught was “for the grand revitalization of Chn”. So yea, reclaiming TW is very imminent.
On the climate change point, can you point me in the direction of papers or articles that can lead you to this opinion? Hoping to do some digging myself.
You can download either the summary, technical, or full IPCC report from the link I attached below. I spent nearly a month going through the 2021 IPCC report last year. Here is the most updated (2022 report), which admittedly I haven't read, but from what I've read about the report, no significant developments have been made. Important to note that the IPCC simply reviews the scientific literature, but does not make any policy recommendations. Watch out for when reading about scenarios, as lots of them assume worse case without human action. IPCC website: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
Again, I'd like to highlight I am not denying that man-made emissions are contributing to a rise in global warming. Climate change is real, but it is certainly not the end of the world or a climate 'crisis'. I also think the policies of climate change / green advocates is and will continue to have more negative side effects than climate change. (see Sri Lanka article below. and German fiasco). Most of the risks climate change poses, we can easily easily easily adapt to.
Here are some other books I found persuasive:
https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Climate-Change-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/164293…
https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions/dp/15416474…
https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950…
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp…
This guy isn't a scientist and has conflicts of interest with oil, but he is well informed and I found his book pretty eye-opening: https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels/dp/1591847443/ref=asc_df…
Here is a debate where you can listen to both sides of the arguments:
Really good podcast between a former climate activist and a famous physicist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnxz8ek5VtY
Other videos: / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy3EiaP4Y3Y&t=5s
Here is a good and recent example of how the effects of our climate policies will be worse than climate change: https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/green-dogma-behind-fall-of-…
Another example: Germany Green Party essentially succeeded in shutting off their only clean and plentiful energy source, nuclear powerplants, (if someone is serious about climate change and they don't advocate for nuclear they're just virtue signaling). Then they shut down the majority of their coal plants (keeping only a few open), because they thought they could solely rely on renewables and Russian O&G. Russian O&G accounted for 60% of Germany's energy mixture, which by the way is the dirtiest (emits more C02) produced O&G in the world. Now, since their renewable sources (wind and solar) are unreliable (why? Cause sometimes the sun goes away and we can't store as much energy as needed, and sometimes there is no wind, who would've thought?), they resorted to turning back on their coal fire plants which is the 3rd dirtiest source of energy next to burning wood and literal shit. So not only did they manage to increase their own country emissions by turning on their coal fire plants after decommissioning the reliable and plentiful energy that nuclear could have brought them, Russia had the leverage to cut supply jacking up O&G prices (and this doesn't effect just Germany, they were the EU's biggest supplier of energy as well). The lack of energy supply isn't just like an ahh shucks gas is fucking expensive as shit, these supply problems ripple everywhere increasing prices of almost everything, like production of food. I wouldn't dare make total causal claims about this, but these effects have and will negatively impact the funding and food allocation for the upcoming famine this fall, specifically in African nations (ex., Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kenya.), where who knows how many thousands are about to starve to death. Meanwhile, the US is so saturated with green idiot policies that our government would rather kill energy projects (ex. O&G lease project in Alaska, multiple oil refinery projects being shut down) to appease climate alarmists, while simultaneously reaching out to fucking Venezuela (which may produce dirtier oil than Russia) and Saudi Arabia (not familiar with quality of their oil, would assume they skip some corners though).
Climate change is a problem but it's not an existential threat. Be skeptical of anyone who attributes some random weather event (forest fire, hurricane, etc.) to being caused by climate change.
(del)
interesting take--and I think I agree for the most part.. kinda along the lines of an Ayn Rand argument
I think this is really dumb, everyone is acting out of pure self interest already.
Yeah, horrible take.
delete
yeah no
I thought most normal people with basic empathy went through their Ayn Rand phase between 14-19?
Just because her novels are entertaining don't make them childish. So easy to dismiss them as childish because they're popular amongst young people, when in reality they're only popular amongst ambitious and smart young people-- the rest are sitting around watching tik toks about socialism and being 'empathetic'.
Besides, Ayn Rand's books are far more complex in reading level than comparable works of philosophical fiction of the era, such as 1984, The Stranger, Brave New World, you name it. A 5 year old could read Bukowksi's ramblings. To Kill a Mockingbird and the Great Gatsby are exceptionally popular assigned reading in middle schools and high schools, do you dismiss them as garbage? They are considered to be some of the greatest books ever written. Many would say the same about Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead (so long as they're not liberals). What 'phase' are you in? Do you sit around reading Heidegger and subscribe to his philosophy because it's the most impenetrable and requires a PhD to understand? Didn't think so. Or do you subscribe to no philosophy, and are just tearing down others for actually having one of their own?
Your local college ancap...
Ppl think they're acting in their self-interest, when in reality, they're not
IB is a better career than buyside for 90% of people who go into banking (better hours and easier competition than most PE and better risk adjusted pay/downside protection than HF or VC)
big4 TAS is even better, using the same logic: can cruise and push any work down the pipe, will never get fired, can collect solid checks, can pick any city to live and move around as much as you want within and outside of US (you can make $300k living in Cincinnati and live like a king or even choose some small town in California, Florida, South).
at what level at you making $300K in Big 4 TAS in Cincinnati?
https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forum/off-topic/what-are-your-hot-takes
People tend to overstate the importance of being at no. 1 anything or make everything a binary option (for example if you go down path A you’ll get 100% of the success whereas path B will get you 0%).
I have always found that this meant there was way better risk reward with something ranked second vs. ranked once - specially in a field as competitive as this. Let me highlight it below:
I could have applied to a target vs. non-target but I knew just getting into a target would have meant I probably wouldn’t have gotten a full-ride and or I wouldn’t have gotten in if I said I needed scholarship. Vs my non-target where I got the top-level scholarship offered to incoming students. There were a program where I could have either applied to the target or my non target. I selectively chose non target since my risk reward was so much better. I know multiple perfect scorers on SAT/ACT with great leadership ECs etc who didn’t even get into the target let alone get the scholarship. I survived that to get to the stage where I could recruit for IB where instead of having to compete with tons of hardcore finance bros I was literally the big fish in the pound (vs. being near the lower half of the applicant pool at a target) all because I went for the no. 2 not no. 1.
Here I could have gone for the glamorous groups but I realized many of the people avoid the niche groups (FIG / O&G) so I actually made a case to pursue those opportunities because again the risk reward was there. I got into the top group of the niche coverage which wouldn’t have been possible otherwise but because people look down on these opps I could break in at a level higher than if I went for the best coverage. I am at the top of my class again. People get MF exits from my group too and I can always lateral out if I want but again focusing on no. 2 here allowed me to compete at a higher level than if I focused on say no. 1.
My hot take is people so fiercely focus on no. 1 that sometimes no. 2 is the better option (it almost always flies much more under-the-radar) since iyou can get so much more out of it for the same level of input.
End of hot-take.
Kudos to you for breaking in from non-target and getting top of your class. I believe this approach works in certain instances, however, in the moment looking forward, you will not always know for certain that it will be a better choice to take a full ride at let's say GWU over Georgetown, or take FIG/O&G over TMT/C&R. For all you know, there could have been many others who also tried taking the less competitive option but had very different results (ended up in back office rather than IB, burned out from miserable lifestyle in FIG etc.)
Yeah, I get you - I am not saying going to a non-target is better. It's all relative - and obviously a hot-take thus the comment - but I think anyone who's cut out for the target (or the 1st choice path) but not necessarily at the top of that pack, should highly consider going down the 2nd path. Let me try and illustrate it in the example below:
Goldman recruits on campus at both Wharton and Hamilton. Now there's a student who got into Wharton and Hamilton both, but he's in the bottom half of the students at Wharton - say either he has below average GPA, SAT, has a couple of internships lined up (obviously he won't know this before freshman year) but not IB or not at a BB like some of the other, most competitive Wharton kids. A kid like that - someone who's competitive enough to get into a target but not at near the top of the pack, I would say he's the type of kid who should go down path B. In this example, on a per-capita basis (with those applying for IB positions as the base) hamilton probably gets just as many GS placements as Wharton if not more. However, at Wharton, that kid would be a middle-of-the-road candidate amongst extremely competitive, hungry students. Not saying Hamilton is full of dumb people (it has a very smart student body) but a guy of Wharton's caliber is probably gonna be at the very top at Hamilton, and holding all else equal will have a much higher chance of landing that very same opportunity from Hamilton than if he was enrolled at Wharton. You become the bigger fish in a much smaller, less competitive pond, and that guy who got into the 1st rank place, will still place/do extremely well even from the 2nd choice place - except now he gets to shine.
Similarly for other choices, etc. Hope that example better illustrates my thoughts.
Thank you. I had to turn down an ivy for cost reasons and your story is inspiring.
This is a great take
Based af
Wind and Solar are bullshit
Can you elaborate on why solar is bullshit?
Probably recycling problem. Front page story on WSJ or Bloomberg today
Solar is bullshit if we think it can be the or one of the main components of our energy composition, just like wind turbines (those from Texas should understand this), they are way too unreliable. Moreover, we are unable to store the energy (battery physics are not there yet), massive land requirements which people will rightly be against. Smaller issue, from LA times article just the other day, on solar panels, "... contaminate groundwater with toxic heavy metals such as lead, selenium and cadmium." I.e., there is a recycling issue as well.
Hear, hear
Julio Rodriguez is mlb's next biggest star
Not THAT hot, but agree he (and Soto) could be the Cabrera-Pujols caliber hitters for the next 15 years
I don’t think we’re allowed to share those pictures here.
We should euthanize everyone over 80 (unless they can pass certain physical/mental tests)
why not over 60?
How?
...
This is already happening with the vaccines.
Jesus Christ this site has some of the dumbest people alive on it
can we count on your vote in 2024?
.
Jazz fucking sucks
The one MS is from an ex-Juilliard student "improvising" over Autumn Leaves in the Metro for the 100th time today. Unfortunately, no amount of wah-wah can make him into Miles Davis. Sad!
It's unstructured trash music!!
It's easier to fulfill your material desires than to renounce them, and a few of us have this the hard way.
Applied to IB, its easier to get into finance, sweat your ass off and pull big pay checks than to recognise it's a shitty job in current context, destroys your soul and that there are more creative and fulfilling pursuits out there that the internet has since provided us
I dig it. SB.
Netflix should change their name to Getflix just to kill the FAANG acronym
how does this not have more SBs
Why not keep FAANG, but add in the clearly missing peer, Microsoft.
I'm not much of a wordsmith, so not sure how you'd rearrange FAANG + M
🤔🤔🤔
Since Netflix is eating shit right now and Facebook has gone off the deep end, I propose Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Amazon: MAGA
Gender RE-assignment debates will be as faux pas as gay / racism within 5 years. Saying you don’t think children should have the surgery will get you fired/cancelled.
100% agree with this. Will be countless stories over the coming years of kids screaming at their parents for allowing them to make such a decision at 11 years old, which can (IMO) be attributed to the parents lack of ability to say no. I also think, sadly, there will be numerous suicide cases from kids who transitioned super early and now hate themselves for it. Entirely unsure where the idea of transitioning exploded from in the last few years, but it is almost like a fashion statement currently, and once kids realize it is permanent there are going to be serious repercussions. It's not normal, but they so desperately want the acceptance from the crowd so are cramming their ideologies down on everyone they can and screaming bigot if you disagree with them. Excited to see where midterms and '24 put us... I think most people are done with "woke" and as you stated we are already seeing people come to their senses.
What if you replaced all of your concepts with a racism concepts? Do you think people pulled their kids out of schools with brown v board?
- I think there is a lot of ideas pushed on men and women; however, there are more ideas pushed on women that end up being nonsense.
- I think if people stopped paying attention to nonsense we could make the world a better place, but, actually, people don't care that much.
I think that fact might create a glass ceiling for humans as a whole. Mustering up enough cooperation to solve problems with large negative externalities might be the "great filter" that kills off ~99% of sentient life.
I've only heard the great filter argument brought up when people discuss the lack of contact we've had with an extraterrestrial species. Tackling problems with large negative externalities like climate change might be the challenge that eliminates the vast majority of sentient life before that species can branch out via space travel.
Isn't that the whole point of the great filter in the context of extraterrestrial contact though? There hasn't been a society that is able to avoid destroying itself (either because of war or inability to work together and solve negative externalities) before they can advance enough to be travelling in deep space.
True. Let me rephrase.
I don't mean that someone such as Elon Musk should give up trying to get to Mars because people on earth are still hungry/cold/struggling. He's in the position to help get us to the next level, or perhaps, another level on the great filter summary.
I mean more, we have your average average who care more about Netflix or tic tok than whats going on in their community.
Healthcare will never be fixed regardless of how many advancements cool startups may make. The reason is because clinicians are too resistant to change despite the drastic changes in consumer/patient behavior. I would strongly stand by my experience that millennial/Gen Z clinicians care way more about being FIRE than actually improving patient care for a lower cost (my hot take). The reason why? Healthcare services is an essential service and not changing their behavior will barely have an impact on their financial bottom line. Why change when you're needed regardless of how esoteric your industry may be.
Value based care sounds like a great idea on paper but the only people doing it well are often large corporations, not small medical practices. Consolidation will eventually force these changes but with consolidation, cost of healthcare will likely continue to rise. Also will like to add clinicians get paid very handsomely via RSU/productivity bonuses if they see a ton of patients vs. improving patient care. Value-based care is a fluff term in all honesty at 90% of the companies who mention them in their mission statements/websites.
^^All they care about is volume. That's why your doctor is always rushed, he doesn't really give af ab fixing you the best way. He cares about fixing you the quickest way, even if its inferior, because all you are to them is a number that's in the way of their next revenue source
What? This is not true at all. Doctors and hospitals are currently compensated on a set fee schedule per procedure, meaning they are incentivized to drag out your stay and perform as many procedures / tests on you as possible. Providers don't have unlimited number of referral sources to be maximizing for volume like that.
Yeah I came in a bit too hot here lmao...
Race science is so hot right now. Just the right conversations to be having in 2022.
Yeah I came in a bit too hot here lmao...
This has been debunked over and over and over again, you just had to google it lol. Race is one of many factors that determine cognitive ability. I'm sure it sounded really smart in your head....
In Synposis: You are a moron
Yeah I came in a bit too hot here lmao...
Toyotas are the best cars
For what? I am very much a car nerd and when people ask me what my favorite car is I always as "for what purpose" as no one car is the best for anything. For example, if I want a truck, heck yea I'm getting a Toyota, those things are indestructible, but if I'm looking for a track car I'll get myself a Porsche or BMW.
Not a hot take
I'm a lifelong car nerd, but still love Toyota. I have a 4Runner (live near the mountains), but Lexus builds some excellent sports cars. As a car lover I can never let go of my love of Porsche, but I will still stand by the fact that the Lexus LFA might be the greatest supercar built to date.
Recycling is feelgood nonsense, with metal and glass being somewhat of an exception. But with plastic being one of the biggest issues plaguing the planet most of it isn't recyclable and often takes more energy (typically burning fossil fuels) to recycle the product than to create a new product creating essentially a net negative carbon effect instead of the purported positive outcome.
aren't there a lot of issues with recycling glass as well?
There is no such thing as a selfless act. At the rout of all charitable action there is an internal "This makes me feel good" or "This makes me look good" value attached to it.
Secretariat is the greatest athlete of all time.
(1) Larry Bird is the best basketball player of all time
(2) People who get depressed when they have free time/aren't busy don't have personalities and its a surefire way to an unfulfilling life
(3) Being in a high achieving and gifted area can be detrimental to success in early childhood for a lot of people
(4) Many minority liberals are basically as racist as white conservatives but they're "liberals" for their own interests. Also losers who have a very external loci of control are attracted to liberals. Likewise many conservatives don't really believe in what they're saying and use racism to feel better about themselves when they're mostly at the bottom of the totem pole themselves. They want merit until we bring in more Indians who are smarter than them and work harder than them and hence will replace their jobs.
(5) Intelligence/IQ is overvalued. I believe anyone over an IQ of 115 to 120 can do absolutely anything possible.
(6) The value of a social life and partying is widely overstated in our culture. Yes you need a few friends and some family support. However we're not very social animals or anything like that. For the most part we worked and lived in isolation and then congregated for important cultural congregations
(7) Patriotism and nationalism is absolute horsecrap
(8) Guns should be more regulated
(9) Investment banking attracts people with high intelligence but low academic drive. '
(10) I'm very sympathetic to most people because I feel like most of our actions are a function of our brain chemistry. Hence while some people work harder doing the hard work is easier for them just by their natural conditioning. I'm not saying this can't be changed but there is often a lot going on internally that we can't see
(11) Neuroscience and CS are the hottest fields right now. Anyone with a large brain(I'm not endowed with this) should be looking at something in those 2 things
(12) White privilege is a thing but just because white people are the majority so everything they do is kind of the default. For example white people aren't inherently more attractive even if the cultural standard is set for those features. Its just that they're the dominant culture and it benefits them in every aspect of life. Not saying this can't be overcome but this advantage is always there.
(13) Young kids should not eat things like pizza or things with excessive sugar. Those early years are a foundational period in developing your gut bacteria and will determine your default eating habits. I always cringe when I see them gorging down a pepperoni pizza.
Humans are 100% social creatures which explains the enormous growth of social media (before it became toxic as fuck) and it’s part of the reason everyone was miserable during quarantine.
True, but there is a difference between socializing and "partying". Sometimes people mistake the two for the same thing. A lot of things people use socializing as an excuse to party/drink/smoke.
What's the cure to #2?
I'm not pretending to be some wise guy but I used to kind of be like that but what worked for me was signing up for multiple different things trying them out and then learning more about them. Reading constantly about different things keeps your mind engaged and gives you direction in terms of interest. For me I got into military history, flying license, built robots, acted in plays in my town, and got into programming for leisure. Not saying anyone has to do any of those things but I always value free time because I can spend it in a high quality way(in my books) rather than sulk about not being busy.
I don't agree with #9.
Almost everyone I work with had a very high GPA but were clearly super conscientious and deliberate in playing the game, thereby making their achievements punch above the weight of their intelligence. I don't think as a bunch we are that bright.
Number 1 is an absolutely surface of the sun level hot take. Bird isnt even the conversation.
1.) The primary career motive is money for both doctors and finance professionals, but doctors are less honest with themselves about why they chose their careers (they tend to say they want to "help people"). My hypothesis is that if medical school is completely subsidized, but doctor salaries are reduced, a lot of these "helpful people" would no longer want to be doctors.
There is truth to what you say but most doctors are motivated to some degree by the fact that they're helping others and having a large impact on many people's lives. Doctors are smart enough to have gotten into finance/tech/engineering if they wanted to but chose the long route because at some level they're motivated by factors beyond money.
Majority of the doctors who went in for the money envy their friends making more in tech/finance. As someone whose friends with many, it's surprising how many of them think the grass is greener in other high paying industries. The younger generation docs care more about money vs. helping people, I know way too many to think otherwise. Maybe this was different with the older generations. But this may be more so the Gen Z/Millennial generations preferring a FIRE lifestyle by 45-50 (I admit as someone whose not a big spender, this may be a possible goal of mine down the line as well).
I agree with your points. Honestly, the older you get, or maybe as things evolve in the US, getting to become a doctor or having more education I feel is more skewed towards people who have the resources. Not saying every doctor or MBA comes from wealth, but there are a lot of people in the middle who continued education because they could afford not only the school, but basically not working/making money for years.
I'd also add, money is the driver for a lot of things. If the top salary in the NBA was $5 a year but say shovelboard was paying players millions, think of how many parents/teenagers would start practicing shovelboard.
The US driving test needs to be more difficult and everyone should be retested at a certain age. If you fail x amount of times your driving privileges should be revoked
I agree with this. Not sure if it's really a hot take though.
My hottest take is that I've moved everything into stable value. I did it about 6 months ago and while you can't time then market I'm glad I did. My money will be worth a whole lot more soon.
Old people (65+) are generally bad government leaders and shouldn’t be running this country. Idk if that’s age caps or stricter term limits but we can’t have people in office who don’t understand basic technology or are literally senile (you know who I’m talking about). Either they’re out of touch with the American population in some way or they only care about advancing the interests of other boomers. America needs a more youthful spirit (don’t interpret that as radical or naive)
Seconded. Enough with the 75 year old lawyers who practiced for a few years back in the early 70s before they became lifetime politicians insulated from the world. We need a diverse array of industries represented by a variety of accomplished leaders whose stint in politics is short-term when compared to the length of their careers. We also need term limits. Make politicians public servants again.
Agree on term limits and the diversified backgrounds
Both sides are not the same.
Only one side voted against 9/11 healthcare coverage. Only one party voted against codifying interracial marriage. As someone who's voted for my state's Republicans, I could say more, but I won't re that
I try to be a good person so,
The King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.
Only one party even pretends to care about the above.
Edit: you can add them blocking healthcare benefits to seriously injured vets to the list too.
Zyn is better than sex
GOAT post
The Brits got away with a genocide in the 1840s.
Yeah the Irish famine and Bengal famine in India were most definitely a product of the British. Look how the tables have turned as Rishi Sunak may become the next prime minister of the UK
Private equity is leveraged beta. Outside BX or a select few top shops/groups with unique/ best of best deal flow, 97% of LPs would be better of in S&P 500. For the most part, shitty investors that rely on false precision (modeling) and cheap debt.
the problem is yo probably won't see returns come down unless investment implode / default
The housing shortage (not just currently but a growing problem over the past 40 years) is the single biggest drag on US + other advanced economy growth. It inhibits productivity, skews wealth towards older and more risk-averse groups, and is a massive dampener on innovation and dynamism (people won't move when housing is so expensive/so much of their wealth is tied up in their house).
100% and it is actually in owners interest to continue to limit the opportunities to new housing developments. Thus the rise of the "not in my backyard" movement. I personally think that a lot of cities can still benefit from becoming increasing urban.
.
In terms of wso 'prestige' (I want to use it sparingly, cause it's dumb), UMM/MF PE is becoming what IB used to be and the prestige of IB has been diluted. Prestige for a job (to me) is a combination of it's exclusivity, pay, and the experiences it brings. Huge economic growth and HR hoegrams have increased the number of analysts per class at many banks and are picked from a broader set of schools. Similarly to a merger, acquiring bad talent dilutes a companies EPS. The chip on the shoulder that a lot of 'non-target hardos' carry is a lot smaller than they think (At least for IB)... I come from a school that is considered a huge non-target on this forum.
Country music is just bad rock n’ roll with pop lyrics tailored to rednecks and worse guitar. Absolutely detestable
Also- big asses only got popular from hip hop and thick girls are not as attractive as slim gitls w big boobs
Also- FT partners is the most prestigious company on earth
Lol why FT
It’s a running joke because they boosted there analyst I base to 140 but you spend your stint doing VOLUME on weird fin tech coverage stuff
very few thick/slim booty girls out there, just a lot of overweight sloppy women who think what they are is "thicc"
Technology has made it harder for us to sleep as well as breed a generation of incels and contribute to the overall decline of high society.
Pop music sucks. We’re materialistic as fuck. Designer brands suck now
Business casual is ugly and not cool
The best analysts in IB were hazed in college.
A hotdog is a sandwich and water is not wet.
Capitalism is outdated. 99% of wealthy people you see inherited it.
Citi isn’t as bad as Barclays
Moelis sweatshop rep is over blown.
Career politicians are the scum of the earth. Election cycles are more important to them than serving constituents.
No experience or amount of experience can pigeonhole someone (ie being in O&G, FIG, etc.). Only they pigeonhole themselves (aka they want to stay there instead of being unable to move out under every circumstance).
Saepe nobis asperiores vitae vitae suscipit iusto ut. Fugiat soluta in officia quo ipsa odit. Eos placeat ipsam inventore aut quia sit. Facere et est repellendus quas omnis soluta.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Similique qui et expedita eum doloremque iste. Velit sit ex voluptatem sequi placeat assumenda. Molestiae culpa quia deleniti recusandae quas sunt rerum. Iste nulla sit ipsam. Illum dolorem ea repudiandae omnis repudiandae.
Autem quis eveniet ut et. Nisi temporibus voluptatibus fugit ea dicta.
Et numquam accusantium optio eos cum aut. Suscipit praesentium quia ea accusantium. Dicta voluptas amet voluptas ratione quia veniam. Et esse corporis minus impedit saepe iste.
Impedit perspiciatis quod quae adipisci dicta quos. Voluptas quasi repellat ut eum.
Occaecati sed ducimus quia ea rerum ad. Sit error et aut vel quae in. Occaecati in harum impedit neque saepe incidunt veniam. Ipsam vero omnis maxime reprehenderit mollitia sed et. Aut nam voluptas excepturi.
Voluptates neque eius culpa quod. Nihil at et qui magni est atque commodi. Provident velit necessitatibus consequuntur aut enim nam architecto.
Aut aut aut nihil natus perspiciatis aut. Et quidem alias sunt velit voluptatem illum. Minus aut velit ducimus qui eligendi.
Cupiditate non ex ab et consequatur. Provident soluta autem itaque magni rerum blanditiis ut. Numquam enim nam quos.
Consequatur expedita fuga iure iste. Deleniti quaerat tenetur incidunt dolorem sed asperiores itaque. Similique non nihil repellat illum aut libero. Ut quibusdam in et molestiae ipsum soluta.
Amet odit tenetur ratione aspernatur impedit. Est similique corrupti omnis veritatis eligendi optio nisi. Porro sapiente odit labore molestiae. Eos qui autem at fugiat ipsam.
Qui ut ab qui vitae odio nulla temporibus. Qui necessitatibus quis rem a eius perspiciatis ea. Cum vel voluptatem animi voluptates.
Omnis et voluptas ut impedit quibusdam. Esse quia animi ut asperiores distinctio repellat sit. Dicta veritatis perferendis reiciendis laudantium cupiditate. Quia vel commodi praesentium omnis vel recusandae veniam. Et corrupti adipisci aliquid nulla qui neque atque.
Repudiandae error ullam eius qui. Quia ipsum voluptates minima consequatur ullam ut ut. Reprehenderit consequatur ab neque ab.
Ipsam ipsam ducimus possimus nobis et. Ut sed asperiores recusandae voluptatem quis quos fugiat. Dicta accusamus at optio ipsum voluptas eius aliquid itaque. Mollitia occaecati veniam mollitia placeat pariatur mollitia incidunt aut.
Nostrum perspiciatis qui officia optio sapiente. Qui accusantium vel exercitationem voluptatem iusto. In placeat aliquid cupiditate.
Sint sed magnam sed hic. Maxime odio ut consequatur quod quia molestiae. Unde laudantium occaecati ipsa sed quo. Numquam quas nulla error est mollitia praesentium. Deleniti aliquam est nemo qui sunt deserunt.
Omnis in consequatur ex tempore ea debitis omnis. Reprehenderit voluptatem maiores itaque. Qui occaecati consequuntur incidunt in facilis exercitationem pariatur. Nesciunt magnam exercitationem omnis dolores distinctio deleniti culpa. Dolore reiciendis eveniet in autem. Dolore nobis libero sit quia tenetur veritatis. Iure debitis molestias placeat natus excepturi rem dolorem.
Quia enim sint magni eum cupiditate hic dignissimos. Velit et sunt deleniti consequatur. Vitae voluptas totam nisi qui. Qui sit ut iusto esse voluptates.