What topic do you have a contrarian view on?
What topic do you have a contrarian view on? Specifically related to the macroeconomic landscape and/or the markets.
Mar 19, 2023Mar 19, 2023
WSO Virtual Bootcamps See all
Popular Content See all
Career Advancement Opportunities
May 2023 Investment Banking
- Lincoln International (▲01) 99.6%
- Jefferies & Company (▽01) 99.1%
- William Blair (▲12) 98.7%
- Financial Technology Partners (▽01) 98.2%
- Lazard Freres (+ +) 97.8%
Overall Employee Satisfaction
May 2023 Investment Banking
- William Blair (▲04) 99.5%
- Lincoln International (▲11) 99.1%
- Canaccord Genuity (▲18) 98.6%
- Stephens Inc (▲12) 98.2%
- Financial Technology Partners (▲09) 97.7%
Professional Growth Opportunities
May 2023 Investment Banking
- Lincoln International (▲01) 99.5%
- Financial Technology Partners (▲06) 99.1%
- Jefferies & Company (▽02) 98.6%
- Lazard Freres (▲15) 98.2%
- UBS AG (▲19) 97.7%
Total Avg Compensation
May 2023 Investment Banking
- Director/MD (6) $592
- Vice President (32) $396
- Associates (148) $260
- 3rd+ Year Analyst (11) $198
- 1st Year Analyst (279) $170
- 2nd Year Analyst (90) $170
- Intern/Summer Associate (46) $166
- Intern/Summer Analyst (205) $92
Career Resources
Leaderboard See all
| 1 | | 99.2 |
| 2 |  | 99.0 |
| 3 | | 99.0 |
| 4 | | 99.0 |
| 5 | | 98.9 |
| 6 | | 98.9 |
| 7 |  | 98.9 |
| 8 | | 98.9 |
| 9 | | 98.9 |
| 10 |  | 98.9 |
Comments (128)
i think inflation has already peaked and is tanking. inflation was mainly a supply side phenomenon and capacity is in a much better spot than a year ago. the lag in core CPI is mainly driven by the lag in measuring shelter costs.
this means jerome's historically fast rate hike could be one of the worst policy mistakes in fed history
***
do i really believe any of this bullshit ^^^? Eh, maybe a little.
I actually think inflation was more of a demand phenomena than supply tbh. The reason it's lingered has been supply but initially it was driven by the massive spike in money supply during Q3 2020 through Q1 2022 that put an excessive amount of demand on a slowly-recovering supply chain.
It's certainly true that the supply impact was there, but more of that has to do with the velocity differences between how quickly money can transfer to buy goods and how slow supply is able to respond.
In other words, no clue, I definitely stole all of this from a Bridgewater article posted back in late 2021.
Historically fast? It was his delay, as well as democrat COVID policies, that are to blame for this inflation mess. If anything it's looking more and more like a soft landing that no one thought was possible
This is what they mean by historically fast, it's the pace of the hikes themselves, not the time it took from when inflation started to beginning the hikes.
.
The Fed has to balance both the macroeconomic reality and the perceptions by the market, since inflation is both a real result of price pressure (from either demand or supply sides) and a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even if there was nothing Powell needed to do to balance out the supply/demand side of things he needed to signal strongly to the market that he was going to tackle inflation, which he has to project well past the point of needing to actually raise rates since it takes time for the FFR to propagate through the economy.
It's not an enviable position and anyone who claims this whole thing could have been solved by changing a single thing Powell did is incredibly naive in how the economy functions. Realistically, if you wanted to properly respond to all the factors going into inflation you'd also have Congress acting to slow the demand side and ease restrictions on the supply side. The Federal Reserve can't solve the entire economy using a single, extraordinarily crude tool (two of you include QE/QT).
Completely agree. However, we'd be in a much better place had the Fed started QT in summer of 2021 rather than engage in denialism.
Uh, no. From Q4 2019 to Q4 2022, deposits at U.S. banks increased $4.8 trillion. Inflation was exacerbated by supply issues, but the core of the inflation problem--as is almost always the case--is too much money chasing too few goods. Inflation almost always starts with the government's proverbial printing press.
Any explanation for why the money supply and inflation rates have never shown much correlation historically? I view this as a massive shortcoming of monetarism
This is litterally not a contrarian view. This is the mainstream view.
Also, we are nowhere near done with inflation. That is actually a contrarian view. We are going to be in a decade plus of potentially double digit inflation. The world is rapidly changing, demographics are imploding around the world. To give you an idea about how bad this is BASF and Bayer are litterally dismantling petrochemical plants in Germany and moving them to Louisiana to reassemble them just to find a workforce to operate them. We are rebuilding the industrial plant that exists in China today in the Americas. This stuff takes time. Inflation will remain high.
Interesting. The only problem with your take is that it is completely inconsistent with the entire post-industrial human experience. Otherwise no biggie.
I see your point about demographics and raise you technological innovation. Specifically automation, machine learning, and AI. These things exist to relentlessly drive down costs.
short term trends are hard to predict. But long term trends are easy.
So it was in fact transitory in your opinion or at least mot absurd to have guessed it would be?
idk I just know definitions rn and concepts and will have very opinionated views after my first year in ny most likely. Obviously I can do excel model, power point short cut booooby but not too sure, I watch cnbc and just trust them and the reports i read from whatever company in nyc
I have two (I might be a retard, but these theories underpin a lot of how I think about modern banking)
These things aren't necessarily bad, but I think crucial for understanding how modern banks work and I am consistently shocked how many folks in this industry will violently disagree with me on certain points because there is a knee jerk reaction against "nationalization" versus "whatever the fuck we call this thing we are in that looks very similar to nationalization".
Any answer that gets a lot of SB's and no MS is not a good answer to this question
So ... what does this mean for your comment
Contrarian View: They're doing this on purpose to push CBDCs onto us.
There are many reasons as to why they are doing this but I couldn't agree more that they are doing this to push CBDC.
Taking an activist approach to setting rates is a fools errand in general. The same people who failed to see inflation coming, were wrong about the magnitude and persistence of it, then turn around and act like they have the tool set to control and direct the economy and CPI. If these guys could control the economy with any reasonable degree of success we would have never realized 10% inflation to begin with. They're going to keep grasping at straws though, and causing collateral damage through zealous rate hikes, until supply-side inflation organically subsides and then they'll act like it was the rate hikes that did it and pat themselves on the back.
It was a supply issue to begin with, jerking rates to high heaven was never going to help anything.
As I mentioned above, U.S. bank deposits increased $4.8 trillion from fourth quarter 2019 to fourth quarter 2022, and most of that happened in the first 2 years. How on Earth could we possibly interpret inflation as a supply problem when the federal government/Federal Reserve created so much money in such a short span of time? Inflation was obviously a demand-side problem.
You can generate outside returns by investing in anti-ESG companies given restrictions other institutions have.
Ie - buying at more attractive price due to fact other institutions cannot touch the stock. While there's no catalyst for valuation re-rate, you somewhat limit your downside and are entitled to greater share of earnings for price paid (potential dividends).
Long Altria….
Nice "outside" returns
LOL
wait til you learn about dividends in your finance class at rutgers. Gonna blow your mind.
That oil and gas are dead/dying and that renewables are a viable replacement.
Studies show that it takes more carbon production to manufacture, transport, and assemble most solar panels and wind turbines. As in the net carbon effect of utilizing them over liquified natural gas is negative (costs more carbon to produce than it saves in pollution during its useful life).
All of these ESG, Greta Thurnburg, anti-oil types rarely understand the science behind energy. That's the reason why California suffers so many blackouts and brown outs - it made too much of it's electrical grid reliant on renewable "clean" energy sources that are variable at best. Oftentimes if it's even a cloudy day California is forced to buy electricity from Nevada (who uses natural gas turbine facilities by the way), essentially making any "strides" in green energy obsolete. Basically it's just for California libs to make themselves feel good, and does nothing for the environment on a harm reduction level. Don't believe me? California has been the largest net importer of electricity in the U.S for YEARS
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46156
The whole selling point of "EVs are better for the environment" is pointless if the electricity you are using to charge them come from carbon producing power plants. These soy boys are just substituting one thing for another, and usually the other produces more carbon in the whole process (manufacturing a car produces a LOT of emissions and greenhouse gasses, and most of these production factories are in third-world countries).
Renewables are not profitable either - the whole industry would not exist without the substantial government subsidies given to them.
The only realistic, purely scientifically proven method of converting our energy system to one that is more green is through thorium-based nuclear power, but then NIMBY and old nuclear policy (why the U.S still uses uranium when thorium, which is used in Indian plants, is much safer and cheaper) kicks in.
Am i saying that I don't believe in global warming? No. Am I saying that I am oblivious to the harmful affects on society that carbon-based energy has? No. Am I saying that it really pisses me off when people and politicians and policy makers roll out all these "green initiatives" that don't do dick besides make themselves feel better, and actually contribute MORE to the problem because they don't understand the basics of energy science and economics? Ab-so-fucking-lutely.
Yes with all the limitless lithium available to mine to support these endeavors. Let me
know how it goes
Don't even know which side your take is on anon. Battery technology has stalled out
Nuclear is the best baseline power. Uranium or Thorium. And of course who is shutting down nuclear and feeling the consequences? Yes, there's been some bad examples of what can happen, but let's not forget that coal actually is more radioactive. And despite the bad examples, ultimately the K/D ratio of nuclear is one of the lowest. I think maybe hydro is about the only contender for lowest?
Edit to add: Oil & gas are also how we get this magical thing called plastics.
Did you type all this without even looking up how much said forms of energy cost?
Renewables are the cheapest form of energy. Unsubsidized renewables became cheaper than fossil fuels in 2019 back when fossil fuels were insanely cheap.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewable-energy-…
Nuke plants are the most expensive form of energy. They have never, ever been profitable, and Thorium as an energy source has never had widespread use.
Finally, which life cycle analyses are you looking at that show that wind and solar produce more carbon emissions than LNG? The UN's life cycle analysis shows that fossil fuels produce orders of magnitude more carbon.
https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/LCA-2.pdf
Renewables are variable - can't be used for base load, so good luck integrating an energy infrastructure with it..
This graph is misleading - the formula is lifetime costs divided by lifetime production.
Renewables' produce less energy per unit (hydrocarbons are much more energy dense, more efficient to transport at a large scale). Because renewables produce far less energy on output, it would be cheaper on a lifetime production basis given the lesser gross energy output. This is also a dumb statistic to use - no input assumptions are given on what a new power plant costs is here.
Idk if using a graph supplied by the Renewable Energy Association is the best unbiased source to use in a discussion on energy - I'm not out here using data supplied by B.P or Chevron. If renewables are really cheaper to use than hydrocarbons, explain the latest LLNL flowchart on U.S energy usage (don't worry, for MY sources I use a bunch of scientists with no horse in the race).
If we live in a free, capitalist market, and renewables are cheaper to use than hydrocarbons, why as money-loving Americans have we allocated less than 10% of our energy output to renewables? Because it's simply not true. If it was cheaper, we would have done it.
Did you type all of this up without reading the 1st sentence? Yes. Congrats, you can look in the mirror now.
The US will slowly lose its status as the top world superpower because of its immigration policy. The only way to fix our current labor problems and upcoming demographic crisis is to encourage unlimited immigration a la the Gilded Age but this country has become so incredibly nativist that Ronald Reagan would be chased out of the room as a socialist if he tried to run today.
Facts. "Anti immigration" should be called "Anti cheap labor" politics.
Not even cheap labor - the number of incredibly smart scientists, researchers, developers, etc. who take their contributions elsewhere because of our restrictive system is insane. Imagine if every Russian had the option of moving to the US - how long before there is a complete brain drain that cripples their future and secures ours? Or for that matter China or Japan or Brazil?
In 2022, the United States had record illegal border crossings with zero violent resistance and barely an outcry from the press or the public, and the political party championing it won a resounding mid-term victory in November. You interpret that as "has become so incredibly nativist"? The Italians were the victims of the worst mass lynching in history in the 19th century. THAT'S called nativism. Get a freakin' grip on reality.
Sounds good, let's pass amnesty for undocumented immigrants like Reagan.
China has the lowest proportion of foreigners in the whole world, and Russia's immigration system is basically bringing in slave labor from the stans (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc.) that have even more corrupt leaders than Putin. So I don't think the US's adversaries have an advantage here at all.
My contrarian view is that there should be no central bank with control over interest rates - these should be set by market supply/demand for capital. Keynesian economics is dead and MMT is certainly not a better solution.
Lowering rates below the market rate causes malinvestment, eventually necessitating a contraction like what we are seeing now. Likewise, raising rates above the market rate restricts growth and discourages long-term supply investment, causing long-run inflation given that more dollars will chase fewer goods.
FDIC also just proved that banks can do whatever the hell they want because the $250K rule is dead. Sure, your bank might go belly-up, but you may also not be the first to go and can snatch a bailout before getting taken over by the FDIC.
The U.S. effectively had no central bank until the early 20th century, and the one we had in the early 19th century was weak and unsophisticated. During the 19th century, the U.S. suffered endless deep and abiding recessions/depressions. Just look at this list and the deep, brutal declines in economic activity that constantly went on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States&n…;
A central bank in itself can't create a robust economy, and bad central banking can prevent strong economic growth. But compare the period of 1836 to 1907 and 1945 to 2023. It's not even comparable. A sophisticated central banking system, though deeply flawed, is much preferable to a non-central banking system that endures endless financial panics and economic collapses.
Your opinion is contrarian and also wrong.
You lay out a strong case
The UK economy is a Swiss 2.0 economy. Its main economic power resides in its wealth management laws that attracts foreign investors. Not only Russian oligarchs were covered until the Ukranian war, but there are also currently UAE/Chinese/Latin American millionaires and billionaires that keep their wealth in UK banks and assets and Government is well-aware of that. Only if political tensions between UK and those countries happen, they will disclose the illegal sources of those funds and expropriate their money and goods.
Not sure this is controversial? Everyone knows the UK is pretty much a hedge fund propping up an otherwise dying economy.
Have a few friends from the gulf states (none are sheikhs, but some are close relatives to a few minor ones), and the UK is getting less attractive by the day for them.
Why? And relative to what else?
.
why
.
If the S&P doesn't trade down to the mid-to-high 2000s in the next 18-24 months we will have a lost decade+ in the market. Markets have never traded literally flat over such a long period of time.
The scenario for a lost decade has always looked like one of the following:
A) The 1972-1987 "lost decade" example: The market starts at a really high baseline bubble level. This leads to a deep bear market over 2-3 years (40%+). Afterward, it takes many years to claw back to the initial level, or...
B) The 1995-2009 "lost decade" example: The market starts at attractive levels. This leads to a long multi-year bull market with maybe some cyclical corrections in between. Then some catalyst causes a crash back to the initial level.
What the market has never done is start at generational bubble valuations as we saw in Q4 2021--have a run-of-the-mill 20-25% correction--and immediately afterward reinflate back to generational bubble valuations.
The above observations taken together lead me to believe that markets will experience an additional 25-35% decline/crash in the next 18-24 months.
I am pretty sure the market will go down 5% for once over the next 10 years
My contrarian view is that contrarian views are stupid
nearly 100% of forecasters/market strategists (without AUM)/investment writers are one or more of the following - full of shit, have track records that are either bad or lucky, lack skin in the game, are unaware that they're lucky and/or full of shit
nearly 100% of M&A is only accretive to executives and people with stock options, rarely is it good for the company long term
less than 10% of ER analysts are worth listening to, nearly 0% are aware that they're terrible
knowing the direction of the economy will not help you become a more successful investor
ESG is total bullshit, we'll be using O&G for at least another 100 years
the market value of all companies adjacent to advertising (DIS, VIAC, GOOG, META, SNAP, etc.) is orders of magnitude higher than the actual value delivered by advertising. if this is ever discovered, entire industries will be erased
private equity and private credit are mostly bullshit - the IRRs that are posted, while calculated correctly, are a mirage. net IRR rarely matches investor experience which is why there's such a gap between MOIC and what you'd expect with a certain IRR. fake valuations/return smoothing give LPs the false sense of lower volatility and good returns. it's a very efficient vehicle for enriching PE employees with carry, GPs, and PWM types who hawk the stuff with reckless abandonment, but adjusted for vol and on a total portfolio level, most investors would do well to steer clear
bonds are riskier than stocks
real estate success is largely due to declining interest rates, growth in housing prices due to gov't imposed supply constraints, and leverage rather than fundamental increases in property value and cash flows like an equity. possible to make money by luck and leverage, but better for GPs thanLPs (like PE industry)
watching/reading financial news will make you a worse investor
non-economic related
over 90% of the pharma industry is bullshit and is basically selling bandaids to people who should either be allowed to die or just didn't take care of themselves. outside of bad luck, 99% of ailments (including some genetic, because good behavior changes your genes) can be avoided with the right lifestyle (low stress, physical and mental exercise, good diet, good sleep, good social bonds). nearly 100% of the top most prescribed drugs address conditions that are entirely preventable with lifestyle changes (HBP, high cholesterol, etc.)
there are no differences between republicans and democrats who have been in washington over 10 years, they have one policy position - maintaining power and scaring average citizens
IQ is bullshit
meyers briggs is bullshit
there will never be peace in the middle east and the US would be better off to let that part of the world sort itself out without intervention
with limited exception, people are born neither good nor evil, but a complicated combination of their experiences, choices, and circumstances
every war the US started/got involved in since WW2 has had no purpose and was a net negative to society, ike was right (still long NOC & RTX doeee)
regardless of what the US and EU do, and regardless of the % impact is due to humans, climate change will not change until china, india, and africa change their take. until then every single policy is creating waste without any gain to the world
the advice on sunscreen is mostly wrong
vitamins and supplements are bullshit
ultra endurance athletes are making a mistake with their training intensity likely leading to increased incidence of arterial stiffness and adverse cardiovascular events later in life. just like the human body wasn't meant to be 100lbs overweight mouth breathing and shoveling doritos, we also weren't meant to run 50, much less 100 miles at a time
Bonds are riskier than stocks? How?
Volatility is not risk, inflation/currency devaluation is, ergo bonds have a greater likelihood that your purchasing power in real terms will not compound at a rate that affords you financial independence long term. They can be a good tool for current income if rates are good, but absent that and absent someone being chicken shit when the stock market tanks, I'm steering clear until I get close to retirement
note: t bills are not bonds, they're cash and there's a difference
Good list. What do you think correct advice on sunscreen is?
Also for the last one Goggins would like a word with you ha.
First, vitamin d naturally through sunlight is healthy, and everyone would do well to get 5-90 minutes of midday exposure (dependent upon location and skin tone), so stop with the advice to use sunscreen daily, if this were the way then people who work outside (and largely don't wear it) would have significantly higher incidence of malignant skin cancers but that's not the case
if you're pasty and you get one week of vacation in July and that's you're main source of sun, the best thing would be to rearrange your life but absent that, use zinc oxide instead of non lindy substances like what's in 99% of sunscreens
goggins is a great motivator and a wonderful story of overcoming adversity. But given what his joints have been through and what I believe will be the future of his arteries, I think he's long passed the point of diminishing returns
The emotional rollercoaster I went through reading your points haha, great content as always. There are a few I have a different view, and would be awesome convos over a beer. Stealing those for my next night out with the boys.
The only one I'd caveat is sunscreen. As someone very outdoorsy who's never really used any till recently, the sun can do pretty noticeable cosmetic damage over time and its not a bad way for me to hang to a some semblance of youth :)
let me clarify my sunscreen comments. I am not saying soak up the sun recklessly, I'm saying that (as with most things) a few lifestyle changes are preferable in my opinion than untested chemicals. the substances in sunscreen are relatively new, therefore we don't know what long term effects they will have. only after hundreds of years can you say for sure what impact a given substance has on the population. example - we know what heroin does, we don't know what adderall does. we know what coffee does, we don't know what red bull does. we know what zinc oxide and olive oil do (ancient greeks used olive oil, zinc has been around since before christianity), we don't know what chemicals like oxybenzone do over time because those are absorbed into the skin and they haven't been around for long enough to say for sure.
ideally this is what someone would do
and since I believe in skin in the game, here's what I do
EDIT: other thing I forgot to mention is the advice on sunscreen either implicitly or explicitly implicates the sun as public enemy #1 when really vitamin D/UV exposure is excellent for your health, from setting your circadian rhythm to hormone regulation to bone density and immune function, it's very important and I'm not at all convinced the sun can be put into a pill, so in addition to my skepticism over new non lindy products I also believe that this fear of skin cancer has had more deleterious effects via lack of sun exposure
IQ has massive predictive validity. It's one of the most valuable metrics to be produced by social science, and a stark exception to the "replication crisis", since it replicates over and over and over again.
Found the underachiever who scored high on an internet IQ test.
Do you have anything to back up your assertion that IQ tests are allegedly the only good part of science?
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f13…
Interesting takes as always. I agree with a lot of them so will skip those and push back on ones I don't:
Real estate success mostly due to declining rates -- not true if this is a broad statement. Many other countries where rates have been stable-ish / moderately high have shown that real estate can be a fantastic asset class. Declining rates definitely juices your return but it's not a must as long as you're at least a moderately thoughtful investor
IQ is BS -- disagree if that's the extent of the statement. IQ matters a lot up to 120 (Outliers mentions this as do a ton of other folks like Bezos and Buffet) and then doesn't matter at all for real world success (outside of select STEM fields that are very intensive), where EQ ends up taking over
Meyers Briggs is BS -- Again disagree because you're saying it has 0 value. I think it has some value in learning where you might bias towards certain strengths / weaknesses and you can catch some of these blind-spots as you're making them. It's an awareness game. Enneagram might be better than MB though
Vitamins and supplements are BS -- depends. 80-90% of them are BS but I'd go get full bloodwork and figure out where your deficiencies are and then selectively fill those gaps in. My mental health has MASSIVELY improved after taking magnesium and vitamin d supplements (both of which the bloodwork showed as I was deficient in, and I believe 50-80% of American pop is also deficient on those). I can tell the difference when I have weeks that I skip, it's night and day. Fish oil is also great as are some select other ones depending on the use case
Very fascinating stuff. Can you provide more detail on your view of private equity?
Cfa institute has a good article on return smoothing
also if you Google historical MOIC and compare that with posted IRRs of funds you'll get what im talking about
also by definition if you do your own valuation and do so infrequently your vol will be lower
Curious, but why do you think understanding macro doesn't make you a better investor? I know it's impossible to be always correct, but people like Bill Ackman n have made billions of dollars on macro trades during COVID.
investing and trading are two different disciplines
Not sure which advice you're talking about specifically here, but I wear sunscreen religiously (in all 4 seasons) and people are routinely stunned how much older I am than they think I am--I look at least a decade younger. YouTube has some really eye-opening videos from dermatologists that put people under the light (I forgot what kind of light it was) and you can see how much more damaged skin is among those who rarely use sunscreen vs those that routinely use sunscreen--even among darker skinned people (though the visual evidence is more pronounced among lighter skin people).
Banks should receive some form of punishment for failing. I understand you kind of have to bail them out ($ wise), but if it gets to that point then you should arrest the entire management team and board to federal prison for causing excessive risk to our financial system and costing tax payer dollars.
"I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse."
You'd have to really narrowly tailor the words "excessive risk" in the law. SVB, for example, purchased risk-free USTs--it's not exactly like they were investing in exotic or fraudulent RMBS. Their problem was with a mismatch between investment duration of their assets and liabilities, which every single bank ever in the history of banks has had. But with SVB, the magnitude of the mismatch and the black swan bank run did them in. So, yeah, you'd really need to narrowly focus the definition of "excessive risk" if you're going to imprison people for bad business decisions.
Also, if prison is the result of mismanagement of risk (not fraud), expect bank executive salaries to skyrocket.
My contrarian view is that hedge funds have terrible returns but since you can't see any published data, my view can't not be proved or disproved.
In the span of the usernamesake, you kind of can if you scroll the 13F-HR's. Can't prove or disprove the specific rates charged unless you have the LP docs obviously. But you'd at least have a ballpark idea of how they've done.
Mainstream media climate-change fear mongering is the biggest hoax of our generation(s).
Life outcomes are much more determined by genes than most people think. This leads to a number of more specific contrarian conclusions:
A) School is a giant waste (except if you assume that its actual purpose is to provide free daycare for working parents). Most kids don't learn much and quickly forget most of what they do learn. Polls of adults show that most of them are massively ignorant about basic scientific, historical, and literary facts that school was supposed to teach them. School failed. And no, the solution isn't to "fix the schools", which has been a central focus of political leaders for generations, involving massive and expensive interventions that have accomplished nothing of any significance. Academic outcomes are largely a function of intelligence, which is highly heritable and barely influenced by upbringing. Academic credentials are valuable because they signal ability that the credentialed already had, not because they show actual human capital development.
B) Parenting is overrated. Parents need to provide a safe environment for kids, feed them adequately, etc. But obsessive UMC soccer mom parenting has little long-term effect; on important variables like income, acquisition of academic credentials, and propensity towards criminality, adopted children are much less similar to the parents who raised them than biological children are.
Could list more things indefinitely...
I agree with you on A and that you should push your kids harder to get them to be better faster and get them ahead in life. honestly the most successful kids are the ones that can get ahead as fast as possible.
A simple one. HOAs are stupid and need to change up from the whole NIMBY mentality. IE these friggin' pigeons living on my balcony that wake me up with their cooing? Can't do jack about them per HOA rules. The compassionate side of me that'd want to maybe feed them and provide aid? Nope. The other side to maybe shuck them out? Nope again. Instead I just have to let them build that damned roost and hope they eventually fly away. Or the rule where when I take either of the dogs down I have to use the service elevator which is fine, but if it's blocked off for a move in/out? Then you get in trouble for using the regular elevators and walking through the lobby with a 45-60lb dog unless you carry them. Well what the fuck else am I supposed to do?! Or we're going to start towing cars with out of date registrations, even though tenants are paying monthly for those spots and they're underground, out of the public purview and the valets know they haven't moved in years for whatever reason so they're not about to cause an issue. And we're talking about classic Rolls or a '68 Mustang. You know, kind of high value vehicles?
Damnit, the pigeons are at it again...
Edit: I might as well set up a Pigeon Watch livestream at this point.
Is this even a contrarian view? Does anyone under the age of 60 like homeowners associations or Nimbys?
Funny you mention the age portion. My building is majoritavely over 60 and being just over half that age I'm still one of the youngest. That's what makes it contrarian to me.
Nuclear power is not the solution to global warming and while it's better than fossil fuels, it's worse than any other type of renewable. This has become a contrarian take nowadays because a lot of people have moved to supporting nuclear energy
Nuclear energy has never been profitable throughout its entire history. It costs more than solar or wind and is the most expensive source of energy in the world. Nuclear plants are plagued with massive cost overruns almost every time they're built and the insurance against catastrophic risk is as expensive
Isn't this a self-fulfilling prophesy? Wind and solar advocates have mercilessly sued the nuclear power industry for 40-50 years to the point where there are hardly any new, modern reactors that have come online in the United States for decades. A quick Google search has the two newest U.S. reactors at 2016 and 1996. If you're caught in endless bureaucracy that lasts for decades, wouldn't you expect a catastrophic cost?
Those numbers are completely bunk. They don't include significant structural costs in the projects, primarily land costs on the wind and solar side. Also, you circled the mean costs overrun but forgot to look at the number of projects with over runs >50%. What this means is that even despite the huge hurdles that nuclear projects have built in, the decades it takes to get approvals becuase people like you who can't look at basic raw materials output numbers and do math a 3rd grader could do, these projects still produce on average lower cost overruns per GwH than wind and solar. You need to do a proper comparison if you are going to do this kind of analysis. Simply looking at a chart and circling numbers doesn't prove anything. In addition, these renewable project cost breakdowns do not include storage, which just so happens to be the most expensive part of a "renewable" energy projects. When you isolate land and storage/energy stabilization from the project cost structure of renewables you get these great looking numbers. I can easily find dozens of failed renewable energy projects just in the SW US, which happens to be one of the best possible geographic markets for these projects.
These are maybe the worst numbers to analyze an issue. They don't include the dollar amount or the output amount, so what are they comparing besides how much extra per individual project? Cost overrun Nuclear <> Cost overrun Solar, there are no units with which to compare.
Well, let's look at the recent Nuclear plants that were constructed (and there aren't many, for good reasons)
South Carolina spent 9 billion over 9 years and all that was built was a fucking hole in the ground. The executives went to prison for lying to investors about the construction progress.
Georgia spent 34 billion on two reactors over 14 years, which was supposed to only cost 14 billion.
The UK is spending 40 billion on a reactor that is six years late.
Its a stop gap
Currently work as an equity researcher at a LO and have done research on natural resources and transportation and can guarantee that at least LNG and although less likely traditional fossil fuels will continue to play a decent sized role in our economy for the next 50 years.
Even industries that have significant emissions, like shipping, plan to use LNG well into future as part of their "net-zero" approach. Even conservatively, 20% of shipping companies fuels in the future will come from LNG, and I suspect it'll be even higher than that.
I'm also wondering if airlines will ever really decarbonize, but I think we'll see something meaningful from trucking companies, railroads, shipping companies, even to just keep up with regulations.
I also think that Europe may intentionally kill their economy with ESG due to workers being forced out of traditional manufacturing jobs, mostly associated with the building of motor vehicles which represents ~1/6 jobs in EU if I recall correctly. But everyone who's ever called future pain to certain economies from workers being forced out of their old jobs has always been wrong, so this one I'm really not sure on, but nobody seems to see this as a possible issue, so I'm thinking that it might really happen.
Not sure how "contrarian" these views are but here's my list
-China will NOT surpass U.S. due to fundamental structural disadvantages
-China will NOT invade Taiwan; that's silly talk
-IQ actually matters far more than people are willing to admit and is an important predictor of success
-Differences in outcomes between groups in the U.S. is due to culture & family structure, not "systemic racism"
-Both Trump & Biden are two of the dumbest and most incompetent Presidents we have ever had, an embarrassment to this great country
-Taylor Swift is the best solo pop artist
-Golf is not a real sport in any meaningful sense
-Running and treadmill are overrated and a waste of time
-Dating apps are horrendous and have done lasting damage to society
-NYC is not a good value proposition unless you're independently wealthy, making $500K+/year, or landed a great gig in your 20s
-International travel is overhyped due to awful flying conditions, jet lag, and people not properly capitalizing on the experience
-Most people understate the importance of academic & professional prestige
Last line IMO couldnt be any more wrong.
Academic prestige - one of the greatest marketing ploys of the last 100 years. For 99% of professions where you go means jack shit once you have 3+ years of working experience. There will always be benefit to getting that first job or to making a first impression, but from there it is on you. It's not really tied to success at all and employers dont give a shit. Academic prestige chasing is why idiots go to NYU when they wouldve been better off at Ohio State, Tennessee, Florida State, etc. They key is to really avoid debt like the plague with your college selection for most jobs.
Career prestige - Matters, but not in how you likely think - or most on this board, or most yuppies. You want to impress strangers? Sound important in life? Pick up that girl at a bar? Then being an MBB consultant or working at some fund or PE firm that no one gives a shit about really doesnt matter much. If you actually enjoy that career then go for it, plenty of money there as well, but if you are going for the prestige thinking anyone gives a damn then not only are you setting yourself up to be miserable but you are sorely mistaken on what people actually find interesting and/or impressive and/or cool. The 'presitige' of the job is literally the last thing you should consider because it's solely based on others perceptions of you. And that bubble is just a small group of well educated try hards, not indicative of the actual world.
At a high level you are more or less correct but let me clarify my points.
-It is true that academic prestige matters less as you get older. But it's important in allowing you to get your foot in the door into companies you may otherwise not have access to. A Harvard grad who lands at Goldman IBD after college, will be on a fundamentally different trajectory vs an Alabama grad working at a regional bank in Alabama. And academic prestige clearly does matter because certain firms recruit only at top programs. Granted, you can certainly succeed without going to a fancy school, and pedigree alone does not guarantee success. But it is important. There's a reason smart & talented people work their ass off to get into those programs.
-Prestige by definition will be contextual. Yes, if your social & professional circle is musicians, HBS+megafund PE will make their eyes glaze over, and they won't give two shits. But in white collar professional circle? VERY impressive, and they will look at you differently.
Now, will that help you get a one-night stand with the hottie at the bar? No. Will it help in dating overall? I think so, especially in major urban areas. My single friends at top shops have definitely said that women are impressed by their pedigree, and their professional success+money boost their confidence.
Taylor swift one is wrong and the china stuff is a general fact
Contrarian you say?
Most therapy is bullshit and unneeded. There is a relentless push right now that has gone from removing stigma of therapy (fine) to trying to make it a regular and expected part of life for everyone. I dont know who the hell is behind it, but it's everywhere. The need for a therapist can be removed pretty quickly with the ability to possess introspectional, self awareness, and emotional intelligence - which are admittedly difficult to build. If you need a therapist short term to build that muscle or get through a rough patch then fine, whatever, but having one shouldnt be an end goal. This does NOT apply to people with legitimate trauma (no, your ex being 'emotionally abusive' is not legitimate trauma you narcaccistic POS) ex: veterans or those in certain fields, victims of crime, someone who lost a spouse, a child, etc. This is more speaking to the social media/millennial/gen Z crowd who invents terms like 'gas lighting' because they think the world revolves around them
On top of that depression, ADD, anxiety are all mostly bullshit and can be fixed with lifestyle choices (again, disregard if having legitimate trauma). These are among the most popular medications in America and the majority are to put a bandaid on lifestyle problems instead of tackling them head on. Depressed? Work out, eat right, get involved in your community, find a hobby - there it's fixed. ADD? Lock away your devices for a month and your attention span will return. Anxiety? Step out of your god damn comfort zone for once
Instead people just want to make being hooked on drugs a status quo, which is indicative of larger problems in society. Turns out the lifestyle that is shoved down our throats from media, entertainment, politicians, etc. aka hedonism isnt conducive to a happy and fulfilling life. But, going back to square one, most of the population lacks the cajones to look themselves in the mirror and be accountable for their own life instead of blaming others. Go to 90% of the countries on this planet and people get along just fine/happily without being medicated to the hip.
Dont numb yourself to life. Instead improve it, there is another way. If I get monkey shit oh well at least I was being contrarian
Ha! I was about to unload something similar to this, but now I can just SB you. I literally do not believe in ADHD.
As someone who has adult diagnosed inattentive ADHD, fuck you guys.
China actually has a pretty good case to make regarding Taiwan. The two countries were never really supposed or meant to separate. It sucks that the leadership of the larger entity (China) is authoritarian and brutal, but that doesn't really change the point. It's not like the USA supports succession when it pertains to our own states...
At quisquam ut est qui. Voluptatum voluptates consectetur voluptatem inventore accusamus consequatur dolor quam. Quasi consequatur tenetur natus ut totam. Dolor nemo odit perferendis vel. Voluptatem voluptatibus voluptas accusamus omnis vel est consequatur in. Nostrum assumenda maiores non ad sit voluptates sunt. Vitae voluptatum ipsam neque quos.
Adipisci nisi quo aut rem ut sed est. Dolor quas veritatis velit repellendus. Esse deleniti est vero similique illum eos facilis ipsam.
Quasi ea tenetur numquam quo. Eum ratione id ut corrupti.
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...
Quasi quia libero ea odit. Impedit cumque error nobis aut et.
Totam est enim voluptatem quam adipisci voluptatem. Dolor molestiae et asperiores architecto delectus quasi. Et pariatur iusto est debitis omnis dolore et. Quaerat a qui ut nam delectus necessitatibus beatae. Reprehenderit dolorem perspiciatis veniam exercitationem est.
Voluptatem earum dolores et et provident quo. Tempora est aut consectetur. Voluptate voluptatem aut ut in ullam fugiat. Eum iure incidunt ex et impedit dolores modi quidem. Qui consequatur quis cum laudantium voluptas consequatur quam.
Quod a quasi ut eveniet voluptas autem. Sint et dolores aut aut aspernatur officiis. Iste occaecati similique sunt sint enim. Est et voluptate aut est repudiandae.
Et qui iure quam natus enim voluptates. Esse maxime vel vel et et. Nisi eum sunt quis tenetur debitis impedit. Omnis laudantium repellendus autem architecto nostrum harum qui. Maiores delectus optio dolor nemo. Voluptas velit cupiditate qui qui. Et sunt ut molestiae incidunt voluptatem.
Vel amet eos eum laborum. Dolores maiores non sint non accusamus. Provident atque adipisci quia molestiae ut quibusdam ut. Esse tempore qui voluptatibus libero enim pariatur. Magni quis et culpa qui vitae. Magnam qui in qui nulla quia eum. Magnam sunt quis sint non assumenda.
Odio culpa aliquid fugit. Aliquam ut ratione quia iste ea. Id non mollitia exercitationem qui ad magni facilis.