9/20/17

Here is the opinion of Augie Picado, country manager for UPS Mexico, in a recent TED speech.

We've heard a lot of rhetoric lately suggesting that countries like the US are losing valuable manufacturing jobs to lower-cost markets like China, Mexico and Vietnam, and that protectionism is the best way forward.

Now, the reality is output in the manufacturing sector in the US is actually growing, but we are losing jobs. We're losing lots of them. In fact, from 2000 to 2010, 5.7 million manufacturing jobs were lost. But they're not being lost for the reasons you might think. Mike Johnson in Toledo, Ohio didn't lose his jobs at the factory to Miguel Sanchez in Monterrey, Mexico. No. Mike lost his job to a machine. 87 percent of lost manufacturing jobs have been eliminated because we've made improvements in our own productivity through automation. So that means that one out of 10 lost manufacturing jobs was due to offshoring.

Thoughts monkeys? Do you agree?

Here is the link to the speech (give it a go if you have time): TED speech

Comments (40)

9/15/17

Labor automation is quite real.

Financial Modeling

Best Response
9/15/17

Automation has increased, but people have a hard time understanding a natural decline with a deluge.

Manufacturing will slowly reduce, but a large portion of the job loss is because of low wages and lax environmental enforcement. This is fact. There are hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs overseas (not servicing the local market) that are there because of people working for peanuts.

Globalism increases corporate profits and MAYBE reduces the prices of goods in a highly competitive market. It also replaces good paying manufacturing jobs with low paying service jobs.

The middle class has been hollowed out for corporate profits. Fact. Trump was a canary in the coal mine. What comes after him will be much worse and honestly, this country deserves whatever happens.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

9/16/17

So, you disagree with Picado, who said that Mike lost his job to a machine rather than to a Mexican? Interesting.

What about the 87% of workers losing jobs to machines data? May it be misguided? (found this article about it: CNN Money)

9/18/17

@Alessiod I don't know what the economic data points say but if it weren't for NAFTA and maybe if our government put in tariffs on goods being manufactured abroad and imported for American consumption I doubt Mike the Machinist would've lost his job.

In an ideal world NAFTA would've been negotiated with the American worker AND American manufacturers in mind and with a stronger immigration policy combined with a focus on individual responsibility (i.e. Mike The Machinist working for 40 years, investing his money, and putting his kids through school so they can become engineers, nurses, etc.) would probably have enabled Americans to be better off.

The other part of this debate/issue is you have countries such as Germany that have a very strong manufacturing presence and those jobs do pay well. Granted you could argue that strong unions probably are a catalyst for this but I feel having an educated workforce where your machinist can produce niche items and thinks more like an engineer than someone who graduated from Bumfuck Technical Institute would've been better.

We slowly shifted to a culture that thumbs its noises at the man or woman who chooses to work with his or her hands in favor of the over educated dipshit Excel jockey that brags about being able to create Pivot tables and VLOOKUP formulas but can't even replace the windshield wiper fluid in his or her car.

9/18/17
RedRage:

@Alessiod I don't know what the economic data points say

You should've just left your post at this. How is the entire premise of a post discussing economic issues an admission you have no idea what the data says? You then follow that premise with a bunch of platitudes and generalizations ending with some bullshit screed about an excel jockey and windshield wiper fluid. This is now the level of debate on WSO.

9/19/17

I think the level of debate was much higher when you decide to call people "pointless" when they prove you wrong and call out your lie... I suppose to you though, the truth is pointless since it doesn't reaffirm your narrative!

9/18/17

I don't know that we'd agree on the solutions, but we agree on this. The American populace is tired of trading job security for the prospects of additional purchasing power. A comfortable way of life with gainful employment is a steep price to pay for $400 flat screen televisions.

I've made this point here multiple times and it gets dismissed or painted over: Corporate profits as a % of GDP has never been higher and wages as a % of GDP has never been lower. I cannot be convinced that the amount of social unrest we're witnessing would be this great if the relationship was inverted or just more equitable. GDP growth is not the panacea everyone thinks it is when the majority of the population is locked out from sharing in the gains.

9/18/17

Playing devil's advocate here: have savings on consumer goods outpaced the lack of wage growth? If so, there is still a net benefit to society.

Automation is real. We can't or shouldn't try to control it because it offers a clear net benefit to society at large. In time, any jobs lost to automation will be displaced by other jobs to support automation. Humans have adapted for thousands of years and will continue to do so.

You can't blame corporations for taking advantage of the 'system' they are playing in -- their welfare depends on it and consequently so do their employees. Remember, the politicians that were elected to run the government are the ones who are responsible for the 'system' that has yielded record corporate profits. Similarly, and ironically, that same system is the one that has suffocated small to mid size businesses (who employ the lion's share of the middle class) with regulation. Remember, the small/mid businesses can't afford to navigate stacks of regulation the way large corporations can. Regulation is expensive.

I'm generally about as pro free trade as they come but recognize that globalization comes with it's own set of challenges (incongruent monetary policy between countries, geo-politics, etc.) that have gone overlooked for too long. It isn't as black and white as saying protectionism is best or free trade solves all issues. It's a balance of both. We need smart people who can make decisions that offer the greatest net benefit to the US -- everyone won't always win. For the last 50+ years politicians have been insulated from public opinion on many issues associated with trade and globalization, and, despite their good intentions (or not if you believe politicians are single-minded seekers of reelection [which most are]), most of the decisions they've made have been catastrophic to the middle class. While I don't agree with Trump on all issues, he's done a great job bringing issues regarding the economy and globalization to light.

In short, manufacturing jobs have declined because of automation, regulation and globalization, among other factors. How do we get them back? Automation probably isn't the answer because it offers great benefits to society. We can, however, pursue strategies that make the US relatively more competitive than other countries we trade with--namely, renegotiate bad trade deals and deregulate.

Regarding unionization, I implore you to to read "Why Wages Rise" by FA Harper. It's free online. You might learn a thing or two about the empty promises and disingenuous of unions. This is coming from a guy whose parents made their living as union workers.

9/18/17

First off, great post.

The only area in which I will push back some is the following:

I agree that savings on consumer goods is not necessarily insignificant, but would still maintain that it's unlikely these savings could have offset wage stagnation over the last 30 years. Even if it that were the case, I'm not sure it could be considered a net benefit to society for the following reason: The gains would be much less evenly distributed. If the cost of electronics and luxury items are drastically lowered, but the cost for some necessities like housing and healthcare increases, then, nominally it may appear as a net benefit but would probably exacerbate many of the problems we're discussing. Increased wages, however, would increase purchasing power across the board independent of what is being purchased. In short, its a much more flexible subsidy then the alternative.

9/18/17

Thanks for the constructive debate. Tough to come by these days.

It's difficult to quantify consumer goods savings vs wage growth. I think one of the easiest ways to generalize is to ask, is society better off than it was 5, 10, 15, xx years ago. In other words, can people afford more 'stuff' than they could XX years ago. I think the answer to that question is a resounding, "YES." For example, today everyone has a cell phone and a flat screen TV, among other things only the rich could support XX years ago.

I just thought of this: you could compare the CPI to wage growth data. https://www.google.com/search?q=CPI+vs+wage+growth...

I didn't research the validity of this data. It does show the gap between wage growth and inflation has shrunk, but as of 2011 wage growth was still outpacing it, although only by a hair. It' be curious so see what's happened over the last 6 years. Interesting how post regulation blitz (following a recession) wages have dive bombed. Coincidence?

The only thing I'm really trying to highlight here is that regulation and government policy, which are at the root of the price rises in healthcare and housing, are more evil than automation when it comes to jobs on the whole.

Maybe I should have redefined the problem in my first post. Manufacturing jobs aren't the only problem, jobs on the whole are the problem. If manufacturing jobs are displaced 1:1 over time with equal or higher-paying jobs there is no issue.

9/19/17

I'm going to layer in a bit of nuance, not to be pedantic, but because I think we agree on the general points and a lot of them were well made by you.

Because of the outsized impact of the top 1% of earners, the linked graph is a bit distorted. Annual wage growth for the bottom 90% is about half of the "average" annual wage growth. In other words, to make this graph fair to the experience of 90% of Americans, you'd have to cut the black wage growth line in your chart by half..: Link Here.

One other small point I'll offer here. I'm always a bit hesitant to juxtapose the past with the present as evidence for the success of the latter. I don't disagree with your conclusion that we could perhaps afford more stuff today, but that doesn't preclude a close alternative reality in which the average person could afford much more stuff. Put more prosaic, the present being better than the past is not evidence that the present was a good outcome compared to the field of alternatives. I realize that's not necessarily what you were asserting, but I see this argument a lot and I find it wanting for that reason.

I share some of your thoughts on regulation, and all of your thoughts on bad regulation. But I think balance applies here as well. Returning to a point you made on global incongruities being exploited, legally and within their right, by corporations. I think a coherent and coordinated framework for global regulation would create a system less vulnerable to the kind of geographical arbitrage that erodes wages and encourages extortive labor practices. Back in the U.S. though, yes, I think a streamlining of regulation would be a healthy thing and a net gain for the economy.

Lastly, I think in theory the 1:1 displace and replace of manufacturing jobs solves without issue. But again, I think this looks better on paper, or as a math problem, than it does when you complicate and color it with reality. If you randomize or homogenize the affected population I think society would weather this with relative ease. But I would wager that the redistribution of jobs will look very different from the original distribution. The economic impact is neutral, but the societal impact is not.

More thoughts than answers, but its what I got.

Financial Modeling

9/18/17

Fight the machines!

You killed the Greece spread goes up, spread goes down, from Wall Street they all play like a freak, Goldman Sachs 'o beat.

9/18/17

I agree and it baffles me how little the topic of technology actually is discussed in politics. Technology is the biggest change driver in modern day society.

9/18/17
iloveburritos:

I agree and it baffles me how little the topic of technology actually is discussed in politics. Technology is the biggest change driver in modern day society.

@iloveburritos its because very few if any politicians have a reasonable, fiscally sound solution for solving the automation job loss crisis that is and will continue to occur. The only thing Liberals and hipsters seem to want is to tax the rich (Define rich or wealthy for me) and have grandiose programs such as Universal Basic Income and free healthcare.

Most politicians are clueless which isn't surprising since a majority are lawyers or just plain dumb (i.e. Maxine Waters)

9/18/17

Fight the machines!

9/18/17

Machines don't do drugs.

9/18/17

Automation is inevitable and manufacturing in highly advanced economies is essentially dead, except in a few countries (Germany being the most cited example). What we need to do is focus on increasing the QUALITY of service jobs and training our future work force to a higher technical standard. Additionally, the government needs to increase the standard of living for those that are left behind by this new economy by instituting things such as healthcare for all. Most of this isn't politically expedient so instead we'll have politicians rant about Mexico or limiting technology or something of that vein. This is appealing for their respective bases but it simply won't solve a thing.

9/18/17

Funny how you say manufacturing is dead, yet there seems to be a ton of these types of jobs in lower cost countries.

Reality is automation will gradually reduce manufacturing jobs, but low cost labor and regulations has drastically impacted the number of jobs available. The price of goods has not declined to compensate people for their lost wages.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

9/18/17

I said manufacturing is ESSENTIALLY dead in HIGHLY ADVANCED economies, the bold parts of that statement are the key. Yes, in a world with no globalism thus no low cost labor, automation would've taken longer to take hold in the U.S. (idea being that transitioning to robots is still more expensive than the cost of the American in many industries which are the ones being outsourced to low cost of labor countries, although from studies that cost is declining at an ever-increasing rate, even China is facing the automation problem to a certain extent at this point) but we don't live in such a world. In addition to the price of goods going down, globalism has provided a platform for American companies to sell products & services world-wide, this has led to corporate growth which has increased the amount of "white-collar" jobs at the corporate level that require further education. Not to mention all the service jobs associated with serving industry (public accounting, banking, consulting etc.). In an economy where more and more of the population has such an education this point cannot be understated. Also, the amount of highly technical blue-collar jobs that are left unfilled in this country is a shame, many of these unfilled jobs exist (partly) as a result of globalism. We simply don't have the bandwidth right now to take advantage of these opportunities. My focus is on the future not trying to recapture the past that will never be recaptured.

With that in mind, the government needs to (in my opinion) do the following:
1.) increase standards for lesser-educated service workers
2.) decrease the cost of healthcare while providing EVERYONE a base level of healthcare
3.) increase funding and support for technical schools
4.) perform a complete and total re-examination of the student loan system with a focus on reducing the cost of a 4-year degree

If we filled the skilled manufacturing gap, provided a livable wage for working at McDonald's (at least at the manager/ experienced worker level not for the kid who will be there just for the summer before going to college), reduced the cost of college so people graduating and making 35k in a low COL area aren't left penniless after student debt, and provided a base level of healthcare for all I believe this would go much further, would be far more sustainable, and would be less economically harmful than slapping tariffs on shit and starting a war against technology.

9/18/17

Cos' of dem dahm ermigrahnts takin' our jobs!!!

'I'm jacked... JACKED TO THE TITS!!'

9/18/17

Bobthebaker hit the nail on the head. Actually the number of manufacturing job openings are at the highest levels since the crisis. Fact is manufacturing jobs are coming back to this country, but technology and automation has caused these jobs to require higher levels of technical skills and America with the "everyone must go to a 4 year school" mentality faces a growing skills gap.

If you passed basic econ 101 you may remember the theory of comparative advantage in trade. The theory says that countries with an advantage in production of one good will trade with those who have an advantage in another good. By doing this you create efficiency between the economies. Dumbed this down but you get it.

America holds the comparative advantage in technical skill, education, and productivity driven by automation. China/less developed countries hold a comparative advantage in cheap bulk labor.

This has nothing to do with NAFTA or politics, basic Econ theory dictates how trade will flow. It is common business sense, why would you waste resources to produce something at a much higher cost when the can be allocated in a more efficient way. America with it's highly educated workforce is the leader in tech, finance, and most white collar professions for a reason. If we wasted resources on producing goods at a much higher cost than they could be produced elsewhere, we would hinder the growth we are seeing as leaders in other fields.

9/18/17
Rags to Hermes:

Bobthebaker hit the nail on the head. Actually the number of manufacturing job openings are at the highest levels since the crisis. Fact is manufacturing jobs are coming back to this country, but technology and automation has caused these jobs to require higher levels of technical skills and America with the "everyone must go to a 4 year school" mentality faces a growing skills gap.

If you passed basic econ 101 you may remember the theory of comparative advantage in trade. The theory says that countries with an advantage in production of one good will trade with those who have an advantage in another good. By doing this you create efficiency between the economies. Dumbed this down but you get it.

America holds the comparative advantage in technical skill, education, and productivity driven by automation. China/less developed countries hold a comparative advantage in cheap bulk labor.

This has nothing to do with NAFTA or politics, basic Econ theory dictates how trade will flow. It is common business sense, why would you waste resources to produce something at a much higher cost when the can be allocated in a more efficient way. America with it's highly educated workforce is the leader in tech, finance, and most white collar professions for a reason. If we wasted resources on producing goods at a much higher cost than they could be produced elsewhere, we would hinder the growth we are seeing as leaders in other fields.

I enjoy many of @TNA's posts, but his ignorance of economics has made him predisposed to the disastrous ideology of economic nationalism, which is simply socialism by another name. I can't be bothered debating this with him anymore, but at least someone is still willing to argue using economics rather than their feelings. The only solution to the current situation, unless humans develop general AI (not happening anytime soon...), is free markets: Eliminate the minimum wage, repeal ACA and replace with NOTHING (free market healthcare), stop subsidising universities and bad educational choices by consumers, etc. But the Republicans proven to be completely and utterly useless, so I'm not holding my breath.

9/19/17

Isn't "economic nationalism", making the markets less regulated and more free, the exact opposite of socialism?

How in the world can reducing regulation and having freer markets... be socialism...?

Also you live in Australia right? (just curious)

9/19/17
Dig Bumb Idiot:

Isn't "economic nationalism", making the markets less regulated and more free, the exact opposite of socialism?

How in the world can reducing regulation and having freer markets... be socialism...?

Also you live in Australia right? (just curious)

Economic nationalism involves subsidising domestic production, regardless of how unproductive and uncompetitive it is, rather than giving people the freedom to compete (purchase and sell products and services) without restriction, as would be the case in a free market. This restriction of freedom is an implicit form of wealth redistribution and a net negative for any society.

And no, I don't.

9/20/17

but how is reducing taxes and regulations, a less free economy...? wouldn't that make it more free, just by definition alone?

9/20/17
Dig Bumb Idiot:

but how is reducing taxes and regulations, a less free economy...? wouldn't that make it more free, just by definition alone?

If economic nationalism was simply a reduction in taxes and regulations, then I wouldn't have a problem with it, since it would be in accordance with free-market economics; but that's not what it is. What you're describing is free-market economics, which is not equivalent to economic nationalism.

9/20/17

but isn't that what @tna aka @trump is pushing? lower regulations and lower taxes? i'm pretty sure that is the agenda he is trying to pass

i don't know what else you mean by economic nationalism, do you mean something like mussolini, or china? (maybe not a good examples lol)

9/20/17
Dig Bumb Idiot:

but isn't that what @tna aka @trump is pushing? lower regulations and lower taxes? i'm pretty sure that is the agenda he is trying to pass

i don't know what else you mean by economic nationalism, do you mean something like mussolini, or china? (maybe not a good examples lol)

I am not by default against anything and everything Trump does -- that would be idiotic. I support him on his good policies (tax cuts and deregulation) and oppose him on his bad policies (restricted trade, welfare for military-industrial complex, interventionism).

But remember, this discussion is not necessarily about Trump; rather, it's a broader economic discussion.

9/20/17

This is just pure, unfettered ideology. Free-markets are not a panacea or a universal truth. Economics is a social science largely built upon a theoretical framework. There is nothing iron-clad about economic theory, nor is reality confined to its laws. You are presenting a normative argument with the conceit and arrogance of a positive argument, as if your opinion is based in some universal fact. Maybe they don't teach normative vs positive economics in econ 101 anymore, or maybe you just learned all of your economic theory from Atlas Shrugged.

9/20/17
Schreckstoff:

This is just pure, unfettered ideology. Free-markets are not a panacea or a universal truth. Economics is a social science largely built upon a theoretical framework. There is nothing iron-clad about economic theory, nor is reality confined to its laws. You are presenting a normative argument with the conceit and arrogance of a positive argument, as if your opinion is based in some universal fact. Maybe they don't teach normative vs positive economics in econ 101 anymore, or maybe you just learned all of your economic theory from Atlas Shrugged.

That's not an argument.

9/20/17

besides lets not hate on atlas shrugged lol that is a good book

plus howard roark is the man

9/20/17

Please tell me what in my argument can't be supported by fact.

Manufacturing jobs have left to countries with comparative advantage in manual labor. Check. Can't be disputed, look at the history of Detroit, Rockford IL or the rustbelt. Then check the tag of any product you purchase from an American company. Odds are it was produced here at one point Insert supporting jobs stats here( )

Manufacturing jobs that stay are highly automated and employers are having a hard time finding skilled employees to fill them. Check. The amount of manufacturing jobs open are at its highest since recession.

Has America's comparative advantage in educated employees and technological innovation caused us to be the hotbed of tech, finance, and business. Check.

Would protective tariffs destroy economic profit. Check. Look into the history of steel tariffs.

I can easily back this by multiple data points if you want me to but I am typing this from a phone.

9/21/17

I don't disagree with any of those points, logically and empirically they are true. Nor am I advocating for some form of mercantilism.

My counter, and the broader point here, is that neoliberalism and free markets are an ideology based in a value system just like any other ideology. You can objectively debate the merits of different economic policies and its effect on a the economy, yes. But, when it comes to what is the optimal solution for society, or a sovereign nation, it's a largely a matter of values, not theory or economic calculus. The economy is a legal fiction, it's the aggregate of transactions in society. It doesn't have any answers for how you should handle the destitute or disabled, or how you should navigate massive job displacement, or whether the right to healthcare should be universal.

The following question cannot be answered with economics: Do you prefer a society with 4% GDP growth and accelerating inequality, or 3% GDP growth with less economical disenfranchisement. It's simply a matter of values. It's tiresome watching people attribute the different values of others to "economic ignorance" or just plain folly. If you promote a one dimensional solution void of plasticity, nuance, or any countenance of different values, then you're simply an ideologue, not a master of economics.

9/21/17

But for that fact that the destitute and disabled are much better cared for under a system of free markets than they are under a system of regulation/central planning. Society on whole, for that matter, is much better off under an economic system of free markets.

Prior to welfare programs donations and cooperation among citizens was much greater than it is today. To that same end, programs to deploy assests to people in need occurred at the local level and were much more efficient. It was much easier to control how and to whom the funds were distributed. Today tax money has to trickle it's way down (ironic, isn't it?) through crooked organizations and layers of bureaucracy before finally benefiting those in need -- waste.

I disagree that the economy is 'legal fiction'. The economy is reality, you even address it as such in the sentence following, "it's the aggregate of transactions in society." That said, if society produces the economy, which it does, the more productive the society the larger the economy. I think we can both agree that a more productive society, one in which there are more goods and services to consume, is much better than one in which people don't produce at all. Furthermore, society can't even start to address mass welfare issues like the destitute and disabled (they used to be killed off, btw) until its basic needs are met (think Maslow,) and there is a surplus of time and resources to do so! Therefore, we should be taking every step possible to increase production and create slack time and resources to address societal problems. The best way to do that, historically anyway, is to remove caps on production -- regulation -- which happens to be a classically liberal ideology.

In short, ideologies are built on observation, values, and/or facts. Some ideologies are more fact-based than others. I'd contend that liberalism, at its core (not the bullshit that we know it as today), is more fact based than most others because it emphasizes objectivity.

I also have to say that generally your responses confuse the shit out of me because you're thoughtful but you don't really take a stance. You don't contend any consistent ideas and you you'd rather debate things subjectively than objectively, which is really just pointless. I noticed this in your posts above too. Nobody can make you believe the facts if you don't want to believe them. That's OK, by the way. There just isn't any point in debating then.

9/21/17

I don't think we'll be able to close our divide on this topic, which is perfectly fine. I'll offer my concluding thoughts and then leave it at that. The stem of the disagreement centers around what you perceive as objective and what I perceive to be subjective. Again, I think your post is compelling, well-articulated, and logically sound. But, and here is the crux of the issue, I still contend that it is nothing more than a coherent theory, whereas you seem to hold it closer to an incontrovertible truth.

This thread is certainly not fertile ground for facts, so I'd have to disagree with your assessment on my resistance to such facts. Instead, what I have is a healthy skepticism of neoliberalism's ability to address what I consider to be pressing issues of modern day, such as rising income inequality, wage stagnation, mounting social unrest, and occupational displacement.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the International Monetary Fund (IMF)--not being a dick, it's just not an institution that most people follow closely. Before they will provide an emerging/distressed nation with a loan, the supplicant nation must agree to a structural adjustment program (SAP). These structural adjustment programs typically bind the debtor nation into what could be described as a best hits of Neoliberal Policy.

Conditions, at a minimum, usually include the following:
* Austerity measures by the government to induce budget surpluses of a certain target
* Liberalization of economic markets
* Privatization of nearly all state-owned enterprises
* Elimination of public services, minimum wages, and other subsidies

These polices have been imposed on many countries, across several continents, with differing conditions. If the efficacy of these policies are truly as self-evident as people claim, then it would certainly be traceable in the results achieved by these countries in the aftermath of their economic interventions.

But, and I implore you to research it yourself, the evidence is just not there. The poverty rates are often higher during and after the program than before. The GINI coefficient, measuring levels of inequality, also spike during the program and then stay elevated. Unemployment typically rises as well. The only group that consistently prospers under these systems are those who are already affluent. The World development journal has also published studies concluding that the programs often do not work, nor do they catalyze capital flows. These are also all facts.

Simply, there is just not hard, irrefutable evidence out there that confirms the theory you are espousing works in that exact manner you suggest. Here's the last fact I will leave you with: Since 1979, real wages for the bottom 90 percent have increased by 15%. Over this same period the U.S. GDP has grown by 534%. Under the current conditions, even if the U.S GDP were to double tomorrow, 90% of the population would be barely better off. The U.S. does not need a bigger economy as desperately as it needs one that works for more of its population.

9/21/17

You always forget to consider confounding variables...

9/22/17

Ahh I'm glad we arrived here, it has been, and still is, my exact point. Find evidence to counter my above points that contain no confounding variables themselves. It can't be done because it does not exist. You will never be able to take real life scenarios as complex, entangled, and dynamic as these and distill what factors are truly determinative. Likewise, we only have speculative counterfactuals and not control groups upon which to compare the results.

Certainly, you can see how the same rigor can be applied to erode the creditability of your set of "facts". I've been explicit about this the entire time. I'm not arguing that the theory as described is illogical, just that the factual high-ground that gets conferred upon it is largely an illusion that too often goes unchallenged.

9/19/17

"The four most dangerous words in investing are: 'this time it's different.'" - Sir John Templeton

"The investor's chief problem - and even his worst enemy - is likely to be himself." - Benjamin Graham

9/19/17

'I'm jacked... JACKED TO THE TITS!!'

9/20/17

D.I.

Add a Comment