Macross8299

I'm not sure billions of dollars of QE that disproportionately benefit banks and the financial class is a desirable feature in any way.

"Just wear a nice business suit to get your foot in the door" is just such laughably simplistic boomer advice regardless of the age of the person dispensing it.

Not to mention the advice of actually buying a physical cookbook -- what year is it?

I mean, yeah, NFTs are a massive speculative gamble and probably a poor one ATM, the space is too oversaturated. That doesn't make speculation in general a bad idea.

His advice of "don't speculate with free stimulus money even if you can afford it, spend it on consumer goods instead" is still bad advice.

Young people are the ones who can afford to speculate without it hurting them too much. They have an entire lifetime to make lost money back, and if they win on their speculative play, an entire lifetime to compound it.

Yeah, don't speculate in anything high risk. Leave that to important people. Instead, just consoom and spend your stimulus on business suits and concert tickets.

These people cannot stand the idea of speculative investments (such as DeFI) being available to the unwashed masses. Understandable, the author is a Financial Advisor after all and benefits from the impression that investing is some mystical voodoo that only Trained Professionals™ can do.

Condescending boomer advice on par with "walk in and ask to see the manager and give him eye contact and a firm handshake."

Seems ostensibly helpful, is actually just meaningless platitudes and vague, generic advice that everyone knows.

If you intrinsically have something people want and you're physically weak, you'd best make friends with Samuel Colt, the great equalizer.

That quote sounds much like the Gervais principle with the stupid and diligent being "clueless".

If there was abundant supply, you could tell a landlord doubling your rent above current market rate to go pound sand. Rent control restricts supply.

There is definitely inside information on commodities, it's just rare that insider trading on commodities is prosecuted.

You would definitely have an advantage in trading oil/gas futures if you had access to ExxonMobil's seismic exploration reports, for example.

>Why do people keep posting this tired argument over and over?

Sour grapes. Easier to pretend _nobody_ beats the market than honestly admit you're not willing to put in the effort to constantly discover new alpha. And it's fine to not be willing to do that -- it takes a lot of effort and skill to discover alpha and most people will be better off improving their skills in their day job and just tracking indexes.

Doesn't mean it's impossible to beat the market, especially as a small investor where you have some advantages over larger players (your orders aren't large enough to move markets and reveal valuable information)

"Random Walk Down Wall Street" is somewhat outdated and a lot of the evidence from behavioural finance doesn't really support its central thesis. It's more dogma than anything.

It's kicking a person (or rather, a company) while they're down. Seems kind of tactless and tone-deaf to gloatingly tweet out your company's failure is a "lesson" a mere day after disaster hits the news.

The popular perception is that the people leaving California bring their politics with them and vote for the same things they did in California, therefore making their new state just as miserable as the parts of California they fled.

>Your politics are not superior.

One would think that if you are moving away from California for reasons in part caused by political factors (progressive NIMBYism that opposes new housing development, tent city promotion), you would reconsider whether your politics are really that beneficial to the community you're moving to.

Alas, people don't really learn and Austin is already starting to have a flourishing tent city complete with typhoid fever and all. I'm beginning to understand the "Go back to California" sentiment.