onebaddude

>Perhaps Simon Sinek is right, but after reading the article, you are no closer to understanding why he thinks he's right than you were before.

What do you know, the top comment is a pseudo-intellectual tear down of an article, asking for evidence and proof, admitting that the original article wasn't even read to completion, but offering plenty of criticism.

>Perhaps Simon Sinek is right, but after reading the article, you are no closer to understanding why he thinks he's right than you were before.

Guess what? This is a book excerpt. Maybe if you want some answers and notes you can buy and read the book? Of course, that would require you to read and synthesize something for longer than 5 minutes, fighting the urge to show how smart you are by instantly going to an internet message board to ask for line-by-line bibliographical references.

The fact that this community holds itself in such esteem is hilarious. Reddit redux.

>lots of research indicates that the creative peak happens from 20-40 or so

Is that a social or physiological phenomenon?

I always assumed the great thinkers became less prolific as they voluntarily moved into other stages of life, like finding a mate and starting a family, and hence had less time to commit to intellectual pursuits.

>Adam Curtis is a prime example of what he is complaining about.

Adam Curtis has produced some of the best documentaries I've ever seen.

It's like people in this thread can't appreciate art for what it is. Or that some of the topics here have been determined in absolute, and aren't open to interpretation, philosophizing or opinion.

Malcolm Gladwell? Junk. Adam Curtis? Junk. Is nothing worth reading or watching unless it's an unstylized list of facts?

I don't know about you, but all I ask from my personal entertainment are "things to think about".

A business.

Kiyosaki teamed up with Donald Trump to write a more recent book, titled, "We Want You To Be Rich!". That speaks volumes about their angle and market.

That said, the core philosophy of Rich Dad, Poor Dad is a good lesson: make your money make money by buying "assets" and avoiding "liabilities".

>but interest rates are currently so low that it's almost impossible to get escape velocity through low risk investments.

This period is not unique in this regard. Interest rate is always risk-related. There may been times of higher absolute rates on things like savings accounts, but the real returns and opportunity costs were similar.

What I'm saying is, there are plenty of investment opportunities; the stock market just rose almost 30% in 2013.

>but thanks to the IPO we will never have any insight into that. They have to make up numbers like that, or they lose money.

Do you really believe that private companies are more forth-coming with information than public companies? Do you read 10-Qs?

Being public makes a company accountable to shareholders for just such information. Withholding it, or worse fabricating it, isn't the status quo with a public company. It results in shareholder lawsuits.

>"Provided you aren't a sexist/rapist"

Well, rapist is easy. But me and you may have very different ideas as what constitutes a "sexist". That's the crux of the problem; that's what causes men to walk on eggshells.

>it would be awesome if you gave women the benefit of the doubt because we're not all this way

Most people are not willing to risk their job to find out.

>Just because we're in pg's house, it doesn't mean we have to treat him like a god

I'll be the first to agree with this, but I don't believe the guy owes anything to anyone. This idea that he should go out of his way to up-end an interview process to appease the writers of a hack-job and other whiners might be PC, but it's ludicrous.

My advice to PG: Leave it for the next person. If there is systematic sexism in tech incubators, that means there's economic profit to be made by targeting female founders. Someone else should hop to it!

The book is "When Genius Failed", and though it's been a a while since I've read it, I don't recall either of the Nobel Prize winners (nor Merriwhether, for that matter) participating in any "frat-like" behaviour.

Not everyone who works at a hedge fund comes from the cast of Boiler Room. Talk about painting people with the same brush...

>The problem with Bitcoin is that the people that informed about it are usually tilt pro-Bitcoin[1], while the people that are against Bitcoin usually haven't done enough research into economics, mathematics, and politics.

99% of this board haven't done the research Mr. Krugman has done in economics, or even have the experience in applied math he does.

But "those who are pro bitcoin are smart, those who are against it aren't", really?

From most of what I've read, here and on /r/bitcoin and elsewhere, Bitcoin proponents are utterly clueless when it comes to economics.

>Read the post before jumping to your reply button.

Maybe you should do the same.

Krugman isn't looking at Bitcoin as a technology, but as a currency. Just because he doesn't understand "computers and the imnpact thereof", doesn't mean he doesn't understand Bitcoin as money.

You can go on and on, but nothing will ever change the fact that no entity ever forced someone into a mortgage, CDO or investment. Each and every time was a voluntary contract between two parties, likely greed driven by both borrower and lender.

>"Can you explain the mechanism by which the rich keep the poor there?"

The political system. Same as it's been for thousands of years.

>if you're someone who doesn't really know finance that well

Well, you don't have to be a financial expert to understand the generalities of what you can and cannot afford.

The rest of what you describe can be equally attributed to greedy people thinking, "if the price doesn't rise, I'll bail in 3 months. No loss." I know some of those people.

>But if you think it's a precise 50/50 split or anything close to that, I think you are a terrible judge of the situation.

I know you read stories about the strawberry picker who can't speak english "pressured" into buying the million dollar home, but those cases were extremely rare.

The majority were people with $40,000 in income deciding to buy the $750,000 house, rather than the $200,000 house, because, you know, the American Dream says renting is bad and looking wealthy is a necessity. Give me the most money you can for the biggest house possible! This happened across the globe.

Oh, and you're forgetting the other major factor of the American specific bust: people who used their home equity to fund consumption. Mostly boomers. I guess those were also the unfortunate, duped poor, buying vacation homes, jet-skis and third cars?

It seems that your understanding of the situation is drawn from the mainstream, "evil-bankster" meme. But that only works because it's a populist sentiment. There is plenty of blame to go around; give it to the greedy.