Post New

I’m a US citizen, and I’ve enjoyed a relatively stable investing situation for my entire life, and I’ve benefited massively from that situation over the past few decades.

However, I’m starting to feel like the boiled frog the last few years watching our institutions struggle to hold against the rise of more of an authoritarian type rule, where the judiciary is being corrupted and the rule of law doesn’t apply to everyone fairly equally. Historically, from what I read, businesses don’t generally thrive under authoritarian rule like they do in a functioning democracy. For instance, government leaders can attack businesses for their own personal gain, using the co-opted judiciary and police to extract bribes and concessions.

I’m not trying to be political here, and don’t want to get into an argument on wether it’s coming or not, but would rather stipulate for discussion purposes that it IS coming so I can try to think through the possible scenarios. As an investor I’m constantly projecting out 20-30 years in the future when trying to plan for things, but I think it’s pretty nieve of me to think things will be as stable as they have been the past few decades here in the US.

Have any here tried to game out how to deal with such a scenario where the US is no longer looked to as the “leader of the free world” but instead starts to side with (and becomes) authoritarians? Have any here lived under an authoritarian regime? Are there steps investors could take to insulate themselves somehow? If the US slides into authoritarianism, I’m wondering how long it would take the rest of the “free” countries to hold the line. Can the EU hold the line? Canada? Where would one invest?

More specifically, how would Berkshire fare under such authoritarian rule?

Again, please treat this as a thought experiment and not an attack on your specific political views.

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2022...

A few random thoughts

Investors, and even entire economies, can often do surprisingly well under even the most spectacularly incompetent and/or authoritarian governments, at least for very much longer than you might expect. It's kind of a depressing observation, but historically true. So, to a large extent, the day to day business might do just fine for everyday purchases--people will still want a treat, and be able to afford it.

Under an authoritarian government, the firms (and investors) most likely to do well are those that are both (a) large and (b) perceived to be supportive of the regime. Stuff still has to get done, so big projects and money are often funnelled to those perceived as "friends", often with no concern about whether the firm in question is actually in the relevant business. Supportive conglomerates arise and prosper.

So, the main cynically strategic choices would be to invest in things that stay under the radar with non-strategic day-to-date type businesses (observation 1), or those that are aligned with the government (observation 2). Or move your capital elsewhere, of course.

Jim

"There is a great deal of ruin in a nation." -- Adam Smith

If it's any consolation, many other countries (*cough* Europe *cough*) are in worse shape.

I don't know where you would move your capital to. You can't stay dry in a rainstorm by running under one tree to another tree after the first one gets soaked.

For us baby-boomers, 20-30 years is almost certainly past our lifetime. So there is that.

I agree that day to day business might do just fine(-ish) for everyday purchases, for those who keep their head down.

Looking at a couple of governments that tend towards authoritarian, say Russia and China, some companies have performed okay and some disappear when they fall out of favor. Yukos was an oil company doing well until it wasn't as its leader disagreed with the government. There were many such cases in Russia. It seems to me that it is difficult to predict which companies survive and which don't. Perhaps best to move investments to a different country.

Aussi

Looking at a couple of governments that tend towards authoritarian, say Russia and China, some companies have performed okay and some disappear when they fall out of favor.

If elections go the way they might, certain tech and media companies will be out of favor. We've already seen how this might play out. The former president got cross-threaded with Jeff Bezos and almost certainly used his influence (as per credible first person witnesses) to block a cloud computing contract which went to Microsoft instead. Amazon sued and partially won:

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/06/1013420036/pentagon...

Similarly, the former president recently said he wanted a long jail sentence for Mark Zuckerberg as well as military tribunals for his political opponents, who he named.

This is on topic, because the former president has said some uncomplimentary and untrue things about the Chairman. I imagine there is some political risk for BRK if things don't go the right way this fall.

certain tech and media companies will be out of favor

I have spent some time thinking about this as well. Since I don't invest in individual companies at this point, my issue has more to do with asset classes as represented by ETFs. Robbie's "synthetic" S&P going back to 1927 suggests that, with some basic timing (e.g. BCC > 3, which is really just DBE), you could have done OK in the great depression; though it would have been a rough ride, and you'd still have lost half your money along the way.

Here's hoping that's the worst case scenario.

Baltassar

PS: By way of imagining the great depression, keep in mind that American unemployment never fell below 14% from the end of 1929 to the middle of 1940. Hard times indeed.

check out perth tolle.
founder of freedom fund etf, guest of many excellent youtube interviews.
she has many nations you can 'pick' from, not to mention transparent etf holdings.

Perhaps a more on-topic thought - if for any reason Berkshire were thought to be unsupportive, what are the risks?

Problems in approval for energy projects, interstate transmission?
Unfavourable STB rulings for BNSF?
Insurance regulation is very state-specific, so not the same sort of exposure.

All in all, there doesn't seem to be a huge exposure to the whims of the federal government, if one were ever to see a federal government that acted on whims.

Jim

I would like to take the opportunity to say how impressed I am that the residents of this board are actually able to take this thread seriously yet narrowly as written, and not descend into partisan rants.
Sincere thanks and kudos to all.

Most of my wealth is tied to the fortunes of Berkshire, and most of Berkshire's prospects are inextricably tied to the US economy and its regulatory environment. To be very frank, as a non-US person it's an asset allocation that I continually have to evaluate for...appropriateness. For me, Job #1 is defending the family's assets from all risks, including tail risks. Despite tradition, and no matter how far we are from it, there must be a theoretical point at which it would become an unacceptable risk, so it's worth considering where that point might lie. And which assets would be negatively impacted, to what extent, should that point be reached.

I don't have any answers, but my cash allocation has never been higher in absolute or percentage terms. Followers of Hippocrates had useful advice for portfolio management: first, do no harm.

Jim

TDS is real

I also appreciate all the measured responses in this thread.

But dammit Jim, I’m looking for some easy answers from you! You are our savvy world-wide investor and I need some reassurance that I’m being Pollyanna-ish.

But seriously, I’m damn worried about the US going forward, and it all pretty much terrifies me since I’ve basically just ridden the domestic wave for so long and now I’m old and atrophied and have no good ideas.

We are like 4 months away from a possible new world order, and I’m so unprepared. Sigh.

We are like 4 months away from a possible new world order, and I’m so unprepared.

Trump. Say the name :-)
He was good for business as soon as he got elected. AFAIK BRK went up 20% immediately.

Dictators are good for business. eg India and Modi (officially not a dictator). Deng Xiaoping and China. Etc.

If you are an old rich white guy you are golden no matter who comes to power.

If you are not white, first of all what were you thinking? But maybe it won't be so bad. I don't know, I am just burying my head in the sand and pretend everything will be fine.

When the free world started to get more intertwined with the Chinese economy 10-15 years ago, I expected the free world to become less free within a decade or so. When you have to compete with a country as large and powerful as China that can move enormous resources here or there without much debate, it changes the playing field for the entire world, making it more desirable to become "a little like China" for everybody: more agile, more aggressive, less lengthy democratic debates.
In most of us living in democracies, there is the more or less hidden desire for a "good and friendly dictator" that does exactly the right thing quickly.

We can see this playing out in many places currently. The mistake being obviously that the dictator doesn't owe anything to his voters. He acts in his own interest and being usually an egomaniac narcissist, his first moves will usually aim at being more appreciated (which can do well for investors - see first Trump term). But over the long term the tolerance for anybody acting against the narcissist will become tinier and tinier, leading to destructive actions.

Where to hide and diversify away from such risk?
My personal approach has been to identify those places in the free world that have been culturally and traditionally the most idiosyncratic ones: Think Japan, UK. They already have a (friendly) King or Emperor and they love it. Actually, having some element of autocracy in their government acts as a backstop against real dictatorship.
Democracies are more vulnerable.

I don’t have any real insights as to your question but will just share my perspective on the topic broadly

My family history includes some troubled times in Europe and my grandparents came to my European country as immigrants after WW2. Everything was lost in the move. I am perhaps biased because of this but my antennas are picking up far higher risk of potential capitalist unfriendly futures in some European countries compared to the US.

I have the majority of my capital invested in the US and I live off of my portfolio. I view the US as one of the countries in the world that is running the least risk to crumble (together with perhaps a handful of other nations including my own but these other countries are far smaller, less independent and with smaller defense budgets)

The US is also in the top when it comes to having lots of people in the same boat as me, with their lives organized and planned around a functioning capitalist system. They also stand to lose in the worst case should the system fall apart. Many of these other people are also a hundred times richer than me with a lot of influence.

The world and its impact on the US has always been uncertain and I don’t believe that the current era is more uncertain or pose more serious risks to the US compared to any other time the last 100 years.

I also feel that I am only a small part of this world and have decided to play the board as best I can the way the board is set. If that board gets ripped apart I will have other worries that goes beyond financial.

Sum it all up and I guess I have adopted a kind of blissful ignorance to US political instability or whatever I should call it. Helps me focus on the other things in front of me and overall I probably have a happier life because of it.

Interestingly, ignorance has generally been probably the best strategy so far if we look back at all the other risks posed over the last 100 years. Having said that maybe I am just like the turkey who feels that its world is the least risky it has ever been the day before thanksgiving.

But dammit Jim, I’m looking for some easy answers from you!

Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a macroeconomist!

(no, I'm not a doctor, it's a Trek reference...)

What can one suggest?
The US market is very large, very diversified, very profitable, and is set up honestly enough for small investors to do well. Current and historical information about the firms is very widely available in easy to understand and easy to compare formats. There are several jurisdictions where I would consider it very safe to invest, but the very best tend to have markets dominated by only 2-3 sectors. So there just aren't very many markets in the world that meet the criteria available in the US.

So, the best bet might be to stick with the US market, but shift emphasis towards a bit of safety. Do what you can to avoid outsized allocations to firms that are unusually sensitive to whatever you perceive the risks might be. That might be anything from exposure to government contracts through to the nasty zone where a falling dollar mixes with inflation.

The first thing that springs to mind as a possible step towards safety: a quant strategy that is very broad and boring, then simply prune several positions by hand to remove the ones that come to the top of your risky list. This is the sort of thing I mean, a 40 stock portfolio as suggested http://www.datahelper.com/mi/search.phtml?nofool=y...
The screen definition was refined a bit in the course of the thread, but the exact original versions in the first post have done this in the 4.1 years since:
S&P 500 total return: 18.3%/year
Screen total return, version not requiring a dividend: 19.1%/year
Screen total return, version requiring a dividend: 25.0%/year

I currently have real money in the latter (using a couple of very tiny variations in the definition). The method I use to calculate the picks starts by eliminating a few tickers and a few industries.

That being said, I haven't figured out how to merely eliminate a few companies in a way that meaningfully reduces my exposure to the broad consequences of civil war. (the modern guerrilla and bombing style, not pitched battle style like last time). It's not something I expect, please don't jump on me. But let's just say it's not something I'd completely rule out as being 100% impossible. I think it's a very real tail risk. The question is whether it's so far out on the tail that a prudent safety-oriented person can ignore it...or not.

Another approach is to liquidate a big portion of your portfolio and put it into inflation-protected government bonds from a mix of different first-world countries. At certain times, and/or for a certain portion of one's portfolio, return OF capital is more important than return ON capital. Per Robert's Rules of Order, a motion to adjourn is always in order. If you can't see a way to win the game, you don't have to play the game. FWIW, Canada real return bonds are at about inflation+1.56%, UK linker gilts are another reasonable choice.

Jim

Thanks for those ideas. My lazy outsized Berkshire position needs to be rethought I suppose. I should probably do as you say and just take some money off the table and diversify into your bond idea, since I’ve already “won” so to speak.

What percentage of Berkshire/bonds would be prudent given the non zero risk Berkshire gets targeted by a rogue authoritarian regime. I can’t believe I’m even typing that. SMH.

80/20? 70/30?

What percentage of Berkshire/bonds would be prudent given the non zero risk Berkshire gets targeted

I have no idea. Nobody has any idea.

All one can do is fall back on aphorisms, and pick one that suits you best. Or pick two and weight them in proportion to how compelling each seems based on your outlook?

On the one hand:
Don't risk money you need in order to make money you don't need.

On the other hand:
The market climbs a wall of worry. There is ALWAYS some huge risk visible. The market rises over time.
Mr Buffett's oeuvre is replete with long term bullishness on America and its resilience, and he has been right so far.

On the gripping hand:
https://i.insider.com/5474a6536bb3f7b2528b4567?wid...

Jim

Don't worry, be happy! Check out the five year chart for SVXY (about 1200 trading days, keying off Jim's turkey chart of 1000 days).
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SVXY/
37% CAGR and 29% maxdrawdown!

SVXY is a short vol fund, IOW it bets that volatility (technically, vol futures) will be low, as in "don't worry, be happy!".
Well, vol usually is low so that's usually a good bet.
Except when it isn't, check out the "All" chart that includes Feb 5 2018

To be quite clear: I'm joking. SVXY is a turkey.

TDS is real

Meanwhile, the good guy is busy starting WW3!!! I’m getting in shape to fight with sticks and stones. Never underestimate the stupidity and corruption of the left wing lunatics.

TDS is increasing. It will be fun to watch!

Wait until Billy Man Boobs Gates goes down

His fingerprints are all over COVID

So I think the near future will be known as "interesting times."

I don't think it will hurt the stock market that much. Look at the stock markets of other authoritarian regimes. Turkey, Russia, China, India, The Phillipines. I have not heard of any of them, totally crashing. The only case I can think of where the stock market has crashed is Venezuela.

Turkey, Russia, China, India, The Philippines.

10 year CAGR

0.02% Turkey
-22% Russia (using Russia ETF rather than index)
-1.13% China
7.8% India
-3.1% Philippines

Russia crashing, Turkey, China and Philippines treading water but sinking and India doing well.


https://www.lazyportfolioetf.com/world-country-ind...

Aussi

"TDS is increasing. It will be fun to watch!

Wait until Billy Man Boobs Gates goes down

His fingerprints are all over COVID"

"TDS is real

Meanwhile, the good guy is busy starting WW3!!! I’m getting in shape to fight with sticks and stones. Never underestimate the stupidity and corruption of the left wing lunatics."

Interesting! In this thread multiple people praised this board for almost never descending into politics and yet we get treated to these two comments descending it into politics. Coincidence??

“ Interesting! In this thread multiple people praised this board for almost never descending into politics and yet we get treated to these two comments descending it into politics. Coincidence??”

One I already had on ignore and I’ve added the other.

Thank you, Manlobbi for a great board and a wonderful ignore feature.

-1.13% China

I don't think that is a good example. It's stock market has done great over the last 30 years.

As a reminder, the Nazis at first created some sort of economic miracle before causing the greatest disaster ever for their country and the entire world.

Unemployment fell from almost 50% to almost zero:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaft_im_Nation...

The stock market initially did well, but then lost 90% of its value.

In Italy, you can still find fools admiring Mussolini because "trains were always on schedule" and "there was no mafia".

Authoritarian regimes have a terrible long-term record when it comes to investing. And it will always remain so. Why? Because the best and fittest that usually deserve to win, won't necessarily win under a dictator. The dictator elevates those that fit his personal goals, not humanity's goals. Over time, it makes a huge difference.

Authoritarian regimes have a terrible long-term record when it comes to investing. And it will always remain so. Why? Because the best and fittest that usually deserve to win, won't necessarily win under a dictator. The dictator elevates those that fit his personal goals, not humanity's goals. Over time, it makes a huge difference.

That is a very good point, that I have to admit, I never thought of.

Does this authoritative regime head have a name?

We are like 4 months away from a possible new world order, and I’m so unprepared. Sigh.

I think this is not really true. I think we have a phenomenon where humans have been rewarded for getting really worried about the scariest things, but they have not been rewarded by being able to be more accurate in their assessment of risks. Rather they have been rewarded by surviving.

But in a modern world we have virtual machines generating ideas whose sole purpose is to energize their political base. If there is one thing that is not going to energize the base, it is the idea that we are going to be mostly OK not matter which of our possible political outcomes comes to pass. So any suggestions like that fall into oblivion.

Rather the things that energize the base are the most extreme things we can say that are still plausibly believable. And we don't know which of those things will optimize for extremity and believability, so we have an industry on both sides of the political cess pool that are constantly creating outrageous predictions, not with the idea of predicting things accurately, but with the goal of creating buzz among the base.

What could be more serious than the collapse of democracy and the rise of racist, oligopolistic authoritarianism?

Well, for half the population, nothing could be scarier than that. For the other half of the population, a puppet government where the puppet masters wish to control us by getting us to believe crazy things and destroying all competence hierarchies as these threaten their power.

Its not so much that I am betting that both sides are getting really good at speculative fiction, as much as I am betting that I should probably proceed as if the sky is NOT falling, as this has been the winning strategy for quite a few millenia now. For the most part. On average.

R:)

Authoritarian regimes have a terrible long-term record when it comes to investing. And it will always remain so. Why? Because the best and fittest that usually deserve to win, won't necessarily win under a dictator. The dictator elevates those that fit his personal goals, not humanity's goals. Over time, it makes a huge difference.

Is Singapore authoritarian? How is their economy doing?

Seriously, I don't know and it would be interesting.

R:

"Is Singapore authoritarian? How is their economy doing?"

Singapore is certainly an interesting case: It is a parliamentary democracy, but given the dominance of the ruling party, it is also considered "soft-authoritarian". It might be one of those idiosyncratic places I mentioned in my first post in this thread where some authoritarian elements coupled with a solid democratic culture (British and Japanese influence) actually prevent the development of a real autocracy.

What is the name of this coming authoritative leader?

Singapore is certainly an interesting case: It is a parliamentary democracy, but given the dominance of the ruling party, it is also considered "soft-authoritarian".

That is a fairly generous way to put it. I've been there and know people who live there...more often you might hear something like "benevolent dictatorship", but only very much in private. It's not a good place to be an opposition member, and having posted this, I'm unlikely ever to be welcome there again.

The folks in charge have had essentially unlimited power, but have used that power to govern very skilfully. Given the unlimited power, this is more because they simply felt like it, not because there was any institutional or structural reason whatsoever pushing them towards that or limiting them to sane actions.

Similarly, absolute monarchy definitely works better than anything else...if the monarch in question happens to be skilled and benevolent. Constitutional limitations to power arose in a lot of places because that isn't always the case. You're better off with a solid 8 than a random number from 0 to 10. Just because the roll comes up 9 or 10 once in a while does not suggest in any way that the "dice" method of government is the one to go with.

Jim

It's not a good place to be an opposition member, and having posted this, I'm unlikely ever to be welcome there again.

On my one visit to Singapore, I was shocked when the taxi driver taking me back to the airport was very open in his criticisms of the government. I always try to walk through some regular residential neighborhoods when visiting a new country and it seemed like a middle-class European city in what I observed. I doubt I got anywhere near where the somewhat-infamous worker barracks are (Hungary was quite a contrast - the touristy core of Budapest is OK, but get out to the suburbs or the countryside on the train to Vienna, and it looks very poor).

Flying in to Singapore gave a good view of the vast amounts of ocean freight stacked up in the strait, and it seemed pretty clear where their historical wealth came from.

A little late to this party, but to expand on mungo's "Investors, and even entire economies, can often do surprisingly well under even the most spectacularly incompetent and/or authoritarian governments, at least for very much longer than you might expect. It's kind of a depressing observation, but historically true".: I'd like to add mimic the alignments.

For as long as we have functioning public markets, I suspect that if our economic interests approximately parallel those of Bezos Zuckerberg Musk et al, we'll continue to do fine. Moguls like the market to rise; if we're in the market, our fortunes will rise as well, for awhile.

Add to this the historical observation that one of the current leading competitors to be Chief Magistrate during his prior administration was very invested in the market indices as a surrogate scorecard, and what looks to be a commitment to whatever (ultimately unwise) short-term sugar rush is necessary for the indexes to continue to set new records: I think the readers of this board will likely do quite well for several more years at least.

That's not to minimize the horrid damage soon to be done to our ecosphere, currency, reputation and security. It's just to say that, on Jim's Thanksgiving Turkey chart ( https://i.insider.com/5474a6536bb3f7b2528b4567?wid... ) of a few days ago, I think we're more likely now on day 400 than day 900.

-- sutton

As an investor..purely speaking as an investor..I can’t think of anything more favorable than a benevolent pro business dictator.

Hi Cranky. I have found something on which I hope you will agree.

It is so easy to point to the other side and the unsubstantiated claims or unacceptable language that THEY are using.

But with some self reflection one could come to the conclusion that it is equally important for ME not to do the same, even if MY opinion is of course the only correct, educated and noble one, while THEIRS is ignorant, self interested and despicable.

For me personally this should include not entertaining hypotheticals that help perpetuate fear and uncertainty and importantly where the specification of acceptable responses do not allow for disagreement with the premise.

And so I will admit to you now Cranky that I regret having responded to the hypothetical on authoritarianism when I should have ignored it or debated it somewhere else that allowed for disagreement.

This is not meant as criticism of anyone else. Each have to find their own way to self improvement if that is something they are interested in. All the best to you.

I'm just looking for a name and face to attach to this aforementioned threat.

"I'm just looking for a name and face to attach to this aforementioned threat."

Ignorance.

The threat to democracy in the U.S. mostly comes in the form of ignorance. Democracy requires a well informed populace.

Ignorance.
The threat to democracy in the U.S. mostly comes in the form of ignorance. Democracy requires a well informed populace.

True 'nuff.
Though perhaps the most pernicious sub-category of ignorance isn't simply not knowing things, but being misinformed.
"It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so." – Mark Twain

Imagine a world where you either have to give up Facebook (and Twitter and Instagram and TikTok), or give up your vote : )

Jim
"Give me liberty, or give me kittens!"

Just want to know who to look out for>>>>NAME? Face?

I don't want to be ignorant anymore. Please help

"I don't want to be ignorant anymore. Please help"

That is the thing. Overcoming ignorance is only something you can do. No one can do it for you.

Hi Cranky. They are talking about Donald Trump, the former President of the United States. It looks like a little over half of American voters want him to be President again, and many of those voters would probably just like you disagree strongly with the recent discussion on this board about him. But I gathered rather quickly where this board stands on these things so I dont bother and just read it for investment stuff. It is what it is and even if not perfect I am very grateful to Manlobbi for creating it. I do wish the bullying could stop however but that is unlikely. At least two posters I enjoyed reading have stopped posting recently because of it. I think self selection is a powerful dynamic and can explain why most gatherings seem to have some element of group think. All the best.

Imagine a world where you either have to give up Facebook (and Twitter and Instagram and TikTok), or give up your vote : )


While I take your meaning, I essentially have given up social media aside from friends-only posts on FB, and a small amount of interaction on Mastodon, accompanied by liberal and instant blocking as needed. The value of enraged incels and Russian bot farms threatening the lives of most of my friends, spreading the conspiracy theory of the hour, and promising dire retribution for not being like them, is exceedingly negative.

The longer-term question (if there is a longer term) is whether the remaining democratic governments will be willing to allow this mass psy-op against their own citizens to continue.

Thanks. Glad board is not political.

We have identified the evil threat. I am worried now and will be watching DJT more carefully going forward.

No longer ignorant

Now know it is DJT

TDS is real!

<<-1.13% China>>

I don't think that is a good example. It's stock market has done great over the last 30 years.

Probably because for part of those 30 years, China was moving away from more authoritarianism and towards more capitalism. Now it is the opposite.

Probably because for part of those 30 years, China was moving away from more authoritarianism and towards more capitalism. Now it is the opposite.

It's hard to draw firm correlations between government style and how well capitalists do.

But FWIW, it's worth recalling that in 1949 the revolutionaries simply closed the Shanghai stock market, for an effective -100% realized loss on every position. No stock market for the next 40+ years. That's definitely not a prediction (per comment above), but it's always good to remember what the range of possible events is. Anything that has happened once is definitely possible, and presumably a whole lot more besides.

Jim

Umm: That is the thing. Overcoming ignorance is only something you can do. No one can do it for you.

That flies in the face of everything I know about knowledge, which is sorta the opposite of ignorance. Knowledge is 99.999999999% a product of humans working together. The ability to gain knowledge is possibly the greatest driver of humans even getting language in the first place, with language being perhaps humans' most stellar ability!

If you want to overcome ignorance, read/listen and think! One of the most powerful things I believe I learned in what has turned out to be a superb eduction (through no fault of mine, I just got lucky) is that when you have listened to and analyzed enough smart stuff, you start being able to tell the difference between smart stuff and stupid stuff. So just do it a lot, ask a lot of questions, don't listen to people who tell you to shut up or that you can't learn. Speak in a way to people who seem smart and/or knowledgable that keeps them wanting to speak to you, just doing this will make you less ignorant.

I don't know what point Umm was trying to make, but to be sure, his statement was not made because it was the best, truest, way to describe the world. And that is something very worth learning: essentially no political pronouncements are made because they are true. They are made to move people to action. Some of them might be true, and some of the action people are moved towards might be useful, but that is just a lucky coincidence when it happens.

Enjoy,
R:

R, Nicely done, but when you said:

I don't know what point Umm was trying to make…


It seems to me you reinforced Umm’s point with:

If you want to overcome ignorance, read/listen and think!…


J

"That flies in the face of everything I know about knowledge, which is sorta the opposite of ignorance. Knowledge is 99.999999999% a product of humans working together. The ability to gain knowledge is possibly the greatest driver of humans even getting language in the first place, with language being perhaps humans' most stellar ability!"

Try to teach a pig to sing. I am pretty sure the pig will remain ignorant of the intricacies of tone.

Now try and teach someone who doesn't want to understand any thinking outside of their own opinions. The results will be the same as trying to teaching the pig to sing.

^^Try to teach a pig to sing. I am pretty sure the pig will remain ignorant of the intricacies of tone^^

I believe that almost everyone is extremely capable of learning, and the restraint isn't so much the brain in an isolated context immune to the forces of their environment, but rather the problem is the collective restraints (our environment) which the person is completely unaware of.

Have you ever tried explaining something to someone who seems stuck in their own way of thinking? It can be frustrating!

I think our understanding of the world is shaped by where we live and the information we consume. Most people in the West haven't lived in countries like China or Iran for extended periods. Imagine if they did - I mean 3 years at least in each – their views on those places, and even their own countries, would be very different.

A short visit is nice, but it takes time to truly understand a culture. Living there, reading their news, and experiencing everyday life provides a richer perspective.

This doesn't mean people with limited experience can't have opinions. However, a healthy dose of skepticism and a willingness to seek out primary sources, like translated primary sources (such as complete speeches rather than sound bytes followed by interpretations), can be very helpful. Unfortunately, accessing these sources can be difficult due to our self censorship or simply the inconvenience of accessing.

The main takeaway? Our viewpoints are shaped by our environment. Being aware of this and actively seeking diverse perspectives can lead to a more nuanced understanding of the world.

The main takeaway? Our viewpoints are shaped by our environment. Being aware of this and actively seeking diverse perspectives can lead to a more nuanced understanding of the world.

Translation: Do what your wife tells you to do. If you don't, she'll make your life hell. At least that seems to me to be the way much of the world is acting now.

Translation: TDS is a a form of mental illness.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.