Wade1865

RhaenysBee -- curious, what do you find so unappealing in the multinational corporate world that would cause you to feel this miserable? And what are you considering as alternate options? You described what I often felt on Sunday evenings, hours before going to sleep in anticipation of work the next day; though, ultimately, the dread (and shorter time requiremment) proved motivational as a means toward achieving my end-state (i.e. if you're going through hell, keep going).

Trumpa o DeSanto? -- Pablo Escobar

Erik of Hazelfield — not knowing the context, it sounds like a warning from an instructor; a lesson on concealing what you despise, to avoid an opponent targeting it as a vulnerability. For example, if I’m known to despise close quarters combat, my enemy will judge me as someone to close the distance with before attacking, gaining advantage.

ON MONEY. "Money is the wise man's religion." -- Euripides "Fortune favors the brave." -- Virgil, et al. "Play the game." -- God Emperor "I'm living in America. And in America, you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business. Now fucking pay me." -- Brad Pitt

kiko -- that was unexpected (as a counter position), thank you! Never heard the term "stranded" in this context, but I can admit with confidence oil will become increasingly marginalized as time goes on. In fact, stranded defines exactly the risk I felt I was holding. Previously, my internalized guidance on holding oil & gas included nationalism, winter and war in Europe, as well as the clarified intentions of the PRC towards Chaiwan. I had this same discussion a year ago with a colleague (very smart man, combat arms Soldier turned strategic planner, knows global energy better than I ever will) who highlighted the same core point you did. His informed opinion was big oil (e.g. Total, XOM, et al), if wise, could and would pivot into other energy commodities. He was suggesting I moderate my sole focus on oil & gas. Given your shared outlook, I agree it's a solid consideration and will add that to my previous guidance. I understand what you said is not advice; all risk is mine when I reallocate to exploit a post-winter peak (as I anticipate, albeit uncertainly), though I'll cycle back and forth over the next two decades as events reveal themselves. And you're correct, in this phase of my life (third quarter) I'm no longer interested in earned incomes; I intend to continue liquidating all real estate incomes and move entirely into passive income sources (stocks, bonds). Great discussion, very thoughtful, value-added! By the way, I just realized your location -- I lived in Ansbach for a year or two, and loved the country and people. Drank a lot of Paulaner and Schwip Schwap. The German airmen we partnered with in Poland and Mazar-i-Sharif were amazing. Don't freeze to death this winter!

Rippounet -- very helpful, thanks (again)! Market systems weren't as clear as I thought they were, especially related your nuance. Your posts and kiko's will be great reference points when I do a dedicated study of economics. And it'll be interesting to discover what aspects of US political structures (if not he market system itself) will influence wealth inequality and the environment.

ENERGY -- PERTROLEUM Energy use, they said, was supposed to have seen a revolutionary change. Uncle Joe, in particular, was determined to (prematurely) move the country toward renewables at the expense of petroleum, though I still don't know why he'd undermine the source of US global dominace! And. then. there. was. war -- who would have thought, the most fundamental human endeavor, wouldn't have returned and impacted energy throughout the world. Consequently, I can imagine the hardships Europe will face this winter. For as long as I can remember, social and political guidance conveyed to me was to avoid investing in oil companies, even though I had a nationalist affinity for it, and other things (primarily autos). Although oil seems to have been crushed in 2007 (great financial crisis), 2018 (not sure why) and 2020 (COVID), focusing on oil (BP, moderately at 8-10% gains; and XOM, overwhelmingly at 58%) proved to be benefical. Yet, now I hold risk, and despite my positive feelings toward petroleum and it's current value, I think it's clear there's mostly room to fall (once we get through the war in Ukraine, the threat in Chaiwan, and the next European winter). The question I ask myself, then, is what timeframe would be ideal to unload. Any personal or industry opinions on timeframe for unloading?

“I would give myself an A-plus.” -- God Emperor

kiko — appreciate you humoring me on using the two cows model, and the substantive post was helpful. Although oversimplified and idealized for all systems, it’s an adequate point of reference for a noob like me learning about basic economics. My key takeaway from you emphasizes how capitalism is not a system comprising of capitalists (which surprised me, to great effect). Instead, I now actively acknowledge only a few can thrive, while most can only survive; and, most likely at the cost of the planet. My own words indicated this, amusingly, but I didn’t realize it until seeing your words. I previously gained a lot of insight from communist thinking, and believe it or not it informed me on how to practice warfare effectively as a counterinsurgent, but what I want to do now is internalize it (and what you articulated here) into my understanding of economics. I love capitalism, but I also respect communism. Seems paradoxical, which attracts me to both, I suppose. I’m not looking to debate, have no arguments against your position, and balk at none of it.

kiko -- that’s a good illustration on a risk inherent in capitalism. Only some people have the capacity to thrive as a capitalist — myself, for example. Others can only survive within the system, albeit subjected to greater exploitation. Likewise, not all people have the capacity to thrive under socialism and communism, and can, at best, survive in them. The question I want you to answer is, what system — using the three examples above as a model — would minimize wealth inequality while maximizing the health of the planet. Note, there might not be an alternative example.

Rippounet -- that was helpful. I wasn't tracking productivism, but it does reflect what I'd call the good life. Agreed, it's not just at the heart of capitalism but practiced by other market systems, too. Also agreed, on heavily regulated markets, the PRC easily comes to mind, and it's the second most powerful economy in the world. What I'd like to know is, what market system minimizes wealth inequality and is compatible with the health of the earth. So here's my question (below). Although it's framed as a joke, it's not intended to offend; I use it because I'm a noob when it comes to economics: If capitalism is where I have two cows, but sell one and buy a bull; and socialism is where I have two cows, but give one to my neighbor; and communism is where I have two cows, but give both to the government, and receive milk in exchange; what system, and how would the cows be distributed, in your ideal market economy?

Rippounet -- the only thing I'd be willing to come out of retirement for would be to fight in support of Chaiwan. If the neo-communists come after me in the US, however, I'd flee to Malta or Switzerland..

BigFatCoward -- I was worried for my (English and Irish) cousins in the greatest empire the world has ever seen, but I'm starting to get a sense of hope. US gas prices have dropped significantly, is it not getting better over there?

Rippounet -- again, I find your thoughts interesting. Speaking for all Americans, I can say we don't pretend the free market ideal results in equality. In fact, it's the prime reason for wealth inequailty. We know this, yet we actively pursue it because the good life is compelling. It goes back to your thoughts on how an alternative may find us (because we won't seek it out, not seriously); and yet its implementation would retard most countries outside the US and other developed nations -- seems unfair to the rest of the world, though, more recently find economic success?

"Find what you love and let it kill you." "If you're going to try, go all the way." -- Charles Bukowski That's some phenomenol writing. Sounds like he was kinda horrible as a person, but what an insightful man with such applicable words. If you love gaming -- play -- and go all the way. If you love warfare -- fight -- and go all the way. If you love money -- hustle -- and go all the way. If you love family -- reproduce -- and go all the way.

DireWolfSpirit -- I was too! after being first exposed to bonds about a decade and a half or so ago after reading, The Ascent of Money, Niall Ferguson. Phenomenal book. Niall goes into detail about the origin of bonds, explaining why it was such a revolutionary form of finance. He wrote, "'War', declared the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, 'is the father of all things'." More importantly to me (at that point in my life), Niall continues, "[War] was certainly the father of the bond market." Excited just re-reading that!!! The mutuality of war and bonds is why I'm so intereseted in pursuing it sometime in the future, after more technical study. While stocks have been lucrative, and real estate hyper-lucrative; what I'd really like to get into is the bond market -- I suspect there's opportunity for volatility? And I also suspect old money -- especially families (notably, the Rothschilds) who could be rated as the moneyed interest -- hold much if not most of their wealth there. Not being a trained economist, I suppose the greater size difference is due to the (much older) bond being a matter of debts, while the (much newer) stock is about ownership. Additionally, while governments and corporations both issue bonds, only corporations issue stock. I don't think governments issue stock. Just musing in this last paragraph.

Interestingly, even though I've never been in the corporate world, but instead worked in male-only fields, most of whom were either naturally dominant or learned to be that way, I think I'd still behave the same in a large corporation (but dropping all jargon / pretense of a Soldier's way). But, no, it probably wouldn't work well. I could imagine that saying "fuck off" to a (professionally) domineering peer while laughing at him in front of an audience of subordinates / peers would seem too inappropriate, but I don't think this way would be a miscalculation. I mean, do the directors and presidents try to fit in and play nice? I don't know, but I doubt it. It would seem to me to be unlikely, especially if I were on a track toward status and position.

Chataya de Fleury -- that's the natural response when approached by a smiling, friendly (but surprising) request. It's a calculated play and the best way to handle it is directly with humor; e.g. "fuck off," while laughing to compel his acceptance that it was "lighthearted" as opposed to coming across as defensive, and ideally in front of an audience. An indirect response is too confusing, and getting others invovled is bad politics.

Oh -- forgot to add, if he had been a peer I would have said to just go fuck yourself while smiling.

Chataya de Fleury -- this reminded me of when my security guard boss played the same game on me. I was an inexperienced twenty-something guard, still in college, and not yet attuned to the dark arts of Machiavellianism, and he was a middle-aged (former / retired cop?) who just assumed the leadership role over a half dozen of us. After engaging me in a brief but positive, good-natured "how you doing" conversation like a good leader would, he abruptly ended the talk and said, "Oh, could you go get me a coffee" -- with a period, not a question mark. I didn't understand the game he was playing, but for me to get another man his coffee seemed (as a gut feeling) so odd. I said, "OK," and went across the hall to get it for him. I didn't fill it, but left the empty mug in the coffee area and after a short delay walked right back to my watch-desk. After some time, when I hadn't found him and delivered the coffee, he approached me to ask about it, but I passively ignored him until he walked away. A small thing, but novel to me at the time; in hindsight, what he did wasn't casual, it was a dedicated attempt to establish an exploitative kind of hierarchy with me a chai boy. That was his first, and last, attempt to game me but it was fascinating to experience, and even more so to watch him do it successfully to other (older, more job-dependent) guards without the same opportunities I still had in my future. As a leader I never did this to subordinates.

MMJ, allowed only recently, now that I'm free. Not euphoric (unfortunately!), like I anticipated, but surprisingly effective. A near-year of decompression into the civil side of life -- and MMJ -- left me surprisingly calm, and more social.

mcbigski -- I recall OsRavan and something about rolling hills related to land area, and he was hilarious. edited. Oh, and the most horrific spelling I'd ever seen in my life.

mcbigski -- hahaha, awesome (and clever) hidden comments, which only makes me see you more positively. I can now see how you read it that way, but I've interacted with Chataya a few times over nearly two decades and she is the last person I'd intentionally insult or game. I know she's a good person. If you read my response you'd have seen I counter-counterreacted none of her countereactions and actually loved her comments on the petrodollar. I've promoted you to my third most favorite man on this board.

mcbigski -- based on my readings here, and watching the mainstream media, Uncle Joe has been a force for good. And I must admit his (and the Democrats) policies have elevated my own conditions. I might actually vote for him in 2024, you never know.

mcbigski -- how so? Everything I wrote was positive and intended that way. Teasing at most, not negging. And definitely not gaming. But I appreciate the analysis!