> that type of motivation, whatever you call it, is not necessary to perform the task at hand.
and on what basis have you determined that the article is about "that type" of motivation, as opposed to the other type which you acknowledge is necessary to actually do anything?
The other types of motivations are descriptions of other people.
It's like being tall. You can see if someone else is tall, or short, but you yourself don't experience your own height, you feel the same size as you did when you were a child. You can see it in a photograph or a mirror, of course, but that is seeing yourself as though you were a different person. Your height is not part of your subjective experience.
Likewise, these other forms of motivation do not have a subjective experience associated with them, they are properties observed in others. Feeling encouraged or discouraged to perform an action, however, is a subjective experience. We can experience in ourselves, but not observe it in others.
> Housing is an inelastic good - particularly for demographics who have limited access to transportation and therefore need to live very close to where the jobs are. The price increases until it consumes all the money available to pay for it.
Housing is not rising in price because it is an inelastic good. Housing is rising in price because the growth in the supply of housing is less than the growth in the demand for housing.
Indeed, the very fact that housing has inelastic demand means that it is particularly susceptible to price reductions when supply is higher than demand.
Anyway, supply and demand are murky concepts that don't map well to reality when trying to take them out of the supply/demand chart. You can't actually quantify potential "demand" because "someone wants a good or service" is not a data point for demand, only actual trades that happened do.
You are taking as an assumption the very thing we are currently questioning - does lack of supply actually account for the increase in housing prices?
Lack of supply would cause prices to rise - but so would cartel behavior on the part of those who control that supply. Housing of the type necessary for relatively low-income individuals, where the location must be close to jobs (see above), is typically controlled by a set of entities who exhibit cartel behavior in how they price the rent.
I know nothing about stocks. But if a similar situation were to happen again, how can you tell whether or not the surge in demand is already "priced in"?
Simply knowing that demand for a product has increased - even increased massively - surely can't tell you that the stock of the company that makes that product is going to increase in value, without also knowing whether or not that increase in demand is already reflected in the current price of the stock
As a rule of thumb it is never priced in when a company suddenly has tremendous acceleration in revenue and profit growth. Wall Street is good at forecasting businesses with a stable growth trajectory. Wall Street is way too conservative at inflection points because it’s too embarrassing to be wrong (in either direction).
Meme stocks are always priced in as well, since the investor speculation far outweighs any effects from irrelevant things such as how the company is actually doing in real life.
The easy answer here would be to look at analyst estimates. If you notice nvidia selling 20 billion in H100s and the consensus revenue is 10 billion, then it's probably not priced in.
But that's been known for months now. At one point a bloomberg podcast mentioned in passing that nVidia inventory now has a lead time measured in months. Which kinda sounds like the makings of a bullwhip effect induced bubble[0]. Everybody wants inventory now, so they put in massive orders, hopefully get some fraction of what they asked for, and if they happily get too much they can, in theory, easily sell their surplus into the market. Think about how many "AI platforms" boil down to "we have GPUs!"
_If_ this is the bullwhip scenario, then it's basically a gamble about how many million cards nVidia can ship before their own short supply bubble bursts. Or the AI bubble more generally.
Exactly. Very few people have actual, factual knowledge about whether Wall Street traders analysts are right or wrong about some company performance metric. They say "they know" but it's just hunches and gut feelings. The people who actually know for a fact are insiders and cannot legally trade on the knowledge. Everyone else are just gamblers who think they "have a system" that works.
The only answer anyone can give you with total truth is that there is no way to know for sure (without having very secretive insider knowledge, such as being a CEO who is about to make a big deal). There's a reason why managed funds in the long term don't outperform index funds.
> I approach this from a matter of principle. I don't recognize anyone's "right" to enjoy someone else's privately owned property or, stated more honestly, to infringe upon the property rights of others.
I also approach it from a matter of principle - I don't recognize anyone's right to truly "own" land. They didn't create it. It existed before they were born and it will exist after they die. Allowing a market in land doesn't, beyond any fringe degree, encourage the creation of new land. Disallowing a market in land does not decrease the supply of land. So by what right can a person "own" a piece of land they didn't create?
On a base level, land is what a country is. Your citizenship of a country entitles you to exist upon the land of that country. Imagine if a child were born into a country where every scrap of land was privately owned, and every land owner refused that child the right to exist upon "their" land. What is the child supposed to do?
I recognize that there are social and economic advantages to allowing people some exclusive rights of access to some land. I recognize that there are advantages to allowing some people some limited rights of monopoly when they make improvements to land. But I do not recognize that a private entity can truly "own" land, completely and in perpetuity, as if they had created it from whole cloth.
100% true. The cult of land ownership is one of the most absurd norms in almost the entire world modulo the few nomadic peoples still around. It’s not just unjust and unsustainable but simply not pragmatic, judging by all exceptions: air space, pollution, zoning, rivers, damming, emergency access etc etc.
From a human development perspective, what makes sense is to define usage rights. If you’re using the land for X I can use it for Y. This originates in the principles of refining nature: for instance if I build a boat out of a log, then it reasonably becomes my property because of the human labor that went into it. Where to draw the lines between when, where and how nature gets refined enough to get usage rights can’t easily be deduced from principles, and will vary across regions and cultures. For instance in sparse regions you can afford a larger buffer zone around dwellings. Even within a country (like the US) human lifestyle varies so much that it’s reasonable to have different rules in different places.
Perhaps people are married to the concept of owning land so much that the wording cannot be changed. But it’s already obvious that nobody owns the land, the rivers, the lakes, the air. It’s absurd that it’s illegal to walk in the wilderness because of an imaginary line in the sand.
I’m from a country with freedom to roam, so I have my bias. That said, to its credit the US has despite its strong private land ownership laws, an amazing and vast set of national-, state parks and BLM land. So from an access-to-nature POV, it’s an incredible country overall.
> I recognize that there are social and economic advantages to allowing people some exclusive rights of access to some land. I recognize that there are advantages to allowing some people some limited rights of monopoly when they make improvements to land. But I do not recognize that a private entity can truly "own" land, completely and in perpetuity, as if they had created it from whole cloth.
What's the difference? Of course nobody truly "owns" land in the cosmic sense, for the reasons you stated; and of course most societies nevertheless permit the legal fiction of "land ownership", also for the reasons you stated (that generally it results in more favorable outcomes for society as a whole). So you're back to square one.
A Georgist land-value tax is the fairest solution to this problem, I think. Let society as a whole enjoy the fruits of that which no landowner caused to happen (the value of the land without any improvements), and let the landowner enjoy the fruits of his own improvements upon the land.
I just looked through my Spam folder. I have 48 messages in the month to date. 18 of them are from at least ten domain names matching /^(marketexec|marketexecmail|market-exec)?\d{1,2}\.co\.uk$/. Domains cost money, but not that much, and people do do things like this.
(There’s also the problem of senders aggregating messages from untrusted parties, so that reputation is always a tricky balance. For example, I have four spam messages from gmail.com this month. When I’m not getting bursts like this marketexecmail stuff that started two weeks ago and will probably stop within another couple of weeks, I find that at least a quarter of my spam messages come from gmail.com, outlook.com or hotmail.com; in January, it’s 12⁄46, and at least four more are from other general-public domain names that I recognise.)
The article seems to be based on a premise that is totally alien to me. I have never showered because I believe it's health-promoting or "necessary" in a medical sense. I shower because i) I like it, and ii) I like looking and smelling good.
> Why are we washing? Mostly because we're afraid somebody else will tell us that we're smelling
I'm actually much more concerned about people thinking I smell bad but not telling me. Which has a tremendous social and romantic cost. And is also, to my mind, plain rude. Being part of society still means sharing physical spaces with other people a lot of the time. The least I can do is make sure I don't stink when doing so.
> Some experts believe that everyday showering is based more on a 'social contract' than actual need.
Sources would be much more important IMHO. Give me a list of source links which the output is a remix of. Not possible? Well, then back to the drawing board and figure out a solution you AI experts!
The goal is to get the answers they want without saying it. They want people who will naturally know ‘the right thing’ to do to get paid by them, without them having to say it.
Folks on a spectrum are usually that way because they’re bad at already knowing that - or unwilling/unable to say it naturally. For various reasons.
Which is why the spectrum covers ‘disorders’ (aka things that make life suck sometimes/most of the time) instead of ‘awesomenesses’.
That said, there are advantages and utility where one can find niches and ways to adapt most of the time.
Being the same/reacting the same as everyone else, tends to get you the same results as everyone else. For better or worse.
Mixing in with the herd offers a lot of protection, as long as the whole herd isn’t being stampeded off a cliff by a smarter adversary.
You’re unlikely to starve either, but you’d better be good at eating grass other people have already crapped on/next to.
how well are you able to guess what the test wants you to say, and game the system?
i remember doing these like 20 years ago when i got out out of the military and just needed a bartending job.
corp chain, had you take a bunch like "if I see an employee slacking off I'm 1) very offended, 2) slightly offended, 3) indifferent, 4) okay with it, or 5) very okay with it
it was obvious what answer they wanted, and empathy had nothing to do with it
in the scenario you outline the founder sells the remaining 90% of their position for $45MM?
I don't think many people would experience any real regret at "only" getting $45.5MM instead of $50MM, due to declining marginal utility of money
reply