On July 13 2023 08:36 JimmiC wrote: So far AI has not done that well because there really are not THAT many points of data to learn from.
Also a lot of noise in the data, but quant funds already use AI where it is useful. Mathematics is still a very sought after skill for quantitative funds but Gliders friend is an obvious scammer. Quant firms are usually prop shops who trade with their own money. Any succesful quant trader either retires when he has enough money or starts their own quant fund. Spreading a very profitable strategy makes no sense since you will lose your edge very quickly. Better to keep it secret and pocket the profits yourself.
It’s not a crab bucket mentality. It’s just the sniff test. If someone said they knew the winning lottery numbers and would sell them to you for $100 then the first thing you’d ask is why, if they knew the winning lottery numbers, would they not just buy their own ticket.
On July 14 2023 03:03 Uldridge wrote: While I generally agree, I'm wondering why is this crab bucket mentality so prominently present?
Because this mentality is just common sense.
You have this genius plan to turn money into a lot more money.
Why are you offering it to some random guy like me? Why not do it with your own money? Why not convince the really big money?
The only explanation i can come up with is that you think i am a sucker that will not see the downside to your proposal, which is usually either that it is very risky, or that it is just a scam.
What I mean by the crab bucket is saying: I don't believe you, it's a scam, don't do it, they're going to steal your money, stay on the same level (i.e. I'll pull you back in the bucket). And while I generally agree with that something like this is too good to be true and therefore a scam, I find it sad that we're set up like that where this is a very slim chance being a legitimate thing.
Everyone is at the same time:
Competing for making the biggest gains possible (best PvP game on the planet by the way), so they're trying to get an edge by either getting some intricate knowledge or scamming people (because that seems to also be easy money)
Getting slow and steady gains by DCAing or compounding another way. This way works and everybody knows about its success, why do we try the other way as well? Why not all get rich at the same time? Is it a zero sum game? Do some people really need that much more over other people?
I kind of know the answers to all those questions, I'm not super naive (even though I keep a part of me purposefully so), but it almost feels counterproductive to me for a society to be so anti-peer.
Its because you have to use logic when you see an offer like that and make a judgement of "how are they benefiting from this/how are they making money from this" and the answer is almost allways that its a scam. We're surrounded by very obvious scams all day every day.
One day you have to accept that you're not smart enough or shitty enough of a person to become a billionaire. From that day on you have to protect what little you have to survive to hold onto what little you have in this world. If everyone becomes rich then no one becomes rich. The only thing poors like us have are the things we are legaly protected with, which is why you see so many people in these scams say "not financial advice"
On July 14 2023 07:04 Uldridge wrote: What I mean by the crab bucket is saying: I don't believe you, it's a scam, don't do it, they're going to steal your money, stay on the same level (i.e. I'll pull you back in the bucket). And while I generally agree with that something like this is too good to be true and therefore a scam, I find it sad that we're set up like that where this is a very slim chance being a legitimate thing.
But if the crabs pull each other away from the top of the bucket where 99% of the time the chef waits to kill them, that is a net-positive behaviour for crabs even despite the 1% of times that the top of the bucket is free and the ocean's waiting right beside it.
We know what a chef-bucket looks like at this point.
I mean the crab metaphor doesn't really work anyway because in that case all the crabs are tugging on each other because they want to be the one to make it to the top. This is more like the village elders knowing the forest is dangerous and holding back the young ones from rushing off to play in there.
On July 14 2023 07:04 Uldridge wrote: What I mean by the crab bucket is saying: I don't believe you, it's a scam, don't do it, they're going to steal your money, stay on the same level (i.e. I'll pull you back in the bucket). And while I generally agree with that something like this is too good to be true and therefore a scam, I find it sad that we're set up like that where this is a very slim chance being a legitimate thing.
But if the crabs pull each other away from the top of the bucket where 99% of the time the chef waits to kill them, that is a net-positive behaviour for crabs even despite the 1% of times that the top of the bucket is free and the ocean's waiting right beside it.
We know what a chef-bucket looks like at this point.
I mean the crab metaphor doesn't really work anyway because in that case all the crabs are tugging on each other because they want to be the one to make it to the top. This is more like the village elders knowing the forest is dangerous and holding back the young ones from rushing off to play in there.
The thing is that even if it is not a scam then the strategy will stop working when you share it. It's a 99% chance to meet the chef and the other 1% the crab walks into another bucket.
Almost as if Real estate investments tend to be one giant Ponzi scheme. Sucks for any Western companies that were tied tied into Evergrande or even bought the debt.
So maybe the question then arises, why are we trying to get ahead of our peers in this post scarcity society when everyone could just get ahead? Is it competition for the sake of it?
On July 19 2023 02:42 Uldridge wrote: So maybe the question then arises, why are we trying to get ahead of our peers in this post scarcity society when everyone could just get ahead? Is it competition for the sake of it?
We don't live in a post scarcity society and there has to be an incentive to look for market anomalies to increase the efficiency of the allocation of capital.
I'd argue we have the capability to, but the reason we don't is because people are.. I don't know.. difficult to work with? Don't want to go full blanket statements here. I feel like I'd need to write a dissertation and read a library to delve into the topic honestly.
On July 19 2023 02:42 Uldridge wrote: So maybe the question then arises, why are we trying to get ahead of our peers in this post scarcity society when everyone could just get ahead? Is it competition for the sake of it?
We don't live in a post scarcity society and there has to be an incentive to look for market anomalies to increase the efficiency of the allocation of capital.
The idea we are in a post-scarcity society anywhere is beyond ridiculous
I do think there is a long term trend of winner-takes-all in the economy, which sped up a lot during covid, so the average person should try to own stocks of big companies as they continue to take over the economy in the next 50 years.
In most reasonably free countries you can buy stocks for as little as 10 usd, but most people seem to be totally unaware and unwilling to invest the smallest amount. "Most" being a gross overgeneralization, obviously.
Owning a stock doesn't do anything, it's not mathematically possible to catch up with the rich.
Let's say you start with $0 invested, make $50k and invest 20% of your income every year, living on the $40k. They start with $1m invested and invest none of their income every year. They also take out $40k of the growth each year to live on. They never lift a finger to work all their life.
After 32 years of hard work and saving you've hit a million dollars, assuming 7% average returns, and constant $10k contributions. After 32 years of no work at all they're on $4m and accelerating into the distance. The gap between you has actually increased from $1m to over $3m.
That's not to say you shouldn't try anyway, it's better to accumulate and invest than to not. But the idea that you can break into the club if you just work hard and invest is false.
It's funny when you see people defend the rich online for their decisions to continue to screw the working class, thinking they'll also be part of the club someday. Like, check your ego bro, you chose the wrong team to back from the start. Chances are you'll never be rich, so stop carrying water for them. They couldn't care less (or was it "could care less" as Nony keeps insisting, I'm confused) about you beyond you buying their products.
If it's a ploy in the hopes that someday a billionaire would finally take notice of you and invite you to their private yacht for some caviar, it's not a very good one. If, by some freak occurrence that does happen, make sure you address the billionaire as "Cap'n," or may God forgive what happens to your soul when you criticize their seafaring skills.
EPT
