Funny, Warren Buffet-whose fortune dwarf's Rump's, and who challenged Rump to compare tax returns a couple of days ago-has done a few developments in his time, too, and I didn't notice 3500 lawsuits that he is involved with, so your contention that it comes with the job isn't necessarily true, nor is your assumption that nobody who doesn't work in the field has any inkling how things work.
Funny, Warren Buffet-whose fortune dwarf's Rump's, and who challenged Rump to compare tax returns a couple of days ago-has done a few developments in his time, too, and I didn't notice 3500 lawsuits that he is involved with, so your contention that it comes with the job isn't necessarily true, nor is your assumption that nobody who doesn't work in the field has any inkling how things work.
It seems like Trump gets into trouble when he just pimps his name out for every little thing. Trump University, I mean that is nothing more than a grift. Sure it isn't his fault that a fool and his $ part ways but I think most would agree shelling out 15k for that is not something a billionaire should be attaching himself to.
Dude would promote the RX poli forum if we paid him enough.
Dude would promote the RX poli forum if we paid him enough.
Okay, but how can anyone possibly make the case that, millennials for example, think the way they do because of technology?
What do you mean by low hanging fruit? We haven't even escaped our own solar system so still a very primitive species with many frontiers ahead of us.
The problem is, we have STOPPED DREAMING because today's ('progressive') culture teaches humans to think in very SMALL and narrow PC terms, or not at all.
The left loves class warfare, but the way I see it, there are only two classes - the ruling class and the productive working class. To the ruling class, the working class are ants in their little colony. Every ant works for a common cause, the queen. They work on behalf of society and in doing so behave like drones. Look at some of the comments in this forum - pure drone mentality. They do not think for themselves but rather for their society, and always in political terms and causes regurgitating socialist propaganda. This is no accident, THEY ARE TAUGHT TO THINK LIKE THIS... social engineering from top to bottom.
Free market capitalism is the opposite - each person behaves as an individual and does things for themselves and anyone they choose to help. The innovators innovate without outside interference and obstacles. Capital flows to the best ideas etc.
If we're going to reach the next frontier, as a society, we have to tear down these barriers (ant colony mindset) holding us back. Teaching people to dream and imagine again is a critical step toward achieving new breakthrough technologies and real economic growth.
"The most closely organized groups and movements in the world are those which have been the least friendly to the people's progress and liberty." -- Henry Ford
Central planning sucks.
When I say low hanging fruit I refer to how many of the late 19th century and 1st half of the 20th century innovations were groundbreaking innovations that are extremely complex problems to solve. Thus you tend to get iterations and tinkering rather than breakthroughs.
Getting a plane to fly is 1 thing, getting it to fly at the speed of sound is something totally different.
Digging fossil fuels out of the ground and creating energy abundance is easier than creating nuclear fusion.
Getting a car to drive is hard, getting it to drive itself is even harder.
I'm not exonerating the government or the hijacking of the American ingenuity by left-wing higher education types. I talk about that all the time.
But I think you have to focus on the culture too. We're a society with a high standard of living and that certainly creates risk aversion. People don't want a nuclear plant in their backyard after 3 Mile, they don't want drugs to hit market before they go through the 1.2B 5 stage FDA process, and I could go on and on.
Is the culture a left-wing problem? Some of it, but I don't know if I would call it left-wing when it has been that way since the 60's. At this point, 95% of the population thinks this way.
Getting a plane to fly is 1 thing, getting it to fly at the speed of sound is something totally different.
Digging fossil fuels out of the ground and creating energy abundance is easier than creating nuclear fusion.
Getting a car to drive is hard, getting it to drive itself is even harder.
I'm not exonerating the government or the hijacking of the American ingenuity by left-wing higher education types. I talk about that all the time.
But I think you have to focus on the culture too. We're a society with a high standard of living and that certainly creates risk aversion. People don't want a nuclear plant in their backyard after 3 Mile, they don't want drugs to hit market before they go through the 1.2B 5 stage FDA process, and I could go on and on.
Is the culture a left-wing problem? Some of it, but I don't know if I would call it left-wing when it has been that way since the 60's. At this point, 95% of the population thinks this way.
So you have misallocation, harmful philosophy but also some stuff is just hard.
Gasoline/fossil fuels for instance, extremely energy dense, portable, stable and with huge economies of scale. Not to mention tons of global OPEC subsidies from countries that have no other economic growth or relevant industry.
So short of huge breakthroughs in nuclear (which is irrationally feared), that is just legitimately a tough problem to solve.
Look at all the research $ that has gone into curing cancer since Nixon declared "war on cancer" and that it would be solved by the bi-centennial, 6 years after his claim. Is that for a lack of effort? A lack of innovation?
It's just a very hard problem in many ways.
Gasoline/fossil fuels for instance, extremely energy dense, portable, stable and with huge economies of scale. Not to mention tons of global OPEC subsidies from countries that have no other economic growth or relevant industry.
So short of huge breakthroughs in nuclear (which is irrationally feared), that is just legitimately a tough problem to solve.
Look at all the research $ that has gone into curing cancer since Nixon declared "war on cancer" and that it would be solved by the bi-centennial, 6 years after his claim. Is that for a lack of effort? A lack of innovation?
It's just a very hard problem in many ways.
Joe in the book I took this out of, it comes right after the Unabomber tidbit. It basically says what you are saying.
Along with the natural fact that physical frontiers have receded, four social trends have conspired to root out belief in secrets. First is incrementalism. From an early age, we are taught that the right way to do things is to proceed one very small step at a time, day by day, grade by grade. If you overachieve and end up learning something that’s not on the test, you won’t receive credit for it. But in exchange for doing exactly what’s asked of you (and for doing it just a bit better than your peers), you’ll get an A. This process extends all the way up through the tenure track, which is why academics usually chase large numbers of trivial publications instead of new frontiers.
Second is risk aversion. People are scared of secrets because they are scared of being wrong.By definition, a secret hasn’t been vetted by the mainstream. If your goal is to never make a mistake in your life, you shouldn’t look for secrets. The prospect of being lonely but right - dedicating your life to something that no one else believes in - is already hard. The prospect of being lonely and wrong can be unbearable.
Third is complacency. Social elites have the most freedom and ability to explore new thinking, but they seem to believe in secrets the least. Why search for a new secret if you can comfortably collect rents on everything that has already been done? Every fall, the deans at top law schools and business schools welcome the incoming class with the same implicit message: “You got into this elite institution. Your worries are over. You’re set for life.” But that’s probably the kind of thing that’s true only if you don’t believe it.
Along with the natural fact that physical frontiers have receded, four social trends have conspired to root out belief in secrets. First is incrementalism. From an early age, we are taught that the right way to do things is to proceed one very small step at a time, day by day, grade by grade. If you overachieve and end up learning something that’s not on the test, you won’t receive credit for it. But in exchange for doing exactly what’s asked of you (and for doing it just a bit better than your peers), you’ll get an A. This process extends all the way up through the tenure track, which is why academics usually chase large numbers of trivial publications instead of new frontiers.
Second is risk aversion. People are scared of secrets because they are scared of being wrong.By definition, a secret hasn’t been vetted by the mainstream. If your goal is to never make a mistake in your life, you shouldn’t look for secrets. The prospect of being lonely but right - dedicating your life to something that no one else believes in - is already hard. The prospect of being lonely and wrong can be unbearable.
Third is complacency. Social elites have the most freedom and ability to explore new thinking, but they seem to believe in secrets the least. Why search for a new secret if you can comfortably collect rents on everything that has already been done? Every fall, the deans at top law schools and business schools welcome the incoming class with the same implicit message: “You got into this elite institution. Your worries are over. You’re set for life.” But that’s probably the kind of thing that’s true only if you don’t believe it.
Once again I agree, but branding is part of the development. When I look at the top forbes list, nearly all RE developers do high end or mega projects....not your college town apartments.
And yes, your right about timing, but every top developer can say the same. Really any business can say that in the long run.
I think we are talking in a round about way, the same things.
I am just interested in what he does. I have personally developed around 800 residential lots, 6 stand alone retail locations, and built on many of those. It sounds like a lot on a local level, but cant measure up to a 1/100000000 to the big dawgs.
I guess its the same scale of me being a 6 handicap in golf, and around my friends I feel good, but couldnt sniff a jock strap of a pga tour player. Economies of scale I guess.
Pretty Bad. More and more people are realizing he's a dangerous charlatan who no one sane wants anywhere near the Oval Office. He's getting swamped in the recent, post DNC Polling. But he's an entertaining clown that can attract people to see the freak show. That's meaningful, just like FB "Likes" are
. Of course not meaningful to who is going to win a National election. Didn't you learn that in 2012 when you were inflating Romney's crowd size, but even the accurate numbers were still larger than Obama's. And it meant what it usually means. Nothing.[h=3]Polling Data[/h]
| Poll | Date | Sample | MoE | Clinton (D) | Trump (R) | Johnson (L) | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 7/25 - 8/2 | -- | -- | 42.6 | 37.4 | 8.4 | Clinton +5.2 |
| FOX News | 7/31 - 8/2 | 1022 RV | 3.0 | 44 | 35 | 12 | Clinton +9 |
| Economist/YouGov* | 7/30 - 8/1 | 933 RV | 4.1 | 41 | 36 | 8 | Clinton +5 |
| CNN/ORC* | 7/29 - 7/31 | 894 RV | 3.5 | 45 | 37 | 9 | Clinton +8 |
| CBS News | 7/29 - 7/31 | 1131 RV | 3.0 | 43 | 38 | 10 | Clinton +5 |
| PPP (D)* | 7/29 - 7/30 | 1276 LV | 2.7 | 46 | 41 | 6 | Clinton +5 |
| Reuters/Ipsos* | 7/25 - 7/29 | 1433 LV | 2.9 | 37 | 37 | 5 | Tie |
| NBC News/SM* | 7/25 - 7/31 | 12742 RV | 1.2 | 42 | 38 | 9 | Clinton +4 |
You mentioned society being trapped in a post-1960s rut (harmful philosophy)...
If you compare the intellectual underpinnings of capitalism in America to what passes off as "mainstream" economic and philosophical thought today, it's not too difficult to see where we are headed.
While yesterday's mainstream thinking was driven by innovators and capitalists, today's policies are dominated by sheltered academics and their unproven half-baked economic and social theories.
No wonder we are now being told that anemic economic growth is the new normal (central planning run amok)
Previously, I just brought up your less-than-sterling history of crowd estimation as well as election predictions, but, you really ARE an idiot: even people who have backed him-like Gingrich and Christie-have, to varying degrees, criticized him, let alone multiple Republicans in the last 24 hours or so actually saying, not only will they not vote for him, they'll be voting for HRC-and you're standing there insisting everything is just hunky dory. Fucking moron...
Another Republican with some Morals and Decency:
GOP congressman says he can't support Trump: 'I'm an American before I'm a Republican'
By Naomi Lim, CNN
Updated 7:40 PM ET, Wed August 3, 2016
Now Playing
GOP Rep. doesn't think he can support Donald Trump
Washington (CNN)Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger said Wednesday that he doesn't see how he can endorse his party's nominee, Donald Trump, in the wake of the week's events.
"I'm an American before I'm a Republican," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room." "I'm saying for me personally, how can I support that? Because he's crossed so many red lines that a commander in chief or a candidate for commander in chief should never cross."
Kinzinger, who has openly hesitated to embrace Trump as his party's standard-bearer, said he went to Cleveland hoping to "at least mildly endorse the Republican front-runner."
But in the aftermath of Trump's comments about Russian President Vladimir Putin and the parents of fallen Muslim American soldier Capt. Humayun Khan, the third-term Illinois congressman said that he doesn't "see how I get there anymore."
"I'm a Republican because I believe that Republicanism is the best way to defend the United States of America," Kinzinger said, adding that Trump "throws all of these Republican principles on their head."
But Kinzinger said he would not support Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and was contemplating writing in a candidate on his ballot come November 8.
The congressman also acknowledged the possibility that Trump could be a drag on races further down the ticket and that he would focus on defending the Republicans' majority in the House of Representatives.
"I won't be silent. He can tweet all he wants, you know, but I have to do this for my country and my party," Kinzinger said.
GOP congressman says he can't support Trump: 'I'm an American before I'm a Republican'
By Naomi Lim, CNN
Updated 7:40 PM ET, Wed August 3, 2016
GOP Rep. doesn't think he can support Donald Trump
- Kinzinger said Wednesday he "doesn't see how" he can endorse Trump
- He said he's contemplating writing in a candidate
Washington (CNN)Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger said Wednesday that he doesn't see how he can endorse his party's nominee, Donald Trump, in the wake of the week's events.
"I'm an American before I'm a Republican," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room." "I'm saying for me personally, how can I support that? Because he's crossed so many red lines that a commander in chief or a candidate for commander in chief should never cross."
Kinzinger, who has openly hesitated to embrace Trump as his party's standard-bearer, said he went to Cleveland hoping to "at least mildly endorse the Republican front-runner."
But in the aftermath of Trump's comments about Russian President Vladimir Putin and the parents of fallen Muslim American soldier Capt. Humayun Khan, the third-term Illinois congressman said that he doesn't "see how I get there anymore."
"I'm a Republican because I believe that Republicanism is the best way to defend the United States of America," Kinzinger said, adding that Trump "throws all of these Republican principles on their head."
But Kinzinger said he would not support Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and was contemplating writing in a candidate on his ballot come November 8.
The congressman also acknowledged the possibility that Trump could be a drag on races further down the ticket and that he would focus on defending the Republicans' majority in the House of Representatives.
"I won't be silent. He can tweet all he wants, you know, but I have to do this for my country and my party," Kinzinger said.
You can see real world examples in the dangers of the excessive conformity that we have come to know in the modern era.
Take the frequency of bubbles for instance, a big reason is that the wisdom of crowds is only valuable if the crowds are forming their opinion independently rather than a collectively, which is basically just herd mentality. During the tech bubble 40 P/E ratios was just supposed to be a new normal (and the tech bubble is fine in practice, it was just a sign of dynamism in 1 area of the economy getting too ahead of itself but the point remains), during the housing/finance bubble it was "real estate is rock solid, it won't go down" and now you have it in several areas like education, monetary policy, stocks where people are just afraid to question what went wrong. And when they do question it, it just comes off as disjointed and ill-informed (think OWS) but the angst is real. People fundamentally understand that something isn't working anymore which is why you see the rise of Sanders/Trump types.
So when there is no individual thought and everyone just accepts the status quo as dogma, it is really destructive.
While there are many political, cultural and philosophical reasons for this, I think some of it honestly does just come down to complacency. Necessity is the mother of invention and we've lived in relatively peaceful times since the 60's, bigger homes, cars, more resources, longer life expectancy, people being better educated than their parents thus leading to more efficiency in industries like insurance, finance, consulting, accounting, etc....So you didn't really need to create new energy or transport options for the standard of living to rise. Once we beat the USSR then there was no reason real to go to space anymore, once we won WW2 there was no reason for the government to do something as grand as the Manhattan project.
I see that culture changing, slowly but I do see it changing. 10 years ago you open a financial or business publication and it was all about financialization and BRIC countries or the developed/developing world. WTF is the developed world? That is basically an admission we have nothing left to do. You don't really see that anymore. You see more about startups, innovation, how to solve complex problems. You see this a little more in popular culture with shows like Silicon Valley or The Social Network movie or the movie about Jobs. I think after the finance crash, a lot of people are waking up to the fact that the only way to true growth is innovation but it didn't get that way overnight and it won't go back overnight.
