[HN Gopher] Non-Believers
___________________________________________________________________
Non-Believers
Author : memorable
Score : 30 points
Date : 2022-08-12 07:45 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (podviaznikov.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (podviaznikov.com)
| pablok2 wrote:
| As someone who can relate to the author in many ways, I'd argue
| you should consider stability more objectively. You compare
| states that have dissolved multiple times in a century against
| states that have been stable (relatively). Your own argument can
| be used to make the opposite point, judging by results alone.
| [deleted]
| hiphipjorge wrote:
| > The speed of history is increasing with each new generation
| after all.
|
| This is the only statement in the post I honestly disagreed with.
| Anton is trying to talk about how his coworkers have lost
| historical perspective and that he, because of the geopolitical
| situation of the space in which he was born, has more historical
| perspective and therefore believes that everything might got s**.
| It's a very valid argument.
|
| Yet, I have 2 questions: - Doesn't the fact that there's a large
| group of people in the world (in North America, Europe, and other
| places) that believe in the stability of the system indicate that
| maybe they're actually experiencing history at a slower pace than
| their ancestors? - More importantly, isn't the intent to predict
| history by claiming to understand a change in the way it operates
| (in this case its speed) also a lack of historical perspective?
|
| Otherwise completely understood the point + liked the idea.
| podviaznikov wrote:
| > The speed of history is increasing with each new generation
| after all.
|
| Ok, maybe it's only for Ukrainians or something like that.
| Probably this statement is even more true than when I wrote it.
|
| > therefore believes that everything might got s*
|
| I don't believe in that to be honest. It might be one of the
| more pessimistic essays. But in general I do not try to connect
| the speed of history, the direction (going to s* or otherwise).
| I think it's very possible to be optimistic about future.
|
| PS And fun fact I have 401K for 5(?) years now. So we all
| change all the time. But reflecting on history is interesting
| anyway.
| PopAlongKid wrote:
| [2016]
| mrandish wrote:
| I understand your unique perspective regarding long-term
| stability but that risk isn't limited to 401Ks as it extends to a
| person's overall investing strategy whether in stocks, bonds,
| cash, precious metals, real estate, crypto, etc. I use a 401k as
| one element in my overall investment portfolio but that portfolio
| is diversified and layered with overlapping time horizons. I
| reassess my strategy yearly and update the risk profile and time
| horizons as needed based on my age, life plans and market
| volatility.
|
| For me, a 401K was good way to optimize the 'very long-term' part
| of my portfolio because the 401K is mechanism to allow that
| portion of your investments to grow pre-tax. Of course, when I
| was in my 20s I put very little (or zero) into the bucket labeled
| 'very long-term.' By the time I was 40, I was putting the maximum
| amount allowed in my 401k every year because it basically worked
| out like a tax discount. However, the cost of gaining that tax
| discount is locking up those funds behind a penalty for early
| withdrawal. The chances I might need that money sooner must be
| weighed as a cost/benefit analysis.
|
| But that's really no different than many investment vehicles
| which have varying degrees of liquidity (T-Bills, bonds, real-
| estate, startup, etc.) The market prices the assets accordingly
| and it's not hard to construct a portfolio to match any
| risk/reward and time horizon you think is best for you.
| Banana699 wrote:
| >the probability of change in each system might not be high, but
| overall probability of general change is much higher - because
| it's multiplication of individual probabilities.
|
| I get what the author is trying to say, but they had this one
| backward. Probabilities get smaller by multiplication. What he
| probably had in mind is :
|
| - The probabilities of change events C1,...,Cn is P1,...,Pn
|
| - The probability of no change at all is therefore
| (1-P1)(1-P2)...(1-Pn), which does indeed become smaller as more
| (independent) events C1,..., Cn are accounted for. And therfore
| the probability of change increases, but not because its a
| multiplication of probabilities, the exact opposite in fact, its
| because 1 - <multiplication of multiple probabilities>.
|
| - Another way of phrasing the above is that, although each Pi
| might be small, their sum represents a sizable chunk of
| 1,therefore a significant probability. This only holds if events
| intersects minimally or not at all. This is a different
| assumption than that of independence.
| eadmund wrote:
| > Consciously or not they bet that in 40-60 years the system they
| live now would remain unchanged ... laws to protect savings of
| the regular people still would be in place
|
| I really worry about that. I have been steadily saving in my
| 401(k) for my entire working life, and while it is not a huge
| amount, it is a few years' wages. Meanwhile, plenty of people
| have saved nothing for retirement.
|
| I have no assurance that a wealth tax will not be imposed on that
| 401(k) to fund others' retirements; I don't even really have any
| assurance that income taxes won't be imposed on Roth IRAs or
| 401(k)s, despite that being their whole reason for existence.
|
| I can _easily_ see some demagogue riling people up and calling me
| a wrecker or a hoarder because rather than spend my income today
| I have been saving it for the future. I can easily see a more
| restrained demagogue calling for me to pay 'my fair share,'
| defining that as some increased amount because I had the
| foresight and discipline to sacrifice for decades.
|
| I can see that money I have been carefully husbanding through
| financial crises and wars taken from me, and I can see being told
| that I should be grateful to keep any of it.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| This is why I have avoided Roth IRAs.
|
| The deal with IRAs is "put in pre-tax money; we'll tax it when
| you take it out". The deal with Roth IRAs is "put in post-tax
| money; it _won 't_ be taxed when you take it out". My fear is
| that the deal will change by the time I'm ready to take it out
| - that Roth IRAs will in fact be taxed on withdrawal a decade
| or two from now.
| podviaznikov wrote:
| 6 years later after writing this post it is still mind blowing
| to me how stable US is/was. That you could plan something for
| the life.
|
| Maybe it is changing now, but the positive thing is that we can
| build societies that are stable for few generations. I find
| this bit aspiring in general (but obviously doesn't help much
| when thinking about your own pension and financial security).
|
| It's a reminder for myself mostly, because again I'm originally
| from Ukraine and Ukraine didn't have stable peaceful period
| that lasted even one generation (at least in the past 150
| years).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-12 23:02 UTC)