I think both meme stock and crypto people have retained their senses of humor, even (especially?) about meme stocks and crypto. When meme stock people tweet stuff like, "To the moon!", they are at least half joking about themselves, or at least some of them are.
My wife's iPhone costs six times more than my Motorola phone. Her phone does take better pictures. My phone has a better battery. Both phones work equally well for talking, texting and browsing the web (actually my phone seems to be more reliable in sending and receiving texts but that may be due to the network and not the device).
Good for Apple for realizing such an amazing price premium on their product. We hate Amway because its customers are enthusiasts. And yet no company has more enthusiasts than Apple.
And those two bilked people who would generally be considered sophisticated investors, IIRC.
The Amway shtick is probably necessary for mass-market delusion but you can do a lot by working the "you're joining an exclusive club" line with the folks who think they sssmmmaaaahhhhttttt.
While I understand the bad feelings people have for MLM groupies, I marvel at the loathing expressed for MLMs all the while the emotionally coercive tactics used by all other organizations and individuals are given a pass and even welcomed.
For example, Wall Street marketing is a massive psyops to convince people to give the finance industry money. That long-term investing is generally a good strategy does not negate the reality that everyday people are using the allure of stock market riches to sucker others to make unwise financial choices.
1) A person can genuinely believe a product is good for you and you would be wrong to believe them.
2) A person can be deliberately working to take your money and have no genuine belief in the product they are selling and you would be wrong to believe them.
Why would falling for (1) make us more angry than falling for (2)?
I am not familiar with all aspects of how sales organizations operate. But what I see here is an incredible nuance. MLMs have a "pyramid" structure. Most sales organizations have a "pyramid" structure. In both the people higher up the pyramid tend to enjoy higher pay and benefits than people lower in the pyramid, even when it is the people lower in the pyramid who are usually doing the harder work.
MLMs usually have a program where "partners" have an obligation to purchase a certain amount of product each month, whether they sell it or not. Is that unethical? If the agreement is freely entered by the "partner" I don't see an issue. If I open a retail store I will need to buy inventory upfront. And if I fail to sell that inventory eventually I will have to unload it at a loss. How is the MLM arrangement different than the retail store arrangement?
People knowingly take on a financial risk in pursuit of a financial gain. The risk of failure is high in a lot of sales ventures. Which is a worst deal: Join an MLM or start a restaurant? At least with the MLM if I quit I still own boxes of detergent I can use to do my dishes and laundry!
I would argue that partisan political groups - especially hyper-partisan or blinders on, single-issue political groups - have become cults. Such groups on both ends of the spectrum certainly fit the description:
"Some features that I have noticed about cults: You no longer feel any affinity with people who are not fellow cult members. You don’t laugh at things that other people find funny. Your sense of humor is at best distorted and at worst nonexistent."
And you don't consider the merits of facts and logic; in fact, you ignore facts and logic that don't fit the cult's way of thinking.
Smelly - Not sure what you mean by your comment so please elaborate. Although not a libertarian myself, I am sympathetic to their perspectives - well most of the time and with certain ideological exceptions such as Sen. Rand Paul. I find many libertarians to be consistent in their philosophical perspective and intellectually honest in the conclusions they draw. Arnold is a quintessential example. - mg
First, thanks for the compliments on the Zoom session, which seems like ancient history by now.
Back to libertarians. My sense is that libertarians assume ideal conditions, to wit, markets are perfectly competitive - no monopolies, no oligopolies, no pricing frictions, and fully informed actors. They assume that the judicial system is fair and efficient and therefore available to adjudicate, and that all actors are law abiding, so that disputes can be settled peacefully and smoothly, thus helping markets to work. Within that context, libertarian's conclusions are often sensible and illuminating of how society could work (emphasis on "could") in ideal conditions. But that's why I'm not a libertarian - because the world is full of market imperfections and frictions, and people who don't respect contracts or the law or worse (evil people). So, libertarians' prescriptions often don't work in practice.
I'd be a libertarian myself if I thought libertarianism could work in practical settings.
Not an ignorant question at all. Moreover, the answer is not simple either; in fact the answer is complex. I'd rather take that discussion to another venue for several reasons, including regulatory. Can you message me on LinkedIn or Facebook and we can meet up elsewhere?
I went to an alumni Zoom session on Crypto several months to get additional information on crypto. It was very disappointing. The presenters were crypto enthusiasts who were dismissive of some of the questions, basically saying: "you're stupid if you don't understand how this works." Crypto may not be a cult, but many crypto proponents strike me as scammers.
I find this very easy to believe. Bitcoin is the unique asset in this space. It is a property and/or commodity as it has no issuer and no single entity controls it. The rest are securities issued by individuals or corporations who try to profit of of seniorage and marketing. In massive bull markets like we just experienced, scammers come out of the woodwork with their shitcoins. My hope is that many of them get wiped out during this bear run - eliminating noise (crypto) to make the signal (Bitcoin) easier to find.
What worries me is that there doesn't seem to be high returns to distinguishing the better and worse positioned firms if an everything bubble bursts.
I remember from the global financial crisis that the distress of General Motors and Chrysler wasn't directly present in Ford. Ford had secured more expensive and stable long term financing before the crisis. However, because Ford's suppliers hadn't, and those suppliers were often shared with the other auto makers, Ford was very vulnerable to the failure of the other automakers resulting in supply chain and financial distress to Ford.
If you tried to sort the better from worse firms, you might have found Ford. But I'm not sure it would have helped.
I had only one contact with Amway- my cousin, who was about 4-5 years older than me pitched me to join when I was 19 years old. I was, at that age, far too lazy to find the idea interesting in any way, and even told him it sounded like a Ponzi Scheme to me (though not using those words). I don't know how my cousin's experience turned out- I haven't talked to him since that day, and I don't know if it had anything to do with me gently ridiculing the venture. He is still alive, and if I ever see him again, I will ask him about it.
When I was a high school senior a neighborhood friend enlisted in the Navy. He then invited me to recruitment dinner at a local Ramada Inn - back in my day and town that was luxury. I enjoyed the dinner and I did not enlist. There was no way at my then young age I would have survived the military regiment. I at least knew that about myself!
I have wondered how the Navy turned out for my friend. I admire those who go that route and take advantage of what it offers, while putting up with the culture it demands.
There's always been an "everything bubble", also known as "the thin veneer of civilization". Historically, war been the thing that pops the "everything bubble". Today, however, we can imagine that bubble popping worldwide, thanks to technology and the hive mind.
As for web3, Marc Andreesen seems 100% behind it and is looking for startups to pour money into. Then you have the Swaan Phenomenon: https://www.swanbitcoin.com/ They seem like the truly true believers. But they are Bitcoin first, web3 second. And then there is Saylor, who you have mentioned as an omen. He gives podcasts that go on longer than Castro speeches.
Thing is, there is a lot of real knowledge here. At the same time, there is the recurring reference to devotion to Bitcoin NO MATTER WHAT. And they use crypto as a curse word and are quick to point out the pyramid schemes and the "rug pulls" of crypto scammers. Also, they link to diet and health and a hatred of "Fiat" anything. Not only Fiat money, but also Fiat food. And the software engineers are not fake; they know their stuff. Maybe its more a Jordon Peterson affiliate group than a cult..
I've noticed Dr. Peterson is a bit humor impaired, but maybe there are worse sins. Particularly given the moral and intellectual sewer that younger educated people have to wade through.
I think both meme stock and crypto people have retained their senses of humor, even (especially?) about meme stocks and crypto. When meme stock people tweet stuff like, "To the moon!", they are at least half joking about themselves, or at least some of them are.
Apple has convinced hundreds of millions of people that paying 2 to 5 times more for a product makes them smarter
But Amway! They brainwash people.
Seems to me Apple is the most successful organization ever at capturing people's minds. Good for them.
My wife's iPhone costs six times more than my Motorola phone. Her phone does take better pictures. My phone has a better battery. Both phones work equally well for talking, texting and browsing the web (actually my phone seems to be more reliable in sending and receiving texts but that may be due to the network and not the device).
Good for Apple for realizing such an amazing price premium on their product. We hate Amway because its customers are enthusiasts. And yet no company has more enthusiasts than Apple.
Bernie Madoff.
Elizabeth Holmes.
And those two bilked people who would generally be considered sophisticated investors, IIRC.
The Amway shtick is probably necessary for mass-market delusion but you can do a lot by working the "you're joining an exclusive club" line with the folks who think they sssmmmaaaahhhhttttt.
While I understand the bad feelings people have for MLM groupies, I marvel at the loathing expressed for MLMs all the while the emotionally coercive tactics used by all other organizations and individuals are given a pass and even welcomed.
For example, Wall Street marketing is a massive psyops to convince people to give the finance industry money. That long-term investing is generally a good strategy does not negate the reality that everyday people are using the allure of stock market riches to sucker others to make unwise financial choices.
1) A person can genuinely believe a product is good for you and you would be wrong to believe them.
2) A person can be deliberately working to take your money and have no genuine belief in the product they are selling and you would be wrong to believe them.
Why would falling for (1) make us more angry than falling for (2)?
If you sell my products and I pay you to do that, I may not be fair to you, but I am probably acting within some ethical bounds.
If you sell my products and you have to pay me to do that (as in MLM), I am probably acting outside of ethical bounds.
I am not familiar with all aspects of how sales organizations operate. But what I see here is an incredible nuance. MLMs have a "pyramid" structure. Most sales organizations have a "pyramid" structure. In both the people higher up the pyramid tend to enjoy higher pay and benefits than people lower in the pyramid, even when it is the people lower in the pyramid who are usually doing the harder work.
MLMs usually have a program where "partners" have an obligation to purchase a certain amount of product each month, whether they sell it or not. Is that unethical? If the agreement is freely entered by the "partner" I don't see an issue. If I open a retail store I will need to buy inventory upfront. And if I fail to sell that inventory eventually I will have to unload it at a loss. How is the MLM arrangement different than the retail store arrangement?
People knowingly take on a financial risk in pursuit of a financial gain. The risk of failure is high in a lot of sales ventures. Which is a worst deal: Join an MLM or start a restaurant? At least with the MLM if I quit I still own boxes of detergent I can use to do my dishes and laundry!
I would argue that partisan political groups - especially hyper-partisan or blinders on, single-issue political groups - have become cults. Such groups on both ends of the spectrum certainly fit the description:
"Some features that I have noticed about cults: You no longer feel any affinity with people who are not fellow cult members. You don’t laugh at things that other people find funny. Your sense of humor is at best distorted and at worst nonexistent."
And you don't consider the merits of facts and logic; in fact, you ignore facts and logic that don't fit the cult's way of thinking.
Smelly - Not sure what you mean by your comment so please elaborate. Although not a libertarian myself, I am sympathetic to their perspectives - well most of the time and with certain ideological exceptions such as Sen. Rand Paul. I find many libertarians to be consistent in their philosophical perspective and intellectually honest in the conclusions they draw. Arnold is a quintessential example. - mg
First, thanks for the compliments on the Zoom session, which seems like ancient history by now.
Back to libertarians. My sense is that libertarians assume ideal conditions, to wit, markets are perfectly competitive - no monopolies, no oligopolies, no pricing frictions, and fully informed actors. They assume that the judicial system is fair and efficient and therefore available to adjudicate, and that all actors are law abiding, so that disputes can be settled peacefully and smoothly, thus helping markets to work. Within that context, libertarian's conclusions are often sensible and illuminating of how society could work (emphasis on "could") in ideal conditions. But that's why I'm not a libertarian - because the world is full of market imperfections and frictions, and people who don't respect contracts or the law or worse (evil people). So, libertarians' prescriptions often don't work in practice.
I'd be a libertarian myself if I thought libertarianism could work in practical settings.
Not an ignorant question at all. Moreover, the answer is not simple either; in fact the answer is complex. I'd rather take that discussion to another venue for several reasons, including regulatory. Can you message me on LinkedIn or Facebook and we can meet up elsewhere?
I went to an alumni Zoom session on Crypto several months to get additional information on crypto. It was very disappointing. The presenters were crypto enthusiasts who were dismissive of some of the questions, basically saying: "you're stupid if you don't understand how this works." Crypto may not be a cult, but many crypto proponents strike me as scammers.
I find this very easy to believe. Bitcoin is the unique asset in this space. It is a property and/or commodity as it has no issuer and no single entity controls it. The rest are securities issued by individuals or corporations who try to profit of of seniorage and marketing. In massive bull markets like we just experienced, scammers come out of the woodwork with their shitcoins. My hope is that many of them get wiped out during this bear run - eliminating noise (crypto) to make the signal (Bitcoin) easier to find.
"You no longer feel any affinity with people who are not fellow cult members.
You don’t laugh at things that other people find funny. Your sense of humor is at best distorted and at worst nonexistent."
The first is explicitly an anti-Christian vice and not a signal virtue of nay other religion that I am familiar with.
What worries me is that there doesn't seem to be high returns to distinguishing the better and worse positioned firms if an everything bubble bursts.
I remember from the global financial crisis that the distress of General Motors and Chrysler wasn't directly present in Ford. Ford had secured more expensive and stable long term financing before the crisis. However, because Ford's suppliers hadn't, and those suppliers were often shared with the other auto makers, Ford was very vulnerable to the failure of the other automakers resulting in supply chain and financial distress to Ford.
If you tried to sort the better from worse firms, you might have found Ford. But I'm not sure it would have helped.
I had only one contact with Amway- my cousin, who was about 4-5 years older than me pitched me to join when I was 19 years old. I was, at that age, far too lazy to find the idea interesting in any way, and even told him it sounded like a Ponzi Scheme to me (though not using those words). I don't know how my cousin's experience turned out- I haven't talked to him since that day, and I don't know if it had anything to do with me gently ridiculing the venture. He is still alive, and if I ever see him again, I will ask him about it.
When I was a high school senior a neighborhood friend enlisted in the Navy. He then invited me to recruitment dinner at a local Ramada Inn - back in my day and town that was luxury. I enjoyed the dinner and I did not enlist. There was no way at my then young age I would have survived the military regiment. I at least knew that about myself!
I have wondered how the Navy turned out for my friend. I admire those who go that route and take advantage of what it offers, while putting up with the culture it demands.
There's always been an "everything bubble", also known as "the thin veneer of civilization". Historically, war been the thing that pops the "everything bubble". Today, however, we can imagine that bubble popping worldwide, thanks to technology and the hive mind.
As for web3, Marc Andreesen seems 100% behind it and is looking for startups to pour money into. Then you have the Swaan Phenomenon: https://www.swanbitcoin.com/ They seem like the truly true believers. But they are Bitcoin first, web3 second. And then there is Saylor, who you have mentioned as an omen. He gives podcasts that go on longer than Castro speeches.
Thing is, there is a lot of real knowledge here. At the same time, there is the recurring reference to devotion to Bitcoin NO MATTER WHAT. And they use crypto as a curse word and are quick to point out the pyramid schemes and the "rug pulls" of crypto scammers. Also, they link to diet and health and a hatred of "Fiat" anything. Not only Fiat money, but also Fiat food. And the software engineers are not fake; they know their stuff. Maybe its more a Jordon Peterson affiliate group than a cult..
I've noticed Dr. Peterson is a bit humor impaired, but maybe there are worse sins. Particularly given the moral and intellectual sewer that younger educated people have to wade through.