Yes I don’t get the worry on an individual basis. If my money is in a CIT they tell me exactly what it’s invested in and it is audited every year.
The worry here seems to be on a systemic level, rather. No one knows how much in aggregate is in these types of trusts nor how it is in aggregate allocated. Which may be a concern from a systemwide risk management pov but far less so for an individual worker.
In the context of the article, this type of trust you linked has got to be the special case of all special cases.
Since that trust is tracking the S&P 500, it has to be literally equivalent to its VOO ETF counterpart. If it ever rebalanced in a way that no longer tracked the S&P, or even mysteriously changed disclosure in some way, investors would dump it the next day (for an index fund that is literally the same except for expense ratio and disclosure rules).
Moreover, everything in that trust is quite obviously publicly traded companies. The article is about retirement funds gaining access to private markets[1].
tldr; this ain't that.
1: clarification edit. Also, my gut tells me I should have written that as "private markets gaining access to retirement funds" but I really don't know enough about it.
A complete human experience is to have relatively little time, no point in doing anything if you have 500 years to do it IMO.
Edit: Maybe there wouldn't be nilihism, but I don't think you could get more fulfilled with the extra time. I feel like an insect that lives 24 hours and a shark that lives several hundred have an equal feeling of accomplishment.
You seem to be implying that at after a certain number of years (e.g. 79) you wake up one day and say "I'm fulfilled and have nothing left I'd like to achieve".
As someone who occasionally works with terminal patients, I've never seen that in practice. In reality most people desperately wish that they could carry on living, and have plenty of unfinished business that they'd like to see through. The only exception I've seen is when someone is in so much pain that they just want to end the suffering.
If we turn your argument on its head, a person who dies at 20 is just as fulfilled as a person who dies at 79. So why should anyone bother trying to live a long and healthy life?
More likely that he would live most of those years with compounding mental and physical health issues, quality of life degrading to the point where most would wish for death instead.
This is a common misconception. Namely, that increasing lifespan just means extending the part where your health degrades continuously. That's actually a very unrealistic outcome for life extension technology. In general, the things that cause your health to degrade as you age are interlinked with the things that cause you to die. If you find a way to increase lifespan, chances are you've also found a way to increase healthspan. In fact, all of the best methods we currently have to live longer do exactly that (e.g. exercise, eat healthily, avoid smoking, etc.).
I recognize and appreciate that you likely believe your contribution is one of optimism, but respectfully, I feel ill reading things like this.
Ever heard of Chesterton's fence? I don't believe we are more clever than our mother, the computational machinery of the universe. If we remove death, there will be great consequence.
Heck, it's arguable that the slow decline and death spiral we're in on this planet (empathatically NOT just human well-being metrics here), that this is already due to pushing death back, and systematically allowing power/opportunity to accumulate ever more deeply at scale of the selfish individual...
I know it's cliche, but if he knew he (any of us) knew we might live to 790, would we live life so fully?
I kind of think that's what is behind some people versus others—those that have an intrinsic, constant sense of the brevity of life are the ones that try to experience life to the fullest.
I routinely have to correct product managers repeatedly on key details of how their products work and how their customers operate so this doesn’t surprise me at all. It is totally a mistake I could see a product management director having been corrected on a dozen times but they keep making it.
I have to ask you for coaching advice here, as I may or may not be experiencing similar things. Does the correction impact your political capital? I am a firm believer in critique in private, but in key meetings where capabilities are the inputs to other discussion, it is difficult to bite my tongue
How far below is the question. It could level out at 60% - that is believable. However it can't level out at 99% - Somewhere around 95% major sites will decide IPv4 isn't worth supporting and they will just ignore that final 5% of customers, which will force them to upgrade - which in turn will give others confidence to remove their final 4% of customers - until IPv4 dies.
There are also still Telex and X.25 networks around there, not to forget the whole public telephone network!
But at some point, getting a native connection to all of these started becoming increasingly rare, and now these are largely emulated/tunneled on top of IP. The same can happen for IPv4.
Often an acquisition of a company is for the set of customers. If I sell my lawn care business and then turn around and email all my former clients offering them lawn care via my new company, I’ve just undercut what I just sold.
Noncompete shouldn’t be so broad that I couldn’t move to another city and start a lawn care business there, but I shouldn’t be able to compete directly with the business I just sold using my insider information of that business.
There's also a big difference between starting a competing business like your example, and being barred from say working on "cloud infrastructure" because your previous employer also worked on "cloud infrastructure". It can be blurry for executives, but in general noncompetes seem to be used to push pay down more than for any legitimate business purpose.
> Often an acquisition of a company is for the set of customers.
That's a merger. You can, not having any business currently, buy yourself into one. In which case the acquisition is purely for the profits.
> I’ve just undercut what I just sold.
No you've just competed with them. If your prices are lower then you've undercut them. If their prices are artificially high then the market, a.k.a. those customers, are the ones to benefit.
> but I shouldn’t be able to compete directly with the business I just sold
Competition is _competition_. You didn't buy a market you bought an opportunity. You still have to compete against everyone else.
> I just sold using my insider information of that business.
Insider information? On a lawn care business that has no issued securities?
> Even the authors of this study go to great pains to not challenge the dogma that microplastics are existentially terrifying.
What great pains are they going through? The study is a discussion of measurement techniques and makes no comment on whether they are harmful because that’s irrelevant to the paper.
This could just as easily be a paper on how wearing the wrong type of gloves results in overestimating calcium in soil. You’re the one injecting a political agenda.
I don’t even get the point of this site. They say:
> Most of this spending isn’t waste. Hospitals need staff. Universities need facilities. Even small charities need people to run programs. The problem isn’t intent. It’s that the reporting system was designed to satisfy the IRS, not to show donors where their money went.
The complaint seems to be that the form filed with the IRS has the information the IRS is interested in, not the information whoever made the site wants.
The reality is that I know how the places I donate my money and time to use their money because I’m not relying on their IRS filings to get that information. I would suggest others do the same and donate to places where they understand what the org is doing and where the money is going.
Having a detailed and auditable report of how money is being used is really helpful for creating the understanding you are talking about. That is what accounting is for and why it is so essential to modern life.
The site is obviously just an advertisement for a weird camera surveillance system, but the concern about incomplete accounting is very real. In many places one might want to contribute to non-profit efforts, IRS information isn't even available. In my work in Ecuador, I have seen a lot of fraud, and half-baked charities. Some rich NGOs sometimes walk in on some field trip that donors have paid for, make some statements about all they are going to do and disappear without follow-up. Basically they are just tourists on a free vacation taking publicity photos. There is a specific organization that comes down to build environmentally safe toilets. Not only are these built by young middle class volunteers that know nothing about building anything but their CVs, the communities they are helping don't even need new toilets. The building supplies tend to be repurposed after the volunteers are gone, every single year. I'd like to know if I paid for that. There are seeds of merit in the program, but also unnecessary waste.
Despite negative examples, there are many worthy things that are done, and could be done in the region. Northern money can go very far in the areas I work. It can do a lot to not just improve but transform people's lives. So you suggest that an answer to money misuse is to have personal experience with any organization you donate to. How many people who have the money are going to spend any real time in Amazonian Ecuador? They aren't there now. What is going to change? Since there are few people with money who can be personally involved, does that mean that no effort should be made to better people's lives there? Obviously, that is what accounting is for. I think the article is absolutely right about that. I find their solution to be creepy and invasive. Maybe just having better auditing and reporting standards makes more sense than pointing cameras at hospital patients, but what do I know?
Here’s a trust that has 250 billion, but reports prices and does many other things the article says isn’t required: https://workplace.vanguard.com/investments/product-details/f...
Not opaque and it has lower fees than the retail S&P 500 funds.
reply