All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 11, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
43:58
Episode 331 Scott Adams: The New Standard of Justice, Time, Climate Models, Fentanyl
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey Kate!
Is Joanne here already?
I looked away. How about the rest of you?
Unix, Rab, Sharona, Matthias, Sam?
Get on in here.
Get on in here and grab your coffee or your beverage of your choice because it's time.
For Coffee with Scott Adams.
Some of you may have noticed that I did not do my periscope yesterday.
It was a travel day. Coming back from Utah.
Up in the high elevations where it is difficult to walk upstairs, very hard to breathe.
But forget about that, because now it's time for the simultaneous sip.
Grab your mug, your cup, your vessel, your stein, your container, your glass.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
It's time to join me for the Simultaneous Sip.
Ah.
So good.
Yes, I just spent a few days up in Utah.
Up in the mountains.
It was a ski vacation without any of the skiing.
Turns out the slopes where we planned, or at least Christina planned to ski, were not open.
So we stayed at a ski resort, but didn't do any skiing.
I, however, got a lot of work done on my upcoming book, the title of which will be Loser Think.
And we're going to be talking about some loser thinking today.
So, first of all, did you see that Time Magazine has named its person of the year?
Its person of the year is fake news.
Now, that's not exactly what they called it.
According to them was Cheshogi and other journalists who have been killed in other countries.
Now, the other journalists who have been killed in other countries...
That seems pretty legitimate.
But can you honestly tell me that Jashogi would have been Time Person of the Year if it had not been an anti-Trump narrative to make it so?
The thing that makes fake news fake news is that they concentrate on whatever looks bad for the President At the expense of all context, at the expense of accuracy, at the expense of fairness, at the expense of justice.
So, Cheshawki is sort of the perfect example of fake news.
The reason it's a world event is because of the President.
Literally, the President is Time Person of the Year again, but instead of putting Trump on the cover, which would have been a compliment, They found a way to put Trump on the cover without putting Trump on the cover.
It's very clever, because if you're going to ask yourself, okay, who is the most newsworthy thing going on, there's no competition.
Given that Time Magazine, their own standard is not that the person they put on the cover is a good character, They are not saying that whoever's on the cover is a good person.
They're very clear about that.
They're saying it's whoever's the most news-making person.
Can you really tell me that Jashoggi and the murder journalists are the number one news makers in the past year?
I don't think it's even close.
There's President Trump.
This big. This is how much news President Trump made.
This big. How much of that was Cheshuggi and the other murdered journalists?
This big.
A little bit. Tiny little bit in the corner.
Tiny little bit. So, how can they put Trump on the cover without actually putting him on the cover?
They do it by putting the greatest symbol Of fake news against Trump that we've seen all year.
So fake news is actually the cover of Time magazine.
But how did they do it?
With fake news.
They used fake news to make fake news the Time cover.
It's kind of genius.
So I tweeted this morning that it seems that the new standard for justice...
For, at least according to CNN, the standard of justice, when they're talking about the president anyway, is that you are innocent until they accuse other people of doing other things.
That's the new standard of guilt.
So according to CNN, the president is in a lot of trouble.
The walls are closing in.
He's probably going to go to jail.
It looks like it's going to be some kind of impeachment.
The President is in so much legal jeopardy.
Why? Well, let me give you all the reasons.
So many reasons.
There are so many reasons.
And to share with you all the reasons that President Trump is in legal jeopardy, I'd like to introduce my guest, Dale.
Dale, would you come over here and explain to the nice people why President Trump is in so much trouble?
Gladly. I will gladly explain it to you in words that even you can understand.
And it goes like this.
President Trump is in deep, deep legal trouble.
Number one, people who are not President Trump did unrelated things.
Now, if it was only one person who did an unrelated thing, Well, I might say, well, let it go.
It could be a coincidence. It might just be a coincidence.
But seriously, folks, if lots of other people do unrelated things, that's as guilty as you can be.
Why? Because circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence, a lot of people don't know, but I talked to a lawyer.
I talked to a real lawyer.
And they said the circumstantial evidence is how you get convictions in many cases, because lots of times you don't have an eyewitness.
You need your circumstantial evidence.
And so, if you have lots of circumstantial evidence about other people doing other things, you put it all together, like a puzzle, all the pieces fit, you've got yourself a good case.
Now, it might not matter That everything the president is being accused of is an actual crime.
Most of them are imaginary crimes.
Talking to a Russian, for example, is sort of an imaginary crime.
Going to a meeting in which the topic of the meeting was not quite what you thought it was.
It's a crime. It's a crime.
It's a crime. Because lawyers are circumstantial evidence.
And other people did other things unrelated.
Got to put it all together. It's like a mosaic.
If you just look at one tile, well, you can't tell anything.
You have to put it all together.
That's when the walls start closing in.
Oh, I wish I had a second hand.
How do you do walls closing in when you only have one hand available?
That's the walls closing in, folks.
and scene.
So, so what's going on is that we're seeing the critics of the president go absolute bonkers about so what's going on is that we're seeing the critics of the president go absolute bonkers about things which aren't crimes, but if he had done something which he didn't do, and
he would go to jail.
You know, this is a standard which you could apply to, let's say, Mother Teresa.
Mother Teresa, as far as I know, did not commit any crimes.
But... Did she ever know anybody who committed crimes?
Yes, she did. Oh, yeah.
I'll bet you Mother Teresa has at one time or another, when she was alive, associated with somebody who had committed crimes.
And so, the walls are closing in on that saint, let me tell you.
Secondly, she did a lot of things that were not crimes, but, and here's the important but, If they had been crimes, she would be guilty as hell.
You get that right?
I mean, I don't think we can give her a free pass just because everything she did was legal.
You have to look at the fact that if those things that Mother Teresa did weren't legal...
And instead, they were completely different things that were illegal, and she had done those things.
Jail time. Am I right?
Am I right? How does not everybody see that?
How is that not obvious to all the Trump supporters?
That if you do things that are different from what you've done, and those other things you didn't do are criminal, you're gonna get punished.
It's common sense. So I tweeted around an interesting little piece from CNN. So CNN did a little video to mock the climate deniers, to tell them what they keep getting wrong.
Here are some things the CNN pointed out as what the climate deniers get wrong.
Number one, they confuse weather and climate, and they're right, by the way.
A lot of the climate deniers say, it's cold outside today, therefore no global warming, which is ridiculous because the climate alarmists do not claim that the temperature will only go up.
They claim that it might be lower some places and higher some places, but that overall it's going up.
So, so far, so far, good point.
Secondly, they say that the climate deniers who say, wait a minute, the climate is always changing, it's always going up or it's always going down, are not making a good point because the complaint is that the warming is warming at a rate we've never seen before.
So if your argument is, hey, the climate is always going up or going down, you're not really being rational.
You're not really in the argument.
Because the climate scientists are not complaining that the temperature is just going up.
Because, as the deniers say, temperatures are always going up or going down.
But, historically, it has never gone up at this rate.
That's what's different.
So if you're not arguing the rate of change, you're not really even in the conversation.
You're kind of talking about A different topic that has nothing to do with the topic.
Somebody's saying that's false.
It's not false.
Next, CNN mocked the people who, in this little video, mocked the people who say that the sun and the sun cycles are the primary drivers of the climate.
Oh wait, they didn't do that.
For some reason, and I don't know the reason, by the way, for some reason, CNN had a video in which they were mocking the biggest things that climate deniers believe, and the one they left out was the sun.
Now, I personally think that the sun is not the answer to climate change, so I'm not on the side of the folks who are saying, it's all the sun, it's all the sun.
Because, again, we're seeing a rate of warming, Which we've never seen.
And we've certainly seen sunspots before.
We have a history of the sun going through cycles.
So we would know if the sun has ever caused this rate, rate of warming.
And apparently it hasn't.
So the rate of warming is all the alarmists are talking about.
But the deniers will only talk about the warming.
So we're not really arguing the same point.
And it bothers me to be lumped with the deniers, because I talk about the accuracy of the models, which I'm going to talk about in a minute.
But it bugs me to be on the side of people who have such a bad point.
If you're not arguing the rate, the rate of warming, you're not even on the same topic.
As the climate scientists.
So stop saying it's about the sun, unless you can say at the same time, the sun has a history of making the rate, the rate, only the rate, it's all we're talking about, is the rate of warming.
If the sun has done that before, you've got a good point about the sun.
If the sun has never before caused the rate, the rate, only the rate, the rate of warming, Stop talking about the Sun.
Stop talking about the general cycles of the Earth, unless you're also talking about the rate, the rate.
All right. Now, to balance it out, then CNN gets to the climate models, and they say the deniers say that the models are not accurate because if you can't even predict the weather, How in the world can you predict the climate over 100 years?
And here's how the scientist defended the models.
He used an analogy.
He used a coin flip analogy.
Now, if you're trying to...
Let me give you a persuasion tip.
If you're trying to argue...
That the models are accurate and that they're science-based.
Here's an analogy you don't want to use.
A coin flip.
Because when I hear a coin flip, my brain does not say, accurate.
It sounds like guessing.
The whole point of a coin flip is guessing, right?
So I'm not arguing the details of the analogy.
I'm just saying that if you're trying to defend science, The worst way to do it is to make people think about guessing.
And when you say coin flip, my mind goes to guessing.
Now one of the macro complaints I've had about climate science is that scientists, for reasons I've not quite understood, are terrible at making their point, with the models anyway.
And when I hear somebody defend the models with a coin flip analogy, which I'm going to explain for a moment so you get the full picture, that is really bad communication.
So independent of whether the point is good, that the models are accurate or not, independent of the facts, the way it's being communicated Is the least credible way you could ever communicate this thing.
And here was the argument.
That if you were going to guess any one coin flip, it would be hard to guess.
It would be no more than luck if you got it right.
But if you looked at all coin flips over time, you could accurately say that they're close to 50-50.
And so that was the analogy used for why the climate models are accurate on average, even if individual ones are not.
Possibly the worst, most irrational argument you will ever see.
Because, first of all, as someone else on Twitter pointed out, a coin flip is using a coin which weighs the same on both sides and really does have a chance of coming out 50-50.
A climate model is a bunch of stuff we don't know about.
It's not a coin.
The analogy is useless.
So, According to that analogy, I could take a bunch of random data and it didn't matter if it's random so long as I took the average.
Does that make sense?
How about a lot of people picked...
Let me give you another analogy just to show how useless analogies are.
Here's how I would have said.
It's very hard to pick a winning lottery number.
Right? You'd agree, right?
It's very difficult. The odds are way against you to pick a winning lottery number.
But, if you took all the numbers that people picked and you took their average, it would be exactly the winning number.
Wouldn't it? Oh wait, it wouldn't be.
That's stupid. You can't average all the numbers that people picked for their lottery picks and when you're done you got the right lottery number that won.
That's a little bit closer to the climate model situation.
Now, when you hear that analogy, do you say to yourself, my God, that's a terrible analogy, Scott.
Yeah, that's my point.
My analogy is terrible because climate models are not like lotteries.
Do you know what climate models are also not like in any important way?
Coin flips.
Coin flips.
You can't defend your climate models with analogies.
I don't care what the analogy is.
I don't care how clever the analogy is.
It doesn't help.
It just makes things worse because the analogy itself gets attacked.
So here's the thing.
If the best science can do to defend their models, the climate models, is to say it's like averaging a coin flip, That's kind of like giving up.
That sounds more to me like we can't really defend this stuff.
We're just giving you an analogy.
It's just complicated and we can't even explain it to you.
We don't even know what we're doing.
So I've explained this before that if you make a climate model and it's way outside the range of the other models, what do you think happens to your model?
I mean, common sense What happens to the models that are not in the range of the other models?
Well, if it's just a little bit below the range, maybe they keep it.
And say, okay, the range is a little bit more than we thought it was.
But what if it's way outside the range?
Way low or way high?
What do they do with that model?
Well, they sure as hell don't keep it.
If you've ever been alive on this planet for more than 10 minutes, look around you.
You're surrounded by humans.
What do humans do when they have a situation where they've got some data that even they don't believe, because it's a model and it doesn't agree with the other models, so you can't be too confident about it.
What do you do when it doesn't agree with the range of the other models?
You sure as hell don't keep it.
You sure as hell don't keep that model.
You get rid of it. So, if you're flipping coins, And you want them to come up heads, what do you do with the ones that came up tails?
You act like they didn't count.
Oh, that coin fell on the rug.
Rug flips don't count.
You know, climate scientists could flip a coin a hundred times and say it came up heads a hundred times because they just throw out the tails.
Every time it comes up tails, you go, oh, you know, my finger slipped.
It's really heads every time.
All right. I'm also getting into my weekly argument with people on Twitter on the question of fentanyl.
So there's a new article showing why it's so difficult for China to make fentanyl illegal in China, because if you change just one molecule, apparently the law says that's a different drug.
So even if China made the current versions of fentanyl illegal, it would take 10 minutes for the bad guys to make a different version that's legal.
To which I say, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
If China is using that excuse to not go after fentanyl, that's the same as not going after fentanyl.
Because if we know that something is only a molecule or two different from fentanyl, are you telling me I can't make a law to make that illegal?
I'm pretty sure I can make a law that says if it's fentanyl or fentanyl-like or the changes in the fentanyl composition are trivial, it's still all fentanyl and it's all illegal.
How hard would that be?
So when I see an article in the press that says, well, it's very hard for China to make it illegal, and I say, why don't we have that problem in this country?
We don't have that problem, do we?
All we did was, yeah, make the analogs illegal as well.
So I have been saying that if China will not go after their own dealers, that we have a moral, we have moral authority To do it.
Now the question of whether it's a good idea is separate.
But morally, given that these fentanyl dealers are mass murderers, forget about solving the drug problem.
I do not favor killing drug dealers because it will reduce the supply of fentanyl.
It might, but I don't think we can count on that.
I support killing mass murderers because they're mass murderers.
You don't need a reason to kill a mass murderer.
If there's a mass murderer and you know who they are, if the country that owns them won't kill them, you have an absolute moral obligation to kill them yourself.
And China will not go to war if we kill their drug dealers for them.
Why? Because it's not good for China.
Do you think China wants to say, damn it, we're so bad at policing our own fentanyl dealers that another country had to come in here and kill them for us?
I'm so mad at you.
I will go to war against you for doing the thing that we couldn't do that we also wanted done.
That's not going to happen.
But suppose the Chinese government actually wants the dealers to be killing Americans for some Opium war, revenge, destabilize the West reason.
And then let's say we killed their dealers that they didn't want killed.
Then what are they going to do?
Are they going to publicize that they were letting their dealers kill 30,000 Americans a year?
Are they going to say, damn it, you can't kill our mass murderer who is killing 30,000 of your Americans per year because that's in our country.
No, there's no chance of that.
They would label it a suicide.
If we kill China's top fentanyl leaders, you know, with the CIA or we hire somebody to do it or however stuff like that is done, if we did it and the Chinese government found out, by far the most likely outcome is that they would label it a suicide.
Why? Because the last thing they want is to publicize the fact that they're killing 30,000 Americans a year and they know they're doing it.
They're not going to play the game of dying on that hill.
That is a very small hill and they're not going to die on it because they're not stupid.
It has also been pointed out, as I did, that we went into Pakistan and killed bin Laden.
Did we do that because we thought killing Bin Laden would stop terrorism?
No, we did not believe that.
We just believed he's a mass murderer and that it is American policy that if you can find the mass murderer, you can kill them.
Doesn't matter where they are.
We're going to go get them wherever they are.
I'm pretty sure that our forces helped with El Chapo and Who was the other Mexican drug dealer?
So I don't think it's unprecedented to go into somebody's country and kill their mass murderers for them if they won't do it.
I mean, you have to give them the first choice to do it, and we've done that.
But at this point, we have moral authority to kill their dealers if they're not acting against the fentanyl analogs.
Alright. Yeah, why isn't fentanyl a problem in China?
Tell me that.
Tell me why the Chinese themselves are not losing a million citizens a year to fentanyl.
Because they make it over there, and apparently China liked opium.
Opium was a problem, so we know that The Chinese citizens will do drugs if they're available.
And fentanyl is cheap, it's easy to make, it's widely available.
So somebody says it probably is a problem.
I don't think it is.
I think we would have heard about it.
Because if it were a problem in China, given the size of the population and how easily it would be available since they make it there, if it were a problem in China, it would be killing a million Chinese people a year.
And The government would take out the dealers, because they know who they are.
So the only possible explanation for what we're seeing, and of course I might have some evidence wrong, right?
So if there's a fact I have wrong here and that can be corrected, I would change my opinion.
But given the facts we have in evidence, it appears that the Chinese government allows the fentanyl dealers to do what they're doing So long as they don't do it domestically.
Is that not obvious?
It also means that the Chinese government knows who's doing it and they have permission to do it so long as they don't do it locally.
Now, I could change my opinion if I find out that China is also losing mass amounts of people to fentanyl overdoses, if that's knowable.
But I don't remember hearing President Xi say, yeah, we're going to fix this right away because it's a massive problem in China too.
So even if this were not a problem in other countries, we would certainly get right on this because we don't want to kill a million of our own people with this fentanyl.
And by the way, we know the names of the people doing it.
And we know where they live.
That's literally true.
In America, we also know the actual name Of the guy who's the main fentanyl dealer.
We know his name and effectively his serial number.
Whatever the social security version is for China.
We actually know who it is.
China knows who it is.
So I don't think we can trust anything out of China on the fentanyl question.
Fentanyl China, as I call them.
But who knows?
Maybe they'll do something good. Alright, is there anything else happening today?
So we've got the fake Mueller investigation.
There's not much else going on, is there?
What about Tucker?
What's the question?
Oh, the Google hearings.
Well, the Google hearings, are they today?
And are those public?
Are the Google hearings public?
And has it happened yet?
Well, that'll be interesting.
See, here's the interesting thing with Google.
In order for Google to defend itself from distorting democracy, they would have to argue that That their main advertising model doesn't work.
Do you get that?
The only defense that Google can have about taking over democracy, the only way they can say, no, no, we're not influencing democracy, we're not illegitimately changing the results of elections, the only way they can defend that is to say that advertising doesn't work.
And that's their product.
That's what they sell.
That's what Google sells, is influential advertising.
So I don't think there's any question about the facts, meaning that there's some censoring going on, and that there's some preferential treatment, and that clearly Google has...
It has a secret algorithm that the government is not aware of.
So let me just say that suppose this situation existed.
Suppose you had a situation where Google said, we're not making decisions about what the news is or what people see.
It's in our algorithm.
And even we don't really know exactly what the algorithm does because it has so many variables.
Let's say that their explanation was something like that, that even Google doesn't know what its algorithm is going to do in terms of how to influence the election.
Would that be okay?
That wouldn't be okay.
So there are only two possibilities.
Google has to either claim that advertising doesn't work, their entire business model, In order to claim that they're not influencing elections as well.
Or they have to claim, yes, of course we influence things, but we don't do it in an intentional way.
Because even we don't know what our algorithm is exactly doing.
We're just trying to, you know, we add a variable now and then as we see something that needs to be tweaked, but we don't know how the whole is going to come out because it's just too complicated.
Now if they say that, they're effectively the government.
Because if Google is determining with their algorithm what people think and what people think influences how they vote and what they tell their government to do, then Google is admitting to effectively being the shadow government.
Which of those two ways can Google go?
Can they throw their business model under the bus?
Or can they say, yeah, we are running the country, but in a random way, and we don't know how.
We don't know exactly which way it's going to go.
They only have two explanations, and both of them are devastatingly bad for Google.
Now if they've got a third explanation, somebody says, wow, that's quite a leap, which part?
I'm open to being wrong about what I just said, but you need to give me a reason.
Crime Bill will get a vote.
Interesting. Can I tell you more about my new book, Loser Think?
Yes, I can. So Loser Think, the way I'm defining it for my book, is not just that you're wrong about something.
It's an unproductive way of thinking, meaning that You can be right or you can be wrong, but that's not what losers think is about.
It's about a style of thinking that is unproductive.
Let me give you an example.
If you're thinking with analogies, you are not persuading, and you're not really even being rational.
So who wins when you use an analogy to defend, let's say, a climate science prediction model?
So that's a perfect example.
So the pro-science person who used the coin-flipping analogy to defend their climate models was using one example of loser think.
It was not an analogy that could possibly ever persuade.
So why do you do it?
The only thing that happened was the people who were not persuaded became even further not persuaded, and the person who made the argument looked less credible.
Who won? Nobody won.
Loser think is when nobody's winning.
There's no strategy to it.
It can't possibly get you to anything you want.
Alright, so you'll see more on that.
Anyway, the purpose of my book is not just that you might learn some things you didn't know about how to analyze things.
The purpose of it is that you can take a picture of it with your phone and tweet out the page that is mocking the person you want to mock on social media.
So I'm actually designing the book so that as you're reading the book, you can say, oh my god, I just got into this argument with this person on Twitter.
So you take your camera out, you'll go click, And you tweet it back to them and say, alright, here's the argument why what you're doing doesn't make any sense.
And it will be basically a tool to reduce the worst examples of unproductive thinking.
And remember, unproductive doesn't mean right or wrong.
That's a separate question.
Unproductive means even if you are right, your argument is ridiculous.
And if you're wrong, it's even more ridiculous.
So it's a ridiculous way of thinking.
Let me give you the setup.
How many of you, in the comments, tell me what...
Discipline you're trained in.
Okay? So in your comments, give me an idea of what disciplines you're trained in.
So that could be philosophy, the law, engineering, scientist.
Alright? But it also could be English major, whatever.
All right, so we're looking at the various disciplines go by on the screens.
So look at them. So you've got medicine, engineering, engineering, finance, information technology, engineering, agriculture, education, sales, etc.
All right. Now, the people who are saying law and engineering and science and philosophy, what do they all have in common?
And economics. I haven't seen economics, but I'm sure that's in there.
So what do these disciplines have in common?
Engineering, law, philosophy, economics.
What they have in common is that in the process of learning those fields, you are taught how to think.
When you learn economics, for example, you learn how to discard sunk costs.
You learn how to compare things.
You learn how to look at money over time so that you can discount its value.
In other words, economics, engineering, the law, philosophy, in different ways, they teach you not just a bunch of facts, but how to think.
Now let's say you had a different major, agriculture.
So somebody said that they have an agricultural background.
Does agricultural education teach you how to think?
Probably not so much.
Not more than the general way that a good education is good for your brain, in a general way.
But in economics, for example, they actually teach you how to compare things.
And when you're on the internet, you continually see people who don't know how to compare things.
Let me give you my best example.
If you think that a president, doesn't matter which president it is, could be Obama, could be Clinton, could be Trump, no matter what president you're talking about, if you say, this president is doing a bad job, you don't know how to think.
You've never been trained in the ways of thinking.
Because you can only say that this president did a worse job than a different president who was doing the same job at the same time.
If there is no different president doing the same job under the same circumstances at the same time, you have no comparison.
There is no way to know that President Trump is doing a good or bad job, you know, unless he shoots somebody on Fifth Avenue or something, right?
But within the normal realm of doing the President's job, you can't really tell because there's nobody else to compare it to.
Now you can tell maybe the outlier kinds of things, but in general you can't tell that a different president would have been better for the economy, you can't tell that a different president would have been better or worse for climate change, and write down the list.
There's no comparison.
Now if you learned everything you know in English class, Let's say you had an English major or a Russian literature major.
Would they teach you how to compare things accurately?
Well, probably not.
Suppose you were a scientist.
You were trained in science.
Would you know how to compare things?
Probably yes. Science is a discipline where you do learn how to get rid of bias, you know, at least how to think about things.
That doesn't mean you write every time.
It just means you've learned how to think.
Philosophy, very similar.
Engineering, similar, right?
So there are a number of disciplines that actually teach you how to compare things and therefore how to think.
There are a larger number of Backgrounds and majors and experiences that don't teach you that.
But here's the trick. Here's the important thing.
If you don't know how to think, you don't know it.
You can't know that you're not good at thinking.
That's not a thing.
Because until the people who learn to think, because they took a law degree or an economics class or philosophy, engineering, the types of education that literally teach you how to look at stuff and figure it out, if you haven't done that and all you have is your common sense, you're lost.
Common sense is first of all an illusion, but common sense is not good thinking.
They're very different. Common sense is almost the same as bias.
There's very little difference.
Alright, so the basis of LoserThink, the book I'm writing, is that if you've been exposed to a number of the fields in which people are thought to think correctly, you're in a much better situation to understand the world.
And if you have not gone through those disciplines, you end up saying that something is good or bad without comparing it to anything.
And if you're doing that, you're crazy.
Let me give you a simple example, sunk costs.
If you had not studied economics, for example, maybe you would not know that money you've already spent should be ignored in your decisions, because it's already spent.
You can't go back in the past.
But people who are maybe English majors or agricultural majors might say, damn it, I spent all that money, I don't want it to be wasted, so I'm just going to keep putting some more money in there until it's not wasted anymore.
Opportunity costs is another concept that economists and finance people learn, but you might not learn that in English class.
Light buying, yeah, GBTC at the top.
Correct. By the way, I trimmed my Bitcoin holdings after I did my job of stopping it from going up anymore.
If you went to college, chances are you were exposed to different ways of thinking.
Yes, but very different between an economics major and a, let's say, Russian literature major.
I don't think that they're learning the same stuff.
Alright, I think I've said what I need to say for today.
And I'm going to go do something else.
▲
Export Selection