Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Billionaire, Tony Robbins explains why most people never build real wealth even when they live in a system full of opportunity. “So IPhone has ran for 18 - 19 years. If you got an iPhone each time, you spend $22,000 and some change at retail price” “But if you... show more

Percy

18,277 subscribers

1,827,800 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика Образование Финансы

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 36

Фото профиля Jack Hon

Jack Hon3 месяцев назад

This is an awful example and a useless hindsight advice. So if I used Nike or Under Armour trainers then I should have bought their stock and lost half my money too?

Фото профиля Bart

Bart3 месяцев назад

This line has been used by “coaches” for ever. It’s not practical and doesn’t work. My $3 coffee just cost me $1M in 30 years.

Фото профиля HeavensBanker

HeavensBanker3 месяцев назад

Gonna buy ferrari stock

Фото профиля Percy

Percy3 месяцев назад

😂😂😂💔right.

Фото профиля One Captain Kidd

One Captain Kidd3 месяцев назад

Cool. But I bought a Blackberry and a ton of their stock. Now I'm broke. Why is it always easier becoming rich when you are able to go back in time to pick the winners.

Фото профиля Expired Tokens

Expired Tokens3 месяцев назад

if only apple shares can make phone calls

Фото профиля Sumit B

Sumit B3 месяцев назад

Just a thought experiment - if everyone who bought a phone instead used that money to buy apple stock, would apple stock be up the same amount? These two aren't mutually exclusive events.

Фото профиля Js9469

Js94693 месяцев назад

Fucking idiotic advice A phone is a necessity. Everyone has one. Most people are barely able to pay bills. Don’t have savings or income to dabble in stock market. Unless well educated in it - the stock market is like going to the casino. The sharks take your $$$

Фото профиля Jan Roman Reichenbach

Jan Roman Reichenbach3 месяцев назад

Apple needs consumers, otherwise no > 100 billion EBITDA & 4 trillion US$ market cap. Also, no one knows what tomorrow's big winners are (Apple stock price 1980 - 2003 was a stinker). Typical for Tony ... he's not as smart as he wants us to believe he is.

Фото профиля Liam

Liam3 месяцев назад

20 years ago I remember a day I felt very hungry and made some cheese on toast. If instead I had starved to death and invested the money in wheat stock and cash settled cheese futures, I could be a millionaire.

Фото профиля Ben H

Ben H3 месяцев назад

I agree with what he is saying, however a lot of people don't have $22,000 to invest. They paid $22k of 18 years.

Фото профиля Reminiscences of an American Capitalist

Reminiscences of an American Capitalist3 месяцев назад

@grok how much money would you have if you did this strategy with $LULU 😂

Фото профиля Vahid Fereydouny

Vahid Fereydouny3 месяцев назад

This is total nonsense. They could have, for example, bought Peloton stock and lost everything. This way of cherry-picking individual stocks and then drawing conclusions is totally stupid!

Фото профиля Grizz

Grizz3 месяцев назад

If I bought food stocks instead of food, I wouldn’t be out the cost of food & I’d have lots of money in food stocks? If I bought car stocks instead of cars, I wouldn’t be out the cost of a car & I’d have money in stocks? If I bought airline stock instead of a plane tickets…🤯

Фото профиля 🇭🇹

🇭🇹3 месяцев назад

No Tony to gain wealth you have be charismatic in order to sell motivational books and classes to losers.

Фото профиля DobbyRocky

DobbyRocky3 месяцев назад

Most people buy that $1000 phone through payments. Paying like 20 bucks a month over years. It’s not simply sliding 22K into an investment fund. It’s adding $20 a month. Rich people think they’re so fucking smart and act like it’s super easy to reach the 1%

Фото профиля Dan Twedt

Dan Twedt3 месяцев назад

How many people bought a new iPhone every year without trading in the old model?

Фото профиля plutobands

plutobands3 месяцев назад

agree in general, but the flaw is that you needed 22000 in the first place as opposed to incrementally saving up to have 800-1200 each time and most of the people are paying on payment plans, but the mindset is right, albeit a flawed arguement

Фото профиля Jacob Coughlin

Jacob Coughlin3 месяцев назад

Ask Tony if he bought Apple stock at the time he based his math on. Bet ya he didn’t. What he actually did was he sold you some seminar on how to smile more……

Фото профиля MFR

MFR3 месяцев назад

Yea but this toothy retard doesnt take into consideration most people dont have 20,000 grand lying around to risk investing

Фото профиля Bear

Bear3 месяцев назад

I'd buy a jeep grand cherokee but I wouldn't put 40k into Chrysler stock

Фото профиля Pale Pants

Pale Pants3 месяцев назад

I love how he thinks "normal" struggling people are buying a new, top-of-the-line phone every year.

Фото профиля Caffe' Satoshi

Caffe' Satoshi3 месяцев назад

Backtests show investing $22,000 iPhone costs in Apple stock on each release date yields $141,000 as of late 2023 (under $220,000 adjusted to current prices), not $326,000

Фото профиля Jocephus

Jocephus3 месяцев назад

That's spread out over time, and I'm not sure the math still works. It's not like you had 22 grand sitting in your pocket 20 years ago and used it to buy iPhones over the next two decades. At least I didn't lol. So, you invest like 500 bucks in Apple stock in 2006, then add 500 to 1000 each year, I don't think you're going to end up with 326k.

Фото профиля Elliot

Elliot3 месяцев назад

Stupid. How would you buy apple stock? You have no phone because you’ve spent it all on apple stock.

Фото профиля Jay Willis

Jay Willis3 месяцев назад

what a gross oversimplification. Now talk about all the stocks that you could've bought because you bought their products, or shopped at their stores, etc and how they're worth far less today. Cherry picking Apple because it's an amazing stock is such a weak argument.

Фото профиля Benny the jet

Benny the jet3 месяцев назад

If 99% of the population can’t afford housing and food - then the problem is not on the people. It’s policies and the economy.

Фото профиля Red Special

Red Special3 месяцев назад

Most people don’t have 22k laying around. If they put that thousand in each year, after 22 years, what would they have? Without the compound?

Фото профиля Vídarr

Vídarr3 месяцев назад

lol

Фото профиля Percy

Percy3 месяцев назад

@TonyRobbins

Фото профиля Mike Rosko 💎

Mike Rosko 💎3 месяцев назад

Common sense

Фото профиля Angus

Angus3 месяцев назад

He made a fortune selling bullshit, like a lot of wealthy people. Most people have more integrity than to con and sell bullshit to people

Фото профиля 𝗻𝗼𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆

𝗻𝗼𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆3 месяцев назад

that's conflict of interest, you can't own stock and then try to pump it by buying the product, you would at least need to file a declaration with the SEC Exchange Commission

Фото профиля Speciation

Speciation3 месяцев назад

Snake oil bullshit, everyone is a genius in hindsight.

Фото профиля DeepFake

DeepFake3 месяцев назад

the fuck are you supposed to do? Buy an iphone 1, never get another and just buy the stock instead? Shut the fuck up with this bs

Фото профиля 4RealTrader

4RealTrader3 месяцев назад

These boomers always talk like everyone has an extra $22k laying around to make a 20 year investment. People are trying to pay for food. When the iPhone came out, they had just recently wrecked the economy.

Похожие видео

Buy the new iPhone each year or take that money and buy $AAPL shares? "If you put that same amount of money on Apple stock you'd have $200K... right now instead of spending $20K+," says Tony Robbins. "We're a consumer culture and if you become an owner the whole game changes."

Buy the new iPhone each year or take that money and buy $AAPL shares? "If you put that same amount of money on Apple stock you'd have $200K... right now instead of spending $20K+," says Tony Robbins. "We're a consumer culture and if you become an owner the whole game changes."

CNBC Sport

74,435 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Steve Jobs literally gave a masterclass on how "stock options" actually work in 1983: "If somebody came to work for your company, you could let them buy some stock. The problem is they might have to shell out $100,000. If the company went broke, they'd lose all their life savings" "So when somebody comes to work, let's say the stock's trading at ten dollars a share, you give them the option to buy ten thousand shares at ten dollars. They have four years to exercise that option" "If the stock goes down or stays the same, they never exercise it. They don't put up any money, they don't lose anything" "But if it goes to a hundred dollars a share, they can borrow the money to buy it at ten because it's worth a hundred" "In exchange, we only dole out their ability to exercise 25% a year, locking in people really for four years if the stock goes up" "Before we went public, over 80% of Apple was owned by the employees. Right now, I'd say over 50% of Apple is owned by the employees" "I don't think finance is what drives people at Apple. I don't think it's money. But feeling like you own a piece of the company, and this is your damn company" "We always tell people, you work for Apple first and your boss second"

Steve Jobs literally gave a masterclass on how "stock options" actually work in 1983: "If somebody came to work for your company, you could let them buy some stock. The problem is they might have to shell out $100,000. If the company went broke, they'd lose all their life savings" "So when somebody comes to work, let's say the stock's trading at ten dollars a share, you give them the option to buy ten thousand shares at ten dollars. They have four years to exercise that option" "If the stock goes down or stays the same, they never exercise it. They don't put up any money, they don't lose anything" "But if it goes to a hundred dollars a share, they can borrow the money to buy it at ten because it's worth a hundred" "In exchange, we only dole out their ability to exercise 25% a year, locking in people really for four years if the stock goes up" "Before we went public, over 80% of Apple was owned by the employees. Right now, I'd say over 50% of Apple is owned by the employees" "I don't think finance is what drives people at Apple. I don't think it's money. But feeling like you own a piece of the company, and this is your damn company" "We always tell people, you work for Apple first and your boss second"

Jaynit

820,493 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Ray Dalio says a founder can be a “billionaire” without $1,000,000,000 existing anywhere “What’s quite common now is you can issue stock for, let’s say you raise $50 million and you value the company at a billion.” “Only $50 million was actually spent on that company. But now if you raise that, you’re a billionaire because the accounting value of that.” “You own stock that is valued at a billion dollars. Nobody paid a billion dollars, or whatever it is, and now you own that stock. But that stock, you can’t spend because you can’t spend wealth.” “In order to spend it, you have to sell some of that stock to get money.”

Ray Dalio says a founder can be a “billionaire” without $1,000,000,000 existing anywhere “What’s quite common now is you can issue stock for, let’s say you raise $50 million and you value the company at a billion.” “Only $50 million was actually spent on that company. But now if you raise that, you’re a billionaire because the accounting value of that.” “You own stock that is valued at a billion dollars. Nobody paid a billion dollars, or whatever it is, and now you own that stock. But that stock, you can’t spend because you can’t spend wealth.” “In order to spend it, you have to sell some of that stock to get money.”

katsu

19,456 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Jennings: So Democrats are complaining about tax breaks for corporations, at the same time saying they want to get rid of the tariffs… Phillip: Tariffs are a tax on consumers. And if they weren't a tax on consumers then the trump administration wouldn't be rolling them back so they could lower the price of coffee.

Jennings: So Democrats are complaining about tax breaks for corporations, at the same time saying they want to get rid of the tariffs… Phillip: Tariffs are a tax on consumers. And if they weren't a tax on consumers then the trump administration wouldn't be rolling them back so they could lower the price of coffee.

Acyn

197,863 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

If you invest $1,000 in a stock, you can lose $1,000. But if you’re right, you can make $5,000, $10,000, or $20,000. In the stock market, you don’t need to be right all the time to win. What matters is this: when you find a solid company, don’t panic sell when the stock crashes. If possible, buy more — and most importantly, don’t sell. Selling great companies too early is a terrible mistake. 90% of success in the stock market is patience and the ability to not panic. Most of the time, you don’t need to do anything. Just wait

If you invest $1,000 in a stock, you can lose $1,000. But if you’re right, you can make $5,000, $10,000, or $20,000. In the stock market, you don’t need to be right all the time to win. What matters is this: when you find a solid company, don’t panic sell when the stock crashes. If possible, buy more — and most importantly, don’t sell. Selling great companies too early is a terrible mistake. 90% of success in the stock market is patience and the ability to not panic. Most of the time, you don’t need to do anything. Just wait

Daniel

365,381 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Grant Cardone says you have to change who you spend time with if you want a $1,000,000,000 net worth "if you want a billion dollar net worth you have to change who you spend time with...you cannot be HIM and become a billionaire" "You need to think what are the different paths you need to take whether a business owner, a real estate investor, a stock investor...my kids are going to have a different path than you because one of my kids could inherit the company and be wealthy" "you have to move yourself to who, where these people meet, what do they think about, what do they talk about"

Grant Cardone says you have to change who you spend time with if you want a $1,000,000,000 net worth "if you want a billion dollar net worth you have to change who you spend time with...you cannot be HIM and become a billionaire" "You need to think what are the different paths you need to take whether a business owner, a real estate investor, a stock investor...my kids are going to have a different path than you because one of my kids could inherit the company and be wealthy" "you have to move yourself to who, where these people meet, what do they think about, what do they talk about"

CreativeDude

35,304 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Vlad explains why shorting stocks is extremely dangerous “If you buy a stock for $10,000, the most you can lose is $10,000. But if you short a company at $10,000 and it goes to a million, you’re on the hook for $990,000. Your losses are unlimited” “When you short companies, it’s usually because they look like they’re on their way out. They have that ‘death rattle’ where everything looks obvious. But then suddenly some news drops, like ‘Microsoft might invest,’ and the stock jumps 500% out of nowhere before crashing again” “And you’re sitting there thinking, ‘I just got destroyed on that move’”

Vlad explains why shorting stocks is extremely dangerous “If you buy a stock for $10,000, the most you can lose is $10,000. But if you short a company at $10,000 and it goes to a million, you’re on the hook for $990,000. Your losses are unlimited” “When you short companies, it’s usually because they look like they’re on their way out. They have that ‘death rattle’ where everything looks obvious. But then suddenly some news drops, like ‘Microsoft might invest,’ and the stock jumps 500% out of nowhere before crashing again” “And you’re sitting there thinking, ‘I just got destroyed on that move’”

Mikli

1,818,733 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Jaylen Brown says players should be able to own equity in teams because they help increase the value of NBA franchises “Players should be able to invest alongside ownership groups and business opportunities. I don't understand why that’s ever been a thing. It's like you’re an athlete and they make it seem like they can control how much wealth or growth that you could actually accumulate. I think that's wrong” “I also think that any other major corporation, if you work for Apple, Nike or anywhere, if you're a CEO, if you're someone who has been on a board for a large amount of time, you get equity in a company at some point. You are part of it” “I think athletes should be looked at in the same way. You played for the Celtics for 20 years, you should get a piece of equity because you helped accumulate the growth. That's the part that gets lost in translation. The sweat equity you put in. You get compensated for doing your job, but you don't get compensated for the growth. At major corporations and companies you do, or at least some of the big ones”

Jaylen Brown says players should be able to own equity in teams because they help increase the value of NBA franchises “Players should be able to invest alongside ownership groups and business opportunities. I don't understand why that’s ever been a thing. It's like you’re an athlete and they make it seem like they can control how much wealth or growth that you could actually accumulate. I think that's wrong” “I also think that any other major corporation, if you work for Apple, Nike or anywhere, if you're a CEO, if you're someone who has been on a board for a large amount of time, you get equity in a company at some point. You are part of it” “I think athletes should be looked at in the same way. You played for the Celtics for 20 years, you should get a piece of equity because you helped accumulate the growth. That's the part that gets lost in translation. The sweat equity you put in. You get compensated for doing your job, but you don't get compensated for the growth. At major corporations and companies you do, or at least some of the big ones”

dank

3,039,794 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Marc Andreessen explains why startups are an “irrational act” “The biggest thing people don’t understand about what it’s like to be a startup founder is it gets very romanticized. Even whey they fail, it still gets romanticized about what a great adventure it was. But the reality of it is most of what happens is people telling you no, and then they usually follow that with ‘you’re stupid.’ No, I will not come to work for you. No, I’m not going to buy your product.” Marc explains why: “When you’re a founder, you cannot let on that this is happening because it will cause people to think that you’re weak and they’ll lose faith in you. So you have to pretend you’re having a great time when you’re dying inside. Just misery.” Why do it then? “For most of these people - on a risk-adjusted basis - it’s probably an irrational act. They could probably be more financially successful on average if they just got like a real job in a big company. But some people just have an irrational need to do something new and build something for themselves and some people just can’t tolerate having bosses.” Video source: Lex Fridman (2023)

Marc Andreessen explains why startups are an “irrational act” “The biggest thing people don’t understand about what it’s like to be a startup founder is it gets very romanticized. Even whey they fail, it still gets romanticized about what a great adventure it was. But the reality of it is most of what happens is people telling you no, and then they usually follow that with ‘you’re stupid.’ No, I will not come to work for you. No, I’m not going to buy your product.” Marc explains why: “When you’re a founder, you cannot let on that this is happening because it will cause people to think that you’re weak and they’ll lose faith in you. So you have to pretend you’re having a great time when you’re dying inside. Just misery.” Why do it then? “For most of these people - on a risk-adjusted basis - it’s probably an irrational act. They could probably be more financially successful on average if they just got like a real job in a big company. But some people just have an irrational need to do something new and build something for themselves and some people just can’t tolerate having bosses.” Video source: Lex Fridman (2023)

Startup Archive

70,042 просмотров • 1 год назад

PETER LYNCH: THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE STOCK MARKET IS TO KNOW WHAT YOU OWN He says most people can't pass a simple test. If you can't explain why you own a stock to a 10-year-old in two minutes, you shouldn't own it: "I'm amazed how many people own stocks. They would not be able to tell you why they own it. They couldn't say in a minute or less why they own it. If you really press them: the reason I own this is the sucker's going up. And that's the only reason." Lynch then ties it back to Warren Buffett's circle of competence: "All the businesses you can understand is the most important aspect of investing. If you have doubts about a business being in your circle of competence, it isn't." His point: you can understand Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Walmart, Costco. Stay inside that circle. "It's better to be well within the circle than to be trying to tiptoe along the line. My circle of competence is pretty small, but it's big enough."

PETER LYNCH: THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE STOCK MARKET IS TO KNOW WHAT YOU OWN He says most people can't pass a simple test. If you can't explain why you own a stock to a 10-year-old in two minutes, you shouldn't own it: "I'm amazed how many people own stocks. They would not be able to tell you why they own it. They couldn't say in a minute or less why they own it. If you really press them: the reason I own this is the sucker's going up. And that's the only reason." Lynch then ties it back to Warren Buffett's circle of competence: "All the businesses you can understand is the most important aspect of investing. If you have doubts about a business being in your circle of competence, it isn't." His point: you can understand Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Walmart, Costco. Stay inside that circle. "It's better to be well within the circle than to be trying to tiptoe along the line. My circle of competence is pretty small, but it's big enough."

WOLF

19,544 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Steve Jobs on how to build a great brand After re-joining Apple in 1996, Steve Jobs announced the “Think different” campaign with the following statement: “To me, marketing is about values. This is a very complicated and noisy world. We’re not going to get a chance to get people to remember much about us. No company is. So we have to be really clear on what we want them to know about us.” He cites Nike as one of the greatest jobs of marketing the universe has ever seen: “Remember, Nike sells a commodity—they sell shoes! And yet when you think of Nike, you feel something different than a shoe company. In their ads, they don’t ever talk about the product. They don’t ever tell you about their air soles and why they are better than Reebok’s air soles. What does Nike do in their advertising? They honor great athletes, and they honor great athletics. That’s who they are, that’s what they are about.” Marketing guru Seth Godin also used Nike as an example of great branding in a blog post a few years ago: “If Nike announced that they were opening a hotel, you’d have a pretty good guess about what it would be like. But if Hyatt announced that they were going to start making shoes, you would have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what those shoes would be like. That’s because Nike owns a brand and Hyatt simply owns real estate.” Jobs goes on to explain how the Apple team arrived at the “Think Different” campaign: “Our customers want to know who is Apple and what is it that we stand for. Where do we fit in this world? What we’re about isn’t making boxes for people to get their jobs done—although we do that well. We do that better than almost anybody, in some cases. But Apple is about something more than that. Apple at the core—its core value—is that we believe people with passion can change the world for the better… And that those people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world are the ones who actually do.” He continues: “And so, what we’re going to do in our first brand marketing campaign in several years is to get back to that core value. A lot of things have changed. The market is in a totally different place than it was a decade ago, and Apple is totally different… the products and the distribution strategy and the manufacturing are totally different. And we understand that. But values and core values—those things shouldn’t change. The things that Apple believed in, at its core, are the same things that Apple really stands for today.” Apple’s “Think Different” campaign was designed to honor those people who have changed the world. And as Jobs so eloquently put it: “Some of them are living. Some of them are not. But the ones that aren’t, you’ll know that if they ever used a computer, it would’ve been a Mac. The theme of the campaign is ‘Think Different.’ It’s honoring the people who think different and who move this world forward. And it is what we are about. It touches the soul of this company.” If you’re looking to create a great brand, I’d start out by asking: what are your core values and what does your company honor?

Startup Archive

338,105 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Gavin on why people misunderstand what makes TSMC so valuable: "One of the most undervalued pieces of the supply chain story is that almost none of these things are buy it once and never talk to the vendor again. You have to go collaborate. That is the most important part of being successful in chips. People look at the tech, and the tech is the best in the world. But the real value is all in the service. TSMC's customer service is way better than I've seen at any company in any industry. If you say, we think you can improve your yield by making this change, they will go run an experiment on their own dime to see if they can get the higher yield. When we found we were right and it worked, they moved it over to the rest of the line. If I go to a steelworks plant and say I want you to change the composition of the steel, they'll say screw you. Not TSMC. It's why they're number one, and why they're going to win."

Gavin on why people misunderstand what makes TSMC so valuable: "One of the most undervalued pieces of the supply chain story is that almost none of these things are buy it once and never talk to the vendor again. You have to go collaborate. That is the most important part of being successful in chips. People look at the tech, and the tech is the best in the world. But the real value is all in the service. TSMC's customer service is way better than I've seen at any company in any industry. If you say, we think you can improve your yield by making this change, they will go run an experiment on their own dime to see if they can get the higher yield. When we found we were right and it worked, they moved it over to the rest of the line. If I go to a steelworks plant and say I want you to change the composition of the steel, they'll say screw you. Not TSMC. It's why they're number one, and why they're going to win."

Invest Like the Best

71,350 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed supports a "billionaire wealth" tax (i.e. asset confiscation) much like what Elizabeth Warren and Ro Khanna have proposed "Here's the thing. If you tax a billionaire at 8%, you know what? They still are still a billionaire. Their kids' kids' kids' kids' kids are going to be rich. They're gonna be okay." $80 million of assets taken each year will add up to $1 billion of assets taken in 13 years, with nowhere near enough money raised to pay for all the public largesse this guy is promising.

Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed supports a "billionaire wealth" tax (i.e. asset confiscation) much like what Elizabeth Warren and Ro Khanna have proposed "Here's the thing. If you tax a billionaire at 8%, you know what? They still are still a billionaire. Their kids' kids' kids' kids' kids are going to be rich. They're gonna be okay." $80 million of assets taken each year will add up to $1 billion of assets taken in 13 years, with nowhere near enough money raised to pay for all the public largesse this guy is promising.

Breitbart News

67,337 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

.Naval: “The opportunities have never been more equal than now. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have the same iPhone you do. They don’t have some better version of an iPhone. They’re eating food that might be marginally better than yours, but it’s basically the same. You might even have a better diet than them. You probably have more time to go to the gym than them. They’re not immortal, and they’re not going to be—most likely, not at this time scale. So you have more youth than them. You have a lot of advantages over them. The wealth gaps are actually much smaller than people think. A lot of that is due to mass production, which comes from specialization, labor, and capitalism. But it’s very easy to overlook that and agitate—because that gets you higher in the status hierarchy with other monkeys. It makes you look like you’re fighting for noble causes and gives you status, which is really what people are craving these days. They’re craving status, not money or wealth. And status is a zero-sum game. So it’s kind of an evil game to play because there have to be losers for every winner. And the only way to win is by crushing somebody else down.”

.Naval: “The opportunities have never been more equal than now. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have the same iPhone you do. They don’t have some better version of an iPhone. They’re eating food that might be marginally better than yours, but it’s basically the same. You might even have a better diet than them. You probably have more time to go to the gym than them. They’re not immortal, and they’re not going to be—most likely, not at this time scale. So you have more youth than them. You have a lot of advantages over them. The wealth gaps are actually much smaller than people think. A lot of that is due to mass production, which comes from specialization, labor, and capitalism. But it’s very easy to overlook that and agitate—because that gets you higher in the status hierarchy with other monkeys. It makes you look like you’re fighting for noble causes and gives you status, which is really what people are craving these days. They’re craving status, not money or wealth. And status is a zero-sum game. So it’s kind of an evil game to play because there have to be losers for every winner. And the only way to win is by crushing somebody else down.”

Arjun Khemani

343,055 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

.Naval: “The reality is that opportunities have never been more equal than now. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have the same iPhone you do. They don’t have some better version of an iPhone. They’re eating food that might be marginally better than yours, but it’s basically the same. You might even have a better diet than them. You probably have more time to go to the gym than them. They’re not immortal, and they’re not going to be—most likely, not at this time scale. So you have more youth than them. You have a lot of advantages over them. The wealth gaps are actually much smaller than people think. A lot of that is due to mass production, which comes from specialization, labor, and capitalism. But it’s very easy to overlook that and agitate—because that gets you higher in the status hierarchy with other monkeys. It makes you look like you’re fighting for noble causes and gives you status, which is really what people are craving these days. They’re craving status, not money or wealth. And status is a zero-sum game. So it’s kind of an evil game to play because there have to be losers for every winner. And the only way to win is by crushing somebody else down.”

.Naval: “The reality is that opportunities have never been more equal than now. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have the same iPhone you do. They don’t have some better version of an iPhone. They’re eating food that might be marginally better than yours, but it’s basically the same. You might even have a better diet than them. You probably have more time to go to the gym than them. They’re not immortal, and they’re not going to be—most likely, not at this time scale. So you have more youth than them. You have a lot of advantages over them. The wealth gaps are actually much smaller than people think. A lot of that is due to mass production, which comes from specialization, labor, and capitalism. But it’s very easy to overlook that and agitate—because that gets you higher in the status hierarchy with other monkeys. It makes you look like you’re fighting for noble causes and gives you status, which is really what people are craving these days. They’re craving status, not money or wealth. And status is a zero-sum game. So it’s kind of an evil game to play because there have to be losers for every winner. And the only way to win is by crushing somebody else down.”

Arjun Khemani

605,745 просмотров • 1 год назад

Naval Ravikant on the importance of hiring high-agency people Naval defines agency as: “People who just solve problems without even being asked to solve the problem—they identify the problem, they go solve it, they don’t even necessarily have to update you every step of the way, they’re not asking silly questions, and they’re just coming up with solutions.” He believes this is important because “building a startup is an infinite set of problems that are being thrown at you.” And there comes a day where you can’t even look at every problem your company is facing—let alone solve every one of them. He cites the Vinod Khosla aphorism: "The team you build is the company you build, not the plan you make.” And your ability to solve problems is based entirely on how many problem-solvers you have at your company. As Naval puts it: “If you have somebody who takes 10% of your time and management to solve problems, you can only have 10 of those people working with you. But if somebody takes 5%, you can have 20 of those people.” When building Airchat and AngelList, he thought of each team as a Navy Seal team: “Everyone is just really good at what they do. They know their job. They do it. They don’t complain. They’re not egotistical about it. And if they have to constantly be corrected, led around by the nose, you have to clean up after them, or you question their judgement, it’s not going to work out.”

Naval Ravikant on the importance of hiring high-agency people Naval defines agency as: “People who just solve problems without even being asked to solve the problem—they identify the problem, they go solve it, they don’t even necessarily have to update you every step of the way, they’re not asking silly questions, and they’re just coming up with solutions.” He believes this is important because “building a startup is an infinite set of problems that are being thrown at you.” And there comes a day where you can’t even look at every problem your company is facing—let alone solve every one of them. He cites the Vinod Khosla aphorism: "The team you build is the company you build, not the plan you make.” And your ability to solve problems is based entirely on how many problem-solvers you have at your company. As Naval puts it: “If you have somebody who takes 10% of your time and management to solve problems, you can only have 10 of those people working with you. But if somebody takes 5%, you can have 20 of those people.” When building Airchat and AngelList, he thought of each team as a Navy Seal team: “Everyone is just really good at what they do. They know their job. They do it. They don’t complain. They’re not egotistical about it. And if they have to constantly be corrected, led around by the nose, you have to clean up after them, or you question their judgement, it’s not going to work out.”

Startup Archive

552,837 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Forget "girl math" and "boy math." America's running on billionaire math. They own yachts that have yachts. They leave Earth just to feel something. They buy art they don’t like and tout books they don’t read and play God with things they don’t comprehend. Above all, they live by their own set of rules. There is a crude but undeniable logic to the rise of the American Oligarchy. As Tim Murphy argued in a cover story for the magazine earlier this year, decades of deregulation, concentration, opportunism, and no small amount of generally-quite-legal corruption have allowed a small group of people (mostly in Silicon Valley) to control an ever-greater share of the economy and bend the political process toward their own ends. Money begets power begets money. It’s why, laid out on the page, the net worths of the world’s richest men currently look like they’re heading toward orbit. Speaking of orbit, gravity doesn’t really exist in the same way when you’re an oligarch. If you built a car and it kept catching on fire, you would have to stop making cars. If your products drove people insane, they would be taken off the shelves. If you did a Hitler salute, people would probably just call it that. If you were responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, you would be ostracized from polite society, and maybe even CNBC. If you invented the Metaverse, people would stop asking you to invent more things. And if you didn’t pay taxes, dear reader, you might eventually go to prison. It’s this alternative physics that gives the American oligarchy, at this particular moment, its uniquely off-putting funk—a sense that, beyond all the hockey-stick wealth charts, the centibillionaires of Silicon Valley can pursue whatever bored or perverted or maniacal project they want without fear of censure or even market correction. Time and money just don’t mean the same things they do to the rest of us. Laws become more like suggestions. Deadlines aren’t real. Or at least: They don’t have to be. Welcome to Billionaire Math, a video where we make sense of the things that don’t make sense about the world’s ruling class. Reporting by Tim Murphy Video by Peter Berger

Forget "girl math" and "boy math." America's running on billionaire math. They own yachts that have yachts. They leave Earth just to feel something. They buy art they don’t like and tout books they don’t read and play God with things they don’t comprehend. Above all, they live by their own set of rules. There is a crude but undeniable logic to the rise of the American Oligarchy. As Tim Murphy argued in a cover story for the magazine earlier this year, decades of deregulation, concentration, opportunism, and no small amount of generally-quite-legal corruption have allowed a small group of people (mostly in Silicon Valley) to control an ever-greater share of the economy and bend the political process toward their own ends. Money begets power begets money. It’s why, laid out on the page, the net worths of the world’s richest men currently look like they’re heading toward orbit. Speaking of orbit, gravity doesn’t really exist in the same way when you’re an oligarch. If you built a car and it kept catching on fire, you would have to stop making cars. If your products drove people insane, they would be taken off the shelves. If you did a Hitler salute, people would probably just call it that. If you were responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, you would be ostracized from polite society, and maybe even CNBC. If you invented the Metaverse, people would stop asking you to invent more things. And if you didn’t pay taxes, dear reader, you might eventually go to prison. It’s this alternative physics that gives the American oligarchy, at this particular moment, its uniquely off-putting funk—a sense that, beyond all the hockey-stick wealth charts, the centibillionaires of Silicon Valley can pursue whatever bored or perverted or maniacal project they want without fear of censure or even market correction. Time and money just don’t mean the same things they do to the rest of us. Laws become more like suggestions. Deadlines aren’t real. Or at least: They don’t have to be. Welcome to Billionaire Math, a video where we make sense of the things that don’t make sense about the world’s ruling class. Reporting by Tim Murphy Video by Peter Berger

Mother Jones

38,658 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Peter Lynch, the man who turned $20 million into $14 billion running Fidelity's Magellan Fund, averaging 29.2% annual returns for 13 straight years (Save this). And his most famous lesson is the simplest one: "Know what you own, and know why you own it." He's talking about something that happens every day, people spend hours researching which refrigerator to buy. They'll spend days hunting for the best airfare deal to save $50 then they'll hear a stock tip on the bus and drop $10,000 on it without a second thought. "The reason I own this is the sucker is going up" Lynch said that's the actual answer he gets when he presses most investors on why they own a stock and that, he says, is not a reason. His test is brutal and simple, if you can't explain to a 10 year old in two minutes or less why you own a stock, you shouldn't own it because if you don't understand the business, you have no idea when to hold, when to add, or when to sell. You're just riding price movement blind. This is why most retail investors lose money not because they pick bad stocks but because they panic out of good ones during normal volatility. When you don't understand why you own something, every 10% dip feels like a reason to sell. Lynch built his entire career on the opposite approach, find simple businesses, understand exactly what they do, know why they'll be worth more in five years, and hold with conviction while everyone else panics. The most important thing isn't your stock screener or your price target but rather being able to look at what you own and say, I understand this, I know why it goes up, and I can handle it going down 30% without losing my mind.

Peter Lynch, the man who turned $20 million into $14 billion running Fidelity's Magellan Fund, averaging 29.2% annual returns for 13 straight years (Save this). And his most famous lesson is the simplest one: "Know what you own, and know why you own it." He's talking about something that happens every day, people spend hours researching which refrigerator to buy. They'll spend days hunting for the best airfare deal to save $50 then they'll hear a stock tip on the bus and drop $10,000 on it without a second thought. "The reason I own this is the sucker is going up" Lynch said that's the actual answer he gets when he presses most investors on why they own a stock and that, he says, is not a reason. His test is brutal and simple, if you can't explain to a 10 year old in two minutes or less why you own a stock, you shouldn't own it because if you don't understand the business, you have no idea when to hold, when to add, or when to sell. You're just riding price movement blind. This is why most retail investors lose money not because they pick bad stocks but because they panic out of good ones during normal volatility. When you don't understand why you own something, every 10% dip feels like a reason to sell. Lynch built his entire career on the opposite approach, find simple businesses, understand exactly what they do, know why they'll be worth more in five years, and hold with conviction while everyone else panics. The most important thing isn't your stock screener or your price target but rather being able to look at what you own and say, I understand this, I know why it goes up, and I can handle it going down 30% without losing my mind.

StockMarket.News

170,341 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

"If I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole. That's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That'll be the least of it." "Stand back and stand by. If you call them people. I don't know if you call them people. In some cases, they're not people, in my opinion." "They're animals. The communists, Marxist fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin." "I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard. ... You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this, they'd be carried out on a stretcher." "Folks like to punch him in the face. ... You are the enemy of the people." "And bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. ... They're poisoning the blood of our country. They're destroying our country." "If you do not speak its language... then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted and punished." "And if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you, Martin." These excerpts show a pattern of normalizing violence—dehumanizing opponents, hinting at physical retribution, and painting political conflict as existential. The rhetoric repeatedly flirts with incitement, blurring the line between metaphor and threat.

"If I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole. That's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That'll be the least of it." "Stand back and stand by. If you call them people. I don't know if you call them people. In some cases, they're not people, in my opinion." "They're animals. The communists, Marxist fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin." "I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard. ... You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this, they'd be carried out on a stretcher." "Folks like to punch him in the face. ... You are the enemy of the people." "And bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. ... They're poisoning the blood of our country. They're destroying our country." "If you do not speak its language... then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted and punished." "And if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you, Martin." These excerpts show a pattern of normalizing violence—dehumanizing opponents, hinting at physical retribution, and painting political conflict as existential. The rhetoric repeatedly flirts with incitement, blurring the line between metaphor and threat.

P a u l ◉

118,226 просмотров • 1 год назад