Zane, I think you would get more support for your arguments if you didn't attack them by first deciding on a position and then going off to find support for it. It leads you to what is known in psychology circles as "confirmation bias," whereby the espousal of a belief leads to reinforcement of it, even in spite of overwhelming support of a contrary idea.

Indeed, confirmation bias leads one to disregard or downplay all evidence that points to a contrasting argument. It affects everyone to be sure, and is very tough to guard against so don't think I'm trying to make it sound like you're an idiot for falling prey to it, since we all do at one time or another. Just understand that when you decide on a position and then run off to find out if you are correct in your assumption you are highly likely to find you are correct, not because you are, but because you have conveniently ignored data that would lead to a false verdict.

The idea that the left is above "politicking" (or coopting symbols as you put it) is absurd. The idea that the right is so much better at it is absurd as well. Both parties politic. At this particular moment in time the right may hold power, but that is likely to shift at any election. The idea that the right as an ideology relies on fantasy and popularity to sway voters, while the left relies on hard data and rational analysis, is one that is so poorly constructed and irrational as to hold little merit.

The idea that the U.S. media is biased towards the right may or may not be true. I don't know. All the data that I've seen on the subject seems to point to "beauty (or in this case ugliness) being in the eye of the beholder." All my right-wing friends and family say that the news popularizes leftist tendencies and all my left-wing friends and family will say that the news is somewhere to the right. Now I understand the problem of small sample sizes, so I'm not throwing this out as be-all, end-all, proof. I just know that intuitively I consider Ted Turner as "fair and balanced" as Rupert Murdoch. Al Franken, while funny is no more "rational" in my mind than Rush Limbaugh. I tend to ignore both of them. I can also point out media outlets of all sizes and circulations that are biased to the right and the left (Fox News/CNN, The Economist/Fortune, etc. all the way down to the Homeless Advocate/KKK newsletters).

Don't confuse the messenger for the message. It makes your claims of genius that much harder to take seriously.

4:10:26 PM  #  

Arley writes:
Absolutely right. I'm not after stability, I'm after maximizing total long-term return. In a world where inflation takes away 3-4% on average and taxes eat away another 1-2%, a 6% stable return won't get you anywhere. Give me the lumpy 10% any day. It's my personal belief that the only way to beat the institutional investors and the market as a whole is to profit from the lumpiness of returns. Look for the way they play the system and profit from the 'gaps' that they leave. Distressed companies, small companies, workouts, and the occasional great company that has taken a battering are the things I like to see. I like my companies with warts, the more the better, as long as they are not the kind that will prevent them from writing checks.

And there is an inversion of your rule that is equally valuable. Don't be fooled by the myth of a system in equilibrium. Like every mutual fund prospectus states: Past returns are no guarantee of future results. Everyone in the market is focused on the rear-view mirror because it has a much better view than the windshield. They usually try to prognosticate about the road ahead based on what they see in the history books. It's a fruitless exercise.

10:10:22 AM  #