No, it's a progressive one. Their policies on drugs, policing, homelessness, enforcement, housing, zoning are all progressive. Why do you think it is "liberal" and what would a "real" progressive city look like, then?
I don't think I've seen a comment with so much wrong crammed into it.
> Take a breath from American politics for a second and it's abundantly clear that SF politicians, and policies, are peak Liberal America.
> For Americans, that looks like communism I guess. For the rest of us, it's milquetoast centrism and performative virtue signaling to further protect capital interests.
I'm not American. I've lived the majority of my life in Canada, and about 8 years in America now. It doesn't look like communism. Being "progressive" does mean enacting communism, though if that's your bar, yeah I agree San Francisco isn't communist. You're kind of all over the map here, but your general claim seems to be that because San Francisco is not successful at achieving the desirable outcomes of progressive policies (low incarceration, safety, material needs met, low income inequality), it's not progressive. And cause they have empty houses? That's just... bizarre. Everyone knows it's a failed city. That doesn't make it "milquetoast liberal". You know it's a city right? It has to operate within the constraints of the nation it's a part of. Comparing to to sovereign nations that have the full autonomy of the state to enact their policies (Norway, Singapore, Japan) makes no sense.
I'll try to zero in on a few well known progressive policies in San Francisco.
- open air drug markets have been allowed to operate with impunity, drug laws are generally not enforced
- they elected Chesa Boudin. the "cold feet" they got was cause people aren't safe in San Francisco. people prefer not to be robbed or killed, even progressive ones
The American Overton Window is irrelevant. San Francisco's policies are progressive on an international scale.
Then you want to "turn it to me" and actually put stuff in quotes I've never said lol. Who are you arguing with? I never said anything about restorative justice (I'm actually fairly sympathetic to it). I said San Francisco has enacted a significant number of progressive policies. It has. That's really it.
You are ignoring some obvious points that the other person made in your comment, and I literally made an account to respond because it is a bit annoying, because none of your points follow anything. I'll point these out (I'll also point out where I have no issues with your arguments to be fair):
> but your general claim seems to be that because San Francisco is not successful... it is not progressive
No, the person clearly said the measures were *half measures* and that's the problem with them. And they did give a *specific* example about someone stealing and not being prosecuted for it, but social services/etc. not following up to see why someone may be stealing. You might disagree and argue that not prosecuting people for non-violent crimes (so they don't get permanent records that might affect their employment, housing opportunities etc. forever) should be enough, but it's a bad faith argument to say that the previous commenter simply thinks SF is not progressive because their progressive policies aren't successful. Your logic doesn't follow.
> And cause they have empty houses?
No, because they have empty houses and skyrocketing housing/rent prices and have so much homelessness at the same time.
> Comparing to to sovereign nations that have the full autonomy of the state to enact their policies (Norway, Singapore, Japan) makes no sense.
If it doesn't (your assumption seems to be that a city doesn't have enough political power to enact certain legislation/measures), then you are proving the point you are replying to: that these measures SF has, no matter how progressive they look, can only be half-measures. It doesn't matter what the intentions of people enacting them are, by your reasons (if, again, we take your assumption that SF doesn't have enough political autonomy to do much) can only be milquetoast half measures.
> open air drug markets have been allowed to operate with impunity, drug laws are generally not enforced
ok sure, you kind of have a point. Obviously there are a ton of stuff to be said, but I'll let you have it.
> harm reduction programs for drug addicts, here's a list of needle exchange places in San Francisco for example
Obvious straw man. By definition, these programs try to reduce things like HIV among people who use drugs. If you provided data that showed incidence of HIV increasing among homeless and drug using populations after needle exchanges were introduced, that would be one thing. What does this program have anything to do with anything about the root issues behind homelessness/drug addiction?
> they do provide low cost, and even free, housing for homeless people, addicts etc. I'm not going to link this for you but it's easy to find
No they don't, and you can't link it because it doesn't exist! And no, shelters don't count. If you research a little bit, you will see that a lot of homeless don't like shelters because the communal living situation makes them vulnerable to many other sorts of threats. Long-term, affordable, adequate housing. Find me the link for that.
> they have long been a sanctuary city and do not aid in enforcement of the immigration policies of the federal government
Again, nothing to do with the main point, unless the perpetrator was an undocumented immigrant (and even then, N=1, so what is your point?).
Thank you for taking some of the burden there, the entire thread is infuriating because I simply can't get good, data-based positions from those that are here to cry for the blood of those they label criminals.
Regarding Healthy San Francisco, it's certainly an incredible program and a fantastic way for a city to try to address the clown show that is the American healthcare system, but it's not universal healthcare. It's missing the universal. You can be someone whose life would be dramatically improved by universal healthcare (aka a person one surgery away from bankruptcy aka the majority of Americans) and be ineligible for Healthy San Francisco.
I will however grant that it is likely the most progressive policy in the city. Even still it falls short of the most basic standards of human rights by other industrialized nations (that being access to healthcare).
You both did a much better job answering those points than I was prepared to do, that was really nice to see.
> I simply can't get good, data-based positions from those that are here to cry for the blood of those they label criminals.
That's the nature of it, unfortunately. The people who freak out the most about murder are the most excited to call for additional murder, and the mental gymnastics needed to resolve that cognitive dissonance means you're not going to get a good faith argument. They don't even necessarily believe what they're saying in many cases, it's just lashing out after getting riled up thinking they're being targeted somehow. There seems to be a lot of that here in this thread especially, since the victim was a techie.
I try to remind myself that it's not about convincing the person you're responding to, it's about reaching who else might be reading.
It's honestly a relief to see others share my feelings on the subject. Normally when I get deep in with conservative arguments like this, I can lie to myself that probably most of the people are bots, but here that's almost certainly not the case. So, I was getting super depressed at how much "work" there is to do for implementing evidence-based judicial processes (let alone in convincing people that homeless people aren't subhuman trash), because here we have a thread of thousands of likely rich techies, ostensibly relatively well educated people, all ignoring evidence and baying for blood while engaging in outright fallacy.
I mean, check out how much the comments calling for level heads, or simply linking to contradicting evidence, are getting downvoted. It's wild, and disappointing. These are supposed to be some pretty smart people on this forum.
Yeah, I disagree. It's basically the standard leftist argument that "no true leftist" goes far enough. Saying they are "half measures" doesn't mean they aren't progressive half-measures. I'm sure the OP would seize and the means of production and eat the rich or whatever but that's not what progressive means.
I dunno what your N=1 point is supposed to mean. Being a sanctuary city is a progressive policy. And calling needle exchange a straw man is odd. How is it a straw man? A straw man means I'm setting up a fake version of my opponent's argument and arguing with that. It's an example of a progressive policy that exists. You seem to be saying it's not progressive because it doesn't solve the root causes. So the only cities that get to be considered progressive have to SOLVE drug addiction? I don't buy into that definition of progressivism. A harm-reduction drug program is a hallmark of progressive cities all over the world.
They have 12,000 units. You as a resident will pay between $25 per month and up to 30% of your income (if you have one). I don't believe any of these are shelters. You confidently claim something doesn't exist that a two second google search brings up. Private residence, long-term, extremely subsidized housing does exist in San Francisco. I'm not saying it's adequate, perfect, or solves the homeless problem, but it exists.
My points follow a simple premise. I think SF has sufficient policies to be considered a "progressive" city, and I gave examples of progressive policies. I am not going to do the HN thing where you go back and forth snip-quoting each other's points, that misses the forest for the trees. But if SF is not progressive, then no city in North America is.
> You seem to be saying it's not progressive because it doesn't solve the root causes. So the only cities that get to be considered progressive have to SOLVE drug addiction?
No, I am not saying that policy is not progressive, I am saying that that particular policy is irrelevant to housing/homelessness itself. Electric car mandates can be considered progressive. It doesn't mean anything for homelessness. It is a strawman, because needle exchange programs don't claim to reduce addiction, not to mention homelessness. They claim to reduce harm from addiction. By your logic, why not list every single progressive policy that SF has? I am sure SF has a lot of bike lanes, which is also a hallmark of progressive cities. Why didn't you bring that up? There is a drag queen ban in Tennessee for example. By your definition, not banning drag queens is progressive, so that could be a policy you could list.
It is a strawman, because a) you brought it up because it is tangentially related to homelessness and addiction so it "feels" relevant b) it is something that you can use to construct your premise that SF can be considered a progressive city (which sure why not) and c) nobody is arguing with you about if SF is progressive by common definition or if a particular policy is progressive. The argument is that these policies don't try (not solve, not be successful, just try/address) the root causes of homelessness, and are thus half measures, so it doesn't matter what other progressive policies the city has. This is not an argument about semantics.
The broader argument that the person you were responding to (I don't want to speak for them, but just my interpretation) is that these policies are just there to give the appearance of progressiveness without doing anything to change the material conditions, on which I agree. And you don't need to go that far and seize anything, just give universal healthcare and a better social safety net like most EU member countries and that would suffice for now. It is not a binary choice here.
I stand corrected. You are right. But you do say yourself that it is not enough and solves the problem, just exists. And before you say "well does it have to be enough to be progressive", no, that's not what I am saying. This is a progressive policy. But it doesn't change the material reality that housing prices are skyrocketing and clearly there aren't enough of these units to house everyone that is on the streets. So let's assume there is a sudden change of heart and everyone in bay area starts voting conservative. These two policies being the progressive policies they are, are rolled back. Besides straight up throwing people in the jail for being homeless (which, coincidentally, Tennessee just passed a law for), how would the roll-back of these two policies change the situation in SF for the better? I'll tell you: it wouldn't. It would a) cause more harm by spreading blood-borne diseases among the addicted population b) increase the number of homeless people.
Your points don't follow a simple premise. Your flow of thought seems to be:
SF has progressive policies that are, while not enough, and some of which are not even related to the issue at hand, progressive -> SF is a progressive city -> SF has homelessness -> SF is a failed city because it is progressive -> Progressive cities = bad because SF is progressive and homelessness isn't solved, so progressive policies can't solve homelessness. -> progressive policies broadly = bad
But this is just playing with semantics. The OP's point is that these policies are there to give an appearance of being progressive. It is not the standard argument to anything. It just doesn't solve the problem, that's it. Let's assume the OP and I want to be considered a different category called progressive+, the policy definition of which is anything that fully tries to solve a given social problem like homelessness. If we think that progressive policies, which is a strict subset of progressive+ policies, don't try to solve the problem, then we are done. That's it. Notice that they are a subset of policies of progressive+, so they give a semblance of it, but they are not progressive+. If the OP believes that unless you try policies in progessive+, you are doomed to fail, then your argument doesn't make sense, because it doesn't matter what direction the half measures are, because they don't try to address the problem. Being half-measures, they try to give the appearance of a sincere effort.
On the other hand, let's do a thought experiment. If every big city in every red state where it is mandatory to drive the biggest most polluting cars possible and it is a crime to now own a gun or whatever, and using alcoholic mouthwash is considered drinking, and anybody that speaks Spanish needs to report for a daily check in with customs (for reasons longer than we should get into, cities don't tend to vote for conservatives usually) decide to provide permanent adequate housing and healthcare to every resident in their state. That's a great policy, and while I would have a lot of other issues with such a state/city, I would really like that policy. That policy would be in the subset of policies that progressive+ policies have that the progressive subset doesn't. You are playing with semantics, because I don't care if a particular city is considered progressive or not. A city's reputation is irrelevant. The other policies (while draconian in this example) are not relevant.
> In theory there could be some kind of liquidity crisis if FTX had to liquidate many margin trades at the same time.
I don't think there can be.
If all assets customers have title to are held 1:1 in the currency the liability is denominated in, there is no scenario I can see where FTX is unable to fulfill customer withdrawal requests. Even if customers make use of significant margin and FTX has to liquidate all of their margin positions at once due to tanking prices. The customer who pledged their assets as collateral have now forfeited them to FTX and so have no withdrawal to make, so no liquidity crisis. The customers who did not make use of margin should have their assets sitting there ready to be withdrawn. Can you explain how a liquidity crisis can occur through margin trading?
FTX may lose significant sums of money, and face a solvency crisis (they may have to shut down margin trading altogether), but it should always be able to give customers their assets back. Unless they are misusing customer assets for other things.
Being able to claim someone's speech makes you "unsafe" is akin to "words are violence" that the pro free speech crowd objects to. Elon may face a greater risk of harm with the world having a way to guess his location (broadly) but that's not a case to silence speech.
It should also be noted he's a billionaire. Have you seen Zuckerberg's security spending?
DCA is always controversial here, someone always says lump sum is better, but I tend to think of the maxim of Ben Graham that "the stock market is a voting machine in the short term and a weighing machine in the long term". I expect prices to eventually converge to some "fair" or rational value for the stock(s) in question, but at any given moment they may be way off, particularly for a single name, so I like DCA as a way to mitigate that risk. I do however recognize that DCA is a psychological way for people to build comfort and a consistent investing habit, and for this reason I think it's extremely valuable.
That said, if you're very long it's hard to picture entering Google or Apple at 15-18x earnings and doing very poorly. Personally I am DCA'ing because i) it's how I invest and ii) I do think there is more pain to come. There are many reasons for that, rallies amongst meme stock names after dips is one indicator imo.
His analysis of Airbnb is interesting. Airbnb's trailing 12 month P/E ratio is 40x, not 15.5x. He is projecting forward Airbnb's recent monster quarter. This is a bit risky imo, though maybe he knows the business better than me. I'd still be more comfortable DCA'ing into Airbnb or travel as a sector, but 2 quarters ago their P/E was 150x, so at 40x it does look pretty attractive.
Shameless plug, since this is right in our wheelhouse, I am the creator of a DCA focused custom indexing investing product[1] and a simulator to backtest DCA investing[2].
However, most of us don't have a pile of money just lying around, but rather we get a little money every two weeks or every month, in which case it's best to put away a little money every month:
Yeah, I addressed this in another comment[1]. "Most of the time" is doing a lot of work there, most is 75-80%. 20% is not negligible to me.
But as your article points it, DCA is not about getting the absolute best return, it's about risk mitigation.
> The only times when DCA beats LS is when the market crashes (i.e. 1974, 2000, 2008, etc.). This is true because DCA buys into a falling market, and, thus, gets a lower average price than a lump sum investment would.
If you are fearful of a crash (like now, as we are in the midst of war, recession, energy shortages, coming out of a pandemic etc.) risk mitigation may be higher on your list of priorities. I also think it just lowers cognitive load for people who aren't investing for a living.
All that said, I 100% agree with DCA as the best approach for people investing out of income!
> "Most of the time" is doing a lot of work there, most is 75-80%. 20% is not negligible to me.
If I'm on game show, and I have to (e.g.) pick a door to win a prize, with one strategy winning 80% of the time, and another that wins 20% of the time, I know what I'm using.
And it's not like it's even close (51/49 or even 60/40). This is a substantial "most".
The nuance about DCA that is commonly missed is that lump sum gives a better return on average. The key word is average; averages hide much!
When people struggle to understand that I say DCA can be thought of as a sort of insurance. You pay a price to insure your home to protect against the unlikely event that your house burns down. But on average buying insurance will loose you money. But the cost is comparatively low, and for each individual likely worth it to protect from total loss, even if in aggregate it's clearly a loosing proposition.
DCA is similar, most people will end up with marginally lower returns, however a small percentage of individuals caught close to a rare negative market event will be less impacted by sudden large drops and experience overall much greater returns in the long run than if they had invested as a lump sum due to the nature of volatility decay.
Absolutely. Sure, in a bull market you give up some upside but I doubt you're likely to really care. If I'm riding something all the way up and making profit, I'm happy. If I'm losing 20% or 40% of my money, I'm extremely unhappy. Human sensitivity to negative emotion makes the insurance worth it, imo.
And yes, averages are great for everyone but the outliers!
Isn’t it so that statistically lump-sum is better[0] but that you take on overvaluation risk? If you DCA you reduce that risk.
[0] don’t have a ref but I think it has been shown that if you have a lump sum of money, historically you would have made the most gains by investing everything immediately (in the S&P500, there are only a few periods were this wasn’t true (therefore there is a risk)
Yes, you risk buying at inflated prices let's say. The common idiom is "time in the market beats timing the market", meaning yeah, just get your money in if you have it. Here's one analysis [1] that claims since 1950 in every 10-year period, lump-sum would have been better 75% of the time. But there are some caveats.
First, 25% of the time is a lot of the time. It may be possible to recognize an overheated market, by looking at historical earnings multiple averages for example. Second, they are using a "total market" index, even broader than the S&P 500. I don't know that many people who buy a total market index. Usually it's the S&P 500, or even a sector focus. The more specific you get, the more these results are likely to break down I would bet.
We focus on DCA for people who are working for a living and investing out of income, which is obviously a different cohort than Fred Wilson, the VC. So lump-sum investing doesn't really factor into it.
it's about time in the markets, not timing the markets
However, whoever said the wise words about how Buy and Hold and been polluted by HODL was absolutely correct.
Stock indexes have a built in survivorship bias, as the failing or declining stocks eventually get diminished (especially if it is market cap weighted) or removed completely.
I believe your intuition is correct, and it just straightforwardly does help iron out short term volatility. What it de-risks is the likelihood the bottom arrives some time in the next year, at a point lower than today, and that you could have achieved a significantly lower average entry price by waiting. The risk it exposes you to is that it's already the bottom, and you're going to keep buying in on the recovery. So if you're long term optimistic but short term bearish, but lacking high confidence in your ability to call the bottom, DCA makes sense imho.
I don't know what the conjecture is that would make it not de-risking that, or what a proof would be, maybe GP will clarify.
It should be noted that many analyses of DCA versus lump sum are around the S&P 500 overall. In the case of highly volatile growth stocks or just single stock investing like Fred is discussing in the article, market timing risk is more acute, since the drawdowns are more severe (it is quite rare for the S&P 500 to drop 70-80%).
Shameless plus, I am the owner of a DCA investing app + a simulator tool to backtest DCA with different stocks, over different time periods
I'm not sure what you mean by "make a name". As a dev I never needed to make a name, I just acquired skills that were useful for businesses (or my own business) through building applications. How you compete with people with 10 times the experience than you is through a lower salary, as always.
I agree that "web3" skills are programming, and some of it is actually quite challenging and involves more computer science than your average web or mobile app, so I don't think web3 programmers are lost by any stretch of the imagination, even if that ecosystem collapses, they will be reabsorbed into the broader software industry.
How is it misleading it's an accurate statement of the findings of an analysis. Your argument is they won't see those tokens cause they're gonna search out the one they like (and that one won't be a scam?)
What they'll conclude reading this is "wow, crypto is full of scams" and be right.
It's accurate in the sense that "97% of email is scams and phishing" which is a neat fact but doesn't indict email as a failure.
Email and Uniswap are both useful tools that are safe to use for even non-technical users. In fact Uniswap is safer as spam filters aren't 100% reliable but Uniswap's lists nearly are.
My conclusion reading it was, crypto tokens are 98% scams. Uniswap is an exchange. It's a utility, using an open protocol. It's makeup reflects the makeup of the domain.
