I think the point that my friend's mom was making to her was that for a woman (with significantly higher social expectations for the amount of care work and housework) you can only be good at two of the three, because you are a human being with a finite amount of time and energy.
As for how you end up with just those two, I think the answer is divorce: you don't spend the energy to maintain your relationship with your spouse. Before you had kids you could invest your time and energy in your spouse and your career, then the kids come along and your relationship with your spouse weakens, either all the way to divorce or to just a degraded state.
Yeah I can accept that point of view. I think this is highlighting a certain relationship expectation delta between men (or at least myself) and women (or some women). If my wife is doing well in her career and we are doing well with the kids, I could easily see this being considered ‘good’, but my wife may view the relationship as being neglected. I see the core functions working and consider the relationship doing well.
This situation is in development for me so we will see. 0 and 3 year old
Yeah, this is also what I see as the main threat to my relationship with my wife: my complacency, taking it and her for granted. We both work hard on our parenting our 9 year old, and our careers, but then you need to spend the time with each other, lest you become roommates who run an unpaid childcare service on the side.
And I do wonder if this is about the engineer mindset ('I've reduced this to a previously solved problem, I just let the subroutine handle it') or about the way that men are socialized in my culture (just take her out to dinner twice a year- Mother's Day and Valentine's- and remember her birthday and you're meeting social expectations) or what. But it's the biggest threat to my (and I'd hazard a guess most other) marriages.
I'm confused what your core disagreement is? It seems like you're narrowing in on some relatively unimportant detail. Using your own source, what is the likely explanation for the tape shenanigans? Who cares if op was inaccurate to the exact specifics of the missing footage? Or am I not understanding the implication of the article you cited?
A possible factor on your observation is females athletically peaking earlier.
Edit. A quick investigation shows there is not a significant age difference between men and women for both top 10 player lists and top 100 player lists
Pretty important! More fans mean more sponsorship dollars, which mean better coaches, food, &c, which means better conditioning and training for the match, and thus a higher chance of winning and getting more fans and more sponsorship cycles.
I actually think it’s great. The level playing field can get a bit overrated. Hungary entrepreneurs will intuitively understand the parallels.
That was my first thought, but then again, players with a large fan base are more likely to get a wildcard into an event they don't directly qualify for.
Or players with that potential are likely to get resources investment earlier in the pipeline making them more able to perform well on non-subjective criteria
Exercising is doing some activity that is good for your health. You’ve reduced this to some narrow set of activities that presumably make you stronger, faster, or better at some other easy to measure metric. I assure you it’s easy to enjoy exercising if your incentive is longevity and simply healthy living by a more subjective metric
If it's more profitable to keep your money under a mattress than to make things, provide services, or provide loans, the economy will tilt toward hoarding cash instead of more productive activities.
This is the classical argument, but I think it's been largely refuted by practice. Instead of hoarding cash inflationary systems motivate hoarding 'things' and then trying to rent them out to everybody. This is arguably even less productive as it's fundamentally socially harmful.
When the value of things naturally declines over time, there's no real motivation to hoard them. And I think hoarding is less harmful than never-ending rent seeking. This entire issue of sidestepping inflation by hoarding+renting is what led to things like the WEF predicting that 'You will own nothing, and be happy.' That's just fundamentally dystopic because it's setting the recreation of feudalism, under a capitalist shell, as a goal. The unstated implication of their prediction is that the super-rich would own everything, and then rent it to you.
Gold is a terrible unit of international money because the supply isn't flexible enough to accommodate any growth in international trade.
Contrary to popular belief, during history gold has always had limited role in the monetary system, because it was too scarce to really be useful (in most of human history, Silver, not gold was the cornerstone of trade, and trade itself was a tiny part of economic activity in an era where most of it was subsistence farming). It's only when banking and paper money replaced silver that gold took a bigger role in the monetary system. The gold standard is in fact an invention of the late 19th century and it didn't last long before it disappeared progressively (the first world war being the beginning of the end).
Unfortunately for us, it just happened to be the period when a bunch of influential economists grew up (particularly Ludwig Von Mises), and like every human being they assumed that the system they grew up with was special and what came after was decadent, an idea that has unfortunately since then become widespread in the general population.
Most people wrongly assume that the key property for a commodity to become the basis of a monetary system is scarcity, but in reality scarcity is a drawback. Money must be abundant enough (too abundant is bad, but too scarce is even worse).
Isn't a more modest opinion that gold admits a guaranteed minimum on its price because of scarcity and demand from industrial applications? That guaranteed minimum on its price is what enables it to be used as a hedge against a possible hyperinflation event of the USD. By comparison, the USD, like all other fiat currencies, might not have any guaranteed minimum price.
That argument comes from an ancient list of arguments against gold. But nobody seems to be able to explain why that would matter at all. There doesn't need to be any correlation with the amount of currency and the economic output. And there has never been any such correlation, including right now with the dollar or any other currency.
If you want an economy to prosper the currency value has to remain stable. That means it has to scale with economic output. You can, of course, not do that, if you want to kneecap yourself.
OK, now do dollar-denominated assets. Stocks, bonds, commodities, real estate. How have those fared over the same time period? Those types of assets are where I put my money for long-term savings.
Only idiots that don’t understand inflation hold lots of cash, bringing that up is a strawman. Cash is not a store of value, it’s a unit of exchange and unit of account. Again, cash is not for saving, it should be used to purchase assets if you want to create long-term wealth.
Inflation is a tool used to encourage people to spend or invest their money instead of hoarding it. By spending it or investing it in dollar denominated assets, economic activity and GDP increased. Hoarding cash doesn’t help anyone.
Have you ever considered that perhaps your ideas about the monetary system are wrong?
If you think 3% inflation is bad, wait until you see what happens when you don't have it. The value of money has to decrease or it won't circulate - see Bitcoin.
Only the fact that it would be an idiotic policy that would destroy the economy.
Why would you let your monetary policy be run by gold miners in China, Russia and Australia? They could cause inflation or deflation simply by increasing or decreasing gold production.
Conversely how is the Fed supposed to manage inflation if it runs out of gold?
Gold is an industrial metal, also used in jewelry, not a financial panacea.
Now you know why so many countries want to leave the dollar system. There are no meaningful constraints on the supply of dollars.
Gold at least places real constraints on the growth of the money supply. Imperfect as it is, it’s better than a financial cabal in one country creating money to suit their needs irrespective of any other objective.
Imagine if there was a gold which could be transferred across borders easily and completely securely within seconds, proof of holdings and ownership could be easily proven, and there was no future risk of gold supply shocks (eg gold asteroid hitting earth or alchemy becomes viable).
All the arguments against gold are completely bogus because there is nothing stopping the price of gold from climbing to meet the economic need. The price of gold was suppressed for a long time by institutions, but this active suppression is increasingly difficult to continue.
As for verification and transfer, that's what electronic shares are for, distributed across a few key physical asset holders.
Price of a commodity metal can do whatever they want without causing a big problem. It is just a resource allocation signal. However if you base your currency value on it suddenly you are forcing debtors into bankruptcies if the value shoots up. Credit relationships aka investments are what make an economy run and grow, not some arbitrary commodity price.
Debtors who roll their loans also go bankrupt when the fed raises interest rates.
Rolling loans is par for the course for many capital intensive businesses. This is because in a low interest rate environment if you act prudently you’ll get outcompeted.
You're just so used to a debt fueled economy that you can't think of it being any other way. That is the problem though in that 99 times out of 100, debt goes rogue in a runaway sense and blows up the system. It is a time bom.
In essence, debt doesn't need saving from the system; it's the system that needs saving from debt.
A system that lasts a hundred years before failing is a successful system. This reminds me of comments about bankrupt companies that made massive profits for 10 years, calling them failures. That's a success and the comment is sour grapes.
In my case, the people I looked up to generally had tried these things and reported them as valuable or interesting experiences. So I decided to ‘roll’ the dice and am glad I did.
No one knows what would happen. That is unprecedented. There would be mayhem in financial systems as all types of collateral is vaporized. All types of on paper net worth would collapse towards zero
It's be unprecedented for the foundation of the contemporary financial system. Argentina defaulting on their debt is very different than a country which every other country, and their banks hold bonds from since it's deemed the safest investment possible.
It would eliminate the notion of the USD as the basis of foreign trade across the world, almost all of the finance system is supported by the USD being the safest investment available.
