Your thoughts on pride reminded me of this gem :)
There's a term for the type of writing you're describing - it's called "latte journalism". It's when the journos start their stories with a detailed description of the interviewee arriving to the cafe and ordering a coffee.
I couldn't agree more with Mostly Borrowed Ideas on the immigration front. Actually featured that in my post today as well because one of the more frustrating aspects of teaching at a university was seeing some of the outstanding students who would have been highly productive members of the economy, society, and the US taxpayer base end up struggling to find firms that would help them deal with the hassle of staying in the US. It seems like such a short-sighted policy. I also always appreciated the spirit of students willing to leave their family, friends, and culture to come to the US to study. That had to be a major leap to take and much more challenging than I imagine the average person appreciates. It also might explain how some of these immigrants ended up as CEOs...their willingness to put themselves in uncomfortable positions is likely connected to the traits that lead to success when the opportunity does arise.
Also, loved the pride issue as I've also never understood how someone is proud of random chance. Being born in a specific country is not something any of us had input or influence on, so what is there to be proud of? I watched the video of George Carlin that JZ posted and loved the line about "happy" being a much better word choice.
Still noodling on the "Don’t make the things you like part of your core identity" concept from Monday. There are parts that I REALLY like, but I think you need to either have a very strong sense of self or a combination of willingness to take input from a small group of trusted friends. Both of those seem like a challenge for a lot of people (including myself). Really great stuff this week so far!
I agree so much with the stuff about pride. Also about journalism which is so difficult as traditionally practiced - if you only spend a few days talking to experts you will still come up with a article with tons of mistakes that slipped through because it really takes a few years to learn enough to avoid about the subject matter to make obvious mistakes. Some journalists definitely do cover a beat long enough or have a background where they avoid those obvious mistakes.
Malone had a good point in his recent interview when the interviewer asked him about underperforming the S&P, which is how do you really think about the benchmark when the distribution is extremely lopsided to a couple of giant companies that did extremely well? Like 90%+ of companies will underperform by that definition. Equal-weight is not satisfying either since the benchmark is truly the average experience of investors. Should it matter that the S&P would be wildly different if the FANGs were all Canadian? How do investors and companies in other countries measure themselves - should European companies be content to outperform struggling giant banks? And this has all happened in reverse at various times in the US, Nifty Fifty in the 70s and the 2000 bubble where the giant companies pulled down the average. I don't have any good answers here.