If nothing else, you have Honor.
And that is not all you have.
Thank you for the response. No rough play from me to you. But no false agreement either.
First, compliments. You show yourself quintessentially human. Worthy to have met you on this field this day.
I select only a few points on which to comment. Maybe they stretch your mind, as yours stretched mine.
On extremes: Without extremes, life would be an endless succession of middles. Thus I've been extreme in moderation, and moderate in excess. Likely to continue in this vein. But I take your point, salt is good seasoning but a poor meal.
On house money: I view money to be of two kinds - John's money and someone elses'. Where John's money came from is irrelevant. What is relevant is that nobody gets their hands on John's money. Implication: every cent that John invests is John's money, and all gains or losses thereafter are John's money. So in this sense, concept of "house money" is foreign to me.
On anger: Best placed on those who shirk responsibility for their decisions, or abdicated their roles as deciders. But not those excellent at performing their scripted roles. As I said, I hold 350 shares of laidlaw as a tax deductable tuition receipt.
On LE: I certainly expect LE to be overweighted in ORCL at all times. It is therefore not the rebalancing itself that is the signal. It is the distribution of opportunities to rebalance not taken versus those taken that is the signal.
On wealth: The rich are different. Not because they are GIVEN opportunity, but because they EXPECT it. Plus point of view. See comment on house money for example. PM me offline if you would like further insight that I paid to obtain and does not belong in the public domain.
Finally, whether we agree or not on some of the intermediate points, your concerns are human. And that, I suggest is the most important thing of all.
Good night to you sir, and well met.
John. |
