What do you know, the top comment is a pseudo-intellectual tear down of an article, asking for evidence and proof, admitting that the original article wasn't even read to completion, but offering plenty of criticism.

>Perhaps Simon Sinek is right, but after reading the article, you are no closer to understanding why he thinks he's right than you were before.

Guess what? This is a book excerpt. Maybe if you want some answers and notes you can buy and read the book? Of course, that would require you to read and synthesize something for longer than 5 minutes, fighting the urge to show how smart you are by instantly going to an internet message board to ask for line-by-line bibliographical references.

The fact that this community holds itself in such esteem is hilarious. Reddit redux.

Is that a social or physiological phenomenon?

I always assumed the great thinkers became less prolific as they voluntarily moved into other stages of life, like finding a mate and starting a family, and hence had less time to commit to intellectual pursuits.

Adam Curtis has produced some of the best documentaries I've ever seen.

It's like people in this thread can't appreciate art for what it is. Or that some of the topics here have been determined in absolute, and aren't open to interpretation, philosophizing or opinion.

Malcolm Gladwell? Junk. Adam Curtis? Junk. Is nothing worth reading or watching unless it's an unstylized list of facts?

I don't know about you, but all I ask from my personal entertainment are "things to think about".

That said, the core philosophy of Rich Dad, Poor Dad is a good lesson: make your money make money by buying "assets" and avoiding "liabilities".

This period is not unique in this regard. Interest rate is always risk-related. There may been times of higher absolute rates on things like savings accounts, but the real returns and opportunity costs were similar.

What I'm saying is, there are plenty of investment opportunities; the stock market just rose almost 30% in 2013.

Do you really believe that private companies are more forth-coming with information than public companies? Do you read 10-Qs?

Being public makes a company accountable to shareholders for just such information. Withholding it, or worse fabricating it, isn't the status quo with a public company. It results in shareholder lawsuits.

Well, rapist is easy. But me and you may have very different ideas as what constitutes a "sexist". That's the crux of the problem; that's what causes men to walk on eggshells.

>it would be awesome if you gave women the benefit of the doubt because we're not all this way

Most people are not willing to risk their job to find out.

I'll be the first to agree with this, but I don't believe the guy owes anything to anyone. This idea that he should go out of his way to up-end an interview process to appease the writers of a hack-job and other whiners might be PC, but it's ludicrous.

My advice to PG: Leave it for the next person. If there is systematic sexism in tech incubators, that means there's economic profit to be made by targeting female founders. Someone else should hop to it!

Not everyone who works at a hedge fund comes from the cast of Boiler Room. Talk about painting people with the same brush...

99% of this board haven't done the research Mr. Krugman has done in economics, or even have the experience in applied math he does.

But "those who are pro bitcoin are smart, those who are against it aren't", really?

From most of what I've read, here and on /r/bitcoin and elsewhere, Bitcoin proponents are utterly clueless when it comes to economics.

Maybe you should do the same.

Krugman isn't looking at Bitcoin as a technology, but as a currency. Just because he doesn't understand "computers and the imnpact thereof", doesn't mean he doesn't understand Bitcoin as money.

The political system. Same as it's been for thousands of years.

Well, you don't have to be a financial expert to understand the generalities of what you can and cannot afford.

The rest of what you describe can be equally attributed to greedy people thinking, "if the price doesn't rise, I'll bail in 3 months. No loss." I know some of those people.

>But if you think it's a precise 50/50 split or anything close to that, I think you are a terrible judge of the situation.

I know you read stories about the strawberry picker who can't speak english "pressured" into buying the million dollar home, but those cases were extremely rare.

The majority were people with $40,000 in income deciding to buy the $750,000 house, rather than the $200,000 house, because, you know, the American Dream says renting is bad and looking wealthy is a necessity. Give me the most money you can for the biggest house possible! This happened across the globe.

Oh, and you're forgetting the other major factor of the American specific bust: people who used their home equity to fund consumption. Mostly boomers. I guess those were also the unfortunate, duped poor, buying vacation homes, jet-skis and third cars?

It seems that your understanding of the situation is drawn from the mainstream, "evil-bankster" meme. But that only works because it's a populist sentiment. There is plenty of blame to go around; give it to the greedy.

A complete moron? In the field of monetary economics? Yeah, okay. You may think Bitcoin is major internet monies, but the economists are interested in studying it from aspect of a medium of exchange.

Discussing economics on HackerNews is like discussing medicine on Reddit: everyone is an expert, whether they know anything about the subject or not.

Ask the people who were priced out of transportation due to surge pricing what they think of the situation. Now imagine if Uber had driven all regulated taxis out of business and people were forced to pay exorbitant surge-pricing fees.

I'm not really against Uber or this strategy, but the "market" doesn't always sort things out fairly.

I get it, and I believe it's well within their right, and also an interesting strategy. I'm not really knocking Uber, I'm knocking some of its supporters.

Again, read through some of the comments on mainstream articles regarding the surge price kerfuffle. Filled with people saying, "Suck it Uber and your dynamic pricing! I took a regular taxi!" Meaning, they'll support the unregulated market, as long as it's cheaper.

People want more de-regulation, but fail to see the seemingly "good" that comes from regulation; in this case, predictable pricing when you're trying to get somewhere.

The opportunity cost of doing so is predictable and calculable, and, really, needs only occur when there are better investments available.

Inflation in a currency is a feature, not a bug.

I get your point, but people decry the regulation that Uber is fighting against...until Uber implements free market "surge pricing". Then people are more than happy to leap back into the yellow cabs, which have their price regulated. Just read through some of the fallout.

In other words, all the free market vs regulation talk is lip service. People want what's best for themselves.