
Engineering & Maths apprentice, who likes winning and helping others to do the same. Victoriee for us all! #bitcoin⚡[email protected]
victoriee.eth
Joined October 2019
- Tweets16K
- Following100
- Followers279
- Likes38.1K
good one; let the light of truth illuminate
Replying to @InvestingCanons
What if we invert it?
"It takes 20 years to build a lie and 5 minutes of truth to destroy it."
Would you do things differently?😎
prudent
Charlie Munger had ten years of living expenses covered when he moved into investing. He still kept a foot in his old law firm.
That detail rarely makes it into the stories about billionaires taking risks. In a 2017 interview, Munger explained exactly how much protection he had before changing careers.
He had earned roughly $350,000 over his first 13 years as a lawyer. He started without capital and had a large family to support. By the time he began moving into investments, he held more than $300,000 in liquid assets.
Enough to cover about a decade of expenses. And he still waited for the new career to work before fully leaving the old one.
People hear that a billionaire quit his profession and remember the quitting. The years spent making that decision affordable are easier to leave out.
Munger also explained what bothered him about practicing law. He hated sending invoices and depending on richer people to pay him. He wanted his own money because he wanted independence.
That makes his version of ambition unusually practical. Before asking his investments to make him wealthy, he had made sure his family could live without an immediate payoff.
A man who escaped China with no money and no English went on to compound about 30 percent a year for two decades. In 2006 he sat down in a Columbia classroom and taught the entire method to a room of students.
For free.
No bank and no fund has ever put this recording in front of you.
His name is Li Lu. He fled after Tiananmen in 1989 and reached America with nothing, then wandered into a lecture that turned out to be Warren Buffett speaking to a value investing class. Years later Charlie Munger handed him about $88 million of his own family money, the only outside investor Munger ever trusted that way.
The lecture is not a formula or a screener. It is about why the market is built against the few people who treat a stock as a piece of a business. He walks Timberland live off a stock manual, bought near book value at about 5 times earnings, a stock that rose about 7 times in two years. Then he does the same with a forgotten Korean stock that was even cheaper.
The uncomfortable part is what he says about the crowd. By one estimate fewer than 5 percent of the money in the market belongs to value investors. The other 95 percent is built to trade, and it funds the whole game. Columbia charges tens of thousands a year to sit in that room. The man at the front gave the method away for nothing.
His thesis was blunt. The stock market was not created for value investors. The edge, he said, is not more data. It is the temperament to stand alone when everyone disagrees.
He says that same class made him more than $100,000 within the year, just by acting on what he heard. The recording has sat online for years. Almost nobody sits through an hour of it.
The man Charlie Munger trusted with his own money taught the whole thing to a room of students for free. The people charging you to manage your savings have known it for decades. They just never sent you the tape.
Britain restored the gold standard in 1821, pegging sterling at £3 17s 10½d per troy ounce, and the following decades gave you one of the most instructive experiments in monetary history: falling prices coexisting with explosive real growth.
Prices fell. Roughly 50% between 1820 and 1850 by some price indices. The textile mills of Manchester kept expanding. Railway track mileage in Britain jumped from virtually zero in 1820 to over 6,000 miles by 1850. Real wages climbed. The orthodox panic about deflation, the kind you still hear from central bankers today, would have predicted stagnation. Instead you got the industrial revolution, accelerating.
The mechanism is simple once you strip away the Keynesian fog. Deflation under a gold standard reflects genuine productivity gains: producers squeeze more output from the same inputs, and prices fall because goods become cheaper to make. This is healthy deflation, not demand collapse. The cotton spinners of Lancashire caused falling yarn prices through innovation.
Sound money advocates have always stressed this distinction. Falling prices from productivity growth reward savers, keep capital costs honest, and force businesses to earn their profits through efficiency rather than inflating their way to margins.
The British experience between 1821 and 1850 is an inconvenient data point that modern central bankers quietly ignore: a hard currency, shrinking prices, and the fastest sustained economic expansion the world had yet seen. Simultaneously.
Victor :) retweeted
wasn't expecting to see this idea seriously on here, but I think it's at least directionally correct
Nothing is guaranteed
































