(upbeat music) - Hey everybody, this is Phil Town. - And this is Danielle Town. - And welcome to the invested podcast. We are here. - Pre-forth of July. - Oh yeah, pre-forth of July. - Which I just looked at my calendar the other day and realized was coming up because, of course, there's no preparation, there's no celebration in Switzerland. Which was a shock to me. I was like, don't they care? Don't they know that it was a really important thing for the world when the US went independent? - No, we don't care. - I mean, it's a big deal here. In fact, here at the farm, we've got a hill that we call Fireworks Hill. And on Fireworks Hill, every year now for several years, a bunch of veterans and I get together and we raise the US flag and blow thousands of dollars of fireworks up and just do the whole rockets red flare. - What? - Is it rockets red flare? - How long have you been doing that? I didn't know about that. - Years, years, years, years, years. I don't know, at least four years. - Okay, okay. - And now a couple hundred people show up and we do a barbecue over at the pavilion and we got RSVPs so we know we have enough food and it's just this whole thing out here. This year, the guys have found a World War II Jeep and a bunch of them are dressing up in various war clothes. - Like reenactment type of thing? - Yeah, reenactment sort of thing. World War II, Vietnam, Afghanistan, it's sort of like with weapons from those areas, the whole deal and are walking through the barbecue and then up the hill and it's just like this sort of, and we sort of pageant it. It's very unorganized and sort of goofy but we don't care. - Do you like it? We are the men on the wall type of vibe. - We are the men on the wall vibe, yeah. And we've been on the wrong wall several times in my lifetime. We've been on the wrong wall completely. - Yep. - You know, got involved in places we didn't need to be involved in and it's just amazing, you know. It's like, okay, well, it's messy. It's messy, this country. Like a many people in Europe think we're a big child. You know, we're just a gigantic, big, huge child throwing their weight around like a bull in a china shop. - You know what? - I was listening to some British TV channel that I cannot even remember what it was. It was some completely irrelevant show and this person was talking about the US and goes, oh, the US. I mean, that country's young. It's only four or 500 years old. And I was like, oh, one. He thinks that we're young at four or 500 years old. - I know, it's almost like you want to take a couple zeros off. - And two, we're at about 250. So he's doubled us and still thinks we're young. I was like, your point is actually like way stronger than you think it is and also your history is terrible. - Well, and what you read about your history is, I mean, it's so diverse. It's like, I'm reading a book now on Daniel Boone and what it really is about is about what's going on in America in 1750s with the French battling for the continent against the British and both sides aligning themselves with Indian tribes that were deeply embedded in the continent before Europeans showed up. - I have a question and I would just like to acknowledge that this episode may involve no investing talk. But maybe you know, by the end, it'll get there. - I mean, let me just say that I will leave- - But I think people listen for our non-investing talk or I hope you do. - Reading broadly is part of investing. It absolutely is. I could say probably I'm a pretty simplistic investor. I mean, it's like, okay, buy a really good company you understand and buy it when it's on sale. And you know, that, I mean, at some point, I think I saw Charlie or Warren talk about how they've had to continue to learn over their entire careers because what worked in the 1950s didn't work, you know, in the 1970s. - They have said that, that's a great point. That is when a lot of people get attached to their system and they don't evolve with a different economy, a different technology, a different set of investors. - Yeah, I mean, you just got to keep learning. And so reading, Charlie's a big advocate of reading broadly. And so that's what our whole shop does. I allocate time every week for these guys to just read, whatever they want to read. And- - So here's my question. Why is Daniel Boone famous? I'm sure there were a lot- - Because he opened up- - Interesting frontiersman at that time. - Right, he opened up the land east of the Appalachian mountains. - That at the time means there wasn't a way through for people who wanted to take their families through. The only way through that most people knew were Indian and deer trails, hunting trails, that wound their way through these really old and really steep mountains. If you've ever been there driving on roads and in the Appalachian mountains, Blue Ridge Mountains- - Oh yeah, oh my gosh. - It's just up and down and around. And you just go, how did anybody get a wagon through here? And the answer is, they didn't. - Yeah, those birds are. - They didn't for a hundred years, they didn't. But Boone basically explored and opened up the Cumberland Gap, which is a gap at the southern end of the Appalachians in the Blue Ridge, which allows you to get a wagon through. And that opened up the whole valley of the eastern side, or the western side of the Appalachians. And it created vast changes in the relationship between the Europeans and the Indians, prior to that- - Yeah, no kidding. - Right, prior to that the Indians- - They were essentially protected by a land barrier and no water. - Well, that's sort of right. But what was really interesting that I've learned is that the Indian tribes there were allied in big alliances, right, and groups. And they were battling for survival for all the time they've ever been there. And when you started losing that battle, you were forced over the ridge. And so the losers ended up on the western side of the Appalachian and were protected by the Appalachian mountains from the other Indian tribes. And so there was a sort of evolution through that process, which also of course turned out to be the Europeans after a while. And of course much of what happened during that time period, the 1750s, were some of the most brutal genocidal battles ever in American history on all sides. And in other words, everybody, at that point in time, French, British, Indian, American killed everybody. Men, women, children, everybody. And that was just warfare. That's why I had the question, why is Daniel Boone famous? Because to my whatever hearing about him in grade school type of knowledge, somebody who was a renowned soldier or fighter, he was a frontiersman. He was bushwhacking. He was exploring. That's the legend of Daniel Boone that I learned as a kid. Yeah, you're pretty close. But in that context of the time of being entirely about bloodshed and fighting and clearing your land. Have you ever seen last of the Mohicans? Yes, of course. It's fabulous. So you know how Hawkeye was dressed? OK. He had on what's called a Lindsay Wool-- I think a Lindsay Wool shirt, long sleeve, and a breech cloth, and leggings, right? Oh, like when he was like all English. I don't know what that means. He was just wearing one set of clothes, the whole movie. He was, didn't he sort of like tear them off gradually? No. Well, he might-- I mean, did I imagine that? Daniel Day Lewis, taking his clothes off, was probably something you imagined I would have done. Let's move on. So-- but that was the Daniel Boone outfit. That outfit was worn by what was called a long hunter, which was a person, usually pretty young. And Daniel Boone started being a long hunter at age 16. I got to look at that. Would go out for a year and just go hunt for a year. And then there were so many animals in those woods that these guys would come back with deer pelts stacked on both sides of their saddles, that they had tanned. And then they would sell those. And Boone was making at age, I think 18 or 19. He was making-- what today is $40,000 a year in deer pelts, just going out and shooting deer and living on the land. And he became super adept at it. And then as the war started to develop, he was brought in to lead soldiers into places that they couldn't otherwise find. So he was basically a really good money maker, a really good businessman. Well-- That blows me away. I mean, I guess he could say that. That explains why he would be famous and not Joe down the street. I guess. I thought about $40,000 a year being a really good businessman. I thought you meant like in today's, like he would be a very wealthy man back then. No, no, no, $40,000 in today's dollars. It's a living. Oh, the equivalent got you. Yeah, it's a living. I was really impressed by him for a second there. OK, I've looked up the picture. Daniel Day-Lewis, you're right. So he's wearing kind of like a tunic type of thing. And then a legging type of thing. Yep. And yeah, has a long gun and high boots. And there you go. And they all kind of have their little satchels on their hips and are well-outfitted. OK, I want to make an investing point here. Great. And that is that this reading literally has nothing to do with investing whatsoever. It's simply an interest. I thought, wow, it's kind of interesting to look at this. And yet it has everything to do with investing because when we invest effectively, what we're doing is taking a worldview. And when the most important worldview we're taking-- I know we say we don't do that, but the fact is we do. And we do it in a very, very important way that is slightly unspoken. It's not completely unspoken. And that is we are betting on the country that we're investing in. I mean, I literally have that on my checklist. Yeah, I mean, you look at the country. And I mean, Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger, famously, are focused on America. And Buffett just keeps saying that and said, been saying that his whole life don't bet against America. And you're looking at the world's largest GDP. You've got a free society, a rule of law. You've got a lot that is really attractive to investors that would support that contention that you should be betting on America. But wherever you are around the world, wherever you want to put your money, you are making a bet on that country that that investment is within. I believe that I argued that very point to you on a recording. I'm so glad I recorded it so that at some point I can find it because that is 100% correct in my opinion. Yes. And so I guess, in a way, while I'm reading about Daniel Boone for a visit happening in 1753, it's all just sort of grist for the mill. I mean, just throw it in there. And you don't really know what ultimately that's going to result in in the year 2024 or 2030 or whatever. You throw it in there. And maybe nothing. Maybe there's one little thing that I'll read in this 208-page book that will impact a future investment. Or maybe the only thing it does is impact my decision to invest in America. Maybe that's what it really does, right? But every book that you read is going to add to that sort of library of knowledge that you have up there, whether it's direct at sort of the concept of investing like markets with books by guys like Daniel Kahneman or irrational exuberance by getting into behavioral economics. Yeah, or in which you're pretty direct at whether we think the market is going to be-- whether you think there's a legitimate argument that the market is irrational sometimes, right? This gives you some philosophical backing and maybe some evidence of backing. So you know what I'm saying? So less behavioral economics more like macro-focused, trying to figure out markets, OK? But you just don't know. And if I've done one thing that makes me a really-- I'm not even saying I'm a really good investor. But if I've done one thing that would make me a really good investor, it said I've read very broadly my entire life, as you know. And so that-- and that's something that Munger has pushed forward as his-- I mean, I think it's his single criteria for whether he considers a person, am I putting this right, worth talking to? Is that what Charlie said more or less? I don't remember it, but that sounds exactly like him. It sounds pretty Charlie doesn't it? Let's say that that's probably correct. Yeah, that basically, if somebody isn't broadly read, well read, you could say-- now remember, this is not well educated, per se, in the sense of I've been to the Ivy League, you know? Like you're an extremely well educated person by anybody's standard, and you may not be well read. You are in this case. But I feel like I couldn't agree more. Having been to many excellent, too many excellent universities and been around so many ultra smart people. Yeah, having a degree does not mean that you are broadly knowledgeable, that you can think critically, that you are intellectually honest. It doesn't mean any of those things. Right. It doesn't exclude you from those things. And often people who come out of those places are amazing, better than most people, thinking critically and being intellectually honest, because they were forced into it to get a good grade. But not everybody. You hope, you hope, you hope that's what they were doing. One of the things I most appreciate about NYU law, for your education, is how demanding it was on intellectual honesty, in the sense of, you have to appreciate the argument that's coming at you. Yeah, I mean, that's just law school, like street for it. That's just street for it law school. Well, you think it was, but I got to tell you, Hunter came out of law school and did not experience that sort of intellectual honesty in law school. Ooh, that's rough. Oh, they've changed it. It became woke. And that became a whole thing. That'll depend on the school, obviously. Yeah, that was obviously the school. But I also think that I had a really good education in that from college at Wellesley. Really, really good. And I know that because it was a huge shock to me, because I did not have that education in high school. And when I got a C on my first paper, which I had thought was excellent and would have gotten me an A in high school, I still remember that moment of just like complete confusion. Like what on earth could they be wanting? And so I went and talked to the professor and he basically was like, you have no sources. You didn't fill out your argument. And I was like, oh, okay, there's stuff I'm supposed to do. Like I just had not been taught that stuff, which is insane and just sad. If you think that was required, if I want to hire somebody for a job that requires an intellect, right? And you're not just digging a ditch or something. So you really have to have your brain turned on for this job. Office job. Presumably, yeah, but there's also outside jobs you got to have your brain turned on for. Oh, yeah, that's true, for sure. And I just think I really do want someone who has the capability that you just said. And I don't care if they've got a college degree. I mean, honestly, they have so depreciated the value of an Ivy League degree or like a degree from any good college in America has been depreciated over the last 20 years by this lack of rigor for some reason that has crept into the intellectual, intellectual, you know, the faculty of these universities. I don't know what's happened, but anymore, it's like you got people coming out of there that are so not wide awake and not able to appreciate different sides of a point of view that we're not interested in hiring. I'm just not interested in hiring them. And I was going to say, whereas you came from a great intellectual set series of colleges. I mean, you went to some brilliant, brilliant schools and got that education. I didn't necessarily go to that. I had a couple of years at University of California where I was studying philosophy and they demanded that sort of rigor. But other than that, I've been relatively self-taught. And so-- - And even that, I think we've talked about was a little different because in philosophy, you're working off of the great works and logic. And it's a lot less research focused the way to say a history degree would be. - Right, for sure. And so I think anybody that reads widely and has any kind of average intellectual capacity is getting to the basics of what it takes to be a good investor. - Yeah, me too. - I think that's awesome. And to the basis of what it takes to be a good employee and ultimately a good employer and ultimately, in other words, you've got to be able to think. And you got to be able to think rationally, unemotionally, you've got to be able to understand what you're seeing and not just take somebody's word for it. I'm just thinking also, Daniel, of this discussion we had a few days ago apart from the podcast is that I was putting forth some political stuff and you were like rigorous. You were saying, look, you have to be rigorous, dad. You can't just take somebody's word for it or you have to really think it out. And you said, you know, that's one of the things I really appreciate about you, but I don't know that you're doing that right now. And I was, and I was listening to your argument and as emotional as you can get in discussions of politics and religion, you have to keep your head screwed on straight. You have to be able to listen to the other side. And if you can't, you're gonna be a terrible investor. You're gonna be so caught up in what you think is right. What your opinion is that you will inevitably be making opinions about things about what you do not understand. You will absolutely be doing that. - Absolutely. - I'm rattling on here, but I'm gonna just also give a shout out to Joe Rogan's podcast that he just did. I don't remember which number it is, but he just did it. It's with a guy named Eric Weinstein and another guy named Terence, somebody. The guy, Terence, these guys are both mathematicians. And Weinstein, apparently, is extremely well known and recognized in the field. And Terence is not. Terence is a guy almost from the street, self-educated. They're both in their late 50s, who, Terence has come up with ideas about the way the world works through geometry and making patterns that sort of blue Eric Weinstein's mind and blue Joe Rogan's mind to the point where Joe Rogan and Terence did this podcast. And when it went out, Rogan got hammered by the mathematical community, essentially calling Terence full of shit. - Oh. - Essentially. Yeah, just like, here's a guy that doesn't even know what he's talking about. - Yeah, you might wanna listen to that. - Yeah, well, what is that guy's name who's got a big pos? It's Neil Tyson. - Oh, Neil deGrasse Tyson. - Neil deGrasse Tyson. - The scientist, right? - Scientist, right? - Yeah. - And he said, hey, I'll take a look at this guy. It's interesting. And then he just gave him the backhand across the jaw. Boom, you're useless. - Is that code four? He said that his calculations were useless and wrong. It's code four, you're not peer reviewed and you're not ever gonna be peer reviewed and you suck. And- - So that's super interesting 'cause I would like to know why they're saying that. - Well, so did Eric Weinstein. So, Rogan invited him on board. And this is to the point. - Who's he? Is he a professor? - Why so I'd say he's professor.edu someplace. I didn't get it in the podcast. But super smart. I mean, there was nothing about anything Terrence said that this guy didn't understand. - He has a dot edu email address. Check the box, he's qualified. - Well, you know what? This is exactly to Eric Weinstein's point that Terrence doesn't have that. And as a result, we'll be dismissed out of hand. Absolutely dismissed out of hand. - Trust. - And his ideas are good. He's gonna get his ideas in front of people to get peer reviewed. - Terrence said that's not true. I mean, Weinstein said that is absolutely not true. That since the 1970s, the mathematical and scientific and physics community have moved farther and farther away from the ability to look at new ideas. That now, if you're not doing strength theory in physics, you will not be peer reviewed. In other words, they've narrowed down the world to a point where you can't get a faculty tenure if you try to do something apart from the paradigm. - Okay, so here's what I'm talking about. Here's what I'm talking about when I say critical thinking. So my next thought is-- - But don't let me lose track of this 'cause I don't recommend it. - My next thought is why, why? And the people who are complaining about this as a problem probably don't tell you why the mathematic community doesn't really care about these calculations. - Go listen to this podcast. - Or why a physics department is focusing on string theory. - No, you're totally wrong. - I'm not saying it's a good reason. - You're not listening to me. - There's a reason. - You're not listening to me. Go listen to this podcast. It is absolutely about that. 100% digging into that. And the reason is, is because Eric is sitting there going like Neil, who's a friend of his is right in what he's saying to this guy. But he's wrong in his approach and needs to change it. And that's what's wrong with the scientific community right now. Because-- - Okay, well then they get into the why, okay. - Eric's point of view is this, and he's talking to this guy. He's basically saying, look, you are all over the place. It's like you're playing Blackjack and you keep hitting a 19. You keep hitting a 19. You get all the way to 19 and then you hit it and you go bust over and over and over again. You said in your arguments, you have this beautiful quality over here on one side and over here on the other side, you're completely full of shit. And you keep going to the full of shit part. - Is basically a sophomore who doesn't know how to like do a good job yet. - There you go. - Yeah. - And so, and what do you-- - Okay, that's what school is for. - Eric said, every time you get to a place where you're starting to really, you're really diving into something, then you start to teach. And what you do when you teach is you're teaching things that are not true and we know they're not true and we can prove they're not true. And I'm gonna prove it to you now that they're not true. - Mwala, the why. - The why. So anyway, phenomenal. And the reason I brought it up is because it is about this idea of hubris in a sense. It's like, Terence is overloaded with a confirmation bias and hubris as a result of having some breakthrough and a lack of understanding about where he's at with the rest of it. And you can hear the guy fighting this back. It's a super nice guy, by the way. And just really trying to take in what he's missing and what he's doing wrong. But at the end of the day, when you're caught up in confirmation bias, it's almost impossible for you to let go of it. And we run into this all the time. - So I wanna talk about how to deal with that in investing because that's, you're so right. We run into that all the time. So let's pause here and we're gonna have a part two of this episode for next week. - Oh, let's get into confirmation bias. One of the greatest killers of great investing that you could ever have. - Okay, we're gonna, we're gonna get into it for part two next week. - And maybe we'll come back again next week. - We never know. (laughs) And Daniel Day-loos running around in a breach clock. All right, there we go. - Go Google it. It's worth it. - It's just a shirt, yep. Time to go to life. - Bye. - See ya. (upbeat music) - Hi guys, thanks for listening to Invested. If you enjoyed this episode and you want more information or to listen to additional episodes, visit our website at InvestedPodcast.com and sign up for my virtual workshop right there. Spots are definitely limited for this event. I'm not kidding, they really are. They sell out very quickly. So everything discussed on this podcast, by the way, is either my opinion or it's Daniel's opinion. And I'm really important. It's not to be taken as investing advice because I am not your financial advisor, nor have I considered you a personal situation as your fiduciary. So remember that, you're on your own here. This podcast is for your entertainment and education only and I really hope you enjoyed it. (upbeat music) [BLANK_AUDIO]
