LFG

🤑 Memes and Money. ☠️ Not financial advice. 🫵Do your own research. 🫀Be excellent to each other. 🚀Party on Dudes.

[Homeland Security @DHSgov]

NOT A NEW YORKER.

[Garritt Hampton | Thinking Dad @GarrittHampton]

Let me reframe the Trump/Vance child care credit argument for you in simple economic terms.

Option 1) The government cuts my taxes by $9,000. I keep the $9,000 and my family is benefitted by the whole amount.

Option 2) The government gives a $9,000 credit to "stay-at-home moms." In order to give that credit, the government has to take approximately $19,000 dollars from taxpayers to pay for administration and distribution of the funds, and for the 50% of funds (conservatively estimated) that will go toward fraud and waste.

This is a no-brainer. End the government handouts. Reduce taxes, cut spending, prosecute fraud, let the free market work.

[Jonah's gourd @ScottMerson3]

@AmesStraight Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

[Adam Carolla @adamcarolla]

True

[Gad Saad @GadSaad]

Don't know who is the originator of this meme but seems accurate.

[Race 🕊️ @multiplanet1]

Elon Musk was asked by a teenager at a public event what he should study in school to be like Elon when he grows up.

He said "don't try to be like me. I'm not happy."

The audience laughed nervously. Elon didn't laugh. He let the silence sit for a moment then continued. He said the things that make him effective at building companies are the same things that make him terrible at being a person. The obsession that produces rockets destroys relationships. The work ethic that saves companies ruins health. The focus that solves impossible problems blinds him to the simple ones happening in his own house.

He told the teenager that the version of success the world sees is real but incomplete. The rockets are real. The loneliness is also real. The wealth is real. The inability to sit still for five minutes without feeling like something is being wasted is also real. Both exist in the same person at the same time and he's not sure the trade was worth it.

He said if the teenager wants to build things that matter he should do it. But he should do it with his eyes open. Knowing the cost isn't hypothetical. It's specific. It's every birthday he missed. Every relationship he watched dissolve. Every morning he woke up and felt the weight of his own choices pressing down before his feet hit the floor.

The teenager asked a question about success. Elon answered with a warning. And the warning was more valuable than any success story because it came from the only person qualified to give it. The man living inside the answer.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

💯

[Bitcoin for Freedom @BTC_for_Freedom]

- You: "Why is tuition 10x what my parents paid?"

- Government: "Education is valuable!"

- You: "It got 10x more valuable?"

- Government: "We guarantee unlimited student loans."

- You: "So schools can charge anything... because you'll lend anything?"

- Government: "We're helping students afford college."

- You: "You're the reason we can't."

- Government: "You're not an economist."

[Dustin @r0ck3t23]

Elon Musk broke the media's most powerful weapon on live television.

With a speech from Barack Obama.

Take a speech from Obama or Hillary. Read it to someone on the left. Tell them it's Trump.

Musk: "What do you think of this speech by Trump? Oh wow, he's the worst person ever. Actually, that was a speech by Obama. Actually, that was a speech by Hillary."

Same words. Same positions. Opposite reaction.

The ideas were never the problem. The name attached to them was.

If the audience can't tell Obama's position from the one they're calling "far right," the label was never about policy.

It was about control.

The interviewer pressed him on his support for what she called the far right.

Musk: "No, I support the normal people. What you call the far right, falsely."

She kept pushing.

Musk: "I would like to just admonish you and the media for the absurd characterization of the far right, which is false and misleading and nonsense."

Then this.

Musk: "Please keep this part in."

Five words that say more about modern media than four years of journalism school.

He's not asking for fairness. He's preempting a cut he knows is coming.

That's how the machine works. The parts that expose the framing get cut to protect the frame.

Musk: "You could go back 10 or 15 years and these policies were completely normal."

The positions never moved. The window around them did.

The establishment didn't defeat these ideas. It reclassified the people who held them.

Took mainstream positions. Shifted the acceptable center. Then called everyone who didn't move extreme.

The most effective censorship isn't silencing a position. It's renaming it until it sounds dangerous.

Then the interviewer abandoned policy entirely.

Zanny Minton Beddoes: "It's why people loathe you."

That was the kill shot. On camera. Designed to make him flinch. Soften. Walk it back.

Musk: "Maybe some people do loathe me. I don't care."

Then he buried her.

Musk: "A quarter billion people follow me. I think a lot more people actually like me than don't. And I think a lot more people hate you and the media more than you realize."

She came with a label. She left with a mirror.

The spectrum didn't move right. The establishment moved left and relabeled everyone who stood still.

You don't need to win an argument if you control what the positions are called. You don't need to be right if you decide who gets called wrong.

The public was never asked to evaluate the idea. It was told who said it. That was enough.

That's not journalism. That's power wearing a press badge.

Elon Musk just showed a quarter billion people the mechanism.

And a mechanism that depends on nobody seeing it can't survive exposure.

[Stacy is Right @PoliticalStacy]

Liberals: Why do they call us retards?!?!

You can't be the party of human rights and support abortion.

You can't hate the police and call them when you need them.

You can't demand wide open borders and lock your own doors at night.

You can't love the planet and fly private jets to climate conferences.

You can't champion women's rights and erase women's sports and private spaces.

You can't preach tolerance and cancel everyone who disagrees.

You can't fight for equality and demand special treatment based on race and identity.

You can't say my body, my choice and then force vaccines and masks on everyone.

You can't be anti-fascist while using fascist tactics to silence dissent.

You can't preach body positivity and promote surgeries that mutilate healthy body parts.

There. Hope this clears it up for you.

[Jaynit @jaynitx]

Elon Musk reveals the environmentalist viewpoint he says has become total madness

"There are 8 billion people on Earth and it would be better if there were none. I'm like, 'hey buddy, you can start with yourself. See if you really want to make a difference'"

"That's like a crazy viewpoint. That's like literally saying, let's genocide humanity. How can you say that with a straight face? That sounds like total madness"

"In the limit of environmentalism, it becomes like an ingrown toenail. A toenail's fine, but not if it's warped and ingrown. It's just gone too far"

"Humanity is not a blight on the face of the Earth"

"Even with climate change, life on Earth will still continue. The calamities Earth has suffered where life continued, gigantic meteorite impacts, super volcanoes, continents drifting all over the place"

"There've been times in Earth's past where it's been like a total snowball or absolutely sweltering hot. We had many extinction events, but life continued"

"We don't see the dinosaurs now, but they had a good run for 100 plus million years"

"Even if there's catastrophic climate change, life continues. It just may not be life as we know it. It may not be humans, it'll be something else"

"What we're talking about with climate change is not a threat to all life on Earth, but really maybe a threat to humans, a dislocation if low-lying countries end up underwater"

"Over time we need to move to a sustainable energy economy. We can't just keep taking billions of tons of carbon from deep underground and putting it in the atmosphere and expect nothing will happen forever"

"But we also don't need to be alarmist about it and super negative and massively disrupt people's lifestyles"

"People can continue to live a normal life. They shouldn't feel guilty about being human or having a stake. It's fine"

[Ryan @WritesToProfit]

Met a waiter at a steakhouse who probably adds $20k/mo to the restaurant.

Made me feel stupid because I thought he was just taking orders.

Legit assassin. No pressure in his voice ever. No fake smile. No hard sell. Controls the table like he’s done it 10,000 times.

He taught me something that changed everything about how I sell premium offers.

We sat down and my friend said he wasn’t going crazy tonight. Just wanted something simple.

The waiter looked at the menu, pointed at 3 steaks, and said:

“If you want a normal dinner, the sirloin is solid. If you care more about flavor, the ribeye makes sense. But if you came here for the full experience, that’s the tomahawk.”

Then he shut up as if nothing had happened.

No explanation. No recommendation. No “this is our best one.”

That hit me different.

People are trying way too hard to sell. You’re “explaining” your deliverables. You’re “proving” your value. You’re “justifying” why your premium offer costs what it costs.

Meanwhile killers don’t explain. They frame. They position. They let the buyer feel the gap.

My friend ordered the $280 tomahawk 60 seconds later.

Old me would’ve thought the waiter upsold him.

The new me saw what actually happened. He made the cheap steak feel basic, the middle steak feel safe, and the expensive steak feel like the only serious choice.

That is The Menu Frame.

Your prospect doesn’t need another 30-minute pitch about your process.

He needs to see the difference between the small fix, the partial solution, and the full outcome.

Because once the cheap option feels like a compromise, the premium option stops feeling expensive.

It starts feeling obvious.

Your pricing isn’t the problem.

Your frame is weak.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Yes

[Kevin Dahlstrom @Camp4]

🚀 The only career advice you need:

The actor Glen Powell auditioned to play Rooster in Top Gun: Maverick.

When the role was given to Miles Teller, Powell was devastated. He was offered a smaller role, but declined.

Tom Cruise summoned Powell to his house and asked him:

“What kind of career do you want?”

Powell responded:

“I want to be like you—an iconic movie star. You always choose great roles.”

Cruise shook his head.

“You’re wrong. I choose great movies, then I make the role great.”

Powell got the message. He accepted the role of Hangman—and nailed it.

Now Powell says:

“It changed the trajectory of my career.”

When young people ask me for career advice, I tell them something similar:

🚀 Attach yourself to a rocketship.

Join companies that are growing quickly. Work with people who are going places. Be part of something great.

Play your role—no matter how minor—exceptionally well.

The rest will take care of itself.

P.S. I don't write engagement bait, so I need your help to spread the word. If you enjoyed this post, would you like, comment, and repost?

[Jaynit @jaynitx]

Jeff Bezos reveals why compromise is one of the worst ways to resolve a disagreement

"An example of a really bad way of coming to agreement is compromise. If I say the ceiling is 11 feet and you say 12 feet, we say let's call it 11 and a half. That's compromise"

"The advantage of compromise is it's low energy. But it doesn't lead to truth"

"Another really bad resolution mechanism is who's more stubborn. Two executives disagree, they have a war of attrition, and whichever one gets exhausted first capitulates. You haven't arrived at truth, and this is very demoralizing"

"Escalation is better than a war of attrition. Escalate to your boss and say, we can't agree, we like each other, we're respectful, but we strongly disagree, we need you to make a decision"

"Exhausting the other person is not truth seeking. Compromise is not truth seeking"

[Simons @Simon_Ingari]

HR: We lost the new hire today.

CEO: What happened?

HR: He resigned after his first month.

CEO: That makes no sense. We doubled his previous salary.

HR: Yes, but salary was not the issue.

CEO: Then what was?

HR: He got bullied by one of our long-serving employees. When he reported it, the bully only became more emboldened.

CEO: His case was still on the table.

HR: He felt the company was protecting the bully by not acting quickly and also allowing her to act like she owns the workplace, wielding informal power.

CEO: But patience matters while we conduct a due investigation.

HR: So does urgency. He reported the case two weeks ago and tabled evidence. You have CCTV footage. New employees need to feel more welcomed than bullied. He felt left alone.

CEO: People should not rush to make their own conclusions.

HR: He did not rush to make any judgment. He simply could not withstand a workplace bully who seemed untouchable by management.

CEO: Still, he needed to wait for our investigation.

HR: That is exactly why he left. He realized very quickly that even with better pay, he was not ready to face a workplace tyrant while management watched.

CEO: That is unfortunate.

HR: Yes. We offered him double the salary, but also gave him a preview of a workplace where bullying was normalized and some employees appeared untouchable. Is that how we treat new employees?

CEO: So what are you saying?

HR: A higher salary can attract people. But if workplace bullies are allowed to act untouchable, no amount of money will make them stay.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Beware the empathy exploit.

Empathy is good and right when thought through (deep), but can be deadly to civilization when simply stimulus-response (shallow).

For example, releasing a repeat violent offender may feel good at first (shallow empathy for the criminal), but it is wrong to do so when that person will go on to hurt or murder innocent victims, as there should be deep empathy for future victims.

[Jaynit @jaynitx]

In 1972, a Stanford psychologist gave 4-year-olds a choice.

"One marshmallow now or wait 15 minutes and get two."

Rich kid waits. Poor kid eats it immediately.

For 50 years, psychologists said this proved poor kids lack self-control.

Wrong.

Poor kids learned that promises get broken. The second marshmallow isn't coming.

Professor Jiang Xueqin spent 50 minutes explaining why the poor kids are the rational ones:

The psychologist was named Walter Mischel. He put a marshmallow in front of 4-year-olds and said: "You can have it now, or wait and get two."

He tracked them for decades. The kids who waited did better at everything.

His conclusion: success means delayed gratification. Long-term planning. Self-control.

So educators built curricula around it. Teach kids self-control, resilience, self-assessment. They'll succeed.

It didn't work.

"If you take a bad student and teach him self-control, resilience, and self-assessment, the student doesn't actually get better."

The reason is simple: correlation does not equal causation.

Successful people wake up at 4am. But waking up at 4am won't make you successful.

If you're successful, you wake up early because you're motivated. If you're successful, you have self-control because your environment rewards it.

The traits don't cause success. Success causes the traits.

Here's what actually determines success:

"We know for a fact that rich people are much more likely to succeed than poor people. School doesn't really matter. If your parents are rich, you'll be successful. If your parents are poor, you will not."

The difference starts with parenting.

A rich kid touches a hot stove. The parent says: "You made a mistake. Don't worry about it. Let me explain why fire is dangerous. You could burn yourself. We'd have to go to the doctor."

A poor kid touches a hot stove. The parent says: "Don't you ever do that again or I'll beat the crap out of you."

Same lesson. Completely different worldview.

The rich kid learns: the world is safe. I am respected. Adults explain things to me.

The poor kid learns: the world is scary. I must fear authority. Don't ask questions.

There's another difference. Rich parents keep promises. Poor parents can't.

"Next week we'll go to Thailand." Next week, you go to Thailand.

"Next week we'll go to McDonald's." But the paycheck isn't enough. "Sorry, we can't go anymore."

Rich parents offer stability. Poor parents can only offer volatility.

Now go back to the marshmallow test.

"If you believe the teacher will keep his promise, you won't eat that marshmallow. If you think the teacher is lying, you will eat it."

If you're a poor kid, you've learned that promises get broken. Adults lie. The second marshmallow probably isn't coming.

So you eat the first one. That's not lack of self-control. That's rational decision-making.

"Poor kids are not stupid. Poor kids are rational. They're responding to the circumstances they live in."

The same logic applies to resilience.

"The idea of resilience is that you believe the world will help you. If you're rich and you fail, someone will help you get up. If you're poor and you fail, that probably tells you that you shouldn't be doing this."

Why try again when trying again has never worked?

And self-assessment? "If you're a poor child who lives under a lot of stress, it's hard to be self-reflective. Because if you look back at yourself, all you think about is your pain and your stress."

Here's the deeper structure.

"As a poor person, if you want to survive, you have to obey authority. As a rich person, you maximize your outcome by negotiating with others."

Poor parents command their children because that's what the world will demand. Obey the police. Obey the boss. Don't talk back.

Rich parents teach their children to debate, argue, negotiate. Because that's their game.

"From day one, rich kids know they're playing a different game."

Here's something stranger.

500 students took an IQ test. Then they guessed their ranking.

The top 5% thought they were top 20%. The test was easy for them, so they assumed it was easy for everyone.

The bottom 5% thought they were average.

"People who are stupid lack the capacity to know they're stupid."

This is the Dunning-Kruger effect. And it explains why the most confident people are often the least competent.

"This helps explain why the world is why it is. Often the people in power are stupid. They don't know they're stupid. They were confident."

Can poor kids escape?

"Yes. But it means leaving your community. You have to be extremely individualistic. Very ambitious. High risk tolerance. Most people don't have that."

The professor is one of them.

"I'm a poor kid who succeeded. My father was a dishwasher. But I left Canada for the United States. I got lucky."

"You can work as hard as you want, but the chances are against you. It takes luck. And that's often the exception to the rule, not the rule itself."

Here's what he wants you to understand:

When we see differences in success, our default explanation is differences in ability or effort.

We forget that a poor kid eating the marshmallow isn't weak. He's learned that waiting doesn't pay.

We forget that a poor kid giving up isn't lazy. He's learned that no one's coming to help.

We refuse to admit that the traits we associate with success are products of environment, not causes of it.

The marshmallow test is about measuring childhood, not measuring character.

[Dustin @r0ck3t23]

Larry Ellison just asked the one question no journalist on Earth can answer.

A Wall Street Journal writer told Ellison to his face that Elon Musk doesn’t know what he’s doing.

Ellison didn’t argue. Didn’t get emotional. He just asked a question.

Ellison: “This guy is landing rockets on robot drone rafts in the ocean, and you’re saying he doesn’t know what he’s doing. You ever land a rocket?”

One question. No recovery.

Ellison: “Who are you? Why should I believe you as opposed to my friend Elon?”

This is the question the entire media class has been dodging for a decade. Who are you to judge? What have you built? What have you shipped? What problem have you solved that didn’t involve a keyboard and a deadline?

Ellison: “You’re there in front of your Apple Macintosh typing up an article saying Elon’s an idiot.”

They sit behind a laptop they did not engineer. Using a network they did not build. Running on silicon they cannot explain. To tell the world that the man sending humans to space doesn’t know what he’s doing.

They have never built anything heavier than a Word document.

And they publish it with absolute certainty.

That’s the part that should disturb you. Not the criticism. The confidence behind it. The total absence of self-awareness it takes to judge disciplines you wouldn’t last a single semester in.

Musk does not operate in opinion. He operates in the physical layer of the universe where the math closes or the rocket does not come home.

His critics operate in a text editor.

He built the vehicle that carries NASA astronauts to the International Space Station. The satellite constellation delivering internet to active war zones. The EV that forced every automaker on Earth to abandon their combustion roadmap.

His loudest critics built a byline.

So why the coordinated hatred?

Because they lost the leash.

The attacks didn’t escalate because Musk got worse at engineering. They escalated because he bought X. He cracked open the algorithm. He handed the public square back to the people. And he shattered their ability to control what you’re allowed to think.

They don’t hate the engineer.

They hate that the engineer took their monopoly.

You cannot cancel a rocket. You cannot publish a hit piece on gravity. You cannot edit the laws of physics.

They own the syntax.

He owns the physics.

One of them is going to Mars.

[Brian Armstrong @brian_armstrong]

In my teens and 20's I would spend way too much time playing Starcraft and Civilization. Harvesting resources, building things, and expanding was super addictive to my brain - to an almost unhealthy degree.

Later I realized that entrepreneurship and business is the ultimate game. It scratches the same itch for me (resources, building, expanding), but you're actually contributing to humanity at the end of the day, which can be much more fulfilling.

Business is also much more positive sum than video games. In Starcraft, the other player has to lose for you to win. In business, there is competition, but in a growing market there can be multiple winners. And gains compound long term (it's a infinite game) instead of starting over each time.

Now days I prefer to watch pros play video games to unwind, instead of playing video games myself. But a quick game can still be fun here and there to unwind. By contrast, the game of business is played over many decades.