Myth Busting Quotes

Huh... guess they didn't want a cracker after all. Another myth BUSTED

Scientific facts are few and far between, popular facts are commonplace and not usually facts at all.

Debt has been sold to us so aggressively, so loudly, and so often that to imagine living without debt requires myth-busting.

When you make this type of commitment to the Universe, it’s important to be aware of any sneaky, fear-based story that can hook you back in. This is the story that pain has purpose. We live in a world that supports drama, terror, separation, and hardship. We’ve been guided to believe that without pain we have not accomplished or achieved. I’m here to bust that myth now. Pain does not equal purpose. Your purpose is to be joyful. Your purpose is to live with ease. Your purpose is to surrender to the love of the Universe so you can live a happy life. Accept the purpose of love, and your life will radically change this instant. Use

Have a weekly myth-busting discussion at dinner. It’s

Everything can be taken from a man, but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.

We're going to have to bust down the door on the myth of perfectionism. We're going to have to call it what it really is: fear.

Many bisexuals might indeed feel comfortable and well represented by [creating images of 'stable, monogamous, appropriately sexual' bisexuals], but what of the many people who don't fit in this standard of the "normal" or "good" bisexual? Some bisexuals are sluts (read: sexually independent women), some bisexuals are just experimenting, some like people of certain genders only sexually and not romantically, some like to have threesomes and perform bisexuality for men, some are HVI and STI carriers, some don't practice safer sex, some are indeed indecisive and confused, some cheat on their partners, some do choose to be bi, as well as many other things that the "myth-busting" [or simplifying/sanitizing] tries to cast off. A very long list of people is being thrown overboard in the effort to "fight biphobia." In this way, the rebuttal in fact imposes biphobic normative standards on the bisexual community itself, drawing a line between "good" and "bad" bisexuals. Either way, benign docility and unthreatening citizenship are not exactly what I would want my bisexuality to be associated with.

As a recovering perfectionist and an aspiring good-enoughist, I’ve found it extremely helpful to bust some of the myths about perfectionism so that we can develop a definition that accurately captures what it is and what it does to our lives. Perfectionism is not the same thing as striving to be your best. Perfectionism is not about healthy achievement and growth. Perfectionism is the belief that if we live perfect, look perfect, and act perfect, we can minimize or avoid the pain of blame, judgment, and shame. It’s a shield. Perfectionism is a twenty-ton shield that we lug around thinking it will protect us when, in fact, it’s the thing that’s really preventing us from taking flight. Perfectionism is not self-improvement. Perfectionism is, at its core, about trying to earn approval and acceptance. Most perfectionists were raised being praised for achievement and performance (grades, manners, rule-following, people-pleasing, appearance, sports). Somewhere along the way, we adopt this dangerous and debilitating belief system: I am what I accomplish and how well I accomplish it. Please. Perform. Perfect. Healthy striving is self-focused—How can I improve? Perfectionism is other-focused—What will they think?

When a brilliant critic and a beautiful woman (that’s my order of priorities, not necessarily those of the men who teach her) puts on black suede spike heels and a ruby mouth before asking an influential professor to be her thesis advisor, is she a slut? Or is she doing her duty to herself, in a clear-eyed appraisal of a hostile or indifferent milieu, by taking care to nourish her real gift under the protection of her incidental one? Does her hand shape the lipstick into a cupid’s bow in a gesture of free will? She doesn’t have to do it. That is the response the beauty myth would like a woman to have, because then the Other Woman is the enemy. Does she in fact have to do it? The aspiring woman does not have to do it if she has a choice. She will have a choice when a plethora of faculties in her field, headed by women and endowed by generations of female magnates and robber baronesses, open their gates to her; when multinational corporations led by women clamor for the skills of young female graduates; when there are other universities, with bronze busts of the heroines of half a millennium’s classical learning; when there are other research-funding boards maintained by the deep coffers provided by the revenues of female inventors, where half the chairs are held by women scientists. She’ll have a choice when her application is evaluated blind. Women will have the choice never to stoop, and will deserve the full censure for stooping, to consider what the demands on their “beauty” of a board of power might be, the minute they know they can count on their fair share: that 52 percent of the seats of the highest achievement are open to them. They will deserve the blame that they now get anyway only when they know that the best dream of their one life will not be forcibly compressed into an inverted pyramid, slammed up against a glass ceiling, shunted off into a stifling pink-collar ghetto, shoved back dead down a dead-end street.

What are the health effects of the choice between austerity and stimulus? Today there is a vast natural experiment being conducted on the body economic. It is similar to the policy experiments that occurred in the Great Depression, the post-communist crisis in eastern Europe, and the East Asian Financial Crisis. As in those prior trials, health statistics from the Great Recession reveal the deadly price of austerity—a price that can be calculated not just in the ticks to economic growth rates, but in the number of years of life lost and avoidable deaths. Had the austerity experiments been governed by the same rigorous standards as clinical trials, they would have been discontinued long ago by a board of medical ethics. The side effects of the austerity treatment have been severe and often deadly. The benefits of the treatment have failed to materialize. Instead of austerity, we should enact evidence-based policies to protect health during hard times. Social protection saves lives. If administered correctly, these programs don’t bust the budget, but—as we have shown throughout this book—they boost economic growth and improve public health. Austerity’s advocates have ignored evidence of the health and economic consequences of their recommendations. They ignore it even though—as with the International Monetary Fund—the evidence often comes from their own data. Austerity’s proponents, such as British Prime Minister David Cameron, continue to write prescriptions of austerity for the body economic, in spite of evidence that it has failed. Ultimately austerity has failed because it is unsupported by sound logic or data. It is an economic ideology. It stems from the belief that small government and free markets are always better than state intervention. It is a socially constructed myth—a convenient belief among politicians taken advantage of by those who have a vested interest in shrinking the role of the state, in privatizing social welfare systems for personal gain. It does great harm—punishing the most vulnerable, rather than those who caused this recession.

In the wake of the Cognitive Revolution, gossip helped Homo sapiens to form larger and more stable bands. But even gossip has its limits. Sociological research has shown that the maximum ‘natural’ size of a group bonded by gossip is about 150 individuals. Most people can neither intimately know, nor gossip effectively about, more than 150 human beings. Even today, a critical threshold in human organisations falls somewhere around this magic number. Below this threshold, communities, businesses, social networks and military units can maintain themselves based mainly on intimate acquaintance and rumour-mongering. There is no need for formal ranks, titles and law books to keep order. 3A platoon of thirty soldiers or even a company of a hundred soldiers can function well on the basis of intimate relations, with a minimum of formal discipline. A well-respected sergeant can become ‘king of the company’ and exercise authority even over commissioned officers. A small family business can survive and flourish without a board of directors, a CEO or an accounting department. But once the threshold of 150 individuals is crossed, things can no longer work that way. You cannot run a division with thousands of soldiers the same way you run a platoon. Successful family businesses usually face a crisis when they grow larger and hire more personnel. If they cannot reinvent themselves, they go bust. How did Homo sapiens manage to cross this critical threshold, eventually founding cities comprising tens of thousands of inhabitants and empires ruling hundreds of millions? The secret was probably the appearance of fiction. Large numbers of strangers can cooperate successfully by believing in common myths. Any large-scale human cooperation – whether a modern state, a medieval church, an ancient city or an archaic tribe – is rooted in common myths that exist only in people’s collective imagination. Churches are rooted in common religious myths. Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe that God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed Himself to be crucified to redeem our sins. States are rooted in common national myths. Two Serbs who have never met might risk their lives to save one another because both believe in the existence of the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland and the Serbian flag. Judicial systems are rooted in common legal myths. Two lawyers who have never met can nevertheless combine efforts to defend a complete stranger because they both believe in the existence of laws, justice, human rights – and the money paid out in fees.

And overwhelmingly, that is what happened in shale. (As an aside, there are some conservative players who did hedge more: Devon, for example, had 80% of its shale production hedged before the 2014 crash. Apache, as an example of the extreme opposite pose, did not hedge its 2014 production at all.) The point I'm leading to is that, on balance, access to the financial markets hasn't altered the sensitivity of shale oil players to the market much.

electricity consumption, rail cargo and bank loans.

fourth quarter edition in 2006 of the China Economic Quarterly. One of the headline findings of that research summed up in the article was that real retail sales in China in 2005 were at most about half as much as indicated by the commonly cited official “total retail sales of consumer goods” number.

Ultimately, and far sooner than most analysts believe, U.S. shale production will consist of ever less productive wells that cost more to drill, take longer to pay themselves off, and generate less oil. The EIA believes that nothing like that will occur for at least the next 25 years. I think that the peak of U.S. shale potential will be reached in the next 10, if it hasn’t been reached already. Once that peak is realized, the pyramid will begin to fall apart—and quickly.

I know that oil is limited, and that every well, whether fracked or not, ultimately decays to zero. But shale is different from every other kind of oil-procurement technique. Shale wells get used up at a rate almost 10 times faster than other oil projects and therefore force shale oil producers into constantly chasing more activity in successively less and less promising acreage, to just stay even. That is entirely unique for shale. In order to actually grow, shale oil companies need an absolutely furious pace of investment and drilling, paying off early investors and bondholders, attracting new investors, and spending ever more capital. That outline for continued success sounds familiar in many ways to me.

If you have a demand for 92 million barrels of oil a day, it is the breakeven price of the most expensive one you need to produce that will set the fundamental cost for every other barrel, no matter how cheaply the rest of them are produced.

When demand cycles increase or supplies drain low, the U.S. shale industry now sits there with the quickest tap to twist on. But when producers get “too enthusiastic” about oil prices and supplies glut, or when economics compress global demand, or when renewables partially displace fossil fuels, it will be the U.S. shale producer who will be forced to cut back. Now it's easier to see why the United States will have a much more difficult road to being energy independent: you can't rely on U.S. shale to get you there. No matter whether the oil market stays depressed for three months or three more years, the production numbers for the U.S. won’t ever be stable enough to make the United States independent of foreign oil. Only a consistently and reliably high market price can do that, something that the oil bust of 2014 proved is still hardly guaranteed. U.S. shale oil is first in line to be the supply source that must contract when the market demands it.

The performance of Astenbeck could not have been good during the downturn in oil prices in 2014, but in early 2015, after formally leaving Phibro entirely, Mr. Hall came out of hiding to again predict a major demand-based spike in oil prices: “Prices at current levels (or lower) are not sustainable for very long,” Hall wrote in his yearly letter to investors. “The current surplus could thus easily set the stage for a future deficit.” Mr. Hall predicts both an increase of demand from lower oil prices, but also a very significant fall in production: he believes 2.4 million barrels a day of conventional oil is likely to disappear. Further, he accentuates the strength of shale producers as swing producers by noting the differences between 2015 and 1986, the last time a major drop in prices inspired a demand-based rally.

Andrew Hall may be positioning himself now for the next coming boom cycle, but the market will need more than the predictions of some good traders to turn around. One thing that absolutely must happen is a real and measurable leveling off of production here in the U.S. Early in the bust phase for shale, with crude prices, budgets, and rig counts collapsing, I was of the opinion that indeed, production cuts would come a whole lot sooner than either the EIA or most of the bank analysts believed was possible. But I’ve been impressed by the free flow of capital that has come in to the markets looking to ‘save’ shale oil companies from their excesses, and slowing what I thought would be a violent progression of bond defaults and outright bankruptcies. In a recent note on the state of E+P, Morgan Stanley also noted the trend, when one of its analysts, Evan Calio, wrote: “Secondary offerings have been positively received by investors as a means to shore up balance sheets and pre-fund drilling programs in light of falling crude prices. Secondary offerings remain a logical way to delever [a financial term meaning to reduce debt], but also has the potential to extend the trough rather than hasten its arrival.” (emphasis mine). In other words, there is too much money still chasing oil for a quick weeding out of the weaklings. We might see a longer period of ‘survivability’ before the real wall hits.

The Keystone XL pipeline argument has become a ridiculous proxy for the environmentalist lobby’s complete disdain of the oil companies and a very pro-business U.S. energy policy Equally, the irrelevant case of Solyndra became the headline for the ‘uselessness’ of government incentives for renewable technology development. We should expect to see all the partisan dumbness this country can so easily muster on both sides when a gas tax to support renewable energy development is introduced. No matter. Its time has come, and I hope the next President of the United States has the courage to at least suggest it and force a discussion. Our current one clearly doesn't.

When the legendary Steve Schwarzman's firm went public in 2007, I was convinced that this was merely an opportunity to take advantage of a huge spike in the stock market for the partners in Blackstone to cash out and ultimately call it a day. I saw the public offering then as an unworthy investment, which could only serve to fill the partners' pockets while they proceeded to 'mail it in' for their new shareholders. But I have been proven completely wrong. Blackstone's history since its public offering is a continued history of success stories, and I believe the current energy restructuring opportunity will be no different. Elsewhere in this book, I talk a bit about the deal it made with Linn Energy, with very advantageous terms for Blackstone. As a long-term hold, I can find no better (public) PE firm to invest in.

This time around, I believe Exxon's focus will be on crude- and liquids-focused U.S. shale players that have very deep assets that would yield decades of production growth. The list for players like this is actually quite short and includes Anadarko Petroleum (APC), Hess (HES), Continental Resources (CLR), and perhaps a few others. But no matter who the ultimate target is, I'd much rather bet on the company with the money, patience, and long-term outlook to benefit from a buyout of a major shale player than try to guess at the company that is going to get bought. In this, I still find Exxon-Mobil to be the best long-term play among the majors for taking advantage of the shale bust—and ultimate next boom.

As usual, the mass media’s thoughts on oil’s ‘demise’ have been facile and incomplete. It is never (or almost never) correct to see a big event through the lens of only one or even two changing conditions, and the 2014 oil crash had five huge distortions that I saw converge at once. We need to understand each of them before concluding how the ‘new oil market’ will impact shale production in the future and the viability of “Saudi America.” In no order of importance, I see the top five reasons for the collapse of oil prices in 2014 as: 1.   The rise of the U.S. dollar. 2.   The defensive market share posture of Saudi Arabia inside OPEC. 3.   The increasing production in U.S. shale and the resultant ‘oil glut.’ 4.   The continuing malaise of China and European economies. 5.   The demise of U.S. investment banks’ commitment to oil marketing—the hiatus of the “endless bid.

And what I know about price—what has been proven to me again and again—is that oil prices have become ever more unreliable as the systems that work on it become ever more financialized. Of all the things I have studied and correctly and incorrectly forecasted in my 30+ years in the oil markets, the one unshakable truth I have held onto is that the wide ranges of prices for oil we have seen in the last 15 years have been tethered far more to unrelated financial inputs than to the underlying fundamentals of oil. It has been those financial “gremlins” inside the machine that have made oil prices go so far above any logical expectation so many times, particularly in 2007 and 2010 and equally foolishly low as in 2009 and in 2015. Those wide extremes in price have done more than make and lose fortunes in the oil world. They've affected just about everything politically and socially in the rest of the world.

Cutting budgets or slashing prices to customers are actually the easiest things that oil companies and services firms can do. For producers, cutting spending doesn't affect the bottom line immediately, as reductions in capital expenditures (capex) won’t result in production declines—and therefore profits—for months in the future. You can even claim continuing high production results despite major drops in capital expenditures, a counter-intuitive result but still at least immediately genuine. Almost all of the independent oil companies have done precisely this through their reporting up to the 4th quarter of 2014, reporting slashed spending yet increasing production forecasts. In fact, at least for the first 6 months after cutting capex, oil company executives can look like stars, chopping off the top line with little immediate effect on the bottom. Further, the projections on capital expenditures are a bit of an accountant’s dodge in that they can be adjusted several times over the year to adapt to changing market conditions. An oil company can talk about an extreme cut in spends at the start of the year, but should oil prices allow, it can still ramp spending back up later. Looking responsible using the accountant’s pen is a pretty easy way to initially react to a low price environment, and just about everyone is doing it.

More preposterous is an outlier company like Encana, whose hallucinations led to even more bright optimism. For 2015, the Canadian natural gas behemoth decided not to cut spending at all, taking a complete blind eye towards collapsing prices. Instead, it chose to increase spending for 2015 from $2.55b to $2.8b. In this strategy, Encana is virtually alone in the oil space. CEO Doug Suttles has called the oil drop merely an “annoyance, but not threatening” and is continuing with his two-year plan to increase Encana’s ratio of oil production from natural gas. What made Encana so special? Why was it alone choosing to step on the accelerator while virtually everyone else was feathering the brakes? Well, it probably had a bit to do with Suttles’ mistimed buy of Athlon Energy, a Permian basin start-up company that rocketed in share price in its less-than-two-year life span. In September 2014, Encana had the idea to buy Athlon for an astounding $5.9 billion, paying more than $58 a share for the fledgling company. That buy should have been accepted as a monumental error in timing, but instead has seemed to fuel the Encana fantasy. But if you’ve bought the top of the oil market, as Encana’s Doug Suttles has, then why not—I suppose it makes perfect sense to double down and ignore collapsing oil and gas markets going forward. Encana plans to increase oil production by 26% in 2015.

Our basic understanding of evolutionary theory (how evolution works) in the early twenty-first century may be summed up as follows:   1. Mutation introduces genetic variation, which may introduce phenotypic variation. 2. Developmental processes can introduce broader phenotypic variation, which may be heritable. 3. Gene flow and genetic drift mix genetic variation (and potentially its phenotypic correlates) without regard to the function of those genes or traits. 4. Natural selection shapes genotypic and phenotypic variation in response to specific constraints and pressures in the environment. 5. At any given time one or more of the processes above can be affecting a population. 6. Dynamic organism-environment interaction can result in niche construction, changing pressures of natural selection and resulting in ecological inheritance. 7. Cultural patterns and contexts can impact gene flow and the pressures of natural selection, which in turn can affect genetic evolution (gene-culture coevolution). 8. Multiple inheritance systems (genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic) can all provide information and contexts that enable populations to change over time or avoid certain changes.

No financial vehicle is as useful as whole life for emergencies, opportunities, investments, for providing your own financing, permanent protection for your earning capability, or for your peace of mind.

you need to do what most millionaires do: understand risk, pick investments that balance the risk and reward you’re comfortable with, and never get distracted with “opportunities” from people who don’t know what they’re talking about. Let’s dig into all this and bust this myth for good.

The concept of retirement is flawed and it’s hurting people.

The kind of rhetorical slight of hand that had become a staple of the conservative pundits everywhere, whatever the issue. Taking language once used by the disadvantaged to highlight a societal ill and turning it on its ear. The problem's no longer the discrimination against people of color the argument goes it's "reverse racism" with minorities "playing the race card to get an unfair advantage". The problem isn't sexual harassment in the workplace, it's humorless "feminazis" beating men over the head with their political correctness. The problem's not bankers using the market as their personal casino or corporations suppressing wages by busting unions and offshoring jobs, it's the lazy and shiftless along with their liberal Washington allies intent on mooching off the economy's real "makers and doers". Such arguments had nothing to do with facts, they were impervious to analysis, they went deeper into the realm of myth redefining what was fair, reassigning victimhood, conferring on people like those traders in Chicago, that most precious of gifts, the conviction of innocence as well as the righteous indignation that comes with it.

Without the vital ingredient of Belief, no amount of Desire or Knowledge can bear fruit.

Yes, I’m sure. I’ve seen it over and over again. Knowledge and effort are not enough. You also need a supportive set of subconscious beliefs in place if you really want to succeed.

I’ve made a lot of progress in reprogramming my subconscious mind since then. It’s an ongoing process. But the difference is that now I know what to do when I hit a blockage. When I uncover beliefs that do not serve me or what I want in life, I do the work to change them.

I discovered for myself that in order to succeed, all the right ingredients need to be in place: The right knowledge A strong desire to succeed Discipline Persistence Patience A willingness to make mistakes An ability to acknowledge mistakes quickly An inclination to learn from mistakes A willingness to try again The ability to feel comfortable with success, and to feel deserving of it And a supportive belief structure about myself, about money, and about success

We often hear people say “I’ll believe it when I see it,” but in fact the mechanism works more like “I’ll see it when I believe it,” or “I’ll believe it; then I’ll see it.

Let me be clear—I’m not saying that knowledge isn’t important. It is. And so is effort. What I am saying is that if you don’t also have the support of your subconscious beliefs, then you will remain frustrated in your efforts to succeed, no matter how much knowledge you have or how much effort you put in.

Without the right beliefs—a supportive set of subconscious codes that align with your conscious desires—you will actually sabotage your own success so that your outward experience of life does not contradict your inwardly held beliefs.

I believe now that if I learn something valuable from an experience, then it becomes an asset for me. It becomes a stepping-stone to my future success. That’s a positive and supportive belief that I have installed for myself.

Only then did I wake up to the fact that I, too, was in a mental battle with my limiting subconscious beliefs, and they were winning! They were winning because . . . they always do.

If we deeply believe something at a subconscious level, then even if we consciously wish things could be different, the power of our subconscious mind ensures that our beliefs get reaffirmed again and again in our everyday experiences. In this way, our subconscious beliefs can actually sabotage our conscious efforts to manifest change.

The common sayings we heard over and over again while growing up represent hand-me-down beliefs about money, about life, and about relationships—“truths” that our ancestors believed and probably thought would protect us from pain, harm, or disappointment in life.

It’s time to perform a mental software update and overwrite your subconscious poor programs. This update is pretty urgent actually, if what you want is a life of abundant wealth, freedom, and choice.

Unless you perform this subconscious programming update, you will likely continue to be frustrated in achieving your desires in life.

Desire + Knowledge + Belief = Success! but Desire + Knowledge – Belief = Frustration!

Our subconscious beliefs determine the conscious reality that we experience.

I know that if there is something in my life that I would like to be better, then the last thing I should do is exhaust myself by trying and trying to change my outer circumstances.

When we want more from life than our beliefs will let us experience, that’s when frustration happens.

You know how I say, ‘Don’t ask anyone how to get somewhere unless they have been there?’ Well, I have been there – I have written, been published, found success, and experienced self-doubt, frustration, anger and disappointment along the way … But you know what? I have not been to the place you’re going to. This is your journey. Your destination. Disregard everything in this book. Or embrace it. Better yet: cherry pick. It’s your life.

The problem is no longer discrimination against people of color, the argument goes; it’s “reverse racism,” with minorities “playing the race card” to get an unfair advantage. The problem isn’t sexual harassment in the workplace; it’s humorless “feminazis” beating men over the head with their political correctness. The problem is not bankers using the market as their personal casino, or corporations suppressing wages by busting unions and offshoring jobs. It’s the lazy and shiftless, along with their liberal Washington allies, intent on mooching off the economy’s real “makers and the doers.” Such arguments had nothing to do with facts. They were impervious to analysis. They went deeper, into the realm of myth, redefining what was fair, reassigning victimhood, conferring on people like those traders in Chicago that most precious of gifts: the conviction of innocence, as well as the righteous indignation that comes with it. — I

Let us search for some new definitions, The old meanings have rusted; Romance needs to be defined once again, And the myths surrounding the old, busted!

Writing satisfies us.

Jesus Christ is the Truth; and if He affirmed the literal creation of the world in six normal-length days, we Christians should do the same. If however we compromise and try

Woke capitalism is a defensive move that serves to quell this frustration, to preserve, if not enhance, a status quo where corporations hold an increasing share of political power. This is a power, however, that can no longer be justified by the assumption that the invisible hand of capitalism will lead to shared prosperity. That is a myth that has very much been busted by the facts of history. In place of the invisible hand, with woke capitalism, corporations seek a moral justification for their existence, positioning themselves as the saviours of the exploitative inequality-generating system that they produced. This is being achieved by a hostile takeover of democracy.