empire of debt wrote:
I'm also suggesting that long term holding strategies in paper stocks are likely to leave investors broke.
Passive investing is analogous to stupid investing.It's pseudo scientific, gambling at best.
Then how do you explain the 10-12% historic stock market return over the last, oh, I don't know, 80-90 years?
"take your list; throw 3 darts; pick the 3 funds closest and invest 33% in each"
and give me the remaining 1%
....... wrote:
Then how do you explain the 10-12% historic stock market return over the last, oh, I don't know, 80-90 years?
Fiat money and the Federal Reserve's propensity to create it. You're 10-12% number is pure illusion.
We did not completely abandon the gold standard until 1971, so we have had fiat money for only 35 years. What about the 50 or so years before that? The market was returning roughly 7% above inflation historically, just as it has done since 1971
empire of debt wrote:
[
Fiat money and the Federal Reserve's propensity to create it. You're 10-12% number is pure illusion.
I just purchased a new Toyota with my fiat money - earned mainly from the money I had put into a mutual fund each month. The account may have been an illusion, but it managed to get me to work today.
P.S. Don't waste your fiat money on a new Fiat - the Italians never made a reliable car, fast and sexy cars - yes. But not reliable!
road rash wrote:
empire of debt wrote:[
Fiat money and the Federal Reserve's propensity to create it. You're 10-12% number is pure illusion.
I just purchased a new Toyota with my fiat money - earned mainly from the money I had put into a mutual fund each month. The account may have been an illusion, but it managed to get me to work today.
P.S. Don't waste your fiat money on a new Fiat - the Italians never made a reliable car, fast and sexy cars - yes. But not reliable!
We're not talking about you and your pseudo measure of the dollar's relative success. We're talking about the average, clueless, sucker investor listening to charlatan advice from the likes of your ilk.
Your "INVESTED" dollars since 1971 buys less than they did in 71, helicopter money notwithstanding.
empire of debt wrote:
road rash wrote:I just purchased a new Toyota with my fiat money - earned mainly from the money I had put into a mutual fund each month. The account may have been an illusion, but it managed to get me to work today.
P.S. Don't waste your fiat money on a new Fiat - the Italians never made a reliable car, fast and sexy cars - yes. But not reliable!
We're not talking about you and your pseudo measure of the dollar's relative success. We're talking about the average, clueless, sucker investor listening to charlatan advice from the likes of your ilk.
Your "INVESTED" dollars since 1971 buys less than they did in 71, helicopter money notwithstanding.
Ok then, don't invest your money. Put your 10,000 per year under your mattress for 40 years so that you have $400,000 at the end while the rest of us will invest, and even assuming a moderate return of 9%, turn that 10,000 per year into $4,025,281.33
Californian wrote:
We did not completely abandon the gold standard until 1971, so we have had fiat money for only 35 years. What about the 50 or so years before that? The market was returning roughly 7% above inflation historically, just as it has done since 1971
The fiat money policy of the Fed since 71 has given an actual national debt of $8 trillion, which is growing exponentially, so comparisons before 71 and after 71 give us a radically different picture with a modicum of digging. The US government HAS to monetize this and future (entitlement debt which is estimated at $40 trillion) debt obligations. This causes massive inflation and debt bubbles--stock, housing and other financial market overvaluing. Read Robert Shiller, Bill Bonner, Nassim Taleb, Jim Puplava for further analysis of our government, and by extension, stock market ponzi scheme.
Flagpole Willy wrote:
Ok then, don't invest your money. Put your 10,000 per year under your mattress for 40 years so that you have $400,000 at the end while the rest of us will invest, and even assuming a moderate return of 9%, turn that 10,000 per year into $4,025,281.33
No. Buy Gold!
thought police wrote:
I stand by my advice to buy call options on Google. If you had taken my advice when I first posted it, you would have a 10% return on investment - I'm not kidding.
While "empire of debt" frets over gold standard vs. fiat money and entitlement debt, I'm gonna have a nice steak dinner tonight on about 1% of the profits I've made in the last few hours. Stick that in your Ponzi scheme and smoke it.
Enjoy your "LUCK" while it lasts.
While there is a good deal of serious academic work behind Robert Shiller's well fiunded positions:http://www.irrationalexuberance.com/index.htmI am sure he would hardly consider the stock market a ponzi scheme. While the P/E multiples of Google would be considered irrational, the local untility company that pays a 4% dividend and trades at 10 times earnings is hardly a fool's get rich quick scheme.The is some historical case for booms (read The Madness of Crowds), but it may not be the best advice or objective to call the stock market a Ponzi scheme. If you are afraid, invest in a bond fund, take advantage of your company match!
empire of debt wrote:
[quote]Californian wrote:
The US government HAS to monetize this and future (entitlement debt which is estimated at $40 trillion) debt obligations. This causes massive inflation and debt bubbles--stock, housing and other financial market overvaluing. Read Robert Shiller, Bill Bonner, Nassim Taleb, Jim Puplava for further analysis of our government, and by extension, stock market ponzi scheme.
thought police wrote:
I stand by my advice to buy call options on Google. If you had taken my advice when I first posted it, you would have a 10% return on investment - I'm not kidding.
While "empire of debt" frets over gold standard vs. fiat money and entitlement debt, I'm gonna have a nice steak dinner tonight on about 1% of the profits I've made in the last few hours. Stick that in your Ponzi scheme and smoke it.
Spoken like a true "Man in Vegas". How's the weather in your Utopia Of Clowns? The chickens still have time to come home and roost in your paper tiger so don't boast until you've put a few more miles under your house on sand.
I have no idea what this means. Do I have the option of invensting with pre-1971 dollars?
empire of debt wrote:
We're not talking about you and your pseudo measure of the dollar's relative success. We're talking about the average, clueless, sucker investor listening to charlatan advice from the likes of your ilk.
Your "INVESTED" dollars since 1971 buys less than they did in 71, helicopter money notwithstanding.
road rash wrote:
I am sure he would hardly consider the stock market a ponzi scheme.
I'm not sure he wouldn't. Nevertheless, it is a ponzi scheme based on exponential growth that is unsustainable--read The Club Of Rome's " Limits To Growth". What goes up (with the help of fiat money) must come down. Prepare for the might fall, buy gold.
road rash wrote:
I have no idea what this means. Do I have the option of invensting with pre-1971 dollars?
empire of debt wrote:We're not talking about you and your pseudo measure of the dollar's relative success. We're talking about the average, clueless, sucker investor listening to charlatan advice from the likes of your ilk.
Your "INVESTED" dollars since 1971 buys less than they did in 71, helicopter money notwithstanding.
It means the post and pre 71 eras are as night is to day relative to investments, with the post 71 period an investment nightmare built on exotic schemes and rigged financial instruments.
thought police wrote:
Heh, sounds like you and I have very different investing philosophies. That's fine with me. I agree with your sentiment regarding the whole "paper tiger" thing, which is why I always take money off the table soon after I place a trade. Gains mean nothing until you realize them. I don't plan to ride my paper tiger off the cliff like many did in March of 2000 and will do with this one as well. The key is not to be TOO greedy and get out before it gets ridiculous.
Even better is when you see this happening, you sell your calls, and buy puts. Take advantage of the massive runup and the even more massive dump afterwards and come out smelling like a rose.
Its risky, and not to be done with anything but discretionary income. But it can make you a lot of fiat money if done properly.
You sound a lot like Taleb here ,and I don't doubt you are very successful. But what works for an experienced person like yourself does not translate well for the average, employed grinder--i.e., passive investor.
I think the point here is that I don't have the option of investing pre-1971 at this point. And I think I can find quite a few stocks that don't do anything exotic, use finiancial instruments in any fashion but just make a product or service and make a little profit.
empire of debt wrote:
It means the post and pre 71 eras are as night is to day relative to investments, with the post 71 period an investment nightmare built on exotic schemes and rigged financial instruments.
empire of debt wrote:
You sound a lot like Taleb here ,and I don't doubt you are very successful. But what works for an experienced person like yourself does not translate well for the average, employed grinder--i.e., passive investor.
Why do you post this crap about the impending economic implosion on every financial thread that starts?
I'm not going to argue with you, but I would like to know what your plan for the future is.
so why is gold any less arbitrary than paper money? it has very little inherent value and the amount in circulation varies according to the amount that is found. all money is a confidence game. why was passive investing pre 1971 safer than post 1971?
Ebonified wrote:
Any ideas which of these would be a solid pick for a younger guy looking to grow a big retirement fund?
Read "Rich Dad Poor Dad". Become an informed, active investor instead of a passive one. Better to take your informed self to financial nirvana than to be taken to the clearners by overpaid and underperforming "money managers".