Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unlike you I have ambition. I'd prefer to drive on errands in a Cadillac/Buick, keep a fine collection of liquors, live in an expensive area with rental properties, collect dividends, take actual vacations, and WEAR my gold, but hey I have standards.
It's not ambition. It is something else.
I was very ambitious. Had lots of easy money, the type I'm talking about, tossed at me all the time. I never took it. I have and will always have CONCER FOR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS. Never felt I had to cheat, swindle, out steal to be successful. I was right and did all buy treating everyone everyone fairly and with concern for their well being.
The Oligarchy running the world financial systems are thugs.
we don't need personal attacks , that is just wasted words . but i do think we do not need over and over the same savers are hurt discussion started . there are enough existing ones without rehashing the same old crap every time a certain poster has nothing else to do . the facts are pretty clear that the low rates have put more money in most Americans pockets then it took out .
most of those with substaintial portfolio's have benefited from both the debt service and the fact diversified assets still had decent long term returns .
at least if you are going to beat a dead horse make it constructive and discuss how to play the cards you are dealt without complaining about it ..
as an investor i have always tried to play the cards i am dealt . you will never hear me complain here about politicians , party's or political issues .
my time is far better spent learning how to work within the constraints of what we are handed to still profit .
My time is better spent trying to avert another social upheaval with catastrophic consequences
Interest on savings are being taxed at 100% by Central Banks just so speculative debt can be easily financed. It is nonsense and punishes retirees and savers in general. Ultimately, without appropriate risk costs, there is notorious misallocation of capital such is occurring yet again all over the world. Savers in tbe U.S.are essentially being forced to pay for the giant ghost buildings in China. What a disgusting, duplicitous mess.
Take this whole concept a step further and apply it to people who don't waste energy and physical resources. Much of the global economy is a population Ponzi scheme that chases material wealth around the world (i.e. "emerging markets") and tries to multiply it with monetary debt until X or Y bubble bursts, then the cycle repeats with renewed desperation. It's been gotten away with so far because Peak Oil hasn't quite happened yet. Without energy to fuel global trade, the whole thing fails.
This guy has been maligned by superficial thinkers but was always fundamentally correct. You can't get away with growth/bubbles indefinitely in a finite world.
Interest on savings are being taxed at 100% by Central Banks just so speculative debt can be easily financed. It is nonsense and punishes retirees and savers in general.
You seem to think retirees and savers are only limited to savings accounts and CDs, which is not the case. I saved up to retire using a diversified portfolio of stock and bond mutual funds, and I've since retired and am living off same diversified portfolio of stock and bond mutual funds. I am both a saver and a retiree.
You are projecting your lack of personal finance skills onto both the Fed and other people who have put on their big boy pants and realized managing savings goes a bit deeper than owning a piggy bank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf
The Fed is deliberately forcing savers out of safe banking accounts into highly speculative markets in order to chase yields. The prior two bubbles have clearly displayed the silliness of this strategy for anyone other than the top 1% which knows they will be bailed out.
I believe the opposite it true.
Take VWELX, which at 2/3 stocks and 1/3 bonds is a reasonable representation of a diversified investment portfolio. The 15 year (which includes the 2001 and 2008 market crashes) annual return for VWELX is 7.38%, which is clearly superior to having stuck your money in a savings account.
So what you call "silliness" I say is shows that a diversified investment strategy provides better investment returns in spite of volatility, and the only proof it offers is that someone who parks all their portfolio in cash equivalents will come out behind over time. Far behind.
You can keep on lashing out in frustration at your poor (likely negative) returns but you really need to be pointing the finger at yourself for being naive about saving and investing.
You seem to think retirees and savers are only limited to savings accounts and CDs, which is not the case. I saved up to retire using a diversified portfolio of stock and bond mutual funds, and I've since retired and am living off same diversified portfolio of stock and bond mutual funds. I am both a saver and a retiree.
You are projecting your lack of personal finance skills onto both the Fed and other people who have put on their big boy pants and realized managing savings goes a bit deeper than owning a piggy bank.
I believe the opposite it true.
Take VWELX, which at 2/3 stocks and 1/3 bonds is a reasonable representation of a diversified investment portfolio. The 15 year (which includes the 2001 and 2008 market crashes) annual return for VWELX is 7.38%, which is clearly superior to having stuck your money in a savings account.
So what you call "silliness" I say is shows that a diversified investment strategy provides better investment returns in spite of volatility, and the only proof it offers is that someone who parks all their portfolio in cash equivalents will come out behind over time. Far behind.
You can keep on lashing out in frustration at your poor returns but you really need to be pointing the finger at yourself for being naive about saving and investing.
Who the heck cares about your grubby little diversified portfolio?
I don't need returns. I don't need more money.
What I would like is for the Central Banks to stop stealing money for their cronies and end the unfathomable amount of misery they are causing all over the world.
OK. Now please take your crummy little portfolio ideas to any one of the other hundreds of threads on how to make money while ignoring the desperate plight of innocent families everywhere. Enjoy yourself.
This guy has been maligned by superficial thinkers but was always fundamentally correct.
Oh bull****, that guy has had so many alarmist predictions turn out false you'd have to turn your blind-fan-boy setting to max to label anyone maligning him as superficial thinkers.
Two of classics:
1969 - I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.
1970 - In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.
1971 - By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.
I'm sure you'll find a way to rationalize those as "fundamentally correct" but bottom line they were downright stupid predictions that have been proven wrong. To see someone say he is "always" fundamentally correct is hilarious.
Who the heck cares about your grubby little diversified portfolio?
I don't need returns. I don't need more money.
My post wasn't about my portfolio, nor was it about whether you need money.
It was simply proving that a "grubby little diversified portfolio" you claimed had been proven foolish because of recent bubbles was in fact the superior performer despite them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf
OK. Now please take your crummy little portfolio ideas to any one of the other hundreds of threads on how to make money while ignoring the desperate plight of innocent families everywhere. Enjoy yourself.
I wasn't offering any ideas about making money, nor does my exclusion of content related to the plight of innocent families offer any endorsement to the notion I'm ignoring them.
My post was simply refuting the utterly asinine notion that recent bubbles proved the silliness of investing in the stock or bond markets, which I think it did since your only retort appears to gibberish about it being crummy and wild accusations about my attitude towards suffering families.
My post wasn't about my portfolio, nor was it about whether you need money.
It was simply proving that a "grubby little diversified portfolio" you claimed had been proven foolish because of recent bubbles was in fact the superior performer despite them.
I wasn't offering any ideas about making money, nor does my exclusion of content related to the plight of innocent families offer any endorsement to the notion I'm ignoring them.
My post was simply refuting the utterly asinine notion that recent bubbles proved the silliness of investing in the stock or bond markets, which I think it did since your only retort appears to gibberish about it being crummy and wild accusations about my attitude towards suffering families.
Only the most naive among the naive could possible call the massive worldwide Ponzi scheme "investing".
Now are done talking about your silly little, meaningless portfolio?
Only the most naive among the naive could possible call the massive worldwide Ponzi scheme "investing".
Being the guy who make such idiotic claims about the market in 2012 I think you've lost any credibility to talk about what is wise investing. Keep on hating that which you don't understand, and keep on being frustrated that others have been getting solid returns while laughing at your ridiculous predictions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf
Now are done talking about your silly little, meaningless portfolio?
I haven't mentioned my portfolio at all in this thread, but that is now the 2nd time you've referenced it.
If you're referring to the example I gave of Wellington as a benchmark for a 70/30 investment mix, then yes I believe we're done talking about it since I've demonstrated what you call "silly" because of two market crashes has in fact returned over 7% in the last 15 years.
I was very ambitious. Had lots of easy money, the type I'm talking about, tossed at me all the time. I never took it. I have and will always have CONCER FOR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS. Never felt I had to cheat, swindle, out steal to be successful. I was right and did all buy treating everyone everyone fairly and with concern for their well being.
The Oligarchy running the world financial systems are thugs.
Considering you can't spell "concern" I'm not reluctant to believe you had a lot of "easy money".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Conservation is another form of Saving
