OT: Goodbye to the American Dream

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 10:29:37 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 10:12:21 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
On 8/29/2015 11:03 PM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they formulate
a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a
la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.

Yes, the best way to be rich is to choose your parents wisely.

Or to actually do something, earn some money, and save it.

ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

To get 'rich' you have to earn, live beneath your means, and save, which
used to be common, but which today many people can't do.

I have more wealth than the total net worth of about 40% of the US
population. Anybody worth $1 does, too.

 

[rickman]

On 8/30/2015 11:10 AM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 22:30:43 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:32:55 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us:

Rich people organize ordinary people to get stuff done. Humans are
tribal and need leaders.

You ain't one.

How many people report to you?

1

How many people do you report to, in the sense of management levels? I
know some people who are at the bottom of level 12.

1, the same person as above, myself.

You can get rich by exploiting the work of others, or by... well,
exploiting the work of others. I design things others want, exploit the
work of others to build them and sell these things at a large profit,
exploiting those who can't or don't want to design it themselves.

--

Rick

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 10:39:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they formulate
a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a
la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

I got rich by buying stocks instead of buying new cars. Some of it was luck, but mostly just recognizing what companies seemed to have their act together and buying their stock. I bought Texas Instruments, John Fluke, IBM, Hexcel, and others. And bought S & P 500 index funds in my 401K . I also bought a little Nucor stock when it was Nuclear Corp of America. Should have lost my ass on that, but it turned out okay.

It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.

Dan

I don't think that buying established stocks, getting rich that way,
does society much good.

I think it does. If you had zero chance of ever selling your house you'd
have a lot more trouble buying one, getting a loan, or ever justifying the
decision.

A house has real value. People can live in it.

Likewise for buying part-ownership in a company. There'd be almost no original
investors if they had no possibility of selling. An active market in parts of
companies--shares--assures the possibility of selling out when you want to.

Much of the stock market is gambling. The real winners are the
brokerages and arbitragers and high-speed traders.

I don't see anything harmful in buying a tiny part of a company you think is
good, to gain a claim on some part of its fortunes.

It funds the pros, the Goldman Sachs ("Government Sachs") of the
world, and the need for showing quarterly earnings does longterm
damage to companies and jobs. Small private companies, the ones who
create American jobs, are punished by the current tax policies that
favor the money dealers and funnel money into the public-stock market.

Except for new issues, the stock market is
mostly a gambling pool.

Certainly, many treat it that way. The Feds consider it one more way to
manipulate the economy (by making investors think they're richer).

Yellen is on the back of a tiger she can't get off. She doesn't dare
to do anything sensible for fear of being blamed for triggering the
next, coming crash.

 

[rickman]

On 8/30/2015 1:05 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:04:27 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:


On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 08:10:42 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 22:30:43 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:32:55 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us:

Rich people organize ordinary people to get stuff done. Humans are
tribal and need leaders.

You ain't one.

How many people report to you?

You are an idiot under a self imposed illusion that you are a leader.

I interpret that response as "zero."



How many people do you report to, in the sense of management levels?

When I file for a grant, several levels of approval are required.

I know some people who are at the bottom of level 12.


Your achievement assessment criteria are also fucked up, child.

So, you're at the very bottom of a big heap.

I find it funny that John refuses to discuss anything with me, but he is
happy to argue meaningless nonsense with others like this. But that
sort of emotional response is par for the course with many here.

--

Rick

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:24:46 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 1:20:40 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:42:15 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

On 8/30/2015 10:16 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they formulate
a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a
la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

I got rich by buying stocks instead of buying new cars. Some of it was luck, but mostly just recognizing what companies seemed to have their act together and buying their stock. I bought Texas Instruments, John Fluke, IBM, Hexcel, and others. And bought S & P 500 index funds in my 401K . I also bought a little Nucor stock when it was Nuclear Corp of America. Should have lost my ass on that, but it turned out okay.

It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.


Dan


Except for new issues, the stock market is
mostly a gambling pool.


Sorry John, on this one I need you need to get educated.

In my lifetime (1955) the S&P 500 has went from 50 to 2100.
A 42* multiple, inflation is only a 9 multiple.

Sure, but stocks have a higher value mostly because other shareholders
think they do. Some popular stocks are in companies that don't make
money and probably never will.

It's important to distinguish actual value from a company's stock price.
The actual value is essentially your owner's share of a company's future
profits.

There's an enormous amount of noise and emotion, and unwarranted change in
*price*. That's not the same as the actual, objective, underlying value.

Just Dollar Cost Average into a low cost total stock market index, and
hold it until you near retirement, Then you need to back off on the
percentage of stocks**.
Rule #1 You can't time the market.

Sometimes you can.

*That's* gambling, agreed.

[...]

What dissapoints me is that our capital-intensive economy favors the
prople who can invest, and greatly favors the wheeler-dealers and
brokerages, and destroys small companies and working-class jobs.
Because Wall Street runs Washington.

When the king's offices (e.g. HHS, EPA, IRS) control companies, companies
lobby the king. Have to. When the govt's main function is looting, then
distributing the loot, everyone wants to (has to) play.

That favors big companies / established players. They lobby and get rules good
for themselves and bad for would-be start-ups.

The internet offers a potential Renaissance of small enterprise, but the
fat-headed socialist control-types prevent it. Just try filling out your own
IRS form 1095-B this year (small business employee Obamacare insurance return).

Federal over-spending is the root cause of Obama's stock-pumping wealth-transfer
program. Washington's borrowing to keep the lights on, can't afford real
interest rates, and so is forced to keep rates artificially low. Zero interest
rates on savings drives people into the stock markets (to avoid losing money to
inflation).

Zero interest rates have interesting consequences. So does clamping
down the safety valve on a boiler.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 31 August 2015 02:58:10 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 12:20:09 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


What you snipped - without marking the snip - was

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

makes the point that the rich do go around emphasizing the fact that they are richer than the rest of us, and this makes all the social gradients steeper, which doesn't seem to do anything good for the rest of us.

I'm not sure that's true.

Then you'd better read the book.

If you look at my past posts , you will see that I seldom emphasize my wealth and certainly do not say I am richer than the rest of us. For one thing, I worked in the Seattle area and know several of Microsoft people. And while they do not emphasize their wealth, I am sure it is more than mine. I do try to point out that one can become rich without too much effort and without needing a silver spoon.

That's not got anything to do with what I was claiming, and it's just more anecdotal evidence (and not a lot of it). You would need to read the book, though it doesn't look as if you've got the attention span to cope with anything longer than a paragraph.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[rickman]

On 8/30/2015 12:01 PM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 10:12:21 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:

It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.

Yes, the best way to be rich is to choose your parents wisely.

--

Rick

Well I did choose my parents wisely. They were not rich, but believed in giving my sister and I a decent education. And my father and I built crystal sets , and motors made of paper clips and other similar things. My father also made sure I had summer jobs every summer starting at age 16.

Well done!

--

Rick

 

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 3:03:42 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:

On 8/30/2015 1:29 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 10:12:21 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
On 8/29/2015 11:03 PM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they formulate
a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a
la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.

Yes, the best way to be rich is to choose your parents wisely.

Or to actually do something, earn some money, and save it.

ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

To get 'rich' you have to earn, live beneath your means, and save, which
used to be common, but which today many people can't do.

I'm not sure that "living beneath your means" is the important part of
the equation. I know many people who have spent most of what they earn
on what makes them happy and are doing very well. A good friend has
always made more money than I have and has spent most of it over the
years. She doesn't have as much accumulated wealth as I do, but I would
never say I am "richer". I've never been to New Zealand or Vietnam or
any of the other dozens of places she has been. Am I really "richer"
because I have multiple houses and lots of funds in my IRAs/401ks?

Haven't you just contradicted your own definition of 'rich'--having more
than others?

I like this second definition better, money doesn't make unhappy people happy.
It almost seems to make them unhappier, and more desperate. I've seen that,
many times.

There's a third possibility too--I've been around the world, and spent almost
nothing on it.

I've seen people struggling to eat (invariably due to defective notions
of government and politics, e.g. Zimbabwe, devastated by 'redistribution').

We're all rich. Ask /them./

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Les Cargill]

dcaster@krl.org wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 12:00:07 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:


The first rich person I ran into had a wedding gift of several
million 1970s dollars. The whole "live frugally and become rich"
thing is fine if you're prepared to remain single and/or not
procreate. Other than that, you'll need some sort of Dutch Uncle.

I do not agree with you about needing a Dutch Uncle.

When I graduated from college , I got married , and moved across
country. I borrowed some money from a college friend for a down
payment on a house , and then my wife and I both worked but lived on
my salary and saved hers.

A couple of years later , it looked to me as if there were going to
be layoffs, so I got a job in Alaska for a year, and got some
incentive pay for doing that.

Then when the big tech slump in the early 70's ,

So you may well have crossed the big housing boom from 1960 to 1980.
That all got more difficult later on.

I got work at a
manufactured house company. And then when I realized that was not
going to be good financially, I moved back to Washington State. And
lived in an apartment for a year while I worked an engineering job
and also built a house evenings and weekends.



Then since I had no mortgage, I saved 12% of my salary in my 401k
plan for the next twenty years. A Dutch Uncle would have been nice,
but it is not a requirement.

A Dutch Uncle can take the form of options, of relatives, of a
highly compensated position. It might mean VC money one time
out of ten or a hundred.

I just mean "having kids is expensive." Of course it's doable,
it's just much harder.

I did stay married and had one child. When he was one , I started a
college fund for him with $1,000. And every year I contributed
another $1,000. But after about four or five years , I started only
putting in enough money so that the amount in the fund was the same
in thousands as his age. And in another year or so , I did not have
to contribute anything. When he went to college, I paid what I could
out current income, and used money from his college account for the
rest. When he graduated , he still had $65,000 in his account.

I think for both girls, we paid about two semester's tuition at a
JUCO. One got a massive scholarship, the other paid for he own.

Dan


-- Les Cargill

--
Les Cargill

 

[rickman]

On 8/30/2015 12:12 PM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 12:05:51 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:


It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.


I got my daughter fully funding her 401K and Roth starting at 23
yrs old.



Not sure how successful I will be, but I funded my niece's Roth IRA
last year. She made almost $400 baby sitting , so I funded a Roth
IRA for her in that amount. So far it seems to have had no effect.

I wouldn't be so sure. Some seeds take a long time to sprout and bear
only tiny flowers, but long lasting.

I have memories from parents and school of small things that stuck with
me through the years. Even though they had no obvious impact I now
realize they shaped my thoughts many, many times.

--

Rick

 

[Les Cargill]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 12:44:12 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 12:00:07 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:


The first rich person I ran into had a wedding gift of several million
1970s dollars. The whole "live frugally and become rich" thing is fine
if you're prepared to remain single and/or not procreate. Other
than that, you'll need some sort of Dutch Uncle.

I do not agree with you about needing a Dutch Uncle.

When I graduated from college , I got married , and moved across country.
I borrowed some money from a college friend for a down payment on a house , and then my wife and I both worked but lived on my salary and saved hers.

A couple of years later , it looked to me as if there were going to be layoffs, so I got a job in Alaska for a year, and got some incentive pay for doing that.

Then when the big tech slump in the early 70's ,I got work at a manufactured house company. And then when I realized that was not going to be good financially, I moved back to Washington State. And lived in an apartment for a year while I worked an engineering job and also built a house evenings and weekends.



Then since I had no mortgage, I saved 12% of my salary in my 401k plan for the next twenty years. A Dutch Uncle would have been nice, but it is not a requirement.


I did stay married and had one child. When he was one , I started a college fund for him with $1,000. And every year I contributed another $1,000. But after about four or five years , I started only putting in enough money so that the amount in the fund was the same in thousands as his age. And in another year or so , I did not have to contribute anything. When he went to college, I paid what I could out current income, and used money from his college account for the rest. When he graduated , he still had $65,000 in his account.

None of the wealthy people I know had Dutch uncles. All were first-generation,
and earned every penny.

Cheers,
James Arthur

You obviously hang out with a better class of people than I do ( I
know a handful like that, too. )

--
Les Cargill

 

[rickman]

On 8/30/2015 1:29 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 10:12:21 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
On 8/29/2015 11:03 PM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they formulate
a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a
la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.

Yes, the best way to be rich is to choose your parents wisely.

Or to actually do something, earn some money, and save it.

ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

To get 'rich' you have to earn, live beneath your means, and save, which
used to be common, but which today many people can't do.

I'm not sure that "living beneath your means" is the important part of
the equation. I know many people who have spent most of what they earn
on what makes them happy and are doing very well. A good friend has
always made more money than I have and has spent most of it over the
years. She doesn't have as much accumulated wealth as I do, but I would
never say I am "richer". I've never been to New Zealand or Vietnam or
any of the other dozens of places she has been. Am I really "richer"
because I have multiple houses and lots of funds in my IRAs/401ks?

--

Rick

 

[rickman]

On 8/30/2015 11:16 AM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they formulate
a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a
la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

I got rich by buying stocks instead of buying new cars. Some of it was luck, but mostly just recognizing what companies seemed to have their act together and buying their stock. I bought Texas Instruments, John Fluke, IBM, Hexcel, and others. And bought S & P 500 index funds in my 401K . I also bought a little Nucor stock when it was Nuclear Corp of America. Should have lost my ass on that, but it turned out okay.

It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.

Dan

I don't think that buying established stocks, getting rich that way,
does society much good. Except for new issues, the stock market is
mostly a gambling pool.

I'm not sure how Bill Gates getting rich has done much for "society"
either. What's your point?

--

Rick

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 31 August 2015 03:39:29 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they formulate
a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a
la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

I got rich by buying stocks instead of buying new cars. Some of it was luck, but mostly just recognizing what companies seemed to have their act together and buying their stock. I bought Texas Instruments, John Fluke, IBM, Hexcel, and others. And bought S & P 500 index funds in my 401K . I also bought a little Nucor stock when it was Nuclear Corp of America. Should have lost my ass on that, but it turned out okay.

It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.

I don't think that buying established stocks, getting rich that way,
does society much good.

I think it does. If you had zero chance of ever selling your house you'd
have a lot more trouble buying one, getting a loan, or ever justifying the
decision.

Likewise for buying part-ownership in a company. There'd be almost no
original investors if they had no possibility of selling. An active market in
parts of companies--shares--assures the possibility of selling out when you
want to.

I don't see anything harmful in buying a tiny part of a company you think is
good, to gain a claim on some part of its fortunes.

Except for new issues, the stock market is
mostly a gambling pool.

Certainly, many treat it that way. The Feds consider it one more way to
manipulate the economy (by making investors think they're richer).

Investors aren't entirely rational.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

shared a Nobel Prize - admittedly in Economic - for spelling out how.

Keynes made the same point rather earlier, and made a very persuasive case for the Feds (and their ilk) to spend money on fooling investors into thinking they were richer than they were, during recessions, where everybody goes around thinking that they are poorer than they are (with lethal effects on economic growth).

You don't understand any of it, and have been known to claim that they think that fooling the investors into thinking they are richer works all the time (when more sophisticated observers are aware that once the economy has moved out of recession, this delusion can become exaggerated to the point of blowing up a bubble).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Les Cargill]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:01:53 -0500, Les Cargill
lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:29:30 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
snip

And rich people are the only people who can defer significant
consumption in favor of investment.


The first rich person I ran into had a wedding gift of several million
1970s dollars. The whole "live frugally and become rich" thing is fine
if you're prepared to remain single and/or not procreate. Other
than that, you'll need some sort of Dutch Uncle.

One of the richest I worked for wore Kmart clothes and drove an oldish
car, and lived in a nice but unfancy house. He was the sort who had a
PhD from a state U in the 1950s in physics and went to work for a
Fortune 500 until the Fortune 500 left millions on the ground, so
he pulled a startup in the 1980s.

I know a guy who co-founded a laser company that was recently sold for
over two billion dollars.

This always blows my mind - that a *laser* company can be
a hot property in this day and age. Being ignorant of
the details, they seem common as dirt.

'Course, I watched the optical boom in the '90s where Collins
Radio used to be and that was just crazy.

He still goes into the lab every day, trying
to make the things better. He also designs circuits and builds them at
home while he watches TV. He's a mediocre circuit designer, but
doesn't resent better ideas.

Slow and steady wins the race.

But he made most of his money in real estate.

I don't know why so many people resent the rich.

They have little else to do. It's the only version of the Cinderella
myth left.

Rich people's wealth
is mostly stock shares, which are just pieces of paper. A billionaire
doesn't eat a hundred times as much as the average person, and doesn't
live in a million square foot house.


The "real" part of the economy - the part you can see and is not
paper wealth - has grown much more slowly than stocks and paper.

Yup. Crashes happen that way.

IMO, they happen because we can't manage the money supply well.
Perhaps in a generation...

Maximum trollbait title, but it's a fun read:
http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Deadbeats-Uncommon-Financial-Disasters/dp/0307474321

If you have an hour, he gives the book away on BookTv here:
https://vimeo.com/62187967

--
Les Cargill

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 14:06:23 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:01:53 -0500, Les Cargill
lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:29:30 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
snip

And rich people are the only people who can defer significant
consumption in favor of investment.


The first rich person I ran into had a wedding gift of several million
1970s dollars. The whole "live frugally and become rich" thing is fine
if you're prepared to remain single and/or not procreate. Other
than that, you'll need some sort of Dutch Uncle.

One of the richest I worked for wore Kmart clothes and drove an oldish
car, and lived in a nice but unfancy house. He was the sort who had a
PhD from a state U in the 1950s in physics and went to work for a
Fortune 500 until the Fortune 500 left millions on the ground, so
he pulled a startup in the 1980s.

I know a guy who co-founded a laser company that was recently sold for
over two billion dollars.

This always blows my mind - that a *laser* company can be
a hot property in this day and age. Being ignorant of
the details, they seem common as dirt.

This one sells the majority of the light sources used in silicon
lithography. That's a serious industry.

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 09:15:42 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
<dcaster@krl.org> Gave us:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 12:08:55 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Yet another failure to hear those helicopter blades whooshing
overhead.

Must be because they were MILES over your head.

I think it was because they were over your head.

Dan

Marine One flies over the house all the time.

In your case, I was referring to the euphemism. Which also went over
your head, of course.

 

[rickman]

On 8/30/2015 1:12 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 08:56:58 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-4, John Larkin
wrote:

I don't think that buying established stocks, getting rich that
way, does society much good. Except for new issues, the stock
market is mostly a gambling pool.

I disagree with you there. Investing in the stock market does
involve a little risk, but it is not much of a gamble. If you buy
say ten stocks, there is almost no gamble. One or two may go belly
up, but it is extremely unlikely that all will. And you will be
better off than if you put your money in a savings account.

The system is a gamble, basically a casino with a house cut. Stocks
have value because other investors think they have value. Most
stocks are morally equivalent to investing in Beanie Babies.

See, you have no understanding at all of the stock market. If you buy
stocks with no understanding of the basis of value for the company, then
you don't have a clue and should never invest in the market other than
for entertainment. If you learn about companies and which are likely to
improve their value, then you may be taking risk due to unforeseen
events, but that is not the same as gambling where the outcome is purely
chance.

IPOs and later rounds of new investment help companies grow. Trading
established shares don't, at least not directly.

If stocks can't be traded after the IPO no one would buy them at the
IPO, so again you really just don't get it.

I'd rather invest in my own company, where I can try to make sure
it's going to be productive, create products and IP and jobs.

Again, you aren't grasping many concepts. By investing where you work,
you are doubling up on the risk. One lawsuit or other negative event
can totally crash the value of your small company. It may not be
likely, but it is possible. If you divested your investments you can
spread the risk and assure continued wealth path the end of your
company. That is a simple fact.

--

Rick

 

[Les Cargill]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 10:39:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
snip

Yellen is on the back of a tiger she can't get off. She doesn't dare
to do anything sensible for fear of being blamed for triggering the
next, coming crash.

The Ben Bernank was similarly constrained, and he's arguably
*the* leading expert on that sort of situation.

Actually fixing things would definitely have scared the horses.

Scott Sumner believes the instrumentation of the economy is
way, way off*. Being a sucker for bad instrumentation stories,
I am sympathetic.

*Integrating a noisy figure - CPI - means nonsense ensues.

--
Les Cargill

 

[Tom Miller]

"amdx" <nojunk@knology.net> wrote in message
news:mrvblv$b0q$1@dont-email.me...

On 8/30/2015 10:16 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they formulate
a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a
la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

I got rich by buying stocks instead of buying new cars. Some of it was
luck, but mostly just recognizing what companies seemed to have their
act together and buying their stock. I bought Texas Instruments, John
Fluke, IBM, Hexcel, and others. And bought S & P 500 index funds in my
401K . I also bought a little Nucor stock when it was Nuclear Corp of
America. Should have lost my ass on that, but it turned out okay.

It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.


Dan


Except for new issues, the stock market is
mostly a gambling pool.


Sorry John, on this one I need you need to get educated.

In my lifetime (1955) the S&P 500 has went from 50 to 2100.
A 42* multiple, inflation is only a 9 multiple.
Just Dollar Cost Average into a low cost total stock market index, and
hold it until you near retirement, Then you need to back off on the
percentage of stocks**.
Rule #1 You can't time the market.
Rule #2 Don't panic and sell at the bottom of a market correction.

Mikek

Rule #3 Never take any advise on buying stocks from someone on Usenet.