I vote we can mod parent up and get on to the next thing. People who make their living in IP can hardly expect to just ignore it when the shoe is on the other foot. And couldn't they just bill the extra expense back to their clients anyway?
That's not commenting. Or, rather, it's not commenting on what I wrote. It's just throwing around jargon that sounds vaguely related to the subject at hand. I never advocated any style or system of investment. I simply pointed out (wryly) that every action (or lack of one) has an opportunity cost and the stock market makes it very easy to see what those costs were--in hindsight. But here I am, over 24 hours later, still receiving snarky investment advice from people apparently convinced that discipline, patience, and OMGDIVIDENDS are all you need to have a happy experience in the market. Good luck with that, folks. And let me know how your dividend-payers do when interest rates finally start back up and people can get 6% at their local banking establishment. Hint: it takes a lot of years of dividends to make up for a 50% haircut in stock price.
What's that? You'll just sell when the handwriting is on the wall? For my comment on selling stock, see original post. Oh, you'll just ride it out and buy more when it's cheap? For my comment on sitting on stock as it plunges from a tidy profit to a sickening loss, see original post. Either way, there's no way not to hate yourself in the stock market.
As for your suggested "redistribute" phraseology, I would never have used it in my post because it's not fucking funny, and I was fucking joking as I clearly fucking stated at the time.
I received a boatload of well-intentioned advice that is completely redundant to someone of my age and investing experience. (I have been in the market since 1992, and I've been very successful at using Wall Street's greed and impatience against it--"value investing," if we must give a name to common sense.) You get the only response because your suggestion is at least not more of the same.
I find your suggestion interesting because I have found that for someone of my temperament it does not work. I find that if I buy stock in something I feel strongly about for other than financial reasons, I get too invested in it (crappy pun intended). I don't make the rational decisions required to do well in the market. I took a break from stocks in late 1999 (market too high, couldn't find anything I liked), and when I decided to come back in 2005 I promised myself I wouldn't be such a fanboy for my companies this time.
As for investing only what I can do without, I don't think it's that easy. My wife and I have an assload of money, far more than we need for day-to-day living. But the flip side to that is that if I only invested amounts I wouldn't mind losing, I wouldn't have invested enough to move the needle either plus or minus. So I do invest, but I don't have much money in unproven companies--probably about 3% of my portfolio, which is in turn only about 20% of our liquid assets.
Like I said to my sister in 1999, there's no way not to hate yourself if you invest in stocks. What are your options?
Buy a stock and it goes down, apparently forever. What a dope I am.
Buy a stock and it goes up. Sell, and it goes up further. Damn, I knew I got out too early.
Buy a stock and it goes up then back down. Shit! I got greedy and lost money.
Buy a stock and it goes up, you sell, then it goes down. I knew I had that stock figured out! Why the hell did I only buy 200 shares?
So sure, you can make money, or you can lose money, but there's really no way to be happy with the outcome.;)
(Haters please note that this is intended as humor. I'm sure that, aside from the universally felt twinge at having left money on the table, parent poster is perfectly happy to have "only" doubled his/her money.
Clearly "equated" is in the eye of the beholder. I took his post as a caution against hubris and ethnocentricity. You heard an insult and a false comparison. Oh well. I'll drop it if you will.
I have no idea what you (or the other geniuses who responded to me) are talking about. You called RightSaidFred a troll for a post entitled 'Much of the world has "illegal speech"'. I gave you the benefit of the doubt as to your sincerity and reading comprehension and cited a reference supporting his case. Now you're talking about executions.
Assuming you're serious, and not some sort of meta-troll, I suggest you spend some time reading up on the many ways free speech is curtailed in the West. Everything from denying the Holocaust to "hate speech" to "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" can get you in trouble with the law in a lot of places that pride themselves on their freedom.
Yes it has. Perhaps, considering the absurdity of my post's grandparent, I should have just considered my parent post a righteously indignant outburst and let it go.
Then again, he did respond to an AC attacking a whole culture by himself attacking a whole culture--possibly not even the AC's culture. Hardly the model of civilized discourse.
For the record, insults against people based on their membership in an entire nation, race, or culture are illogical, mean-spirited, and generally repugnant.
Yes, I was dealing with some Americans just yesterday. They were saying something about sweeping generalizations but I couldn't hear them because they were so fat and arrogant.
Wow. You probably thought that flatly stating, sans citation or reference of any type, that it has long been the practice of industry to use the "reverse" version of a fictional machine to read people's minds--for the purpose of weeding out the mentally healthy, no less--would get more of a response. I guess folks are a bit sluggish because it's Monday.
Neither. Given the widespread white racism at the time of King's death, it was politically impossible to rename any street held dear by the white majority to honor the man. Pretty much without exception, MLK Blvd runs through a black section of town. Economic realities being what they are in the U.S., that section is frequently run-down.
Sucks, but that's how it is in the places I've been.
You seem so angry all the time. It's not good for your health or your reading comprehension.
I didn't say I don't feel empathy for people whose accounts are hacked and who suffer financial loss. I never said money wasn't vital to life. I said stealing credit cards (even en masse) isn't the same as blowing people up and shouldn't be responded to as if it were. I said (listen closely, please), "Personally, I don't think that's appropriate...."
I can't understand why you see fit to give such an accusatory and insulting response to a calm statement of a political opinion. You aren't a zealot, are you?
I think the key here is to decide if your use of "hurt" is appropriate. It conflates financial harm with the kind of physical suffering usually caused by terrorists. Personally, I don't think that's appropriate, but if you do then you would be right to side with the Israeli government on this issue.
Well, TFA says the Israelis called these cyber-attacks, "a breach of sovereignty comparable to a terrorist operation, and must be treated as such." That's pretty close to calling it terrorism. Maybe they should pass a law making it "statutory terrorism".
Thank you for that, good sir. In case you have missed it, I present, in return, this product review for a gallon of milk in the form of a parody of Poe's The Raven.
Yeah, the mod thought I was a troll, too. I admit it's not a very funny joke, but "troll" I don't get. Is implying that the movies were flawed considered trolling? Is it just opaque? I can't ask the mod, but maybe you'll say.
This is so true and so rarely discussed. Adam Smith--so beloved of talking-head capitalists--thought publicly held corporations were a terrible idea, but somehow that part of the message never comes up on CNBC when they're discussing the invisible hand. P.J.O'Rourke wrote a book about Smith's Wealth of Nations and even called the old man out for his error--too early. Turns out, the raping of great companies through the blindness of their absentee owners is just one of those disasters that takes a while to play out, like democracies voting themselves into bankruptcy. I'd say we're making good progress toward collapse on both fronts now, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I vote we can mod parent up and get on to the next thing. People who make their living in IP can hardly expect to just ignore it when the shoe is on the other foot. And couldn't they just bill the extra expense back to their clients anyway?
That's not commenting. Or, rather, it's not commenting on what I wrote. It's just throwing around jargon that sounds vaguely related to the subject at hand. I never advocated any style or system of investment. I simply pointed out (wryly) that every action (or lack of one) has an opportunity cost and the stock market makes it very easy to see what those costs were--in hindsight. But here I am, over 24 hours later, still receiving snarky investment advice from people apparently convinced that discipline, patience, and OMGDIVIDENDS are all you need to have a happy experience in the market. Good luck with that, folks. And let me know how your dividend-payers do when interest rates finally start back up and people can get 6% at their local banking establishment. Hint: it takes a lot of years of dividends to make up for a 50% haircut in stock price.
What's that? You'll just sell when the handwriting is on the wall? For my comment on selling stock, see original post. Oh, you'll just ride it out and buy more when it's cheap? For my comment on sitting on stock as it plunges from a tidy profit to a sickening loss, see original post. Either way, there's no way not to hate yourself in the stock market.
As for your suggested "redistribute" phraseology, I would never have used it in my post because it's not fucking funny, and I was fucking joking as I clearly fucking stated at the time.
Learn to read for comprehension.
I received a boatload of well-intentioned advice that is completely redundant to someone of my age and investing experience. (I have been in the market since 1992, and I've been very successful at using Wall Street's greed and impatience against it--"value investing," if we must give a name to common sense.) You get the only response because your suggestion is at least not more of the same.
I find your suggestion interesting because I have found that for someone of my temperament it does not work. I find that if I buy stock in something I feel strongly about for other than financial reasons, I get too invested in it (crappy pun intended). I don't make the rational decisions required to do well in the market. I took a break from stocks in late 1999 (market too high, couldn't find anything I liked), and when I decided to come back in 2005 I promised myself I wouldn't be such a fanboy for my companies this time.
As for investing only what I can do without, I don't think it's that easy. My wife and I have an assload of money, far more than we need for day-to-day living. But the flip side to that is that if I only invested amounts I wouldn't mind losing, I wouldn't have invested enough to move the needle either plus or minus. So I do invest, but I don't have much money in unproven companies--probably about 3% of my portfolio, which is in turn only about 20% of our liquid assets.
Like I said to my sister in 1999, there's no way not to hate yourself if you invest in stocks. What are your options?
Buy a stock and it goes down, apparently forever. What a dope I am.
Buy a stock and it goes up. Sell, and it goes up further. Damn, I knew I got out too early.
Buy a stock and it goes up then back down. Shit! I got greedy and lost money.
Buy a stock and it goes up, you sell, then it goes down. I knew I had that stock figured out! Why the hell did I only buy 200 shares?
So sure, you can make money, or you can lose money, but there's really no way to be happy with the outcome. ;)
(Haters please note that this is intended as humor. I'm sure that, aside from the universally felt twinge at having left money on the table, parent poster is perfectly happy to have "only" doubled his/her money.
Clearly "equated" is in the eye of the beholder. I took his post as a caution against hubris and ethnocentricity. You heard an insult and a false comparison. Oh well. I'll drop it if you will.
I have no idea what you (or the other geniuses who responded to me) are talking about. You called RightSaidFred a troll for a post entitled 'Much of the world has "illegal speech"'. I gave you the benefit of the doubt as to your sincerity and reading comprehension and cited a reference supporting his case. Now you're talking about executions.
Thanks for wasting everybody's time.
Assuming you're serious, and not some sort of meta-troll, I suggest you spend some time reading up on the many ways free speech is curtailed in the West. Everything from denying the Holocaust to "hate speech" to "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" can get you in trouble with the law in a lot of places that pride themselves on their freedom.
Yes it has. Perhaps, considering the absurdity of my post's grandparent, I should have just considered my parent post a righteously indignant outburst and let it go.
Then again, he did respond to an AC attacking a whole culture by himself attacking a whole culture--possibly not even the AC's culture. Hardly the model of civilized discourse.
For the record, insults against people based on their membership in an entire nation, race, or culture are illogical, mean-spirited, and generally repugnant.
Yes, I was dealing with some Americans just yesterday. They were saying something about sweeping generalizations but I couldn't hear them because they were so fat and arrogant.
Wow. You probably thought that flatly stating, sans citation or reference of any type, that it has long been the practice of industry to use the "reverse" version of a fictional machine to read people's minds--for the purpose of weeding out the mentally healthy, no less--would get more of a response. I guess folks are a bit sluggish because it's Monday.
Nice try, though.
At least you used your real fake name.
I hope someone finds a way to convert weed into ethanol, and weed will be grown everywhere except the U.S.
Fixed that for ya.
Neither. Given the widespread white racism at the time of King's death, it was politically impossible to rename any street held dear by the white majority to honor the man. Pretty much without exception, MLK Blvd runs through a black section of town. Economic realities being what they are in the U.S., that section is frequently run-down.
Sucks, but that's how it is in the places I've been.
Then perhaps you should have clicked on the supplied link to see what they really meant.
You seem so angry all the time. It's not good for your health or your reading comprehension.
I didn't say I don't feel empathy for people whose accounts are hacked and who suffer financial loss. I never said money wasn't vital to life. I said stealing credit cards (even en masse) isn't the same as blowing people up and shouldn't be responded to as if it were. I said (listen closely, please), "Personally, I don't think that's appropriate...."
I can't understand why you see fit to give such an accusatory and insulting response to a calm statement of a political opinion. You aren't a zealot, are you?
I think the key here is to decide if your use of "hurt" is appropriate. It conflates financial harm with the kind of physical suffering usually caused by terrorists. Personally, I don't think that's appropriate, but if you do then you would be right to side with the Israeli government on this issue.
Well, TFA says the Israelis called these cyber-attacks, "a breach of sovereignty comparable to a terrorist operation, and must be treated as such." That's pretty close to calling it terrorism. Maybe they should pass a law making it "statutory terrorism".
At Longhorn I avoid the cheap wines. At real restaurants I avoid the expensive ones. How does that figure into movie pricing?
Wait, all the cool kids are including misogynistic slurs with their statements supporting the disabled. Where is your slur? Don't you want to be cool?
...but 74kB per email?
Thank you for that, good sir. In case you have missed it, I present, in return, this product review for a gallon of milk in the form of a parody of Poe's The Raven.
Yeah, the mod thought I was a troll, too. I admit it's not a very funny joke, but "troll" I don't get. Is implying that the movies were flawed considered trolling? Is it just opaque? I can't ask the mod, but maybe you'll say.
This is so true and so rarely discussed. Adam Smith--so beloved of talking-head capitalists--thought publicly held corporations were a terrible idea, but somehow that part of the message never comes up on CNBC when they're discussing the invisible hand. P.J.O'Rourke wrote a book about Smith's Wealth of Nations and even called the old man out for his error--too early. Turns out, the raping of great companies through the blindness of their absentee owners is just one of those disasters that takes a while to play out, like democracies voting themselves into bankruptcy. I'd say we're making good progress toward collapse on both fronts now, though.
I've seen all three of the movies and your joke makes no sense to me.
So, taxes are too high except the ones that are too low? Sounds like your actual position is "my taxes are too high."
Also, this Wikipedia page says the marginal rate at $20,000 in 1950 was 56%. Hope this helps.