I was pulled over for nearly the same reason, minus the squealing tires. This was in CA, and the officer threatened me with reckless driving for "exhibition of speed". It was bullshit, and he knew it, and let me off with a warning. FWIW, I was driving a '78 TransAm (yes, Smoky and the Bandit style), that had a whopping 185hp, and an automatic transmission. The only way it could squeal the tires was if the road was a little wet, but it sure looked hot.
The market is one big fucking huge long term Ponzi scheme. The economy is based on the fallacy of infinite growth. Some day it will all crash and burn so fucking hard that the bible humpers will call it The Apocalypse.
It's a thing of beauty how you guys toss around Chicken Little accusations, and based on what? I've been investing (seriously doing my homework on companies before trading) since the early 80s. Sure there have been market scams, and there always will be anywhere there's money, but to make a tin-foil-hat assumption that the market is at fault, or some kind of conspiracy is simply childish. My eyes are wide open to the lack of oversight that has allowed some scams, and you can thank the government for that...leave the front door open, and you're gonna get robbed.
If you're actually lending that money to a company to improve its productivity (i.e., investing) then you're putting money to work instead of keeping it in your pocket, and that has a multiplicative effect on the economy.
But that's unrelated to the stock market. When you buy a stock on the market, no money goes to the company (aside from very special cases of direct stock offerings).
Strictly correct, but making more demand for the stock increases the company's market capitalization...the street value of the company. This does have a financial benefit to the company.
That strategy gives a moderate return over a certain medium-long term outlook. Provided something large doesn't get involved, like you get in during a marketwide bubble or are forced to cash out in the middle of a marketwide downturn, or both.
The whole point of dollar cost averaging is to offset the possibility of being hit by "something large". The GP is describing a tried and true long term method of investing in the markets. If you've found yourself in the position of being "forced to cash out", then you're doing it wrong. You don't even need to worry about a fund manager...simply go with an index fund.
it has certainly been marketed to the public as a "Make Money Fast" game for ordinary people.
Guess I've missed those ads. Sure, we've all seen commercials for E-Trade, Schwab, etc., but I've never watched one that indicated you could make money fast. That said, you certainly can make money fast...you can also lose your ass, and deserve to do so if you play fast and loose with your investments. "A fool and his money..."
And here's the real motivation for all those Republican politicians who want to "save" Social Security by moving the money to the stock market. A sudden two-trillion dollar flood of money inflates share prices, the savvy rich people cash out, the correction hits, and the savvy rich people use their inflated profits to cash back in. The people who will actually need Social Security when they retire get left holding the empty bag. This privatization plan, like all others, is just a scam to move ordinary people's money into rich people's pockets.
Aside from your political commentary (conspiracy theory much?), the point is to allow people to control their own retirement money instead of letting guberment fritter it away. Fine, you don't like that as a choice?...give us one that won't see the system bankrupt, as is the current path. While the increased money into the markets would be significant, it certainly would NOT be a two-trillion dollar flood. I've contributed over $100k toward social security, and I'd still be happy to never get a dime back (which may yet happen), if they would let me control my own investment into some low risk securities at a similar level. It seems that every politician who's tried to address the SS problem gets attacked by the political arm of AARP.
I'd tax any market gains from positions held less then a year the same a gambling winnings.
Gambling winnings are taxed as normal income, the withholding below is from the IRS site. Nothing to see here, move along.
Withholding
There are two types of withholding on gambling winnings: (a) regular gambling withholding at 25% (33.33% for certain noncash payments) and (b) backup withholding at 28%. If a payment is already subject to regular gambling withholding, it is not subject to backup withholding.
The "scam" here is the massive one where America thought the purpose of the market was to provide retirement savings- Thus people dumped all their money into the market in hopes of having big retirement payouts...
Anyone who "dumped all their money" into the market for retirement purposes is a complete moron. Just like anyone paying attention to the snake-oil adds for gold that have plagued TV recently. I've been a market investor since '82, and been through several rough times. Take a look at the long term charts below, and you'll notice that the major downturns were from the internet bubble, and the latest housing bubble/recession.
Conventional wisdom for investors has always been that at younger ages (where you can handle more short term risk), you invest heavily in securities, and as you get nearer to retirement, you shift toward less risky (although generally lower rate of return) investments. The same is true if you are expecting to need liquidity for high dollar items (a home, tuition, retirement, etc.).
If our country wasn't randomly bombing the shit out of all manner of other people, and actually keeping an informed and healthy electorate whose votes were actually counted, we wouldn't need a system.
Welcome to Fantasyland. I defy you to name a country in the history of the world where that's worked w/o exploitation.
If an ICE agent feels you are guilty of a crime then you are guilty. Period. You have no right to a trial until you are actually admitted to the US. If an ICE agent wishes to execute you on a whim, he is within his rights. He would not even be suspended let alone prosecuted for murder.
I live in one where I've driven for 36 years, and been pulled over probably 20-25 times. Of those times, I was released roughly half the time ticket free.
Be polite, keep your hands in sight, and don't try to bullshit them. Take that chip off your shoulder, and you'll be much less likely to get ticketed. An yes, I'm well aware of the quotas...I'm writing this from a jurisdiction where the chief of police openly admitted to it in the Washington Post.
You think this is a leap? It's happened before with NY city.
I do think your comment on demotion of CA to something less than statehood is a leap, and completely baseless. Please cite what you mean by "every legal sense "...I'm doubtful that there is one. What legal right would we have to remove them from statehood?
I'm not questioning your commentary on CA's mistakes. I have my own problems with that, but you're over the top with commentary such as your entire final paragraph. Take off the tin-foil hat please.
What is truly puzzling is why investors continue to buy California's bonds...
It's easy to understand when you come to the realization that they won't get to just declare bankruptcy and default. They're too big to fail. And the federal govt. could hardly let them fail, or they'd take the entire U.S. economy with them. It's not uncommon for investors to look for opportunities to buy when the shit hits the fan. If the whole economy is going in the tank, you've got nothing to lose by investing in it, and plenty to gain if it turns around. Go read Peter Lynch's (of Fidelity Magellan fame) book One Up On Wallstreet for some lessons (heavily investing in the middle of the market crash of '86 for example) there.
Rant much AC? Bad traffic on CA highways predates the internet & housing bubbles by decades. The existing infrastructure can't handle the population increases.
I personally get to telecommute occasionally, and love it. It saves me the hassle of a 30 mile round trip that often takes two hours here in northern VA...similar traffic to southern CA. However, if you know anything about business, you know that there's nothing like face-to-face meetings. You just don't get the same level of communication (especially with a customer) over the phone, chat, or teleconference.
Yes, we should all cut back on unnecessary travel, and with the increase in gas prices, many of us have. But the reality of the situation as it currently stands is that we have to get in our vehicles/buses/metros, and go to work every day. While I agree with some of your comments, you've thrown out a lot of accusations with nothing more than opinion backing them up.
Yes, I live in one of them. I was just pointing out that that was one of the original legal arguments used against those bans...that the state had no right to prohibit them. This is similar to how some homeowners associations have attempted to regulate their members with regards to satellite dishes...they legally can't. Mine tried to do that, and found themselves on the wrong side of the law.
Interesting. Control of the airwaves used to be completely under the purview of the FCC, and state/local laws prohibited. That was one of the arguments used against states banning radar detectors way back. Times have changed though.
The Federal Communications Commission (www.fcc.gov) ruled that as of April 1994 no radio scanners may be manufactured or imported into the U.S. that can pick up frequencies used by cellular telephones, or that can be readily altered to receive such frequencies. (47 CFR Part 15.37(f)) The law rarely deters the determined eavesdropper, however.
Another federal law, the Counterfeit Access Device Law, was amended to make it illegal to use a radio scanner "knowingly and with the intent to defraud" to eavesdrop on wire or electronic communication. (18 USC 1029) Penalties for the intentional interception of cordless and cellular telephone calls range from fines to imprisonment depending on the circumstances. (18 USC 2511, 2701)
It's pretty typical for the mindless sheeple followers of either party to frantically point blame at the other. The moment anyone states "Fox News" without proper reference to "CNN," or vice versa, should be immediately discounted.
The FCC imposes fines for broadcasting nudity, right? Even half-a-million-dollar fines for accidental nudity on live broadcasts (superbowl halftime show...)
accidental??? Really? Please tell us you're not that naive.
Yes, respect is earned, but your disrespectful comment was juvenile. Please don't take it as an insult...read what you wrote, and understand why it was appears that way. Are you really an old foggie? I'm 51, and would bet from your writing that I've got a good 20-30 years on you.
FWIW, I've done the whole WoW thing too, and while I agree that there are social interaction skills necessary for good guild leadership, I see precious little that translates into real world practical usage...and I deal with people (mine and our customers) for a living.
If you have a car and wear the brakes down to nothing to the point where they don't work, you can't then say 'I didn't know that's how brakes worked!' and get out of jail free when you roll over somebody.
You get training, a license, and insurance for driving. There's no equivalent for the Internet. It's easy for those of us who are technically competent to assume that non-techies should just go learn this stuff. There's no expectation by the "masses of asses" that anything they do online will ever be as life threatening as driving a car, so there's no expectation that they need to take it as seriously.
If you don't know how to operate something, don't operate it, because the liability is and should always be the operator's.
We operate things every day that we don't understand the internal workings of. Should we stop using them?
I'm personally not sure which way I lean on the overall topic. But, I do find it interesting that there's such a diversity of opinion here on Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
I was pulled over for nearly the same reason, minus the squealing tires. This was in CA, and the officer threatened me with reckless driving for "exhibition of speed". It was bullshit, and he knew it, and let me off with a warning. FWIW, I was driving a '78 TransAm (yes, Smoky and the Bandit style), that had a whopping 185hp, and an automatic transmission. The only way it could squeal the tires was if the road was a little wet, but it sure looked hot.
Well, we had a few beers first, just to keep it interesting. I almost lost, if it wasn't for the pterodactyl that swooped down in front of him.
OMG...We need to report him to PITA!!!
"The "market" is a fucking scam."
The market is one big fucking huge long term Ponzi scheme. The economy is based on the fallacy of infinite growth. Some day it will all crash and burn so fucking hard that the bible humpers will call it The Apocalypse.
It's a thing of beauty how you guys toss around Chicken Little accusations, and based on what? I've been investing (seriously doing my homework on companies before trading) since the early 80s. Sure there have been market scams, and there always will be anywhere there's money, but to make a tin-foil-hat assumption that the market is at fault, or some kind of conspiracy is simply childish. My eyes are wide open to the lack of oversight that has allowed some scams, and you can thank the government for that...leave the front door open, and you're gonna get robbed.
If you're actually lending that money to a company to improve its productivity (i.e., investing) then you're putting money to work instead of keeping it in your pocket, and that has a multiplicative effect on the economy.
But that's unrelated to the stock market. When you buy a stock on the market, no money goes to the company (aside from very special cases of direct stock offerings).
Strictly correct, but making more demand for the stock increases the company's market capitalization...the street value of the company. This does have a financial benefit to the company.
That strategy gives a moderate return over a certain medium-long term outlook. Provided something large doesn't get involved, like you get in during a marketwide bubble or are forced to cash out in the middle of a marketwide downturn, or both.
The whole point of dollar cost averaging is to offset the possibility of being hit by "something large". The GP is describing a tried and true long term method of investing in the markets. If you've found yourself in the position of being "forced to cash out", then you're doing it wrong. You don't even need to worry about a fund manager...simply go with an index fund.
it has certainly been marketed to the public as a "Make Money Fast" game for ordinary people.
Guess I've missed those ads. Sure, we've all seen commercials for E-Trade, Schwab, etc., but I've never watched one that indicated you could make money fast. That said, you certainly can make money fast...you can also lose your ass, and deserve to do so if you play fast and loose with your investments. "A fool and his money..."
And here's the real motivation for all those Republican politicians who want to "save" Social Security by moving the money to the stock market. A sudden two-trillion dollar flood of money inflates share prices, the savvy rich people cash out, the correction hits, and the savvy rich people use their inflated profits to cash back in. The people who will actually need Social Security when they retire get left holding the empty bag. This privatization plan, like all others, is just a scam to move ordinary people's money into rich people's pockets.
Aside from your political commentary (conspiracy theory much?), the point is to allow people to control their own retirement money instead of letting guberment fritter it away. Fine, you don't like that as a choice?...give us one that won't see the system bankrupt, as is the current path. While the increased money into the markets would be significant, it certainly would NOT be a two-trillion dollar flood. I've contributed over $100k toward social security, and I'd still be happy to never get a dime back (which may yet happen), if they would let me control my own investment into some low risk securities at a similar level. It seems that every politician who's tried to address the SS problem gets attacked by the political arm of AARP.
I'd tax any market gains from positions held less then a year the same a gambling winnings.
Gambling winnings are taxed as normal income, the withholding below is from the IRS site. Nothing to see here, move along.
Withholding
There are two types of withholding on gambling winnings: (a) regular gambling withholding at 25% (33.33% for certain noncash payments) and (b) backup withholding at 28%. If a payment is already subject to regular gambling withholding, it is not subject to backup withholding.
The "scam" here is the massive one where America thought the purpose of the market was to provide retirement savings- Thus people dumped all their money into the market in hopes of having big retirement payouts...
Anyone who "dumped all their money" into the market for retirement purposes is a complete moron. Just like anyone paying attention to the snake-oil adds for gold that have plagued TV recently. I've been a market investor since '82, and been through several rough times. Take a look at the long term charts below, and you'll notice that the major downturns were from the internet bubble, and the latest housing bubble/recession.
Conventional wisdom for investors has always been that at younger ages (where you can handle more short term risk), you invest heavily in securities, and as you get nearer to retirement, you shift toward less risky (although generally lower rate of return) investments. The same is true if you are expecting to need liquidity for high dollar items (a home, tuition, retirement, etc.).
http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1900.html
http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/spx1960.html
If our country wasn't randomly bombing the shit out of all manner of other people, and actually keeping an informed and healthy electorate whose votes were actually counted, we wouldn't need a system.
Welcome to Fantasyland. I defy you to name a country in the history of the world where that's worked w/o exploitation.
If an ICE agent feels you are guilty of a crime then you are guilty. Period. You have no right to a trial until you are actually admitted to the US. If an ICE agent wishes to execute you on a whim, he is within his rights. He would not even be suspended let alone prosecuted for murder.
Citation needed. I'm calling bullshit
What world do you live in?
I live in one where I've driven for 36 years, and been pulled over probably 20-25 times. Of those times, I was released roughly half the time ticket free.
Be polite, keep your hands in sight, and don't try to bullshit them. Take that chip off your shoulder, and you'll be much less likely to get ticketed. An yes, I'm well aware of the quotas...I'm writing this from a jurisdiction where the chief of police openly admitted to it in the Washington Post.
You think this is a leap? It's happened before with NY city.
I do think your comment on demotion of CA to something less than statehood is a leap, and completely baseless. Please cite what you mean by "every legal sense "...I'm doubtful that there is one. What legal right would we have to remove them from statehood?
I'm not questioning your commentary on CA's mistakes. I have my own problems with that, but you're over the top with commentary such as your entire final paragraph. Take off the tin-foil hat please.
What is truly puzzling is why investors continue to buy California's bonds...
It's easy to understand when you come to the realization that they won't get to just declare bankruptcy and default. They're too big to fail. And the federal govt. could hardly let them fail, or they'd take the entire U.S. economy with them. It's not uncommon for investors to look for opportunities to buy when the shit hits the fan. If the whole economy is going in the tank, you've got nothing to lose by investing in it, and plenty to gain if it turns around. Go read Peter Lynch's (of Fidelity Magellan fame) book One Up On Wallstreet for some lessons (heavily investing in the middle of the market crash of '86 for example) there.
Rant much AC? Bad traffic on CA highways predates the internet & housing bubbles by decades. The existing infrastructure can't handle the population increases.
I personally get to telecommute occasionally, and love it. It saves me the hassle of a 30 mile round trip that often takes two hours here in northern VA...similar traffic to southern CA. However, if you know anything about business, you know that there's nothing like face-to-face meetings. You just don't get the same level of communication (especially with a customer) over the phone, chat, or teleconference.
Yes, we should all cut back on unnecessary travel, and with the increase in gas prices, many of us have. But the reality of the situation as it currently stands is that we have to get in our vehicles/buses/metros, and go to work every day. While I agree with some of your comments, you've thrown out a lot of accusations with nothing more than opinion backing them up.
2) To few care enough to improve their skills.
Yes, too few learn the varieties of to, too, and two. ;-)
No offense...just picking on ya, and as someone who was able to enjoy the autobahns for six years, I'm in full agreement with your post.
Maybe I'm a selfish elitist, but if I bought an expensive new toy, I wouldn't let you touch it either :-P
Yes, I live in one of them. I was just pointing out that that was one of the original legal arguments used against those bans...that the state had no right to prohibit them. This is similar to how some homeowners associations have attempted to regulate their members with regards to satellite dishes...they legally can't. Mine tried to do that, and found themselves on the wrong side of the law.
Interesting. Control of the airwaves used to be completely under the purview of the FCC, and state/local laws prohibited. That was one of the arguments used against states banning radar detectors way back. Times have changed though.
The Federal Communications Commission (www.fcc.gov) ruled that as of April 1994 no radio scanners may be manufactured or imported into the U.S. that can pick up frequencies used by cellular telephones, or that can be readily altered to receive such frequencies. (47 CFR Part 15.37(f)) The law rarely deters the determined eavesdropper, however.
Another federal law, the Counterfeit Access Device Law, was amended to make it illegal to use a radio scanner "knowingly and with the intent to defraud" to eavesdrop on wire or electronic communication. (18 USC 1029) Penalties for the intentional interception of cordless and cellular telephone calls range from fines to imprisonment depending on the circumstances. (18 USC 2511, 2701)
Reference?
While child labor was a serious problem, you're off by 20-60% according to:
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2004/1/04.01.08.x.html
It's pretty typical for the mindless sheeple followers of either party to frantically point blame at the other. The moment anyone states "Fox News" without proper reference to "CNN," or vice versa, should be immediately discounted.
Sir, please take a bow. Mod parent up.
NBC has one arm that is wholly non partisan, and yes, it's MSNBC.
Now that's funny, but in a sad sort of way. Sad that you're delusional if you believe that any of the major networks are truly non partisan.
The FCC imposes fines for broadcasting nudity, right? Even half-a-million-dollar fines for accidental nudity on live broadcasts (superbowl halftime show...)
accidental??? Really? Please tell us you're not that naive.
Yes, respect is earned, but your disrespectful comment was juvenile. Please don't take it as an insult...read what you wrote, and understand why it was appears that way. Are you really an old foggie? I'm 51, and would bet from your writing that I've got a good 20-30 years on you.
FWIW, I've done the whole WoW thing too, and while I agree that there are social interaction skills necessary for good guild leadership, I see precious little that translates into real world practical usage...and I deal with people (mine and our customers) for a living.
If you have a car and wear the brakes down to nothing to the point where they don't work, you can't then say 'I didn't know that's how brakes worked!' and get out of jail free when you roll over somebody.
You get training, a license, and insurance for driving. There's no equivalent for the Internet. It's easy for those of us who are technically competent to assume that non-techies should just go learn this stuff. There's no expectation by the "masses of asses" that anything they do online will ever be as life threatening as driving a car, so there's no expectation that they need to take it as seriously.
If you don't know how to operate something, don't operate it, because the liability is and should always be the operator's.
We operate things every day that we don't understand the internal workings of. Should we stop using them?
I'm personally not sure which way I lean on the overall topic. But, I do find it interesting that there's such a diversity of opinion here on Slashdot.