I am honeslty suprised no one has posted about the dismissal (yet again) of the dinner scene between House Atreides and the various merchants of the planet.
This scene was by far my favorite in the entire book and served to identify Paul's magnified perception... even above Jessica's. It also was instrumental in hilighting the "plans within plans within plans" the book emphasized and the series (more so than the movie, even) failed to convey.
This was one area I think the movie was superior to the series, in that it showed more of the political schemings (the voice-overs worked, IMO) while the series ignored so much of it.
But anyways, I read the dinner scene over numerous times I enjoyed it so much... the series got my hopes up with the intro dinner scene but dashed them to pieces with Paul and the princess' botched scene.
With about 65,000 genes. They are looking closely at another 40,000 potential genes. Phase two will hopefully fill this gaps (as well as getting them into the correct order), with a 99.99% accuracy. Not too bad... but how many of you would like to be locked in a room with a 99.99% accurate human:)
But I do look forward to when I can tell my grandchildren, "I actually had to write out my correspondances with friends with this thing called a pencil! I then had to walk uphill both ways to a mailbox that was at the end of our yard!!! Yes, back then, we actually left our homes!"
It is unfortunate. NASA keeps screwing up, and people are losing any interest in a space progrem. Personally, I think it is very important to continue our exploration of space... but I do not think that a private company would be able to generate the funding necesary to do the things that really need to be done. That money most likely needs to come from the tax-payers. Seriously, what mega corporation out there really cares if we are able to put a man on Mars? Yet I think it is in all our best interests that we do just that.
The only real chance to individually fund it is to find large individual benefactors... like say Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. But giving money for a space program is not the most popular thing right now... given the general public outlook on it.
It is annoying. I studied in Madrid one year and this is a perception many people in Europe (especially in the big, touristy cities) have about Americans.
It also accounts for the reason Canadians and Australians traveled with their respective national flags sewn on their bags and jackets:
So none made the assumptian they were American!
Unfortunately, a lot of it is deserved... Americans are cocky and arrogant, just a typical result of our country currently being on top. I remember one class I took was in the Prado and the instructor made a few jibes about Americans and one of the students I was with blurted out "Oh yeah!? Well... we could have sunk the Armada!!!!"
No dumbass, at that time, we certainly could not have.
Personally, I think that most candidates are talking out of their posterior during interviews and debates. The internet has helped me a great deal because sites such as selectsmart.com and others have listed each candidate's stance on various issues. Sort of a cut through the B.S. and get to the facts type thing that I love, allowing me to discount the "he sure is a swell guy" mentality.
However, many people do consider personality a very important quality when searching for candidates and I am curious as to how that might be conveyed over the internet. How have you dealt with this obvious difficulty in a media such as the internet?
I really think the largest problem is not the AC's anymore. It is the BrucePerens., AntiKatz, Hemos. and all the other trolls who have become registered users. It makes it so much harder to ignore their shit and wastes countless moderator points.
While I would not be sad to see them kicked off, I think the best solution for everyone is to increase the moderators.
Come on, the idea that anyone (from the trolls to Rob) needs to "ask" to be accepted here is just silly.
While your attempt at pshchoanalyzing someone you have never met was interesting to read, I believe you make many assumptions that you have little reason to.
Katz writes articles that are intended to stimulate discussion... maybe that is not what you view as worthy of some kind of ideal community you seem to think Slashdot is (both of you take this community thing waaay too far), but it is certainly a very legitimate method of writing. Katz is right in saying that the internet is an arena where this style is highly appropriate, and I welcome it, believing it has flourished here on Slashdot (despite the trolls).
I come to Slashdot because I enjoy the discussions, not just the articles (which it seems you do too, if you post and read the threads)... If every writer here only posted when they were "sure they were right", this would certainly not be as vibrant of of what I believe is an incredibly unique site.
No one needs to be accepted here, and I do not believe Katz is striving for that. He is doing something that he loves doing. He writes on topics which are interesting to him (even if he does not know everything about them) and to a lot of people who come here. I think it is easy to entertain the idea that he has learned a lot since coming to Slashdot, as have a great majority of the users. Quit picking this apart (I did not know they had a scientific name for annoying nit-picker, but thank you for providing it).
The idea of never listening to someone again (as in all the "My Katz-filter is not working" cry-babies) because you do not happen to agree with them just seems so assinine to me; You never know where a good idea can come from.
Do you think the "Slashdot Community" could ever accept me!? Oh pretty please.
It's no mystery that the amount of crap has gone way up in the past few months, but in the past few weeks I have noticed that moderation has been a tad slow in keeping up.
The last few times I have moderated, I spent 4 out of 5 points moderating down trolls. That is really annoying.
I just think the best solution is doling out more moderation points per moderator, or selecting more moderators... as opposed to any sort of a killfile.
I agree... whether Tesla was a great guy is besides the point. You basically have a man who goads his third grade class into furthering his own agendas, by employing "cute" tactics.
My mother teaches third grade, and at that age, students believe whatever is taught to them. There is nothing wrong with trying to inform them about a great man often overlooked, but to employ them for your own personal crusades!? I think it it is despicable.
It really does go a long way to prove the efficient marketplace theory doesn't it?
And Intel certainly did have a monopoly... I believe they actually lightened up on AMD a lot... just to keep them straggling around so the justice department would get off their back.
What I think is the key here, is that a long-running technology monopoly is near impossible.
The barriers to entry are simply too low, and things change at such a torrid rate.
The monopolies that were able to last had control of static commodities (oil and I would really include phone service (namely, the lines) at that time as a commodity). Where a start-up company would need enormous amounts of capital to even enter the market... let alone fend off a larger company.
Intel has been so succesful for so long for good reason. I believe AMD might finally get in the black, and Transmeda might gain some market share... but Intel will continue to dominate.
The difference between these companies is simple:
Transmeda and AMD are good at making great chips.
Intel is great at making *MONEY*
McDonalds does not make the best or the cheapest burgers out there, but it has continued to thrive because of an ingrained, highly succesful business model. The better products often lose.
And while that may be upsetting to all you geeks out there, because in a perfect world, the best product always wins... but that is not how it works.
Last time I checked, Intel had absolutely no debt and over 10 billion dollars sitting in cash. How much do you really think they are going to suffer?
I do not think there are many more strict schools (asides from BYU or Jerry Falwell's Liberty College) than Calvin College, and Hope College (in Holland) is not too far behind it.
I have a number of friends who were severely punished for drinking on campus at Calvin. My favorite rule has to be the following:
(Only during allowed times) Members of the opposite sex may be invited into your dorm room ONLY if the door is left open and each person keeps two feet on the ground at all times.
I am continually amazed that a frat-haven such as Hope College produced (what certainly seems to be the case) such an open-minded individual as Rob Malda. And I am even more amazed these guys continue to live in Holland, MI.
I often help Kalamazoo College (a small, very liberal school) with recruiting, and since the schools are so close geographically, students are often looking at both both Hope and K as choices. One issue that often comes up (especially with athletes) is that students at Hope warn them about all the "gays" at Kalamazoo College!
The movement out there that is trying to protect our freedoms is made to look like NAMBLA.
They are trying to protect their children, we are trying to corrupt them.
It is pretty difficult to see around that. The media has done a pretty darn good job of scaring the bejeesus out of the majority of the public when it comes to the internet, movies, guns, video games and porn.
The crux is similar to being a pro-choice advocate without coming off as a lover of baby-killing... only more difficult in this case, I believe.
The problem is, is that you are only speaking from your own perspective.
There are countless others out there (way more than you and anyone else you speak of), that are going to be starting a revolution of their own kind. And I am speaking a subtle revolution...
A lot of people are scared to death about this, about Columbine, about Seattle, about guns, about pornography and about the internet in general. They are "concerned" about their children. They read the news and believe it. They want more control. They demand less freedom. They need more protection.
I am going to go out on a limb and make a guess that you are twenty-something. Well, we are quite the minority right now, and are not taken seriously. How much respect does the "Slacker Generation" get?:) Personally, I do not think the Seattle protests accomplished a damn thing... same thing as this (if it is indeed an organized protest). Sure, it grabbed headlines, but all of it is going to be lumped together with the "protests" at Woodstock '99. It all looks so immature from the outside.
I too believe we are starting to lose a lot of our freedoms, I really do. It genuinely frightens me when I see this shift away from people taking responsibility for their own actions. But that is what the majority of people want right now.
The problem with the movement that you advocate (and so do I), is the way it comes across to these people. We want to watch porn, do drugs, crash systems, listen to songs and play games endorcing benevolent violence, build plastic explosives, vandalize and corrupt children... but it's all in the name of freedom. I think this is what a lot of people see. What we are fighting is a lot more difficult to see and understand than, say, the civil right's movement. There is an instance where a young generation actually made a difference... but they were not fighting for porn and violence!!!
The trouble is going (and always has been) to be trying to get people to see around that.
I was actually using "flavor of the decade" to refer to investment strategies, not particular companies. But, using it the way you interpreted it, the flaw is you have simply substituted the flavor company of the decade for the flavor company of the month. If you only look at "quality" companies based on past performance, you will never get to invest in new companies with new ideas that will take over markets from old dinosaurs. You will always dismiss the new "flavor" as "risky", so your money will be in IBM till after it's clear that Microsoft will cut them down to size, and then you'll sit in Microsoft till RedHat has cut them down, Intel till AMD, Howard Johnson's v. McDonalds, etc. etc.
Not sure how you went from talking about portfolio management and buying bonds and everything else under the sun to buying the new, but I will follow:
I do invest in newer companies... but I do not jump into a speculative market. My computer industry post from previous proves that is a losing game. You spread yourself too thin by buying everything, and no one can pick and choose the few companies that will finally be able to dominate the industry. Buying Compaq after they had proven to be succesful, would have yielded much better results. Even with their recent correction.
I will invest in the company that finally proves that it can dominate. The one that has created some monopoly power for itself.
IBM has continued to grow at an excellent rate, despite Microsoft. On the other hand, you did not need to buy Microsoft in the early 80's to ride their success. Ten years ago, Microsoft was a great, proven company. 5 years ago, it was a great, proven company. If you bought that "late" you still would have done incredible. Redhat is a neat, unproven, over-hyped, over-inflated company. It may pan out, a lot of people will make a lot of money... but I am willing to bet they do not completely faze out Microsoft and that Microsoft will continue to perform, just as IBM has continued to perform.
Funny that you mention McDonalds. In the late 80's, everyone in the investment community was hyped up about Russia and the Eastern Block countries turning over communism. Mutual funds that invested in the new companies that were springing up were selling like hot cakes... everyone wanted them because it was such an excellent opportunity for growth. Well, now we know that was a foolish thing to do. Those companies did not grow at a phenomenol rate for the main reason that they were communists. They had no idea how to make money! Instead what you should have been doing at that time was investing in McDonald's. Let McDonalds go over there and run their business. They have proven that they know how to do it! And that would have yielded you incredible results.
Companies like AMD and Amazon have continually proven to me that they know how to lose money. When they prove that they can do it on a regular basis, I will consider investing a larger percentage in them.
Every year, there are certain economies that will outperform the US. But again, that is a guessing game. If you spread yourself too thin, yes, you will get the handful of winners, but you will also get the countless losers. It is no mystery that the US is the business and financial capital of the world. The US economy has weathered and bounced back from tremendously horrible events better than any other country in the past two hundred years. Like the companies I choose, the US has proven it knows how to succeed.
Other markets have done phenomenal. But I do not know those markets as well. Some of the things about them make me nervous. Japan was riding high on doctored financials and profits... they payed a heavy price for it. I am glad I was not a part of it. The US is extremely stringent about its companies, more so than any other government.
But this really is fine with a portion of your money. Ideally, with 80 - 90% of your portfolio in these quality, individual, proven companies (and you only really need about 10 of them). With the rest, go ahead and have some fun... I am certainly guilty of it. But 99% of the time, the tried and true method will outperform your "guessings" the market.
And yes, these principle have worked around the world, for the past two hundred years. Better than any thereom our model any economist has ever brought out.
Give me Graham and Fisher any time over that crap.
That's funny... Wall Street hires them, pays them, and listens to them, and hires their students. Wall Street pumps money into economies everywhere. When Wall Street asks for your opinion, it's so that they can design and market an investment flavor to you. Once again, this is not my opinion, this is what is learned and taught by and to the people who run the economy that you love to invest in.
just real quickly... I am super busy right now, but have you ever heard of Long Term Capital???
Two Nobel prize winners were in charge of that dismal failure.... remember the banks of the world getting together to bail that disaster out?
You can not "figure out" an effective model to the market. Economists think they can, and they are ALWAYS wrong.
Also, this healthy economy has created "experts" out of a lot of people. I do not claim to be one. But I have studied as much as I can about the 30's and the 70's. I am confident that what I do is the best method considering the entire history of the market.... during good times and bad.
Simply Put:
Buying quality companies (at a well-valued price of course) that have proved they can change with the times and weather the storms. Buy on the dips, and NEVER sell. Patience is the key to the most succesful investors.
I will write more later, but if you are interested in debating a bit more... go ahead and e-mail me.
Slashdot Mirror
I am honeslty suprised no one has posted about the dismissal (yet again) of the dinner scene between House Atreides and the various merchants of the planet.
This scene was by far my favorite in the entire book and served to identify Paul's magnified perception... even above Jessica's. It also was instrumental in hilighting the "plans within plans within plans" the book emphasized and the series (more so than the movie, even) failed to convey.
This was one area I think the movie was superior to the series, in that it showed more of the political schemings (the voice-overs worked, IMO) while the series ignored so much of it.
But anyways, I read the dinner scene over numerous times I enjoyed it so much... the series got my hopes up with the intro dinner scene but dashed them to pieces with Paul and the princess' botched scene.
Ah well.
With about 65,000 genes. They are looking closely at another 40,000 :)
potential genes. Phase two will hopefully fill this gaps (as well as getting them into the correct order), with a 99.99% accuracy.
Not too bad... but how many of you would like to be locked in a room with a 99.99% accurate human
But I do look forward to when I can tell my grandchildren, "I actually had to write out my correspondances with friends with this thing called a pencil! I then had to walk uphill both ways to a mailbox that was at the end of our yard!!! Yes, back then, we actually left our homes!"
We should be concentrating on Elian!
That boy is just so cute, and this is all just a horrible tragedy!
Try NOT Jenni.com Live.
AMEN!
I saw them play last year; unbelievable.
at the time, it was their last tour and last album. but now i hear they are recording together again and wil most likely tour.
Seriously... I like to see some T & A and a lot of gore in my horror films.
When was the last time we were given such a visual treat!?
It is unfortunate. NASA keeps screwing up, and people are losing any interest in a space progrem. Personally, I think it is very important to continue our exploration of space... but I do not think that a private company would be able to generate the funding necesary to do the things that really need to be done. That money most likely needs to come from the tax-payers. Seriously, what mega corporation out there really cares if we are able to put a man on Mars? Yet I think it is in all our best interests that we do just that.
The only real chance to individually fund it is to find large individual benefactors... like say Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. But giving money for a space program is not the most popular thing right now... given the general public outlook on it.
I would not consider Fabio a supermodel.
The only true male supermodel that I can think of is Tyson (no, not the boxer). But ask a girl, and she would be able to name a few.
For the most part, females look to movies, music and TV for their "super models".
Ask anyone under 18:
Backstreet Boys, N'Sync, (Something) Degrees
18 - 30:
Tom Cruise, Ricky Martin, Brad Pitt
30 and over:
Mel Gibson, George Clooney
40 and over:
Rober Redford
So there you have it.
It is annoying. I studied in Madrid one year and this is a perception many people in Europe (especially in the big, touristy cities) have about Americans.
It also accounts for the reason Canadians and Australians traveled with their respective national flags sewn on their bags and jackets:
So none made the assumptian they were American!
Unfortunately, a lot of it is deserved... Americans are cocky and arrogant, just a typical result of our country currently being on top. I remember one class I took was in the Prado and the instructor made a few jibes about Americans and one of the students I was with blurted out "Oh yeah!? Well... we could have sunk the Armada!!!!"
No dumbass, at that time, we certainly could not have.
It was pretty funny though.
Personally, I think that most candidates are talking out of their posterior during interviews and debates. The internet has helped me a great deal because sites such as selectsmart.com and others have listed each candidate's stance on various issues. Sort of a cut through the B.S. and get to the facts type thing that I love, allowing me to discount the "he sure is a swell guy" mentality.
However, many people do consider personality a very important quality when searching for candidates and I am curious as to how that might be conveyed over the internet. How have you dealt with this obvious difficulty in a media such as the internet?
I really think the largest problem is not the AC's anymore. It is the BrucePerens., AntiKatz, Hemos. and all the other trolls who have become registered users. It makes it so much harder to ignore their shit and wastes countless moderator points.
While I would not be sad to see them kicked off, I think the best solution for everyone is to increase the moderators.
Come on, the idea that anyone (from the trolls to Rob) needs to "ask" to be accepted here is just silly.
While your attempt at pshchoanalyzing someone you have never met was interesting to read, I believe you make many assumptions that you have little reason to.
Katz writes articles that are intended to stimulate discussion... maybe that is not what you view as worthy of some kind of ideal community you seem to think Slashdot is (both of you take this community thing waaay too far), but it is certainly a very legitimate method of writing. Katz is right in saying that the internet is an arena where this style is highly appropriate, and I welcome it, believing it has flourished here on Slashdot (despite the trolls).
I come to Slashdot because I enjoy the discussions, not just the articles (which it seems you do too, if you post and read the threads)... If every writer here only posted when they were "sure they were right", this would certainly not be as vibrant of of what I believe is an incredibly unique site.
No one needs to be accepted here, and I do not believe Katz is striving for that. He is doing something that he loves doing. He writes on topics which are interesting to him (even if he does not know everything about them) and to a lot of people who come here. I think it is easy to entertain the idea that he has learned a lot since coming to Slashdot, as have a great majority of the users. Quit picking this apart (I did not know they had a scientific name for annoying nit-picker, but thank you for providing it).
The idea of never listening to someone again (as in all the "My Katz-filter is not working" cry-babies) because you do not happen to agree with them just seems so assinine to me; You never know where a good idea can come from.
Do you think the "Slashdot Community" could ever accept me!? Oh pretty please.
It's no mystery that the amount of crap has gone way up in the past few months, but in the past few weeks I have noticed that moderation has been a tad slow in keeping up.
The last few times I have moderated, I spent 4 out of 5 points moderating down trolls. That is really annoying.
I just think the best solution is doling out more moderation points per moderator, or selecting more moderators... as opposed to any sort of a killfile.
Can quantum physics, Zen philosophy and subjective experience connect the dots between God, matter and the nature of life?
No.
I agree... whether Tesla was a great guy is besides the point. You basically have a man who goads his third grade class into furthering his own agendas, by employing "cute" tactics.
My mother teaches third grade, and at that age, students believe whatever is taught to them. There is nothing wrong with trying to inform them about a great man often overlooked, but to employ them for your own personal crusades!? I think it it is despicable.
It really does go a long way to prove the efficient marketplace theory doesn't it?
And Intel certainly did have a monopoly... I believe they actually lightened up on AMD a lot... just to keep them straggling around so the justice department would get off their back.
What I think is the key here, is that a long-running technology monopoly is near impossible.
The barriers to entry are simply too low, and things change at such a torrid rate.
The monopolies that were able to last had control of static commodities (oil and I would really include phone service (namely, the lines) at that time as a commodity). Where a start-up company would need enormous amounts of capital to even enter the market... let alone fend off a larger company.
Intel has been so succesful for so long for good reason. I believe AMD might finally get in the black, and Transmeda might gain some market share... but Intel will continue to dominate.
The difference between these companies is simple:
Transmeda and AMD are good at making great chips.
Intel is great at making *MONEY*
McDonalds does not make the best or the cheapest burgers out there, but it has continued to thrive because of an ingrained, highly succesful business model. The better products often lose.
And while that may be upsetting to all you geeks out there, because in a perfect world, the best product always wins... but that is not how it works.
Last time I checked, Intel had absolutely no debt and over 10 billion dollars sitting in cash. How much do you really think they are going to suffer?
for instance, it's totally safe to send your kids to the park by themselves--even during the height of Tulip Time.
:)
I would not recommend this, even in Holland. On one of my visits to Holland, the crack house right next door was raided by police.
I am going to assume you went to Calvin College.
I do not think there are many more strict schools (asides from BYU or Jerry Falwell's Liberty College) than Calvin College, and Hope College (in Holland) is not too far behind it.
I have a number of friends who were severely punished for drinking on campus at Calvin. My favorite rule has to be the following:
(Only during allowed times) Members of the opposite sex may be invited into your dorm room ONLY if the door is left open and each person keeps two feet on the ground at all times.
I am continually amazed that a frat-haven such as Hope College produced (what certainly seems to be the case) such an open-minded individual as Rob Malda. And I am even more amazed these guys continue to live in Holland, MI.
I often help Kalamazoo College (a small, very liberal school) with recruiting, and since the schools are so close geographically, students are often looking at both both Hope and K as choices. One issue that often comes up (especially with athletes) is that students at Hope warn them about all the "gays" at Kalamazoo College!
I just think such rules and attitudes are silly.
The movement out there that is trying to protect our freedoms is made to look like NAMBLA.
They are trying to protect their children, we are trying to corrupt them.
It is pretty difficult to see around that. The media has done a pretty darn good job of scaring the bejeesus out of the majority of the public when it comes to the internet, movies, guns, video games and porn.
The crux is similar to being a pro-choice advocate without coming off as a lover of baby-killing... only more difficult in this case, I believe.
The problem is, is that you are only speaking from your own perspective.
:) Personally, I do not think the Seattle protests accomplished a damn thing... same thing as this (if it is indeed an organized protest). Sure, it grabbed headlines, but all of it is going to be lumped together with the "protests" at Woodstock '99. It all looks so immature from the outside.
There are countless others out there (way more than you and anyone else you speak of), that are going to be starting a revolution of their own kind. And I am speaking a subtle revolution...
A lot of people are scared to death about this, about Columbine, about Seattle, about guns, about pornography and about the internet in general. They are "concerned" about their children. They read the news and believe it. They want more control. They demand less freedom. They need more protection.
I am going to go out on a limb and make a guess that you are twenty-something. Well, we are quite the minority right now, and are not taken seriously. How much respect does the "Slacker Generation" get?
I too believe we are starting to lose a lot of our freedoms, I really do. It genuinely frightens me when I see this shift away from people taking responsibility for their own actions. But that is what the majority of people want right now.
The problem with the movement that you advocate (and so do I), is the way it comes across to these people. We want to watch porn, do drugs, crash systems, listen to songs and play games endorcing benevolent violence, build plastic explosives, vandalize and corrupt children... but it's all in the name of freedom. I think this is what a lot of people see. What we are fighting is a lot more difficult to see and understand than, say, the civil right's movement. There is an instance where a young generation actually made a difference... but they were not fighting for porn and violence!!!
The trouble is going (and always has been) to be trying to get people to see around that.
And someone will say, "And your point was?"
I have absolutely no idea.
I was actually using "flavor of the decade" to refer to investment strategies, not particular companies. But, using it the way you interpreted it, the flaw is you have simply substituted the flavor company of the decade for the flavor company of the month. If you only look at "quality" companies based on past performance, you will never get to invest in new companies with new ideas that will take over markets from old dinosaurs. You will always dismiss the new "flavor" as "risky", so your money will be in IBM till after it's clear that Microsoft will cut them down to size, and then you'll sit in Microsoft till RedHat has cut them down, Intel till AMD, Howard Johnson's v. McDonalds, etc. etc.
Not sure how you went from talking about portfolio management and buying bonds and everything else under the sun to buying the new, but I will follow:
I do invest in newer companies... but I do not jump into a speculative market. My computer industry post from previous proves that is a losing game. You spread yourself too thin by buying everything, and no one can pick and choose the few companies that will finally be able to dominate the industry. Buying Compaq after they had proven to be succesful, would have yielded much better results. Even with their recent correction.
I will invest in the company that finally proves that it can dominate. The one that has created some monopoly power for itself.
IBM has continued to grow at an excellent rate, despite Microsoft. On the other hand, you did not need to buy Microsoft in the early 80's to ride their success. Ten years ago, Microsoft was a great, proven company. 5 years ago, it was a great, proven company. If you bought that "late" you still would have done incredible. Redhat is a neat, unproven, over-hyped, over-inflated company. It may pan out, a lot of people will make a lot of money... but I am willing to bet they do not completely faze out Microsoft and that Microsoft will continue to perform, just as IBM has continued to perform.
Funny that you mention McDonalds. In the late 80's, everyone in the investment community was hyped up about Russia and the Eastern Block countries turning over communism. Mutual funds that invested in the new companies that were springing up were selling like hot cakes... everyone wanted them because it was such an excellent opportunity for growth. Well, now we know that was a foolish thing to do. Those companies did not grow at a phenomenol rate for the main reason that they were communists. They had no idea how to make money! Instead what you should have been doing at that time was investing in McDonald's. Let McDonalds go over there and run their business. They have proven that they know how to do it! And that would have yielded you incredible results.
Companies like AMD and Amazon have continually proven to me that they know how to lose money. When they prove that they can do it on a regular basis, I will consider investing a larger percentage in them.
Every year, there are certain economies that will outperform the US. But again, that is a guessing game. If you spread yourself too thin, yes, you will get the handful of winners, but you will also get the countless losers. It is no mystery that the US is the business and financial capital of the world. The US economy has weathered and bounced back from tremendously horrible events better than any other country in the past two hundred years. Like the companies I choose, the US has proven it knows how to succeed.
Other markets have done phenomenal. But I do not know those markets as well. Some of the things about them make me nervous. Japan was riding high on doctored financials and profits... they payed a heavy price for it. I am glad I was not a part of it. The US is extremely stringent about its companies, more so than any other government.
But this really is fine with a portion of your money. Ideally, with 80 - 90% of your portfolio
in these quality, individual, proven companies (and you only really need about 10 of them). With the rest, go ahead and have some fun... I am certainly guilty of it. But 99% of the time, the tried and true method will outperform your "guessings" the market.
And yes, these principle have worked around the world, for the past two hundred years. Better than any thereom our model any economist has ever brought out.
Give me Graham and Fisher any time over that crap.
That's funny... Wall Street hires them, pays them, and listens to them, and hires their students. Wall Street pumps money into economies everywhere. When Wall Street asks for your opinion, it's so that they can design and market an investment flavor to you. Once again, this is not my opinion, this is what is learned and taught by and to the people who run the economy that you love to invest in.
just real quickly... I am super busy right now, but have you ever heard of Long Term Capital???
Two Nobel prize winners were in charge of that dismal failure.... remember the banks of the world getting together to bail that disaster out?
You can not "figure out" an effective model to the market. Economists think they can, and they are ALWAYS wrong.
Also, this healthy economy has created "experts" out of a lot of people. I do not claim to be one. But I have studied as much as I can about the 30's and the 70's. I am confident that what I do is the best method considering the entire history of the market.... during good times and bad.
Simply Put:
Buying quality companies (at a well-valued price of course) that have proved they can change with the times and weather the storms. Buy on the dips, and NEVER sell. Patience is the key to the most succesful investors.
I will write more later, but if you are interested in debating a bit more... go ahead and e-mail me.
Graph out a performance of gold over the past two years...
:)
That should be two HUNDRED years.
Sorry