Mona Sahlin was very popular a couple of years ago and was predicted to be the successor to Göran Persson and become the first female prime minister in Sweden, but she fell from grace when it turned out that she had bought some private articles such as diapers and a chocolate bar with a government credit card.
That was 11 years ago. She was discussed as a candidate to replace Ingvar Carlsson, who was about to resign as Prime Minister. After the chocolate affair, Mr. Persson replaced Mr. Carlsson. Mr. Persson has been in office ever since.
In other words, if the political argument has been won in Sweden, it really does boil down to a question of hardware.
Nothing could be further from the truth, regarding the political arguments in Sweden.
Mona Sahlin is a joker no one takes seriously specifically put in place by the prime minister to woo voters from the Communists and the Green party. No one to the right of the far left takes her seriously. This argument hasn't been won in Sweden. In fact, I had never heard about it until I read it here today. If she did make a strong argument out of it, she would be kicked out of the government. (She has already been kicked out of the government once, that time for sleaze when she made private purchases on her government owned credit card. Among other things, she bought chocolate for $1. Today, that chocolate bar is the only specific thing anyone remembers.)
Not quite, becaue $200 a year for 5 years is *not* the same as having $1000 invested for 5 years. (it's closer to half)
If you pay $200 less per year for five years, you will have $1K more on that account after five years, assuming no net appreciation (which was the case here). Besides, for it to be "closer to half", you'd have to have a huge return on your investments. Can I buy in on your secrets?:)
Diversification can still be good.
Absolutely. I should have said "in the cheapest index fund you can find with the same profile as your current fund". I tried to be concise, but I realize that just made me wrong.
Anyone who has significant amounts of money in just one asset (be that one stock, one bond, one mutual fund or whatever) is just taking on too much risk. The one exception is if it's your company or your real estate, where there are mitigating circumstances. But even then, have you really considered the worst case scenario?
I've never heard it before, and I won't bother looking it up, but there are so many glaring errors in it, it's obviously fake.
Bill Gates can't give 50% of his wealth to a financial advisor, becuase it's tied up in MSFT stock. He can't sell such a huge chunk of shares without causing the price to take a huge dive.
And no financial advisor would ever suggest putting all your money into one asset, no matter how much (or how little) money the client has.
I've seen this argument a zillion times. I don't believe in it for one second.
I have never seen an empirical study suggesting it's true. (But I'd love to see one, so if they are out there, please provide a link.)
It's not what I see in everyday life. How often have people close to you had the option of choosing between two or more job offers and settled for the lower paying? Yes, it happens, but it's rare, and the higher paying job often has serious drawbacks (health hazards, very long hours etc.)
You have to be incredibly rich before marginal money means nothing. True, there are loads of people who are rich enough to be unable to spend everything they have on themselves, but I bet Bill Gates is happy that he has been able togive all the money he has to charity. I know I would be proud and happy if I could do that.
I think this is just a myth prepetuated by big business to keep salaries down. Don't fall for it!
The modding of parent and GP tells me everything I need to know about slashdot modding, and I find that sad.
Bitching about how the economy works and how complicated it is is considered "insightful".
Bitching about ignorant computer users is also considered "insightful", despite the fact that this is a completely contrarian position from the one above.
Explaining the basics of the market is considered uninteresting at best, flame bait at worst.
Sad, really. If everyone here understood, and used, the market power they really have, this world would be much better in so many ways. I wish everyone would reread parent then change at least on purchasing pattern. That would be a very good start.
Besides, it's a zero-sum game. Beating the index *REQUIRES* that someone else looses the same amount, relative to the index.
True, but this could lead to the conclusion that it doesn't matter which mutual fund you put your money in out of the vast number of funds with the given investment direction you have decided to go for.
That, however, would be incorrect, becuase while the return of the instruments in the fund are likely to have the same expected value for every fund, there is a fee component that is pretty huge. A typical fund charges around 2% of total assets every year, no matter how the fund performs. For the GP, that is $200/year or $1K over five years. He has paid $1K+ to brokers and other people and has received nothing for himself. He should be upset!
Fortunately, there are alternatives. The simplest one is index funds, where the total fee is much lower, typically 0.5% of assets per year or less. The GP would then have only paid $250 over five years, and he'd be $750 richer.
The main problem with the financial markets (or, indeed, with any market) is that people expect something for nothing. They expect great deals without having to spend anything on researc. When customers in our particular markets (typically, computers, for the average slashdot user, I stereotypically guess) want that, we berate them for their tremendous stupidity. We start web sites where we collect quotes from the most stupid ones. We hate them, we ridicule them, we... Well, you get the picture.
Yet this is *EXACTLY* what the GP is doing. He sounds like a smart guy, so he really should have figured it out. But he obviously hasn't. Small surprise then, that millions of people pour money into expensive items (be they mutual funds, holiday trips, cars or whatever).
As a final suggestion to everyone here: put *all* the money you have in mutual funds in the cheapest index funds you can find. Compare the difference on your bank statements five years from now. Send me 10% of what you gained, and I'll never have to work again.
Since no one actually uses Macs, we don't know that for certain.
All jokes aside, I would say that the level of computer savvyness is roughly comparable between PC and Mac users in the high end, there is no comparison in the low end. The least knowledgeable PC users really are a lot more clueless, and they would run into problems.
Yes, they run into problems from virus and spam as well, but surprisingly often they are not the ones who suffer from that.
Virii makes reasonable sense, sounds cool, and is immediately understood.
It only makes "reasonable" sense with a very loose definition of reasonable. It doesn't sound cool at all. In fact, it sounds like a something a nerd wannabe would say to impress his nerd friends. And it's not "immediately" understood. All normal people will have to think to themselves "Oh, this is nerd speak", which, while not difficult can't be said to be immediate either.
Thus, I give "virii" speakers 0.25 + 0 + 0.5 = 0.75 points out of a possible 3 points. Not good, but thanks for playing! Better luck next time!
First off, I don't whine. I have however been known to rant. Second off, I never whine about capatalism.
OK, fine, whatever. We'll see if your post actually confirm your claims.
I do take issue with sports that try to extort that that 2 cents they can find a way to wring from their fanbase.
MLB is a business, and as such try to extract the maximum amount of money the can. Suggesting that they should not *is* whining about capitalism. (Suggesting that they should raise revenues by other means could be constructive criticism, but you don't do that.)
While some of the actual numbers may be up
Translation: Ooops, I made a claim that was blatantly incorrect, was called on it but will not apologize.
much of this is due to (...)
... so instead I make another claim that really has nothing much to do with anything. Increasing overall capacity leads to lower percentage of seats occupied if everything else stays the same? Really? Don't hold your breath waiting for that Nobel Prize. (And to be a complete nitpick, there is no Nobel Prize in economics, only a prize given in the memory of Mr. Nobel.)
Your local stadium may be an exception to this
I'm in Sweden. But I guess my most "local" stadium is Fenway park, and they have sold out 200+ consecutive games, so you may be right there.:)
Instead of lowering the ticket and concession prices to regularly fill the stadium, they continue to raise the prices, which continues to shrink the number of people who can afford to attend which causes them to raise the prices. It's a bad cycle to be caught it.
Again, this is whining about capitalism. Besides, it's wrong. As much as I hate the owners (and don't even get me started on Mr. Selig...), total revenue from concessions are not down. What numbers support your claims? Or did you just guess?
Part of it is the players.
Part of what? If you believe ticket prices go up because player salaries go up you have it completely backwards. If you believe something else, I don't get what you are trying to say.
Do I think they deserve as much as they get? No way in hell.
Again, whining about capitalism. How much should they get paid? Why that amount and not more? Please elaborate.
And after some these most recent strikes?
How many strikes have there been recently? The last one was 12 years ago! Only if you are 80+ years old and senile will I let you get away with "these most recent", suggesting there have been a bunch of them in the last decade or less. Or do you possibly confuse MLB with NHL and strikes with lock-outs? (Technically, you are of course allowed to refer to strikes happening a hundred years ago as "most recent" assuming none has occured since. However, it is misleading and should be avoided if you want to be taken seriously.)
As TFA showed, MLB is indeed run by a bunch of idiots, but not at all for the reasons you suggest. Their number one sin is badmouthing their own sport. This *never* happens in the NFL. In fact, it's explicitly forbidden by the NFL commissioner! The badmouthing of baseball by Mr. Selig and his gang of morons creates all kinds of misconceptions about the state of the game. As proof of this claim, I submit the parent post.
So free text comments ("Good shot", "A beatuy") is better than the standardized way retrosheet does it? http://www.retrosheet.org/
Do you even know how much baseball data there is? Do you know what Stats provide? Did you even consider the vastly higher number of baseball games played each season?
The Free Market always ensures that those who do the most important tasks in our society are appropriately rewarded, and few tasks are more important than this.
I know I'm an idiot for replying to moronic AC's, but anyway: How do you meassure the importance of a task?
I am willing to bet good money that you don't consider entertainment important.
I am also willing to bet good money that you are upset about RIAA.
I am finally willing to bet good money that you haven't even thought for one second that those two opinions are contradicting each other.
Yes, exactly. I didn't provide a link as I was unsure which is the most updated version, but as far as I can tell the link you provided is correct.
This db is highly recommended. The modelling leaves a little something to be desired, but the contents is extraordinary for anyone the least interested in baseball and/or trivia.
Only on slashdot can general and incorrect whining about capitalism be modded "Informative".
Attendance isn't down. In fact, it's higher than ever. And the players are not overpaid. (Some are, obviously, for instance the injured ones. Others are underpaid, for instance the best young players. On average, they are not overpaid.)
The nice thing about baseball is that one can actually calculate how much money the players really should make surprisingly exactly. If you would have cared, I would have told you. Since you just wanted to whine, I won't bother telling you.
Oh, yes, people do check the stats. There are pepople who have read every sports column from the 1920's in order to figure out exactly how many runs scored Ty Cobbs really did have.
Baseball statistics are easily downloadable in a database format with one line for every player season in MLB history. That is an amzing treasure trove of information, even for casual fans. Highly recommended.
I would like to propose that the marketing genius who came up with the term "natural gas" be awarded a lifetime achievement award. That said, I think we should all stop using that BS term.
I suggest "natural oil" for oil and "fossil gas" for natural gas instead.
This is not even remotely true, but a very common misconception.
The gambling industry creates entertainment. Creating entertainment is creating value to those who appreciate that particular form of entertainment. As with all forms of entertainment, it may be of a kind that you do not particularily enjoy. Fortunately, you are free to abstain from participating in it if you don't like it. Great, huh!
What is your take on the movie industry? Don't they create anything of value either? Artists? Writers of fiction?
Lawyers add value by helping make sure that everyone follows agreements on how to behave in society. Not all lawyers create value while doing so, for different reasons. In fact, one may argue that the current situation in the US is such that most lawyers don't create value to anyone except themselves. But blanket statements about slicing pies instead of baking them are confused and incorrect.
Did he create something of actual value? No, of course not.
How do you know this? If people actually click on the ads on his page and generate business for the advertisers, he certainly did create actual value. Now, I will grant you that I agree that he probably didn't create much value, but it would be foolish to say for sure that he didn't.
The government is going to pay for it? Wow, that's a good one!
The truly sad part is that I am quite convinced that some poltitcians actually believe stuff like that. Everyone else in the world knows that it is *always* the end customer who pays.
You make it sound like some guy made a deliberate selection of these companies based on business models/predicted future/whatever. That is not the case at all. The rules for being in on the NASDAQ-100 are fixed and well defined. I won't bother looking at the exact rules, but I'm betting good money it has something to do with turnover and market cap.
I am always surprised that these news stories get such attention. Any journalist could calculate these lists and publish them a few days ahead of time. (In theory, you risk unexpected trading the last few days of the trading period. In practice, you'd get it right 99% of the time.)
Slashdot Mirror
Twenty years from now, the world will look much, much closer to what you describe it than most commenters here seem to believe. Great post!
That was 11 years ago. She was discussed as a candidate to replace Ingvar Carlsson, who was about to resign as Prime Minister. After the chocolate affair, Mr. Persson replaced Mr. Carlsson. Mr. Persson has been in office ever since.
Nothing could be further from the truth, regarding the political arguments in Sweden.
Mona Sahlin is a joker no one takes seriously specifically put in place by the prime minister to woo voters from the Communists and the Green party. No one to the right of the far left takes her seriously. This argument hasn't been won in Sweden. In fact, I had never heard about it until I read it here today. If she did make a strong argument out of it, she would be kicked out of the government. (She has already been kicked out of the government once, that time for sleaze when she made private purchases on her government owned credit card. Among other things, she bought chocolate for $1. Today, that chocolate bar is the only specific thing anyone remembers.)
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, please.
Almost everything is nuclear and water. They make up more than 85% of total electricity output. The rest is a mixture of oil, gas, wind and others.
Loads of information over at http://www.svenskenergi.se/ but unfortunately only in Swedish.
No, Sweden is a *HUGE* piece of politics.
If you pay $200 less per year for five years, you will have $1K more on that account after five years, assuming no net appreciation (which was the case here). Besides, for it to be "closer to half", you'd have to have a huge return on your investments. Can I buy in on your secrets? :)
Diversification can still be good.
Absolutely. I should have said "in the cheapest index fund you can find with the same profile as your current fund". I tried to be concise, but I realize that just made me wrong.
Anyone who has significant amounts of money in just one asset (be that one stock, one bond, one mutual fund or whatever) is just taking on too much risk. The one exception is if it's your company or your real estate, where there are mitigating circumstances. But even then, have you really considered the worst case scenario?
I've never heard it before, and I won't bother looking it up, but there are so many glaring errors in it, it's obviously fake.
Bill Gates can't give 50% of his wealth to a financial advisor, becuase it's tied up in MSFT stock. He can't sell such a huge chunk of shares without causing the price to take a huge dive.
And no financial advisor would ever suggest putting all your money into one asset, no matter how much (or how little) money the client has.
And... (You get the picture.)
I have never seen an empirical study suggesting it's true. (But I'd love to see one, so if they are out there, please provide a link.)
It's not what I see in everyday life. How often have people close to you had the option of choosing between two or more job offers and settled for the lower paying? Yes, it happens, but it's rare, and the higher paying job often has serious drawbacks (health hazards, very long hours etc.)
You have to be incredibly rich before marginal money means nothing. True, there are loads of people who are rich enough to be unable to spend everything they have on themselves, but I bet Bill Gates is happy that he has been able togive all the money he has to charity. I know I would be proud and happy if I could do that.
I think this is just a myth prepetuated by big business to keep salaries down. Don't fall for it!
Bitching about how the economy works and how complicated it is is considered "insightful".
Bitching about ignorant computer users is also considered "insightful", despite the fact that this is a completely contrarian position from the one above.
Explaining the basics of the market is considered uninteresting at best, flame bait at worst.
Sad, really. If everyone here understood, and used, the market power they really have, this world would be much better in so many ways. I wish everyone would reread parent then change at least on purchasing pattern. That would be a very good start.
True, but this could lead to the conclusion that it doesn't matter which mutual fund you put your money in out of the vast number of funds with the given investment direction you have decided to go for.
That, however, would be incorrect, becuase while the return of the instruments in the fund are likely to have the same expected value for every fund, there is a fee component that is pretty huge. A typical fund charges around 2% of total assets every year, no matter how the fund performs. For the GP, that is $200/year or $1K over five years. He has paid $1K+ to brokers and other people and has received nothing for himself. He should be upset!
Fortunately, there are alternatives. The simplest one is index funds, where the total fee is much lower, typically 0.5% of assets per year or less. The GP would then have only paid $250 over five years, and he'd be $750 richer.
The main problem with the financial markets (or, indeed, with any market) is that people expect something for nothing. They expect great deals without having to spend anything on researc. When customers in our particular markets (typically, computers, for the average slashdot user, I stereotypically guess) want that, we berate them for their tremendous stupidity. We start web sites where we collect quotes from the most stupid ones. We hate them, we ridicule them, we... Well, you get the picture.
Yet this is *EXACTLY* what the GP is doing. He sounds like a smart guy, so he really should have figured it out. But he obviously hasn't. Small surprise then, that millions of people pour money into expensive items (be they mutual funds, holiday trips, cars or whatever).
As a final suggestion to everyone here: put *all* the money you have in mutual funds in the cheapest index funds you can find. Compare the difference on your bank statements five years from now. Send me 10% of what you gained, and I'll never have to work again.
All jokes aside, I would say that the level of computer savvyness is roughly comparable between PC and Mac users in the high end, there is no comparison in the low end. The least knowledgeable PC users really are a lot more clueless, and they would run into problems.
Yes, they run into problems from virus and spam as well, but surprisingly often they are not the ones who suffer from that.
It only makes "reasonable" sense with a very loose definition of reasonable. It doesn't sound cool at all. In fact, it sounds like a something a nerd wannabe would say to impress his nerd friends. And it's not "immediately" understood. All normal people will have to think to themselves "Oh, this is nerd speak", which, while not difficult can't be said to be immediate either.
Thus, I give "virii" speakers 0.25 + 0 + 0.5 = 0.75 points out of a possible 3 points. Not good, but thanks for playing! Better luck next time!
OK, fine, whatever. We'll see if your post actually confirm your claims.
I do take issue with sports that try to extort that that 2 cents they can find a way to wring from their fanbase.
MLB is a business, and as such try to extract the maximum amount of money the can. Suggesting that they should not *is* whining about capitalism. (Suggesting that they should raise revenues by other means could be constructive criticism, but you don't do that.)
While some of the actual numbers may be up
Translation: Ooops, I made a claim that was blatantly incorrect, was called on it but will not apologize.
much of this is due to (...)
Your local stadium may be an exception to this
I'm in Sweden. But I guess my most "local" stadium is Fenway park, and they have sold out 200+ consecutive games, so you may be right there. :)
Instead of lowering the ticket and concession prices to regularly fill the stadium, they continue to raise the prices, which continues to shrink the number of people who can afford to attend which causes them to raise the prices. It's a bad cycle to be caught it.
Again, this is whining about capitalism. Besides, it's wrong. As much as I hate the owners (and don't even get me started on Mr. Selig...), total revenue from concessions are not down. What numbers support your claims? Or did you just guess?
Part of it is the players.
Part of what? If you believe ticket prices go up because player salaries go up you have it completely backwards. If you believe something else, I don't get what you are trying to say.
Do I think they deserve as much as they get? No way in hell.
Again, whining about capitalism. How much should they get paid? Why that amount and not more? Please elaborate.
And after some these most recent strikes?
How many strikes have there been recently? The last one was 12 years ago! Only if you are 80+ years old and senile will I let you get away with "these most recent", suggesting there have been a bunch of them in the last decade or less. Or do you possibly confuse MLB with NHL and strikes with lock-outs? (Technically, you are of course allowed to refer to strikes happening a hundred years ago as "most recent" assuming none has occured since. However, it is misleading and should be avoided if you want to be taken seriously.)
As TFA showed, MLB is indeed run by a bunch of idiots, but not at all for the reasons you suggest. Their number one sin is badmouthing their own sport. This *never* happens in the NFL. In fact, it's explicitly forbidden by the NFL commissioner! The badmouthing of baseball by Mr. Selig and his gang of morons creates all kinds of misconceptions about the state of the game. As proof of this claim, I submit the parent post.
Do you even know how much baseball data there is? Do you know what Stats provide? Did you even consider the vastly higher number of baseball games played each season?
I know I'm an idiot for replying to moronic AC's, but anyway: How do you meassure the importance of a task?
I am willing to bet good money that you don't consider entertainment important.
I am also willing to bet good money that you are upset about RIAA.
I am finally willing to bet good money that you haven't even thought for one second that those two opinions are contradicting each other.
This db is highly recommended. The modelling leaves a little something to be desired, but the contents is extraordinary for anyone the least interested in baseball and/or trivia.
Attendance isn't down. In fact, it's higher than ever. And the players are not overpaid. (Some are, obviously, for instance the injured ones. Others are underpaid, for instance the best young players. On average, they are not overpaid.)
The nice thing about baseball is that one can actually calculate how much money the players really should make surprisingly exactly. If you would have cared, I would have told you. Since you just wanted to whine, I won't bother telling you.
Baseball statistics are easily downloadable in a database format with one line for every player season in MLB history. That is an amzing treasure trove of information, even for casual fans. Highly recommended.
I suggest "natural oil" for oil and "fossil gas" for natural gas instead.
Your sarcasm detector is broken. Please replace it immediately. Thanks!
The gambling industry creates entertainment. Creating entertainment is creating value to those who appreciate that particular form of entertainment. As with all forms of entertainment, it may be of a kind that you do not particularily enjoy. Fortunately, you are free to abstain from participating in it if you don't like it. Great, huh!
What is your take on the movie industry? Don't they create anything of value either? Artists? Writers of fiction?
Lawyers add value by helping make sure that everyone follows agreements on how to behave in society. Not all lawyers create value while doing so, for different reasons. In fact, one may argue that the current situation in the US is such that most lawyers don't create value to anyone except themselves. But blanket statements about slicing pies instead of baking them are confused and incorrect.
How do you know this? If people actually click on the ads on his page and generate business for the advertisers, he certainly did create actual value. Now, I will grant you that I agree that he probably didn't create much value, but it would be foolish to say for sure that he didn't.
The truly sad part is that I am quite convinced that some poltitcians actually believe stuff like that. Everyone else in the world knows that it is *always* the end customer who pays.
Some species of ants do that. Not all the time of course, not even frequently, but genocide is very rare for humans as well.
You make it sound like some guy made a deliberate selection of these companies based on business models/predicted future/whatever. That is not the case at all. The rules for being in on the NASDAQ-100 are fixed and well defined. I won't bother looking at the exact rules, but I'm betting good money it has something to do with turnover and market cap.
I am always surprised that these news stories get such attention. Any journalist could calculate these lists and publish them a few days ahead of time. (In theory, you risk unexpected trading the last few days of the trading period. In practice, you'd get it right 99% of the time.)