What's up your ass tonight? Geeze!Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
Printable View
What's up your ass tonight? Geeze!Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
Because both of those are predictions alone and neither of those are putting a sum of money at stake. If I said to you that I bet a stake of £10 that my car will work tomorrow and offer you 100:1 odds against it, eg if my car works you pay me £10 and if it doesn't I pay you £1000 would you call that gambling? Same could be said with Loki. Lets say I bet you that Loki and Lolli wouldn't agree on anything controversial about the economy this year - that again would be gambling. Saying you expect a short-term rise in a stock is making a prediction, actually investing cash in what you expect an individual share to do in the short-term is gambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Putting money into something risky because you expect a particular outcome which will then pay a reward is gambling.
I know I disagree with you a bit here but I certainly think that while short-term property values may go down, the long-term trend for them is to go up.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
This was all about whether to risk $300? Jesus. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
$300 can be a lot of money :rolleyes:
For an NY Jew?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I wouldn't call it pocket change, but it isn't that much money.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Its enough that I'd take free advice on a forum but not enough to seek professional advice.
That just means one'd also take advice on purchasing electronics such as a netbook or a digital camera; that doesn't make 300 bucks a lot of money for someone willing to slush it around.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Dread was asking us, TWF, did anyone honestly expect it to be a lot of dough?
Do you guys have any idea how much [real] meatloaf you can get for $300??!
It's all a matter of perspective. Never spend more than $20 without some thought :p and, over $100 on an uncertain thing, ask your forum even if it won't be any more certain after you do :downcast:
I could consider $300 a lot of money for a short-term gamble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Yeah, if you live in Haiti. Not if you live in fucking Manhattan.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It's not going to affect Dread's life at all if BP goes bankrupt and he loses every dime, which is very unlikely to happen. I thought he was talking about making a fairly big move, at least in four figures ffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
Good point, but still . . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Yes it is. It wouldn't leave him in financial penury nor will he be able to retire if went well but its still a handy some of money. Its that lax attitude that leads people (and governments) into fiscal crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
#1. It's spelled "sum" and #2. No it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Meh, to be fair, it is enough to provide a child with a pretty excellent birthday.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
But for a shiny young go-getter like Dreadnaughty, I'd think it is an amount that would qualify as less than his entertainment budget.
2: Yes it is.
:D Note that excellant birthday parties are a lot like entertainment budgets.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
Rand, its clearly context based and in Dread's (apparent) context, no, it isn't. Or at the very least it shouldn't. Maybe he's supporting a nasty coke habit and there's not a lot of money lying around, I dunno.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You obviously got nothing out of my analogy, especially since in your reply example you're having me bet on extremely unlikely events. You're not betting on the stock market, you're betting on the actions of people. BP stock opened this morning around $39, and now its at ~ $37. Why is that? Because a lot of people who saw it close around $38.92 yesterday, which it rose to likely in response to successful capping of the well, expected it to climb a few cents more, and then they likely cashed out on the stock. These are not things that are extremely unlikely or hard to foresee.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You're honestly telling me that this would be hard to predict, that BP's stock would go up in response to a successful well capping, and that if it went up high enough, would then take a small hit as people sold off BP stock attempting either to cut their losses if they invested before the disaster, or make some money if they invested in the last few months?
No. It would be perfectly legal for the Interior to deny further licenses because of BP's record *if they didn't deny licenses to other companies with similar records there'd be potential for a discrimination suit but for the near future, we can safely assume BP is going to be the absolute leader of the pack for creating disasters* and Interior's regulatory authority does not come from it or the Excecutive. It was ceded by Congress and Congress is still Constitutionally allowed to exercise such authority itself if it chooses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
1) You know it's a risk, so act accordingly.
2) You're asking us? That's your biggest mistake! :haha:
You all think I was talking about a gamble with thousands of dollars? I wouldn't take a risk like that. $300 is plenty of cash too, in my opinion.
I considered selling today, but my dad accurately predicted the stock would fall back as others made short-term gains. He suggested I do the same, but I'm going to hold for a longer term and see where things go.
On the plus side, my post-indictment purchase of Goldman is catching up.
Fuzzy- Wait, so can Congress make a law specifically awarding a contract to a particular company or somesuch? I guess it's not categorically unconstitutional, I just always assumed it's frowned upon.
You
all
Everybody
Not Penny's boat!
PENNAH
Des!
Technically yes, they can, but not in the way I think you mean*. This isn't awarding a contract though. Congress is saying *or Congress-critters want it to say, anyway* that the US government is not going to be doing any more of a particular type of business with BP for a while, because it doesn't appreciate BP's fuck-ups in that type of business. Congress *nor the Interior, using Congress' ceded authority* is under no obligation to grant access rights to particular entities. The courts, partly relying on the equal protection clause and partly relying on select pieces of Congressional legislation *which can't bind subsequent acts of Congress* have declared that the government can't engage in invidious discrimination in who it chooses to do business with/grant licenses too/etc. but no court, not even the incredibly laissez-faire due-process nuts back during the 1880s-1930s, would try to suggest this is invidious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
*If Congress were to award contracts the way this is happening, it would be much more likely to go to the courts and be struck down because it's a lot more likely to find a party that might have been baselessly discriminated against. It creates a much larger pool of entities which are potentially injured by that process.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
How do you know how much Dread earns? How do you know how much Dread spends? How much is his rent? If he is living in Manhattan then for a young person your rent and other fixed costs can leave you with not-so-much of your income left as disposable income. I know that I am not a low-income earner but right now while trying to buy a house after I've paid all my necessary bills like rent/fuel/tax/food etc then £200 ($300) would be my disposable income for a few weeks.
Betting is betting and odds are odds. I never said you were gambling at evens (its rare to do that), I said you were gambling and you're indeed saying you're betting on people. Well guess what, betting on people is gambling. Case closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
No. I never said it was unlikely, I said it was gambling.Quote:
You're honestly telling me that this would be hard to predict, that BP's stock would go up in response to a successful well capping, and that if it went up high enough, would then take a small hit as people sold off BP stock attempting either to cut their losses if they invested before the disaster, or make some money if they invested in the last few months?
You're betting on:
1: The capping being successful.
2: People reacting as you predicted.
3: The change in share price being sufficient to cover all your costs involved in both buying and then re-selling the shares, plus any tax paid.
4: There being a further sufficient change in share price to actually make a profit to make it worth your while doing it in the first place and cover the risks of any of these not happening.
5: The likelihood of capping being successful not already being factored into the share price by other investors before you.
That's gambling. There is a percentage possibility that any of those could have gone wrong.
Mathematically. since the cap worked perfectly, better than hoped, we can say this was the best case scenario. Dread made a profit of $20 from a $300 stake, that was a profit of 1/15. Even if the odds of all this happening (including it working better than expected) were even 90% then odds were against you. If the odds of it all working were 95% then the odds were in your favour but only just. That is the essence of gambling. Unless what happened was 100% guaranteed to happen, that is gambling.
Is that after you add to savings?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Savings? Right now I'm trying to make sure I can cover all bills and live decently.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Still some "necessary bills" right now are what would normally be savings. EG right now we need to buy a fridge, washing machine, bed, sofa suite etc, etc, etc - the full furniture for a house while paying for legals etc for the purchase while still spending rent on our current rental.
Not sure about the prices in the US but I could definitely cover getting a good washing machine for $300.
I'm surprised, RB - no retirement savings? We're currently covering two rentals and student loans, but we still put away over $1000 a month. I guess the house sorta counts, though.
I'm surprised too, I always planned on putting away retirement savings ASAP.
OTOH I've already paid off my student loans in full (except the government-based one) and am trying to start put away for equity. I left uni with close to £20k of commercial debt and now I don't owe any of that. I'm currently viewing that and saving for retirement as two sides of the same coin: not spending every penny as you earn it.
I figured paying off a loan I was paying high(er) interest on was more valuable than savings you'd earn a lower-rate on. My big challenge atm is trying to reach the other side of this purchase OK and then I'll decide whether to start a pension account or make overpayments my mortgage. Again similar logic, if I could be mortgage-free then I'd be able to make big savings later on.
Oh, you just bought a house? Starter home? Right out of college I spent several years saving for a home down payment and paying down my wife's student loans and credit card debt. It took years before I was able to save seriously, though I always put money in my 401k, up to the company matching limit at least....Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yeah, Amanda (my partner) and I are in the process of buying a home. We've exchanged contracts now so kind of "past the point of no return" :)
Its a new build though so right now we're waiting for it to be completed. Every few days we're going to check it out though, they've finished the bricks and mortar and have put the roof up which is great as it means they can work even in bad weather now, no internal walls but they've put the studs up (wooden frames the walls will go up against. Can see the gas and electrics start to be finished too :). House is due to be completed 10/9 (10 Sep) and then a few weeks to get the inspectors in to give approval to the home meeting standards then we can move in probably end of Sep. Was originally due for Nov but due to a run of very good weather its shaved 2 months off the construction time :).
Its a 3 bedroom house which isn't bad when its just the two of us.
Without derailing Dreadsie's thread to much:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Best of luck on the move when it happens RB, i'm currently trying to save up a big enough deposit to buy a house with my partner. Savings are on hold until I have the deposit i desire (or they desire i should say). Unfortunately i started renting somewhere first as i needed to get the missus out of her mothers home before she (mother) poisoned her (missus) with her theatrical antics but i do wish i saved during my younger years when living at home but hindsight et all.
I've never built new. Seems like a headache. . . . Not sure how the housing market is over there, but here it seems you miss the good 'deals' by building.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Now I'm in the red on BP. Whoops. :o
Buying old is a headache too. We actually had agreed a purchase with a previous property (an old one), paid for the surveyor for the mortgage and the bank's surveyor turned around and said it wasn't worth what we had agreed to pay so the deal fell through. Plus the current owner kept trying to mess us around right until it fell through (we nearly rescued the deal but the owner kept being a prat).Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Really? The developers are the ones desperate to sell over here, especially in the current climate.Quote:
Not sure how the housing market is over there, but here it seems you miss the good 'deals' by building.
Plus you get better deals because there's so many people who won't buy new it deflates the price. Sure our estate will be a bit of a building site for a while even after we move in (may take 2 years before the properties that will be opposite ours get finished) but it'll be really nice. Already looks really nice the bits that have been done. Once its complete the property should almost automatically gain in value which will be a nice bit for us. Plus by buying early we could essentially pick any property on the street (so picked the far corner which has the benefits of a much bigger garden for the same price). Furthermore we know there'll be no work required for years while all the appliances are brand new. Even the tiles that the builders will put up were picked out (from a range) by us.
There's no way I could afford a 3 bedroom semi-detached house with an en-suite and a nice corner garden on the budget we were looking at.
Dread: Sorry to be derailing your thread and sorry you're in the red. Thought that might happen with some of the news out, its going to be a bit of a yo-yo. Won't be surprised if you hold onto it if it doesn't skip between black and red a few more times each yet.
I'm curious what the news about the $7 billion asset sale will do to BP's prospects in the short to medium term...
Told you not to :mad: now this smiley is in the red...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Rand: What's semi-detached mean???
Also, I've bought old (1939) and newish (2002). I think all things considered I like the newer house much better for a variety of reasons.