Remember folks, "They followed the law"...
for the anti-video among us
Printable View
Banks were forced to commit fraud:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_16...g-wall-street/
To echo Lewk, at what point do we start blaming people?
:haha: thats my link you thief! stop making poor choices!
You can't own information :downcast:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Haha sorry I completely missed that :p
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
TL; DR. (I did just finish it a few minutes ago.. very nice.)
For whom?Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
I mean that the article is nice. . .
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Beeb
This is what happens when Palestine and Iraq aren't in the news.
It's the great unwashed trying to find an excuse to get away from cleaning up in order to spend time their family over Christmas.
Luck has nothing to do with your lot in life, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You make your own luck.
Prove it. You win the next lottery and I will agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You can't alter any odds to your favor?
It costs £2 to buy a Euromillions lottery ticket here, twice a week - able to legally buy from the age of 16. Retirement age (for my age) is currently 67 but likely to be higher. That makes approx. £208 per year, for 51 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
Don't gamble, take that 'just' £2 twice a week and save/invest it. Long-term savings rate in stocks averages to about 7%. Those £2 tickets over the long-term will become worth over £102,000 by the time you retire.
Only fools/greedy people think they'll win by gambling. You make your luck here by refusing to play a game that is loaded against you. I speak as someone who has never bought a gambling lottery ticket (as opposed to raffle tickets which I buy sometimes merely as a donation to charity, I don't actually expect to win).
EDIT: PS just since it's you - add in a 20-a-day smoking habbit and you'll have well over £1million.
He wasn't saying playing the lottery is a good idea, but you said you can make your own luck. I'd still like to see you do that.
Also, 1 million for smoking? What have you been smoking? :p package a day is under €2000/year, I'd like to live 500 years too.. :)
You make your own luck by choosing not to play games stacked against you! Someone who gambles and loses is not unlucky, they're the expectation.
As for €2000 a year, it won't take 500 years to save a million. You're forgetting compound interest.
If you save €2000.04 per year (my calculator uses monthly savings of €166.67 so hence the 4 cents), over 51 years, with compound interest at a rate of 7.00% then you'll save up: € 981,428.81
That will be: € 102,002.04 of total deposits
Plus: € 879,426.77 of interest.
That's virtually your million right there from your own figures, without adding in the non-gambling.
Suicide for the poor and oppressed. Gotcha :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And let's not forget inflation.
That's the Real (post-inflation) rate of growth over the last two centuries. So inflation is already taken into account.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
OG: Your alternative to not gambling is suicide? Gotcha.
The alternative was to see the point in the original message :noob: Flixy even tried pointing that out to you, and you of course ignored it, cause it would have gotten in the way of your lewklike hardon about blaming people for their lot in life.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The point stands. Objectively, losing the lottery is not unlucky it is to be expected.
If you choose to gamble you're making a decision that will almost certainly cause you to lose money. Saving is a better alternative. Someone who saves is not more lucky than a gambler, they made a better decision.
whats to be expected is not the same as changing one's luck.
are you seeing your hangup yet? No one is suggesting to (not) gamble except you :haha:
I'm surprised you aren't seeing the thought disconnection here, especially after the replies that have already appeared in your thread about luck.
Ah, yes, So, the money you get from investments is not subject to, say, taxes... And "Real (post-inflation) rate of growth"? Heh. Right. Of course, it's perfectly possible for everyone to get that interest rate. Just using the average is a really dishonest move. Not to mention that higher interest rates (like those 7% you're proposing here) are only possible if you also run the risk of losing the money you invested.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Oh, I see...you chose which sperm would get in the egg first and which vagina you'd pop out of. :rolleyes: And of course you made sure your mom didn't drink or smoke while she incubated you.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Er, the lottery of life. C'mon man.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Why do I get the feeling this argument is going to go all the way to the Strong Anthropic Principle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Neither conditions nor "luck," nor whatever you think Rand is championing are deterministic. They're environmental conditionals, and any you look at will be just a few amongst a great assortment in any life of more than a short length. Further, aggregate statistics are absolutely meaningless as a method of examining any individual or case study. Cut the crap. That goes for you too, Minx, unless you think it's actually possible to have 2.5 kids.
It's funny how you try to make things like this technical. I suppose next you'll be arguing that nothing is left to chance. When you have no input as to what happens to you, there is a chance that you will get lucky and get something better than the worst possible alternative. If you get hit by a car while walking down the street, there is a chance you won't be seriously injured. Lucky you.
It's funny how you try to make everything a matter of chance. The sheer absurdity of the idea that who one is born to is a matter of luck, for instance. What crock of shit did that idea get pulled from? There's a reason I saw Anthropic in this discussion. Rand is his genetics, his prenatal environment, and his life since being born, whether that's a life lived according to Chaloobi's determinism or one with room for free will arising from whatever gives it emergent properties: a soul, quantum fluctuations and zero-point energy, something we haven't begun to imagine, etc. If Rand were not born to his parents and raised in his environment and living the life he's lived than he would not be Rand. Rand would never have existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being