Awww, happy birthday for her. I definitely think you've made the smart decision.
PS She's the same age as my little brother
Yes, it's a good long-term bet.
No, you'll lose money.
Awww, happy birthday for her. I definitely think you've made the smart decision.
PS She's the same age as my little brother
You're assuming Wraithy's instincts would be emotion-based, leading to a poor decision. A comment made to a specific person, even publicly, does not have to be made so that the lowest common denominator can read it and understand it. I did not say that anyone investing in the stock market should trust their instincts, I said that Wraithy should. I even advised him to talk to other people (meaning Randy and Wiggin, mostly) before making a decision.
So yes, you are making assumptions again.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Yeah, I know. I'll probably just stick to long positions, since I seem to be doing alright with that so far.Originally Posted by RandBlade
Anyone else find it hilarious that GGT is trying to lecture others about not giving in to fear/mania?
Fuzzy- My issue is with making laws that specifically ban a specific company from doing what its competitors do. Isn't that a Terri Schiavo nono?
Well, I decided to buy $300 worth of BP shares this morning. I got the money from selling a stock a while ago and it was sitting in a money market. Pleasingly, the shares went up 7% today. But assuming I sold tomorrow, if I take fees into account, the net pre-tax capital gain would be about $20.
Maybe I should have bought more shares. So either I sell tomorrow and make $20 pre tax (because 7% capital appreciation in a short unit of time is pretty dandy), or I go a bit longer with the gamble and assume that BP will eventually make this work and operate as a cash-producing company to pay off its responsibilities. And/or get bought out.
Since when is posting an opinion a lecture?
Besides, it's not like I haven't been forthcoming over the last couple of years about my personal anxiety in market volatility, accounting rules, new laws, fin-reg.
It's one thing to be honest about normal worries, especially as the mother in charge of her childrens' finances. Lolli doesn't have a monopoly on that market. It's another thing that I am older than many of you here; I have to think of my own retirement funds as well as my kids' educational or legacy funds. I have to be able to go back-and-forth between those very different investment strategies. Excuuuuse me if the dichotomy shows through in my posts.
No offense, but taking tips from Rand, wiggin......that is not really an investment strategy, or asking for expert counsel. We have some very smart and savvy members, but NO ONE should confuse our discussions or debates as professional advice. Adjuncts only.
In other words, all the things we post here are just opinions and not intended as professional advice. Well, other than saying find a reliable, trustworthy professional advisor that isn't posting in a forum General Chat to plot a strategy.
Its no sure thing that your car is going to work in the morning, but you wouldn't say that you were gambling because you expected it to. You also wouldn't say it was gambling if people bet against Loki posting like a communist hippie. Why is that?
. . .
I don't think anyone but you ever fucking would think that.No offense, but taking tips from Rand, wiggin......that is not really an investment strategy, or asking for expert counsel. We have some very smart and savvy members, but NO ONE should confuse our discussions or debates as professional advice. Adjuncts only.
In other words, all the things we post here are just opinions and not intended as professional advice. Well, other than saying find a reliable, trustworthy professional advisor that isn't posting in a forum General Chat to plot a strategy.
Wraithy asked, I told him what I thought. If he was looking for expert advice, he wouldn't be asking here. Looking for opinions from a group of people with different backgrounds is just that.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Yes, you "gave him your advice", then admitted you really have no fucking clue.So don't act like we're not all just expressing what we think as lay people.
If you're not comfortable with investments in the stock market, then fine, that's your comfort level limit. If you really want to discuss investments in general, then we could go into the long term "safety" of real estate or home ownership, since Rand brought it up. Mortgages vs paying cash and having illiquid property assets whose value is plummeting?
Or we could keep it light and simple, musing about buying stock in stressed multi-national energy corporations......
Yes, my advice to follow his instincts, knowing that his instincts have served him reasonably well so far. That's clearly a terrible thing to do, because anyone reading it would instantly assume it applied to them as well and that it went far beyond expressing what I think as a lay person.Yes, you "gave him your advice", then admitted you really have no fucking clue.
If you're not comfortable with investments in the stock market, then fine, that's your comfort level limit. If you really want to discuss investments in general, then we could go into the long term "safety" of real estate or home ownership, since Rand brought it up. Mortgages vs paying cash and having illiquid property assets whose value is plummeting?
Or we could keep it light and simple, musing about buying stock in stressed multi-national energy corporations......
You may discuss whatever the hell you want. Make sure you continue to use your vast age and "experience" as reasons people should listen to you.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
What's up your ass tonight? Geeze!
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.
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.
This was all about whether to risk $300? Jesus.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
$300 can be a lot of money
For an NY Jew?$300 can be a lot of money
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
I wouldn't call it pocket change, but it isn't that much money.$300 can be a lot of money
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
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.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
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 thoughtand, over $100 on an uncertain thing, ask your forum even if it won't be any more certain after you do
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I could consider $300 a lot of money for a short-term gamble.
Yeah, if you live in Haiti. Not if you live in fucking Manhattan.$300 can be a lot of money
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.
Good point, but still . . . .
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
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.
#1. It's spelled "sum" and #2. No it isn't.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Meh, to be fair, it is enough to provide a child with a pretty excellent birthday.
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.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
2: Yes it is.
Note that excellant birthday parties are a lot like entertainment budgets.
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.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
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.
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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
1) You know it's a risk, so act accordingly.
2) You're asking us? That's your biggest mistake!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote