49 Unique Guild Members 14 Level 100 characters 401 Website/Forum Members 0 Posts in 24 hours 0 Posts in 7 days 84313 Total Posts Nelthilta is the last poster
49 Unique Guild Members 14 Level 100 characters 401 Website/Forum Members 0 Posts in 24 hours 0 Posts in 7 days 84313 Total Posts Nelthilta is the last poster
Tanaca apparently knows nothing about business or how to handle money, sorry.
Chops has a pretty good clue what's going on, not sure if it's raging or not, but I still have to disagree with some of the stuff about the net win and the gains.
I hate to say it but I agree with Rade. Instead of taking out loans, you should pay cash for school. For starters, the less you owe the more you have, simple as that. Being in debt is a bad thing, and if you have 150k for school, use it. If you get a decent academic scholarship and don't go ivy league, you'll have a decent chunk of it left. Plus if you get off your ass and work as well as have the inheritance, you'll be even better off.
Granted most people can't pay everything with cash for school, but if you can, you should.
you are acting like i say borrow everything for your education.
that's not smart.
borrowing as much as you can from the government however is very smart.
low interest rates, more money when you are younger, when it's harder to get the money.
after college if you have to pay back 10000 dollars, which is about what i have to pay when i get done. you can make that money back easily in an investment.
after throwing in the interest and all that shit you will probably have to pay back about 12000-13000 over several years.
Chops has a pretty good clue what's going on, not sure if it's raging or not, but I still have to disagree with some of the stuff about the net win and the gains.
And you'd be right too. I wasn't looking at the situation with enough detail or considerations. Rade is clearly right in this situation.
Additionally, it's not in the best interest of the average amercan to Care about the economy. Personally, I'm giving serious consideration into investing into Gold simply because I don't trust the futility of the American Dollar, not with the Baby boomers about to retire, taxing the shit out of the Busted Social Security system, and it's going to cause all sorts of problems. America is going to print print print just to pay off the feeble retired folks, and I think we can honestly see a huge inflation problem, in which case, gold will at least remain stable (unless something freakish happens).
My best is that gold will remain stable, while the american dollar will plummet.
Tanaca apparently knows nothing about business or how to handle money, sorry.
Chops has a pretty good clue what's going on, not sure if it's raging or not, but I still have to disagree with some of the stuff about the net win and the gains.
I hate to say it but I agree with Rade. Instead of taking out loans, you should pay cash for school. For starters, the less you owe the more you have, simple as that. Being in debt is a bad thing, and if you have 150k for school, use it. If you get a decent academic scholarship and don't go ivy league, you'll have a decent chunk of it left. Plus if you get off your ass and work as well as have the inheritance, you'll be even better off.
Granted most people can't pay everything with cash for school, but if you can, you should.
you are acting like i say borrow everything for your education.
that's not smart.
borrowing as much as you can from the government however is very smart.
low interest rates, more money when you are younger, when it's harder to get the money.
after college if you have to pay back 10000 dollars, which is about what i have to pay when i get done. you can make that money back easily in an investment.
after throwing in the interest and all that shit you will probably have to pay back about 12000-13000 over several years.
not a hard feat to accomplish at all.
Look at my calculations, dude. It's a net loss. You're talking at numbers, and telling them they are wrong. Numbers don't lie.
Do the calculations yourself, it's easy.
Plus, rikko doesn't have the problem of "hard to get money" as she has...oh I don't know....more money than the cost of my house.
Tanaca apparently knows nothing about business or how to handle money, sorry.
Chops has a pretty good clue what's going on, not sure if it's raging or not, but I still have to disagree with some of the stuff about the net win and the gains.
I hate to say it but I agree with Rade. Instead of taking out loans, you should pay cash for school. For starters, the less you owe the more you have, simple as that. Being in debt is a bad thing, and if you have 150k for school, use it. If you get a decent academic scholarship and don't go ivy league, you'll have a decent chunk of it left. Plus if you get off your ass and work as well as have the inheritance, you'll be even better off.
Granted most people can't pay everything with cash for school, but if you can, you should.
you are acting like i say borrow everything for your education.
that's not smart.
borrowing as much as you can from the government however is very smart.
low interest rates, more money when you are younger, when it's harder to get the money.
after college if you have to pay back 10000 dollars, which is about what i have to pay when i get done. you can make that money back easily in an investment.
after throwing in the interest and all that shit you will probably have to pay back about 12000-13000 over several years.
not a hard feat to accomplish at all.
Look at my calculations, dude. It's a net loss. You're talking at numbers, and telling them they are wrong. Numbers don't lie.
Do the calculations yourself, it's easy.
Plus, rikko doesn't have the problem of "hard to get money" as she has...oh I don't know....more money than the cost of my house.
He doesn't believe in numbers, he believes in the Bible.
Also, to add on to the "10.5% interest rate needed to break even"... you're still not accounting for the risk here. You're adjusting for inflation (though not adding in for capital gains), but not for risk.
Give you an example. If I told you that you could make 12% return on your investment, or you could make 40% return on your investment, which would you choose? Could you immediately tell me you'd go for 40%? Now I tell you that you'll get the 12% by investing in growth stock mutual funds, or you can get the 40% playing roulette at a casino. Hmmm. Let me think about this a second... ok, done. I'm gonna take the mutual fund at 12%, because while the potential return on investment at a casino is incredibly good compared to the mutual fund, the risk involved on something as volatile as roulette is extraordinary compared to the long-term stability of a mutual fund. You aren't comparing apples to apples here. You have to account for risk, the fact that you owe money you do not readily have, into your equation. Obviously owing nobody anything is a lot lower risk (like.. none) than owing anybody anything. When you compare risk vs. no risk, you cannot just "break even" like that.
He doesn't believe in numbers, he believes in the Bible.
I considered drive-by-ing that too, but I've been a big enough asshole about it lately.
I got you covered man, MARINE RUSH GO!
Quote
Also, to add on to the "10.5% interest rate needed to break even"... you're still not accounting for the risk here. You're adjusting for inflation (though not adding in for capital gains), but not for risk.
Give you an example. If I told you that you could make 12% return on your investment, or you could make 40% return on your investment, which would you choose? Could you immediately tell me you'd go for 40%? Now I tell you that you'll get the 12% by investing in growth stock mutual funds, or you can get the 40% playing roulette at a casino. Hmmm. Let me think about this a second... ok, done. I'm gonna take the mutual fund at 12%, because while the potential return on investment at a casino is incredibly good compared to the mutual fund, the risk involved on something as volatile as roulette is extraordinary compared to the long-term stability of a mutual fund. You aren't comparing apples to apples here. You have to account for risk, the fact that you owe money you do not readily have, into your equation. Obviously owing nobody anything is a lot lower risk (like.. none) than owing anybody anything. When you compare risk vs. no risk, you cannot just "break even" like that.
Going to sum this up into a pretty easy to understand statement:
Also, to add on to the "10.5% interest rate needed to break even"... you're still not accounting for the risk here. You're adjusting for inflation (though not adding in for capital gains), but not for risk.
Give you an example. If I told you that you could make 12% return on your investment, or you could make 40% return on your investment, which would you choose? Could you immediately tell me you'd go for 40%? Now I tell you that you'll get the 12% by investing in growth stock mutual funds, or you can get the 40% playing roulette at a casino. Hmmm. Let me think about this a second... ok, done. I'm gonna take the mutual fund at 12%, because while the potential return on investment at a casino is incredibly good compared to the mutual fund, the risk involved on something as volatile as roulette is extraordinary compared to the long-term stability of a mutual fund. You aren't comparing apples to apples here. You have to account for risk, the fact that you owe money you do not readily have, into your equation. Obviously owing nobody anything is a lot lower risk (like.. none) than owing anybody anything. When you compare risk vs. no risk, you cannot just "break even" like that.
Risk is a completely different animal. Quitting my job, going out on my own with $7k in the bank was a risk. A risk most people wouldn't take. The difference is the degree of calculation. You need to calculate your risk. I determined that even if I lose every dime, I felt that with my qualifications, I would have no trouble finding another job if needed (I knew for FACT that my previous employer would have rehired me in a second, he still would). If you intelligently research an investment, you can make a calculated investment by lowering the risk. If you can determine that the estimated chance of failure is lower than the estimated ratio of payout, then it's worth the risk.
Risk is a completely different animal. In your roulette example, you have to examine your options. Are you betting it all on one number? Then it's roughly a 97.5% chance of losing for a 40% payout. Hardly worth the risk. However, if you are evenly distributing your bet between 37 numbers and leaving only one open for a 40% return, then you have about a 2.5% chance of losing for 40% gain. THAT is worth it. (Obviously roulette doesn't work like this, because the payouts scale to your bet and you can never long-term win roulette).
Odds need to be considered, and odds CAN be estimated if you know your investment well enough.
He isn't... he doesn't have nearly the background or vocabulary, as evidenced by his posts.
The risk factor, by the way, does have a name. It's called a beta coefficient, and it's very common in finance. I found a Wiki on it, but it is geared more towards stocks specifically. Regardless, the same principle can be applied anywhere there is risk involved.
He isn't... he doesn't have nearly the background or vocabulary, as evidenced by his posts.
The risk factor, by the way, does have a name. It's called a beta coefficient, and it's very common in finance. I found a Wiki on it, but it is geared more towards stocks specifically. Regardless, the same principle can be applied anywhere there is risk involved.
I referred to it always as my Ninja Coefficient of Awesomeness, but that's just because we're different.
Looking at that page, I'm just gonna go ahead and say I definitely didn't do that when I started my company. I just said "hey I'm awesome! I'm gonna be rich! Watch!"
Chops, you're a pessimist. Don't bet on the loser. The U.S. economy is fine, and it will remain fine long after you're dead.
Gold is an awful investment. I know you see a lot of commercials for it and stuff lately, but that's only because it had a streak a couple years back where it went up by double digit percentages. That time has since passed, but that doesn't stop people from marketing you on the fact. The rate of return on gold over the long term (the only term that matters for an investment) is about 1%... or 3% less than inflation. Investing in gold you will actually lose money.
You might be right. This is just initial speculation from someone who doesn't have the money necessary to invest anyway. I don't get much marketing though, cuz
1) I don't listen to radio 2) I don't have TV 3) I don't see any ads on the web cuz of Adblock Plus (a must-have, btw)
This is just hypothesis of mine. I'm an optimist about myself, but I'm very pessimistic about the competency of the US government. Surely you understand my frustrations.
I also know the history of gold and that the last few years have been huge for gold, AND that it's since stabilized. I'm merely stating that I find gold to be more stable than the US government's handle on inflation and the whole social security thing.
I admit, those scare me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see keeping all my money in the dollar as an unnecessary risk. Maybe gold isn't the answer, but I don't trust the dollar.
