....I reading the charts & most everything was down today.
I tried ta warn em but bein the stubborn character he is, he jes wouldn't listen.
Oh well.
I just checked. I am down about $30,000 today. About 054%. Better than the TSX Composite which is down 0.73% today.
I did not check my wife's numbers, but she is probably down about the same.
I am up over 10% over the last 6 months....between my wife and myself, we are up a little over $1mil over the past 6 months.
That is our equity investments. I know some of our other investments are doing better, and some are not doing as well. I really only pay attention to our equities though, since I have to keep investing the dividends.
The stock market is a bit like a casino
Nobody gaf you bald pinhead, he was just poking at you.Not really.
In a casino, the average player loses money. Over time, the casino takes a profit.
With stocks, the average investor makes money. Most businesses make a profit and that profit is passed onto the shareholders.
How much money does the average investor make?
Here is a recent article:
"Using Shiller’s data, since 1971 the S&P 500 has delivered an annualized return of 7.58%—or 10.51% with dividends reinvested."
This touches on something that some people like Senile @Joe do not seem to understand. He will look at just the charts, and see an annualized return of 7.58% because he is only looking at the value of the index. But, and I told Senile @Joe this a while ago, to fully appreciate all the profits, you need to consider the dividends. That 7.58% is misleading, because it excludes dividends. By reinvesting dividends, investors can expect over 10% annual gains over time.
Not really.
In a casino, the average player loses money. Over time, the casino takes a profit.
With stocks, the average investor makes money. Most businesses make a profit and that profit is passed onto the shareholders.
How much money does the average investor make?
Here is a recent article:
"Using Shiller’s data, since 1971 the S&P 500 has delivered an annualized return of 7.58%—or 10.51% with dividends reinvested."
This touches on something that some people like Senile @Joe do not seem to understand. He will look at just the charts, and see an annualized return of 7.58% because he is only looking at the value of the index. But, and I told Senile @Joe this a while ago, to fully appreciate all the profits, you need to consider the dividends. That 7.58% is misleading, because it excludes dividends. By reinvesting dividends, investors can expect over 10% annual gains over time.
I did say a bit like a casino, not exactly like.
But the bailouts for billionaires (a trillion a day pumped into the stock market in 2008 while average people lost homes, etc.) was spot fucking on. The stock market gambles of the obscenely wealthy get underwritten by the USA treasury; the rest of us take our chances.
I addressed this in another thread....
Did you forget you asked in another thread, Senile @Joe?
Hahahahaha!!!!
...funny thing is... I addressed this thread ta you.
However, @Lily of Denial appears ta have taken it more personally than you. Maybe Rancid too.
Butcha know Prowler, I checked the Globe and Mail and all of the major Stock Market indices were down today, eh? TSX, DOW, S&P, NASDAQ .... ? And Bitcoin too got hammered, eh?
They were all havin' a bad day....
....except....fer GOLD @The Prowler !
I bought some Gold 'n Silver on the weekend anticipatin' a bounce.
Guess what? Went up. Those were virtually the only things that went up.
Yes, you were spot on about that. Of course, there is a revolving door between Wall Street and the WH/government.
I'm old enough to remember Obama selecting many (all?) of his cabinet from "suggestions" given to him by Citigroup.
Thanks Wikileaks!
Not that there's anything strange about revolving doors in D.C.
Anywhere there are governmental or regulatory oversight offices there are revolving doors to lobbying firms and the industries themselves allegedly being regulated.
At this point the corruption is baked in.
Best to tear it all down and start anew.
Conservatives are freaking the fuck out when a Democrat attempts to ease student loan debt. The US Government Own the overwhelming majority of Student Debt. Cut taxes on Jeff Bezos, hey he's a job creator it'll trickle down yo!I did say a bit like a casino, not exactly like.
But the bailouts for billionaires (a trillion a day pumped into the stock market in 2008 while average people lost homes, etc.) was spot fucking on. The stock market gambles of the obscenely wealthy get underwritten by the USA treasury; the rest of us take our chances.
Yeah, I get those arguments but if you want someone to oversee the Treasury Department do you go scouting for firemen and tig welders? To get to the level of expertise you desire to make those decisions, the talent pool becomes increasingly shallow.I'm old enough to remember Obama selecting many (all?) of his cabinet from "suggestions" given to him by Citigroup.
Thanks Wikileaks!
Not that there's anything strange about revolving doors in D.C.
Anywhere there are governmental or regulatory oversight offices there are revolving doors to lobbying firms and the industries themselves allegedly being regulated.
At this point the corruption is baked in.
Best to tear it all down and start anew.
I did say a bit like a casino, not exactly like.
But the bailouts for billionaires (a trillion a day pumped into the stock market in 2008 while average people lost homes, etc.) was spot fucking on. The stock market gambles of the obscenely wealthy get underwritten by the USA treasury; the rest of us take our chances.
Yeah, I get those argument but if you want someone to oversee the Treasury Department do you go scouting for firemen and tig welders?
Joe the Plumber, Marge, Lauren Boebert?Well, but whose going to regulate the regulators that write policy for the benefit of themselves and the wealthy class?
Of course it is @Garraty_47
It runs on the same principles of chance and probability.
And the stock market is rigged just like a gambling house.
That's why they invented AI - for the benefit of wealthy investors to cushion losses on the stock market and ta give 'em the best picks when they buy.
What I've noticed is when there's a CRASH.....they HALT trading and they don't allow THE FREE MARKET to prevail. No sirree Roberta.
They aint gonna have no repeat of 1929 when investors jumped outta windows or shot themselves in the head after they lost everything in a crash.
Caint have none of that. That'd be...INHUMANE! Suffering is for the POOR and MIDDLE CLASS ONLY.
Joe the Plumber, Marge, Lauren Boebert?
I stated my opinion. You want people that have a background in the area, is the commonly accepted norm. Why is that hard to understand? Sure that presents challenges, But like I said, do you want a Banker overseeing the banking system or the Social Studies teacher?You can keep deflecting with sarcasm and make it a "troll". It doesn't begin to open a discussion about our own economy. But hey, it's meltdown...we can't have a decent conversation here. It's the rules.
The incidence of suicide after the '29 crash were greatly exaggerated.
If anything, it's a benefit to the obscenely wealthy. It dips, sometimes deeply, then the really wealthy buy everything like it's a fire sale.
The poor pay in terms of job losses and inflation. They don't have money in the market. They can't afford it.
I stated my opinion. You want people that have a background in the area, is the commonly accepted norm. Why is that hard to understand? Sure that presents challenges, But like I said, do you want a Banker overseeing the banking system or the Social Studies teacher?
Actually @Lily of Denial I think a lot of common people back in the 1920s had a lot of money invested the stock market. Then as now, they expected it to fund their retirements, improve their standard of living. Of course we knew the opposite happened.
They still do it, but now it's in the the form of 401k plans, ETFs, managed risk funds. Its handlers are a bit more clever how the market and sell it to the public tho.
Our Government has a Branch we call Congress which has two parts, one of those parts is called The House, the House is empowered to oversee the Executive Branch to advise and consent, sadly our Congress, the House in particular has become a clowncar over the last several years and haven't really focused on their core responsibilities in some time, but that doesn't make the decision to hire the best person for the job of running a Cabinet Department any less important.It's not hard to understand. There are people that have a background that don't work in investment banking, academics for example.
What's so hard to understand about that? When the fuck did I say Joe the Plumber or Lauren Boehbert were acceptable options?
Oversight of the executive branch is one of Congress's main responsibilities. In recent years, Congress has explored ways to modernize its operations in this area, including regulatory oversight and congressional legal representation for working with the executive branch. To help, we researched Congress's options.Dec 19, 2023Our Government has a Branch we call Congress which has two parts, one of those parts is called The House, the House is empowered to oversee the Executive Branch to advise and consent, sadly our Congress, the House in particular has become a clowncar over the last several years and haven't really focused on their core responsibilities in some time, but that doesn't make the decision to hire the best person for the job of running a Cabinet Department any less important.