Middle Aged folks in the US compared to other countries

[The Prowler]

Let's be honest. in 1921, taxes on earnings went up to 71%. They were much higher then.

Not for the average worker. For the average worker, taxes were 4%, which is much lower than the 12/10% the average worker pays today.

It is more expensive to live now (relative to average income) largely due to the fact that we have a lot more luxuries. How many people had two cars in their driveway in the first half of the 1900's? How many went on 2 cruises a year?

But I was not talking about all of that.

I was simply pointing out that your "Do some legit research." comment was inappropriate.

No, it's more expensive to live now due to the fact that wages have NOT kept up with inflation and housing costs are exorbitant thanks to greedy speculators and developers. And people need two cars in their driveway because they have 2 working people now and there is no public transportation to speak of and most people can't afford to live close to their jobs. It's absurd to refer to that as a luxury. Most people who make 39k a year or less don't have many luxuries. Average wage earners in the US do not go on 2 cruises a year. That's ludicrous.

You said

"Let's be honest. in 1921, taxes on earnings went up to 71%. They were much higher then."

and I showed you that is an incorrect statement because for the vast majority of people, taxes were not higher.

That was my point. That was all I was commenting on. A single point.

And I provided tax rates charts.

You are going off on all kinds of tangents.

You need to suck it up and accept the fact that you were wrong to say "They were much higher then.".

 

[The Prowler]

It is more expensive to live now (relative to average income) largely due to the fact that we have a lot more luxuries. How many people had two cars in their driveway in the first half of the 1900's? How many went on 2 cruises a year?

A nice car was a luxury.

I read somewhere that President Eisenhower said he couldn't afford a car when he was in the army & luxuries like that only became available to him much later in life.

Otherwise he was driven around.

A regular car was a luxury.

 

[Joe]

It is more expensive to live now (relative to average income) largely due to the fact that we have a lot more luxuries. How many people had two cars in their driveway in the first half of the 1900's? How many went on 2 cruises a year?

A nice car was a luxury.

I read somewhere that President Eisenhower said he couldn't afford a car when he was in the army & luxuries like that only became available to him much later in life.

Otherwise he was driven around.

A regular car was a luxury.

Yeah I think my parents mentioned that only the well to do had luxuries like that.

My grandfather owned something like a Depression era pick up truck to transport coal for his business, but he didnt own a car. Like a luxury limo, unless you were using it as work vehicle that could pay for itself a car was out of the reach for many.

The ideal of a prosperous middle class didn't arrive in the US until the late 1940s or 50s? Canada and Europe probably later like the early 1960s.

My parents told me that the middle class in the 1950s were always afraid that the economy would slide back into another depression, hence they were super frugal.

The stock market likewise remained dead from the 1930s right until the 1950s after which it gradually recovered.

People were afraid of pouring their hard earned dollars into something which burned them before so the Dow stagnated for 2 decades & share prices remained depressed.

 

[The Prowler]

The stock market likewise remained dead from the 1930s right until the 1950s after which it gradually recovered.

People were afraid of pouring their hard earned dollars into something which burned them before so the Dow stagnated for 2 decades & share prices remained depressed.

Joe, do you think the stock market reflects the economy, or the economy reflects the stock market?

Assume for no apparent reason, stock prices all fall by 43% tomorrow. How will that affect the economy?

So all of a sudden the average P/E ratio goes from 14 to 8. Will the stock prices stay flat? Or will we see the market correct itself in accordance with the economy?

 

[LotusBud]

Let's be honest. in 1921, taxes on earnings went up to 71%. They were much higher then.

Not for the average worker. For the average worker, taxes were 4%, which is much lower than the 12/10% the average worker pays today.

It is more expensive to live now (relative to average income) largely due to the fact that we have a lot more luxuries. How many people had two cars in their driveway in the first half of the 1900's? How many went on 2 cruises a year?

But I was not talking about all of that.

I was simply pointing out that your "Do some legit research." comment was inappropriate.

No, it's more expensive to live now due to the fact that wages have NOT kept up with inflation and housing costs are exorbitant thanks to greedy speculators and developers. And people need two cars in their driveway because they have 2 working people now and there is no public transportation to speak of and most people can't afford to live close to their jobs. It's absurd to refer to that as a luxury. Most people who make 39k a year or less don't have many luxuries. Average wage earners in the US do not go on 2 cruises a year. That's ludicrous.

You said

"Let's be honest. in 1921, taxes on earnings went up to 71%. They were much higher then."

and I showed you that is an incorrect statement because for the vast majority of people, taxes were not higher.

That was my point. That was all I was commenting on. A single point.

And I provided tax rates charts.

You are going off on all kinds of tangents.

You need to suck it up and accept the fact that you were wrong to say "They were much higher then.".

It's no tangent. My original point was that it is not only taxes that is destroying the qulity of life. It is low wages that have not kept pace with inflation and the absurdly high cost of homes. These things are ruining lives, and you have to take all of them into consideration when you make comparisons to the past.

And taxes were higher then. The POINT is, if richer people were taxed at 71%, like they were then, then taxes on lower earners could be lowered. THAT is what I mean by higher taxes. Just because you want to argue about lower income earners doesn't mean that was MY point.

 

[Lokmar]

Let's be honest. in 1921, taxes on earnings went up to 71%. They were much higher then.

Not for the average worker. For the average worker, taxes were 4%, which is much lower than the 12/10% the average worker pays today.

It is more expensive to live now (relative to average income) largely due to the fact that we have a lot more luxuries. How many people had two cars in their driveway in the first half of the 1900's? How many went on 2 cruises a year?

But I was not talking about all of that.

I was simply pointing out that your "Do some legit research." comment was inappropriate.

No, it's more expensive to live now due to the fact that wages have NOT kept up with inflation and housing costs are exorbitant thanks to greedy speculators and developers. And people need two cars in their driveway because they have 2 working people now and there is no public transportation to speak of and most people can't afford to live close to their jobs. It's absurd to refer to that as a luxury. Most people who make 39k a year or less don't have many luxuries. Average wage earners in the US do not go on 2 cruises a year. That's ludicrous.

You said

"Let's be honest. in 1921, taxes on earnings went up to 71%. They were much higher then."

and I showed you that is an incorrect statement because for the vast majority of people, taxes were not higher.

That was my point. That was all I was commenting on. A single point.

And I provided tax rates charts.

You are going off on all kinds of tangents.

You need to suck it up and accept the fact that you were wrong to say "They were much higher then.".

It's no tangent. My original point was that it is not only taxes that is destroying the qulity of life. It is low wages that have not kept pace with inflation and the absurdly high cost of homes. These things are ruining lives, and you have to take all of them into consideration when you make comparisons to the past.

And taxes were higher then. The POINT is, if richer people were taxed at 71%, like they were then, then taxes on lower earners could be lowered. THAT is what I mean by higher taxes. Just because you want to argue about lower income earners doesn't mean that was MY point.

They didnt pay 71% taxes idiot.

 

[The Prowler]

Let's be honest. in 1921, taxes on earnings went up to 71%. They were much higher then.

Not for the average worker. For the average worker, taxes were 4%, which is much lower than the 12/10% the average worker pays today.

It is more expensive to live now (relative to average income) largely due to the fact that we have a lot more luxuries. How many people had two cars in their driveway in the first half of the 1900's? How many went on 2 cruises a year?

But I was not talking about all of that.

I was simply pointing out that your "Do some legit research." comment was inappropriate.

No, it's more expensive to live now due to the fact that wages have NOT kept up with inflation and housing costs are exorbitant thanks to greedy speculators and developers. And people need two cars in their driveway because they have 2 working people now and there is no public transportation to speak of and most people can't afford to live close to their jobs. It's absurd to refer to that as a luxury. Most people who make 39k a year or less don't have many luxuries. Average wage earners in the US do not go on 2 cruises a year. That's ludicrous.

You said

"Let's be honest. in 1921, taxes on earnings went up to 71%. They were much higher then."

and I showed you that is an incorrect statement because for the vast majority of people, taxes were not higher.

That was my point. That was all I was commenting on. A single point.

And I provided tax rates charts.

You are going off on all kinds of tangents.

You need to suck it up and accept the fact that you were wrong to say "They were much higher then.".

It's no tangent. My original point was that it is not only taxes that is destroying the qulity of life. It is low wages that have not kept pace with inflation and the absurdly high cost of homes. These things are ruining lives, and you have to take all of them into consideration when you make comparisons to the past.

And taxes were higher then. The POINT is, if richer people were taxed at 71%, like they were then, then taxes on lower earners could be lowered. THAT is what I mean by higher taxes. Just because you want to argue about lower income earners doesn't mean that was MY point.

As I showed, the marginal tax rate now for average income earner is 24%. If you want to take the median, you said that is $39K, then the marginal tax rate is 12%.

In 1920, the marginal tax rate for the majority of people was 4%.

To get to a marginal tax rate of 12% in 1920, a person would have to earn over $10K, which was more than 3x the average wage.

To get to a marginal tax rate of 24% in 1920, a person would have to earn over $34K, which was more than 10x the average wage.

In 2020, a person only has to earn $84,200 to be in a 24% marginal tax bracket. That means someone earning an average salary (mean) is in that bracket. If we want to use the median (which you want to because it helps your argument seem a little less ridiculous), a person just has to earn 2.16x the median wage.

To summarize, in 1920, the average earner's marginal tax rate 4%. In 2020, it was 12% or 24%, depending if you are using mean or median. Either way, between 3 and 6 times more.

And in 1920, to reach the 24% tax bracket, one would have to earn over 10x the average wage. In 2020 one would only have to earn the average wage to be in the 24% bracket. Or 2.16x the median wage.

The highest tax rate in 1920 was higher than the highest rate in 2020. But that affected very few people.

The vast majority of workers in 2020 were in a higher tax bracket than the vast majority of workers in 1920.

 

[Lokmar]

Let's be honest. in 1921, taxes on earnings went up to 71%. They were much higher then.

Not for the average worker. For the average worker, taxes were 4%, which is much lower than the 12/10% the average worker pays today.

It is more expensive to live now (relative to average income) largely due to the fact that we have a lot more luxuries. How many people had two cars in their driveway in the first half of the 1900's? How many went on 2 cruises a year?

But I was not talking about all of that.

I was simply pointing out that your "Do some legit research." comment was inappropriate.

No, it's more expensive to live now due to the fact that wages have NOT kept up with inflation and housing costs are exorbitant thanks to greedy speculators and developers. And people need two cars in their driveway because they have 2 working people now and there is no public transportation to speak of and most people can't afford to live close to their jobs. It's absurd to refer to that as a luxury. Most people who make 39k a year or less don't have many luxuries. Average wage earners in the US do not go on 2 cruises a year. That's ludicrous.

You said

"Let's be honest. in 1921, taxes on earnings went up to 71%. They were much higher then."

and I showed you that is an incorrect statement because for the vast majority of people, taxes were not higher.

That was my point. That was all I was commenting on. A single point.

And I provided tax rates charts.

You are going off on all kinds of tangents.

You need to suck it up and accept the fact that you were wrong to say "They were much higher then.".

It's no tangent. My original point was that it is not only taxes that is destroying the qulity of life. It is low wages that have not kept pace with inflation and the absurdly high cost of homes. These things are ruining lives, and you have to take all of them into consideration when you make comparisons to the past.

And taxes were higher then. The POINT is, if richer people were taxed at 71%, like they were then, then taxes on lower earners could be lowered. THAT is what I mean by higher taxes. Just because you want to argue about lower income earners doesn't mean that was MY point.

As I showed, the marginal tax rate now for average income earner is 24%. If you want to take the median, you said that is $39K, then the marginal tax rate is 12%.

In 1920, the marginal tax rate for the majority of people was 4%.

To get to a marginal tax rate of 12% in 1920, a person would have to earn over $10K, which was more than 3x the average wage.

To get to a marginal tax rate of 24% in 1920, a person would have to earn over $34K, which was more than 10x the average wage.

In 2020, a person only has to earn $84,200 to be in a 24% marginal tax bracket. That means someone earning an average salary (mean) is in that bracket. If we want to use the median (which you want to because it helps your argument seem a little less ridiculous), a person just has to earn 2.16x the median wage.

To summarize, in 1920, the average earner's marginal tax rate 4%. In 2020, it was 12% or 24%, depending if you are using mean or median. Either way, between 3 and 6 times more.

And in 1920, to reach the 24% tax bracket, one would have to earn over 10x the average wage. In 2020 one would only have to earn the average wage to be in the 24% bracket. Or 2.16x the median wage.

The highest tax rate in 1920 was higher than the highest rate in 2020. But that affected very few people.

The vast majority of workers in 2020 were in a higher tax bracket than the vast majority of workers in 1920.

You're wasting your time with that lying cunt.

 

[Joe]

Joe, do you think the stock market reflects the economy, or the economy reflects the stock market?

Evidently these days...neither. Unlike the past, today's does not have a strong correlation between the economy and the stock market. Just how the DOW/SP/NASDAQ could be higher than it was when the economy peaked in 2019 is puzzling. When the economy had all four cylandirs pumping, the DOW was just under 30,000. And now...with it running 1/2 or 2/3 the Dow is 34,000. It's not logical as far as the stock market reflecting the economy. Even Jim Kramer said the markets are manipulated.

same time I've heard that the Stock Market is supposed to reflect future economic trends and NOT the current economy. So there must be a lot of optimists who expect much better times ahead in the near future.

Assume for no apparent reason, stock prices all fall by 43% tomorrow. How will that affect the economy?

Badly. And the Powers that Be know it. No no - don't let it fall! With all the Retirement funds worldwide invested it,

I know a lotta people who lost heavily in the 2008 crash, and it took them a full decade to come back where they were a decade earlier. So...anything of that magnitude or larger would take even longer to recover from.

So all of a sudden the average P/E ratio goes from 14 to 8. Will the stock prices stay flat? Or will we see the market correct itself in accordance with the economy?

Buyers should dive back in to scrape up deals of undervalued stocks after a correction. But it must depend on how badly the investors get hammered in the event of one. After the 1929 crash, the Stock market didn't recover for 25 years. After the 2008 crash it was almost 10 years.

But I've read that current valuations of the SP according to the Schiller PE Ratio are 38:6 or more with 15:1 being considered normal.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So by conventional measures, today's stock market is Highly overvalued.

 

[The Prowler]

When the economy had all four cylandirs pumping, the DOW was just under 30,000. And now...with it running 1/2 or 2/3 the Dow is 34,000.

The economy might have grown between those times. You have to look at the fundamentals.

same time I've heard that the Stock Market is supposed to reflect future economic trends and NOT the current economy. So there must be a lot of optimists who expect much better times ahead in the near future.

Sure, people are speculating on the future performance of companies. That will raise or lower stock prices.

Badly. And the Powers that Be know it. No no - don't let it fall! With all the Retirement funds worldwide invested it,

People who are living on their savings should have an appropriate portion in guaranteed investments. If they are in equities, they should know the risks of fluctuations.

Equities going up or down should not cause anyone to panic if the economy is solid. Look at the TSX composite - it went from about 18K to 12K in about a month in early 2020. It is now over 20K. People panicked and drove the prices down, but the economy kept going on and the stock prices were corrected. If the were not corrected, dividend payouts would be huge (percentage wise).

Buyers should dive back in to scrape up deals of undervalued stocks after a correction. But it must depend on how badly the investors get hammered in the event of one. After the 1929 crash, the Stock market didn't recover for 25 years. After the 2008 crash it was almost 10 years.

Sure, increase your investment in the markets if you are able to identify when they are low. I think when there is illogical, usually panicked, selling driving prices down, they will go back up in most blue chip sectors.

But I've read that current valuations of the SP according to the Schiller PE Ratio are 38:6 or more with 15:1 being considered normal.

I thought you are Canadian. Or at least living in Canada. I follow the TSX way more than any foreign exchange.

BTW, I think you meant "38.6" and "15.1". I have only ever seen P/E ratios expressed as the price per $1 of earnings.

I actually was unaware of the high average P/E ratio in the US markets. I only hold three American stocks right now...Pfizer (P/E of 18.99), FedEx (P/E of 13.27) and Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (P/E of 4.93).

I wonder if there are a lot of reckless investors putting a lot of money in overpriced speculative stocks, and that is what is driving up the average P/E ratio.

There are deals to be had right now, IMO, in Canadian stocks. Look at any of the big banks or the big life insurance companies.

Anyways, I disagree with you about the importance of stock price to the economy. I think it is way less important than you think. Stock price matters to a company actively issuing new stock to raise capital. Stock price matters to a shareholder who needs to sell because they need cash for whatever reason. But a healthy company earning profits with a decent outlook will eventually see their stock price reflect their financial health. But whatever happens with the stock price, it does not affect the company's Income Statement.

 

[deport_liberals]

 

[Joe]

When the economy had all four cylandirs pumping, the DOW was just under 30,000. And now...with it running 1/2 or 2/3 the Dow is 34,000.

The economy might have grown between those times. You have to look at the fundamentals.

same time I've heard that the Stock Market is supposed to reflect future economic trends and NOT the current economy. So there must be a lot of optimists who expect much better times ahead in the near future.

Sure, people are speculating on the future performance of companies. That will raise or lower stock prices.

Badly. And the Powers that Be know it. No no - don't let it fall! With all the Retirement funds worldwide invested it,

People who are living on their savings should have an appropriate portion in guaranteed investments. If they are in equities, they should know the risks of fluctuations.

Equities going up or down should not cause anyone to panic if the economy is solid. Look at the TSX composite - it went from about 18K to 12K in about a month in early 2020. It is now over 20K. People panicked and drove the prices down, but the economy kept going on and the stock prices were corrected. If the were not corrected, dividend payouts would be huge (percentage wise).

Buyers should dive back in to scrape up deals of undervalued stocks after a correction. But it must depend on how badly the investors get hammered in the event of one. After the 1929 crash, the Stock market didn't recover for 25 years. After the 2008 crash it was almost 10 years.

Sure, increase your investment in the markets if you are able to identify when they are low. I think when there is illogical, usually panicked, selling driving prices down, they will go back up in most blue chip sectors.

But I've read that current valuations of the SP according to the Schiller PE Ratio are 38:6 or more with 15:1 being considered normal.

I thought you are Canadian. Or at least living in Canada. I follow the TSX way more than any foreign exchange.

BTW, I think you meant "38.6" and "15.1". I have only ever seen P/E ratios expressed as the price per $1 of earnings.

I actually was unaware of the high average P/E ratio in the US markets. I only hold three American stocks right now...Pfizer (P/E of 18.99), FedEx (P/E of 13.27) and Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (P/E of 4.93).

I wonder if there are a lot of reckless investors putting a lot of money in overpriced speculative stocks, and that is what is driving up the average P/E ratio.

There are deals to be had right now, IMO, in Canadian stocks. Look at any of the big banks or the big life insurance companies.

Anyways, I disagree with you about the importance of stock price to the economy. I think it is way less important than you think. Stock price matters to a company actively issuing new stock to raise capital. Stock price matters to a shareholder who needs to sell because they need cash for whatever reason. But a healthy company earning profits with a decent outlook will eventually see their stock price reflect their financial health. But whatever happens with the stock price, it does not affect the company's Income Statement.

When the economy had all four cylandirs pumping, the DOW was just under 30,000. And now...with it running 1/2 or 2/3 the Dow is 34,000.

The economy might have grown between those times. You have to look at the fundamentals.

same time I've heard that the Stock Market is supposed to reflect future economic trends and NOT the current economy. So there must be a lot of optimists who expect much better times ahead in the near future.

Sure, people are speculating on the future performance of companies. That will raise or lower stock prices.

Badly. And the Powers that Be know it. No no - don't let it fall! With all the Retirement funds worldwide invested it,

People who are living on their savings should have an appropriate portion in guaranteed investments. If they are in equities, they should know the risks of fluctuations.

Equities going up or down should not cause anyone to panic if the economy is solid. Look at the TSX composite - it went from about 18K to 12K in about a month in early 2020. It is now over 20K. People panicked and drove the prices down, but the economy kept going on and the stock prices were corrected. If the were not corrected, dividend payouts would be huge (percentage wise).

Buyers should dive back in to scrape up deals of undervalued stocks after a correction. But it must depend on how badly the investors get hammered in the event of one. After the 1929 crash, the Stock market didn't recover for 25 years. After the 2008 crash it was almost 10 years.

Sure, increase your investment in the markets if you are able to identify when they are low. I think when there is illogical, usually panicked, selling driving prices down, they will go back up in most blue chip sectors.

But I've read that current valuations of the SP according to the Schiller PE Ratio are 38:6 or more with 15:1 being considered normal.

I thought you are Canadian. Or at least living in Canada. I follow the TSX way more than any foreign exchange.

BTW, I think you meant "38.6" and "15.1". I have only ever seen P/E ratios expressed as the price per $1 of earnings.

I actually was unaware of the high average P/E ratio in the US markets. I only hold three American stocks right now...Pfizer (P/E of 18.99), FedEx (P/E of 13.27) and Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (P/E of 4.93).

I wonder if there are a lot of reckless investors putting a lot of money in overpriced speculative stocks, and that is what is driving up the average P/E ratio.

There are deals to be had right now, IMO, in Canadian stocks. Look at any of the big banks or the big life insurance companies.

Anyways, I disagree with you about the importance of stock price to the economy. I think it is way less important than you think. Stock price matters to a company actively issuing new stock to raise capital. Stock price matters to a shareholder who needs to sell because they need cash for whatever reason. But a healthy company earning profits with a decent outlook will eventually see their stock price reflect their financial health. But whatever happens with the stock price, it does not affect the company's Income Statement.

Sorry did I say 38:6?

I think the website and other sources state that the Schiller pe ratio is 38.6 to 1, which many analysts warn is a number which precedes a correction or possible crash. Schiller index was devised by Economics Nobel Laureate Robert Schiller.

Some other sources: Jeremy Grantham. Ray Dalio. David Rosenberg, Michael Burry.

Anyways I try to not inject my biases as nobody can really time or predict the Stock Market. I just try to read from credible sources & successful investors to get their opinions on where they think the market is headed.

 

[Joe]

Is the 2nd guy after the divorce & the custody battle?

 

[The Prowler]

I think the website and other sources state that the Schiller pe ratio is 38.6 to 1, which many analysts warn is a number which precedes a correction or possible crash. Schiller index was devised by Economics Nobel Laureate Robert Schiller.

As in the examples I gave you, many American stocks have reasonable P/E ratios. If there is a significant correction, look for those stocks to bounce back quickly.

But the TSX gives enough options for anyone. Shit man, Manulife stock has a P/E ratio of 6.73 right now. Look at their financials. This is a golden opportunity.

There must be a lot of stock that people are speculating will do really well - when that speculation changes, the price should change. Drastic corrections across different, unrelated sectors is just emotion getting involved.

Anyways I try to not inject my biases as nobody can really time or predict the Stock Market. I just try to read from credible sources & successful investors to get their opinions on where they think the market is headed.

Credible sources and successful investors have already injected their influence into every stock valuation that is out there. You can research a stock for as long as you like; without insider knowledge, you will not be able to gain any more insight that the insight that has already be used to determine where the market has determined a stock should be valuated.

Instead of trying to understand the value of any one stock, it is better to understand human emotion. This is why I have been able to consistently and significantly outperform virtually all fund managers.

Give me $50K to invest over 12 months, Joe, and I will demonstrate. Opportunity is knocking.

 

[Joe]

I think the website and other sources state that the Schiller pe ratio is 38.6 to 1, which many analysts warn is a number which precedes a correction or possible crash. Schiller index was devised by Economics Nobel Laureate Robert Schiller.

As in the examples I gave you, many American stocks have reasonable P/E ratios. If there is a significant correction, look for those stocks to bounce back quickly.

But the TSX gives enough options for anyone. Shit man, Manulife stock has a P/E ratio of 6.73 right now. Look at their financials. This is a golden opportunity.

There must be a lot of stock that people are speculating will do really well - when that speculation changes, the price should change. Drastic corrections across different, unrelated sectors is just emotion getting involved.

Anyways I try to not inject my biases as nobody can really time or predict the Stock Market. I just try to read from credible sources & successful investors to get their opinions on where they think the market is headed.

Credible sources and successful investors have already injected their influence into every stock valuation that is out there. You can research a stock for as long as you like; without insider knowledge, you will not be able to gain any more insight that the insight that has already be used to determine where the market has determined a stock should be valuated.

Instead of trying to understand the value of any one stock, it is better to understand human emotion. This is why I have been able to consistently and significantly outperform virtually all fund managers.

Give me $50K to invest over 12 months, Joe, and I will demonstrate. Opportunity is knocking.

Stock market just like the horse races - you can't predict future performance based on past performance.

I once worked with a guy who was a professional gambler.
He won at everything he gambled on, including lotto tickets, cards, horse races.
I'm not sure how he did it, but he managed to find a way to win at anything he gambled at. including the 6 49.
He was so good, that high rollers would ay him to gamble for them and win - which he did.
I guess he just intuitively understood the laws of odds.
the only time I ever won at lotto is when I let that guy choose the numbers for me, which I split the earnings with him when we won.

Admittedly, I was totally wrong in my predictions last year where the market was headed.
I thought it was gonna dive like 10 years ago.
Good thing I'm not in that biz. lol.

Altho, when I was a limo driver, I drove the Money Managers/CEOs of one of the leading investment houses in Canada who said his portfolio/market cap was valued at $100 billion Canadian. I'd drive him to and from the airport.

He was always under a lot of stress. When the market tanked, his face looked like it turned gray or blue.
Given his position in the financial world, he was always under pressure to perform.
And when there was a dip, he'd bring a team of specialists from out of town whom I'd pick up and drive to his office in Vancouver to find out what was wrong and how they could shift the portfolio according to the direction of the market.

The one question I asked one of them is "Can you time the market?"
And they smiled and laughed.

He said "No,"

They just use computer algorithms to manage the portfolio to determine how they will invest.
And if one doesn't work, they just use another.

 

[Lokmar]

josephine barely has $20 for tonights cat run slow at the local chink restaurant.

 

[Joe]

josephine barely has $20 for tonights cat run slow at the local chink restaurant.

Well, at least I'm not fat. lol.

Had my blood pressure taken the other day by the doctor & it was 120 over 60.

And no, I don't eat Chinese food, Lokmeer!

Stuff is laced with MSG. Bad as High Fructose Corn Syrup.

My diet consists mostly of West Coast Seafood.

That's what I'm gonna have tonight, eh?

Unlike yerself, I'm not bad ....Lokmeer!

 

[Lokmar]

josephine barely has $20 for tonights cat run slow at the local chink restaurant.

Well, at least I'm not fat. lol.

Had my blood pressure taken the other day by the doctor & it was 120 over 60.

And no, I don't eat Chinese food, Lokmeer!

Stuff is laced with MSG. Bad as High Fructose Corn Syrup.

My diet consists mostly of West Coast Seafood.

That's what I'm gonna have tonight, eh?

Unlike yerself, I'm not bad ....Lokmeer!

My BP was 123/70 last time I was at the doc. Guess I'm not very fat, ehh josephine?

I am currently eating chank food for dinner tho!

 

[Joe]

josephine barely has $20 for tonights cat run slow at the local chink restaurant.

Well, at least I'm not fat. lol.

Had my blood pressure taken the other day by the doctor & it was 120 over 60.

And no, I don't eat Chinese food, Lokmeer!

Stuff is laced with MSG. Bad as High Fructose Corn Syrup.

My diet consists mostly of West Coast Seafood.

That's what I'm gonna have tonight, eh?

Unlike yerself, I'm not bad ....Lokmeer!

My BP was 123/70 last time I was at the doc. Guess I'm not very fat, ehh josephine?

I am currently eating chank food for dinner tho!

Ughh. That stuff makes me sick every time I eat it.

I'm just going for the Salmon and Prawns tonight, Bud!

 

[The Prowler]

Had my blood pressure taken the other day by the doctor & it was 120 over 60.

Wow!

Those are really round numbers. Not 121 or 122 or 118 or 119....but 120.

And not 61 or 62 or 58 or 59....but 60.

120 over 60.

Bang on!

What are the odds of that?