prev <-> next
[2018-10-15 16:24:43] - Completely off topic, but is there some metric to essentially measure APY by month? I'm trying to compare a CD with a 2.6% APY for 9 months with a CD that is 2.75% APY for 15 months in terms of which gives me a better bang per month. -Paul
[2018-10-15 16:23:42] - a: Hah! Sorry. I even know that, but for some reason my fingers just thought I should shorten aaron to one letter. What could go wrong? -Paul
[2018-10-15 16:05:41] - paul: that was aaron, but i also appreciate the equality. ~a
[2018-10-15 15:54:33] - aaron: So while I agree that's probably the thinking behind this and the justification that people use, I don't know if I think it's "right". It doesn't seem like Handler should get a pass because she normally votes D or Roseanne should be unduly roasted because Trump voters like her. -Paul
[2018-10-15 15:53:12] - aaron: I see what you're saying, but aren't those unspoken subtexts based on stereotypes? Sure, lots of Republicans might condemn homosexuality, but not all of them, and there's plenty of Democrats who don't approve of gay marriage. -Paul
[2018-10-15 15:51:10] - a: Appreciate equating trekkie with pedophile.
-Paul[2018-10-15 15:50:04] - aaron: maybe? I don't see any sort of pleasant subtext in handlers comments though. - mig
[2018-10-15 14:30:13] - and to be fair, the opposite sentiment is true for things like liberals who are critical of the catholic church, or liberals who speak out for gun control -- their statements of course have an unspoken addendum, "because all guns are bad, and any parent who owns a gun is an irresponsible parent" - aaron
[2018-10-15 14:26:49] - a liberal jokingly saying, "he should come out of the closet" has this unspoken addendum, "because all gay people should come out of the closet, and we love them even if they're conservative." a republican joking "he should come out of the closet" has an unspoken addendum, "because i bet he's one of those sneaky gays, they're hiding everywhere, even in our schools" - aaron
[2018-10-15 14:21:34] - to take a crack at why the "he's gay lol" joke is more socially acceptable when it comes from liberals, i'd say it's because it's more offensive to say someone's a part of a group you condemn, as opposed to a group you're indifferent towards. like "ha ha, he's a total trekkie" versus "ha ha, he's a total pedophile" - aaron
[2018-10-15 14:15:27] - democrats can be abusers, and republicans can't. ~a
[2018-10-15 14:08:40] - And yeah Democratic personalities can joke about Republicans being gay, but Republicans can't make an identical joke about a democrat. If you analyze the joke enough there's probably subtext there and it makes sense maybe - aaron
[2018-10-15 14:05:15] - I acknowledge stuff like that is asymmetrical, but it's not surprising and I don't think it's a problem. People can say I'm skinny, I can't say they're fat. People can say I'm tall, I can't say they're short. People can joke about my youth, I can't joke about how old they are - aaron
[2018-10-15 13:43:35] - aaron: Or if Pence had made fun of a Democratic senator by implying he was gay. -Paul
[2018-10-15 13:42:55] - aaron: I do think there's something to what Miguel said, though, where blind eyes are turned (or at the very least, benefit of the doubt is given) to some people and not to others. Think if a conservative had done Colbert's "Ching Chong Ding Dong" joke, for example. -Paul
[2018-10-15 13:39:35] - aaron: Got it, and it makes sense in this specific context what you're saying about the subhuman stuff (and punching up and down). Not sure I 100% agree, but I do understand where you're coming from. -Paul
[2018-10-15 13:36:36] - Daniel: And I thought (but maybe I'm wrong here), that it's not nice to make fun of somebody by saying he's a closeted gay person. -Paul
[2018-10-15 13:36:06] - Daniel: "Why do you think they are comparable Paul?" Because all seem to be about making fun of somebody in ways that I think (in a vacuum), people would think is unseemly? Not nice to refer to somebody who is half black as a monkey. It's not nice to say a black person put on a minstrel show... -Paul
[2018-10-15 12:53:10] - (that last statement was in reference to sarah jeong's tweets) - aaron
[2018-10-15 12:52:43] - paul: yeah, those comments are offensive but there's a concept of "punching down" versus "punching up". it's socially acceptable to everybody make fun of white males because they're the best kind of people - aaron
[2018-10-15 12:47:35] - if raj's comment had been something like, "i bet you have an uncle who lives in an underground cave and clubs humans to eat their bones," it wouldn't probably be on TV. ...well... maybe in the right context but probably not - aaron
[2018-10-15 12:45:41] - paul: the target group makes a difference, but roseanne's comments were basically implying blacks are subhuman, not just drawing a stereotype about something black people are known for. there's a difference between "he's black so i bet his dad wasn't around much" and "he's black so i bet he likes bananas" - aaron
[2018-10-15 12:38:46] - I don't get at all why its comparable to Roseanne's tweet regardless of target or the speaker. Why do you think they are comparable Paul? -Daniel
[2018-10-15 12:37:22] - I'm late to the conversation but I read Chandlers tweet as making fun of Graham for skipping work on coming out day because people joke/ think he's gay. I guess its not nice to call him out kind of? But I think it only works because in theory he and R's seem to think that being gay is bad. Like if he just came out and said yeah I'm gay but I was feeling like crap then there isn't a joke anymore. -Daniel
[2018-10-15 11:49:30] - I'll amend the last statement that the speaker of said remarks must also have the "correct" political (i.e. progressive). - mig
[2018-10-15 11:46:17] - aaron: Interesting. So it seems obvious that the target group DOES make a difference, but should it? In other words, in our current society it's more "acceptable" to make fun of gays (and maybe Jews?) than blacks? What do you think of Sarah Jeong's comments (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/08/03/an-asian-american-womans-tweets-ignite-a-debate-is-it-okay-to-make-fun-of-white-people-online/ )? -Paul
[2018-10-15 11:43:58] - I'm pretty sure the entire country would meltdown if Trump had made a similar tweet regrading Graham when they were feuding with each other. - mig
[2018-10-15 11:43:18] - paul: what I'm drawing from the general reaction is that homophobic, sexist, and racist remarks are mostly OK as long as the target of such remarks is a conservative or otherwise non-progressive. - mig
[2018-10-15 11:43:13] - a: So it feels like "people" are in agreement that what Roseanne said was miles apart from what Handler and Lemon said. -Paul
[2018-10-15 11:42:30] - a: And yet Lemon and Handler seem to have done this sort of stuff multiple times without much pushback at all (yes, I know Roseanne had a history as well, but it seems clear she was fired for that one incident) and also Handler and Lemon don't seem to be apologetic at all. -Paul
[2018-10-15 11:40:23] - a: I don't really like to advocate for anybody losing their job, and it also gets into the issue that they are private companies that can do whatever they want. I'm more interested in that Roseanne's tweet caused so much outrage that Disney/ABC felt they had to fire her despite her apologizing.. -Paul
[2018-10-15 11:34:33] - paul: but i think in all the contexts you brought up, the comment is more offensive because it's not just like, "look at this person drawing stereotypes," but "look at this person leveraging stereotypes to diminish a notable public figure" - aaron
[2018-10-15 11:33:27] - with that said, i think if someone tweeted in jest about a jewish comedian or a jewish friend probably having an uncle who's a lawyer, i don't think it would be a big deal. if they tweeted it about a jewish politician or a jewish CEO, it seems like a bigger deal, which is maybe a little interesting - aaron
[2018-10-15 11:29:41] - paul: i hate to go for the lazy answer, but every message is different from every message. there's nuance, and nothing is the same ever? maybe if your question asked, should lemon or handler be fired from their jobs like rosanne? though i'd still say, rosanne should be fired, and handler should not. (lemon i dunno. maybe he should be fired. he's a journalist / news anchor for god sakes. at least he's remarking on his own race) ~a
[2018-10-15 11:29:27] - paul: yeah i think they're still acceptable now, and that BBT quote is sort of an exception because it's meant to show raj going over the line and saying something that's actually offensive, and the other characters calling attention to it - aaron
[2018-10-15 11:22:39] - a: Which are different and why? -Paul
[2018-10-15 11:20:07] - paul: "Do they rise to a similar level or are they different?" different. ~a
[2018-10-15 11:00:22] - mig: Right, and I totally get Aaron's point (assuming I am understanding it correctly), that those types of jokes were much more acceptable not so long ago. I'm sure I've made them in the past. Heck, maybe they're even still acceptable now. I guess that's part of what I'm wondering. -Paul
[2018-10-15 10:45:46] - just some context on Lindsey Graham specifically: He's been kind of famously single during his tenure in congress and based on that I'm pretty sure Handler was taking a "oh look at the man who doesn't want to mingle with women. Must be gay!" type of jab at him. - mig
[2018-10-14 20:36:42] - quick, grab my unwashed hand! ~a
[2018-10-14 16:51:07] - Although, on the other hand, it was said by somebody who is black.... so I don't know how that affects things.
-Paul[2018-10-14 16:50:42] - I guess that's different because it's Jews instead of Blacks? I have to imagine a show like Black-ish must've had some jokes similar to that, though. To circle back, though, Lemon's comments were directed at Kanye, so that would seem to be a racist comment against blacks. -Paul
[2018-10-14 16:46:26] - Like, I think it was Big Bang Theory when Raj made some sort of reference to Howard having an uncle who is a lawyer and Howard said that was an ugly stereotype.... before confirming that his uncle IS a lawyer... -Paul
[2018-10-14 16:45:25] - aaron: Sure, and I think it's a thin line. I certainly remember a lot of sitcom episodes where stereotypes were referenced (and confirmed), but the argument could be made that they were making fun of the stereotypes and not stereotyping... -Paul
[2018-10-14 09:42:03] - - aaron
[2018-10-14 09:41:16] - but i literally can't think of any movie or TV show where a sympathetic character has said something like, "hey black guy, i bet you eat a lot of bananas, i bet your favorite movie is planet of the apes..." i mean even in the 1950s people were more polite. maybe if you go back to the 1920s there's some out-of-touch high-class elderly woman in a radio show who used language like that so... maybe? it's a 100? maybe? probably more - aaro
[2018-10-14 09:39:55] - sympathetic sitcom characters to this day still make jokes about, "ha ha, why don't you just come out of the closet already." Monica made one on Friends towards Chandler when he knew too much about musicals, and The Office had a few directed at Andy Bernard. so, I think that's objectively a "0", like you can be hurt that someone said it to you but it's objectively still TV-friendly - aaron
[2018-10-14 09:38:21] - so something like "ha ha, i'd never date you, you're a total fag" is maybe Sixteen Candles (1984), so that's 30 years. something like donning buck teeth and squinting your eyes and donning a chinese accent, well, that's I guess Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961), so more like 60 years. as far as these two specific tweets go, - aaron
[2018-10-14 09:33:06] - paul: yeah, your interpretation is more inflammatory. it's hard to objectively comparely jokes, "which is more offensive," but i think one measure is: when is the last decade that a sympathetic protagonist in a TV, movie, or radio program would have remained sympathetic if they said it? - aaron
[2018-10-12 21:40:38] - mig: Or the comment about it being a minstrel show. -Paul
[2018-10-12 21:39:50] - Aaron: Hmmm, I think we interpreted Chelsea Handler's tweets differently. A lot of people interpreted it as joking that Lindsey Graham is gay (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/chelsea-handler-criticized-homophobic-tweet-republicans-better-chelsea-kind-joke-tired-221914850.html). -Paul
[2018-10-12 18:05:27] - xpovos: the hit-and-run we discussed in september: a suspect was finally caught. man who commuted from dc to arlington by bike (a trip i make often) was killed by a hit-and-run on constitution ave. a suspect has been arrested. i'll keep you updated. ~a
[2018-10-12 17:15:00] - aaron: "implying a specific person who opposes gay marriage doesn't support gays?" i'm not sure you're interpreting her tweet correctly. handler isn't implying that graham doesn't support people coming out. handler is implying that graham is himself in the closet. to back this up, handler was saying graham is in the closet back in january. ~a
[2018-10-12 15:34:05] - paul: Are we talking about the "Kanye is what happens when negros don't read." remark? I thought someone else said that but Lemon seemed pretty supportive of the comment I guess. - mig
[2018-10-12 15:06:56] - one is basically hate speech and the other is basically a tautology. i might be misunderstanding your question - aaron
[2018-10-12 15:06:35] - paul: are you asking whether implying a specific black person is a monkey is the same level as implying a specific person who opposes gay marriage doesn't support gays? if that's your question, then no, those are not really the same - aaron
[2018-10-12 10:50:35] - https://twitter.com/chelseahandler/status/1050458853161103360 So, I'm wondering what people here think about these tweets from Chelsea Handler compared to the tweets from Roseanne that got her fired however long ago. How about the things that Don Lemon said? Do they rise to a similar level or are they different? -Paul
[2018-10-11 17:35:28] - Post mid-term it's pretty clear (to me) that Rosenstein at least is gone. Sessions too, probably. Mueller sticks around for a bit after that, but how long is a reasonable question. -- Xpovos
[2018-10-11 16:04:22] - Firing Sessions doesn't really change anything in regards to the Mueller investigation. Filling that vacancy will take considerable time, and in the interim it's still Rosenstein's show (and he appears to be safe from Trump's wrath for now). - mig
[2018-10-11 15:31:33] - a: Or Sessions, for that matter. I don't know if I would mind him removing Sessions. I understand that would probably be as a precursor to removing Mueller, which is obviously bad (and a big deal), but other than that I see no reason to want Sessions to stick around. -paul
[2018-10-11 15:30:55] -
do it. ~a[2018-10-11 15:30:32] - a: "ignoring the criminal justice reform thing for a second" Okay, but if we ignore the criminal justice reform thing, then we detach this entirely from the conversation we were having. -Paul
[2018-10-11 15:26:39] - paul: (ignoring the criminal justice reform thing for a second) yes, he's been seriously considering firing sessions. considering how he doesn't seem to care about blow-back i'm surprised he hasn't done it yet. ~a
[2018-10-11 15:10:43] - a: "uses it as pretext to remove sessions and mueller" Is that a thing that people are talking about? I don't see how criminal justice reform would logically lead to removing Mueller... This isn't an "ends justify the means" kind of thing, is it? We're debating his motivations, not his means. -Paul
[2018-10-11 15:09:31] - Daniel: But actively managed funds are at the mercy of the people who invest in them, and it sounds like lots of people are panic selling now due to the market drop, which means some funds HAVE to sell some positions to cover the money being withdrawn. -Paul
[2018-10-11 15:08:34] - Daniel: https://twitter.com/jimcramer/status/1050459619317956614 "Some funds just had to get out no mattter what. Others had to sell because they were out of money". I think this is a reference to something I was talking about before. I think you and I would both agree that selling now is a bad idea... -Paul
[2018-10-11 15:03:31] - paul: what if he does something good (overrules sessions on criminal justice reform) for a bad reason (uses it as pretext to remove sessions and mueller). i think the ends won't even justify the ends let alone the means. ~a
[2018-10-11 14:52:41] - It's a helluva better than knowing the right thing to do and maybe even wanting to, but not doing it, which was something I think Obama was guilty of a lot. -Paul
[2018-10-11 14:51:58] - Yeah, I don't know why it matters WHY Trump would do this. I think everybody here is in agreement he only does things for selfish reasons or to try to stick it to somebody, so channeling that into getting good things done is the best we can hope for.
-Paul[2018-10-11 14:10:45] - a: though I'm not sure why you think Kushner is being insincere on this. It's been something he's been working on for quite a while. - mig
[2018-10-11 14:06:37] - a: I mean, you're not wrong, at least about Trump, but in this area I'll take progress where I can get it, irregardless of this probably being driven by Trump's ever burning hatred of Sessions. - mig
[2018-10-11 13:31:07] - jared kushner, trump's "senior" white house adviser doesn't give two shits about criminal justice reform either. i have no doubts that trump will "overrule" sessions, but it will likely be for malevolent reasons. ~a
[2018-10-11 13:27:00] - trump doesn't give two shits about criminal justice reform. ~a
[2018-10-11 13:12:14] - That weird moment when Trump might be a force for good. - mig
[2018-10-11 10:51:35] - yeah it's not a comic i read nearly as often as i used to, but it's usually pretty easy to catch up. it's by far the comic i've been reading semi-regularly the longest. ~a
[2018-10-11 10:41:02] - a: Thank you for reminding me that I don't read xkcd enough these days. https://xkcd.com/2054/ Holy shit. It's literally every project I ask my IT department to build. -- Xpovos
[2018-10-11 10:37:14] - I did not forget about February either. It's hard to explain why this one is different (other than recency bias, as you note) but I believe there is something different. Again, I'm not saying this is anything like 10-11 years ago. But I do feel this is a harbinger of a proper bear market. -- Xpovos
[2018-10-11 10:29:46] - i did not forget about february. ~a
[2018-10-11 10:14:56] - Somebody also pointed out this is "the biggest drop since the drop this past February that you already forgot about". Sure enough, I completely forgot how big that drop was compared to this (so far). -Paul
[2018-10-11 10:12:41] - Xpovos: I read on twitter somebody saying there was no clear catalyst for this drop, and somebody replying with lots of catalysts, like higher interest rates and the trade war and the bump from the corporate tax cuts likely to start wearing off after a few more earnings reports. -Paul
[2018-10-11 09:56:57] - daniel: ah, ok, i think i get it. the point is that they get everything they need from the air and the sunlight. very little of what makes the tree comes from the soil? ~a
[2018-10-11 09:43:51] - a: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page - Says that yeah it combines parts of things in air to make mass.-Daniel
[2018-10-11 09:34:47] - i don't understand the botany part of yesterday's xkcd. can someone explain the botany bubble? i guess there's carbon, nitrogen, oxygen in the air? and hydrogen in the water vapor? if that's what it means though, can't that be said of all life? maybe i don't get it. ~a
[2018-10-10 22:38:43] - Would love it if I had some cash on hand to buy some beaten down stocks. Seems like a lot of discounts out there.
-Paul[2018-10-10 19:29:19] - a: I saved a fair bit of money in the crash, but I didn't get back in fast enough either, so I missed some of the climb back. Overall, I did better "timing" the market than just buying and holding, but not as much better as I probably should have based on the accurate prediction of financial chaos. -- Xpovos
[2018-10-10 17:20:14] - "That's when I sold most of my stock holdings and went pretty much pure bonds for a while" ouch. i went the opposite direction, and scratched together some extra money to buy more stocks. ~a
[2018-10-10 17:15:35] - Strike that, I meant 11 years ago. 10 years ago was when it really fell apart, but the writing was on the wall in October of the previous year. That's when I sold most of my stock holdings and went pretty much pure bonds for a while. -- Xpovos
[2018-10-10 17:14:11] - A steep down day in October, general market unease. Reminds me of ten years ago. But I don't think it's actually as bad as that. The underlying financial crisis isn't here this time. But that doesn't mean it's good. -- Xpovos
[2018-10-10 16:34:24] - thanks, trump. ~a
[2018-10-10 16:34:09] - yeah the market was this low last in july. . . . quite the drop. ytd increase is barely above zero. ~a
[2018-10-10 15:57:39] - Holy crap. Big down day in the market today. I remain steadfastly against trying to time the market, but I really wish my 401(k) transfer had taken a few more days so I could've been buying at these prices instead of the prices from a week ago.
-Paul[2018-10-10 15:48:14] - Daniel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan) I could be wrong, but I think most people, if they think anything about the Japanese economy, think about how it's been kind of stuck in this low-to-no growth mode for decades. -Paul
[2018-10-10 15:00:43] - paul: i hear you. i guess i'm more surprised at how small russia's economy is than anything. ~a
[2018-10-10 14:57:10] - Paul: I'm unaware of that being a generally held opinion about Japan. Though I don't know that I'm aware of many people's opinions on Japan so I might just not know and they actually all do think that. -Daniel
[2018-10-10 14:53:09] - a: And it's frankly one of the best places to live. Long life expectancy and everything. -Paul
[2018-10-10 14:52:45] - a: One thing I've heard is that Americans tend to have this weird view of Japan as a terrible economy and place to live because their economy is shrinking (largely because their population is shrinking) and most people think that's bad. However, that kinda masks that they have one of the best, most advanced, and still biggest economies. -Paul
[2018-10-10 14:51:10] - a: Right, but he was using the slur definition of the word. Isn't that what we were referring to? -Paul
[2018-10-10 10:34:14] - yeah i noticed some stuff like that. the middle east isn't a continent either. anyways they aren't continents, they're "regions" as defined by the author. anyways, it seemed pretty minor imo. ~a
[2018-10-10 10:30:49] - a: Those regions are kind of odd to me since they are mostly continents except when they aren't. Why split off Mexico from North America and then lump everything else in the western hemisphere into "Latin America and Caribbean"? -Daniel
[2018-10-10 10:17:08] - also south korea. compared to russia again, wtf. ~a
[2018-10-10 10:16:26] - world economy (absolute gdp, not per capita). only things that surprised me about this visualization is how large the japanese economy is and how small the russian economy is. japanese economy = russian economy * 3! i would have expected the russian economy to be larger than the japanese one considering how we discuss them in world news. ~a
[2018-10-10 08:15:52] - paul: "one slur use (ironically by Daniel)" in 2012? no i don't think daniel was using a slur, but discussing it. as we are now. ~a
[2018-10-09 22:08:53] - a: I'm sure I've used the phrase a few times and I intend to keep on using it. Doesn't intention matter at all? This is a phrase that, to my knowledge, has no relation to the racial slur and I can't imagine anybody honestly thinking he meant anything of the sort. -Paul
[2018-10-09 22:04:52] - a: So, I'm seeing one non-slur use (chink in the armor) and one slur use (ironically by Daniel). Is that right? -Paul
[2018-10-09 15:08:43] - https://aporter.org/msg/?action=search&search=chink / https://aporter.org/msg/?action=search&search=chinks . . . only one of those results is an actual usage of that word (in 2002). also weirdly enough, the *2012* discussion regarding lin had miguel on the opposite side of the argument from paul, but maybe i'm mis-assessing things a little bit. ~a
[2018-10-09 14:59:33] - "is completely off limits to you in all contexts now?" personally, yes. but remove the "now". i've probably never used that phrase ever. ~a
[2018-10-09 14:40:12] - Paul: Disagree with your disagree. Its definitely part of public facing employees to consider how things will be received by the public. We can think that part of the public is dumb that is outraged. His company is also free to think that segment of the population is dumb. But definitely part of his job is to consider public response. -Daniel
[2018-10-09 14:19:50] - a: "that's literally his job" Disagree. His job as an announcer is to talk about what is happening on the field as it is happening and (sometimes) to provide color commentary or opinion. His job isn't to carefully consider how some people might interpret everything he says. -Paul
[2018-10-09 14:18:29] - a: "i wouldn't have said it about a white dude" Whoa, really? So the phrase "chink in the armor" is completely off limits to you in all contexts now? -Paul
[2018-10-09 13:56:41] - "I can't imagine he had virtually any time at all to think about what he was saying in advance" that's literally his job. "it was about somebody of Japanese descent" matters not. i wouldn't have said it about a white dude. ~a
[2018-10-09 13:56:06] - paul: "not because it's wrong, but just to avoid being fired." how about, not because it's wrong, but because it's questionable. because it's . . . neutral at best. ~a
[2018-10-09 13:56:00] - a: But this was something said by an announcer during a live game. I can't imagine he had virtually any time at all to think about what he was saying in advance. Also, I can't stress this enough, it was about somebody of Japanese descent. -Paul
[2018-10-09 13:54:14] - a: I can see how, in the wake of the Jeremy Lin headline, somebody who had time to plan out their words might try to avoid using that term when describing a person of Chinese descent not because it's wrong, but just to avoid being fired. -Paul
[2018-10-09 12:47:55] - paul: yeah, that's fair. still it can't hurt to find the audio. so i did. there was no change to the tenor of his voice like you said. so the context didn't change my opinion any. seems like a very dumb thing to get mad about, but i guess i personally feel he should have chosen different words. i avoid using certain words when they border subjects i know to be touchy. ~a
[2018-10-09 11:23:06] - a: Sure, I agree context is important, but considering the article seems to be all about reaching to find out how this statement was offensive, I'm positive they would've been all over any sign in the tenor of his voice that he intended his comment to be a slur. -Paul
[2018-10-09 11:05:31] - paul: worded differently, context is sometimes useful. ~a
[2018-10-09 11:04:49] - paul: you can hear sarcasm in audio and you can hear tongue-in-cheekness (is there a word for this?). you can tell if someone is telling a joke or not. but you might be right, if the article was an editorial or op-ed, they would probably include this information. ~a
[2018-10-09 10:57:13] - a: I guess it could make a difference if he said it and then followed it up with: "Get it? I said chink in the armor because he's Japanese..." or something like that, but I am positive anything like that would've been included in the article itself. What are you looking for in terms of hearing? -Paul
[2018-10-09 10:56:09] - Daniel: I only thing it's a poor choice because people might (stupidly, in my opinion) get their outrage on and you could get swept up in a company terrified of a boycott who is willing to sacrifice you to appease the mob. -Paul
[2018-10-09 10:49:43] - paul: yeah, hearing it would make a difference. you think it wouldn't? ~a
[2018-10-09 10:40:39] - I'm definitely not outraged, but I do think its terrible word choice as a public speaker. If your job is to talk on TV you should probably be aware of phrases like that that are going to be a lighting rod for attention. -Daniel
[2018-10-09 10:31:40] - paul: gonna head to the nearest amazon warehouse w/ my outrage. BURN IT ALL TO THE FUCKING GROUND! - mig
[2018-10-09 10:27:48] - https://www.amazon.com/Spic-Span%C2%AE-Extra-Strength-Powder/dp/B000LNONUY/ref=asc_df_B000LNONUY/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=167151917164&hvpos=1o1&hvnet I can't believe Amazon would sell such an insensitive product!
-Paul[2018-10-09 10:26:31] - Daniel: I agree we shouldn't be tossing around racial slurs, but I think when people say something that sounds like a racial slur but clearly isn't (like this case), we need to stop getting worked up over it. Chink has a clearly defined definition that has nothing to do with racial slurs. -Paul
[2018-10-09 10:23:36] - Daniel: Because I believe "bury the hatchet" is a reference to native americans and they are sometimes called Indians, so.... I know that doesn't make sense, but that's how I feel about this story. Japanese <> Chinese just like Native American <> Indian. And the guy who said it has Chinese ancestry! -Paul
[2018-10-09 10:20:45] - Paul: I wouldn't fire the guy if I was in charge. People all over get fired for all types of dumb reasons so I guess I'm not going to get super worked up if he does get fired over it. /shrug I don't think we have to cater to the most sensitive among us either but I think racial slurs are something to be careful with. If you have a different opinion feel free to start dropping them in everyday conversation and see how that goes
-Danie[2018-10-09 10:18:18] - Paul: I currently have no idea why it would be unless hatchet is secretly a racial slur for Indians or Pakistanis? Yeah its definitely anecdotal but I can't remember a single instance of "chink in the armor" being said in normal conversation. -Daniel
[2018-10-09 10:14:41] - Daniel: I'm honestly really surprised (and a little disturbed) that your answer to "should he be fired?" is just "probably not". What if somebody said something about "burying the hatchet" as a metaphor for peace talks between the Indian Prime Minister and Pakistan? Is that offensive as well? -Paul
[2018-10-09 10:12:35] - Daniel: Oof. Count me as a strong disagree. I've heard chink in the armor much more than I've heard it used as a racial epithet. Granted, I might be biased by where I grew up, but I don't think that detracts from my point. People have different experiences, and I don't like this trend towards catering to the most sensitive people among us. -Paul
[2018-10-09 10:10:00] - a: I don't know if it included the audio. Would hearing it make a difference? -Paul
[2018-10-09 10:08:02] - I think its a bad choice to use with anyone of any sort of Asian descent. Just seems like a bad idea. Should he be fired? Probably not. I think I would disagree that its a common saying as well. Its a saying that I don't think I've heard since the Jeremy Lin thing. Granted these two are high profile but I don't think I've heard it in day to day talk in a really long time. -Daniel
[2018-10-09 08:48:50] - paul: ok i'll agree. but i guess i didn't hear the audio. the video attached to the article didn't have it (unless i missed it at 2x). ~a
[2018-10-08 14:25:03] - Daniel: This is, to me, the very definite of stretching to find something to be offended about. In fact, I'm more offended by the people who are offended because they apparently can't tell the difference between somebody who is Japanese and Chinese. -Paul
[2018-10-08 14:24:19] - Daniel: I guess I disagree with the "terrible word choice". Chink in the armor is a pretty common saying, it's a perfectly cromulent use of the word, the person clearly didn't mean anything by it, and the person he was talking about is Japanese. -Paul
[2018-10-08 08:57:17] - daniel: that was in the article. apparently one person was fired (the writer, and the scapegoat it would seem) and one person was suspended (the person who actually said it). ~a
[2018-10-08 08:54:47] - I don't know that its the worst thing ever but its pretty terrible word choice. -Daniel
[2018-10-08 08:54:11] - People got upset when someone used the same phrase to describe Jeremy Lin in the NBA a couple of years ago. -Daniel
[2018-10-07 13:31:33] - https://sports.yahoo.com/tbs-announcer-ron-darling-uses-unfortunate-phrase-discussing-masahiro-tanaka-alds-025501697.html People are mad because somebody who is partially of Chinese descent said "chink in the armor" about somebody Japanese... -Paul
[2018-10-06 10:21:53] - Actually, I wouldn't even be surprised if there were less 5-4 decisions than recent years. Roberts seems like the type that might go out of his way to take on non-controversial cases for a year or two to try to de-politicize the Supreme Court after this. -Paul
[2018-10-06 10:09:23] - Daniel: So I wouldn't bet on "far fewer" 5-4 decisions, but I would bet that they would continue to be in the minority. -Paul
[2018-10-06 10:08:35] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/28/those-5-4-decisions-on-the-supreme-court-9-0-is-far-more-common/ -Paul
[2018-10-06 10:06:54] - Daniel: Like, we tend to hear about the closely contested 5-4 decisions a lot, but those tend to be the exception instead of the norm. -Paul
[2018-10-06 10:06:21] - Daniel: I wouldn't want to put a bet on it, because I think it's more dependent on the cases that come up than anything else, but I do recall reading an article about how there are a lot more 9-0 SCOTUS cases than people realize... -Paul
[2018-10-05 23:42:22] - "my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions" Anyone want to put a bet on that? -Daniel
[2018-10-05 21:41:30] - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/why-susan-collins-voting-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court/572341/ collins speech earlier today. IMO, (suprisingly so) its worth a read. - mig
[2018-10-05 16:57:17] - discussion is moot i guess, since it looks like its over. maybe. - mig
[2018-10-05 14:44:18] - Daniel: Sure, it's their money, and they can do what they want with it, but I used to have a fair bit of respect for the ACLU and stuff like this lessens it. -Paul
[2018-10-05 14:43:39] - Daniel: And many of the things about this seems less like legitimate sober concerns about civil rights and more like a general distaste for Kavanaugh based on other grounds. -Paul
[2018-10-05 14:42:23] - Daniel: (2) Some might say (and I count myself among them) that the ACLU has traditionally been a civil rights organization that tries to transcend party politics and not simply a liberal/left/democrat mouthpiece... -Paul
[2018-10-05 14:41:05] - Daniel: I think the argument is two-fold: (1) That the evidence (and charges) against Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein seem to be on a totally different level and to equate them is a little questionable. -Paul
[2018-10-05 14:19:58] - mig: Sure. I think they could have. Maybe they found Ford's testimony very compelling? Shrug. It just doesn't seem much of anything to me that they came out against him. Is it bad that they did? -Daniel
[2018-10-05 13:23:09] - daniel: if you think Kavanaugh is bad for civil rights, why not speak up during the confirmation process? Those concerns would exist even w/o the sexual assault allegations. - mig
[2018-10-05 13:21:22] - paul: I find it pretty sad that an organization dedicated to defending civil liberties doesn't make an argument on those grounds. There's plenty of concern in that regard (particularly w/ regard to Kavanaugh's attitudes towards the 4th amendment) to base an argument on. - mig
[2018-10-05 12:52:36] - /shrug Is there a reason to be against it? Their money. If they think Kav will be bad for civil rights then sure makes sense to oppose now. Mostly a "meh" from me though. -Daniel
[2018-10-05 12:50:30] - This reason piece obviously comes out pretty strongly against that. I'm wondering if people here agree or not. -Paul
[2018-10-05 12:49:33] - https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/02/aclu-brett-kavanaugh-attack-ad-cosby I forgot that I wanted to drop this hear to get people's thoughts. Not sure if you all heard about the ACLU coming out against Kavanaugh... -Paul
[2018-10-05 12:44:21] - a: I didn't realize it went to 50%. That currently seems high to me as well but again I haven't looked into the % yet much. -Daniel
[2018-10-05 12:43:04] - daniel: yeah i have a feeling that i'm probably somewhere between you and paul. vanguard's bond percentages seem way too high (though maybe they assume an average retirement period). unless there is an (unlikely 15-percentile) downturn right when you retire, i can't imagine 50% bonds (plus cash), which is what vanguard suggests, makes sense. ~a
[2018-10-05 12:32:45] - a: As for numbers I'm not super sure. I generally tend to roughly follow the vanguard target retirment date fund for whatever year I'm targetting. But I haven't put a ton of thought into it yet? Though in theory maybe I should if I'm trying to retire early... -Daniel
[2018-10-05 12:31:47] - a: I think the term I"ve seen is "bond tent" where you gradually increase the % of bonds you have as you approach retirement date then slowly decrease after retirement. With the goal being to try and be more conservative for the intitial retirement years and downturns in the market at that point have the biggest impact on success of your nest egg. -Daniel
[2018-10-05 12:15:10] - true, true. assuming everybody is fine permanently moving out of and dissolving the city charters for miami, nyc, new orleans, tampa, and boston. the economy is fine without those cities, right? ~a
[2018-10-05 11:33:19] - a: So what I'm hearing is global warming is a good thing because it'll make that pesky north pole more habitable.
-Paul[2018-10-05 10:46:32] - climate change (range) by latitude. the north pole is all crazy. ~a
[2018-10-05 10:36:26] - ha, large cap mushroom. ~a
[2018-10-05 10:34:14] - that mushroom is too big. i would not eat that mushroom. ~a
[2018-10-05 10:29:58] - a: Okay, put the new money into VTSAX. I suppose it might not be too bad to get a little more "conservative" (in terms of heavier on large caps and domestic stocks relative to where I was) at the age of 37.
-Paul[2018-10-05 10:00:33] - https://i2.wp.com/lightroastcomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/links_final_form_bonus_2_full.png link! you've got to try these power mushrooms - aaron
[2018-10-05 09:56:16] - a: "you're overweighted in emerging and small cap" That was slightly intentional.
But I get your point... -Paul[2018-10-05 09:56:03] - paul: yeah i don't think i'd necessarily dump the small cap you have, but you already have a shit ton of small cap (again imo). ~a
[2018-10-05 09:55:53] - a: And because I worry that my individual stocks might be too weighted towards large caps as well. -Paul
[2018-10-05 09:55:09] - paul: my reasoning is that (imo) you're overweighted in emerging and small cap. adding to vfiax and vtsax fix that. ~a
[2018-10-05 09:55:06] - a: Yeah, so should I dump VFIAX and VSMAX and just put it into VTSAX? My thing was that I was worried VTSAX might still be more weighted towards large caps than I wanted. I want a slightly higher allocation towards small-caps because I hope their performance will be better over the long term... -Paul
[2018-10-05 09:52:31] - paul: or alternatively, just put more in vfiax. ~a
[2018-10-05 09:51:55] - paul: vtsax. ~a
[2018-10-05 09:51:14] - Wondering if I have any big gaps to look at. I know some people suggest having a percentage in the vanguard REIT fund... -Paul
[2018-10-05 09:51:07] - mmm. ok, oops, i overstated my position. it only loses out in the 35 percentile case, not in the average case (50 percentile). ~a
[2018-10-05 09:50:44] - Right now here is my allocation: VFIAX (S&P500) - 20%, VEMAX (Emerging Markets) - 28%, VSMAX (Small Cap) - 20%, VTIAX (International) - 31%. I have a fresh infusion of cash which would amount to around 20% of what I currently have. -Paul
[2018-10-05 09:47:24] - a: You mean that over the average 5 year time period, having 0% bonds loses out to a higher percentage of bonds? -Paul
[2018-10-05 09:46:40] - I have my own question for the board: I have a rollover to my vanguard account to decide where to invest so I figured now is a good time to re-evaluate my vanguard positions and see if I need to re-allocate... -Paul
[2018-10-05 09:34:22] - paul: are you concerned with the fact that, on average, (not in the worst case, not in the 25 percentile case, but in the average case) you may end up losing money being 5y before retirement with 0% bond? i'm a very aggressive investor as well (who had like 50% of his portfolio in bits at one point), and even i think that 0% at 5y seems low. ~a
[2018-10-05 09:30:56] - a: At some point I need to do some research on the risk/reward balance between bonds, REITs, dividend stocks and other similar vehicles. I really don't like bonds, but I do acknowledge that it would be irresponsible to not have at least a small percentage in something less tied to the market. -Paul
[2018-10-05 09:29:45] - a: I honestly haven't given it much thought. With the caveat that I consider myself a very aggressive investor, I don't plan on my bond percentage being above 0% until like 5 years before retirement, if then. -Paul
[2018-10-05 09:14:48] - paul/daniel/xpovos: when you're 20 years from retirement, what will your bond percentage be? same question for 10 years, 5 years, and 0 years. i've seen very very different answers to this question (trinity study says one thing, vanguard says another, and randoms on the internet are all over the fucking map). please say why you've picked these numbers. ~a
[2018-10-04 13:04:20] - Daniel: Right, and I've spent a fair bit of time looking for that (or even looking for studies about actively managed funds and their performance not counting fees). Frankly, I can't find anything other than variants of the "most actively managed funds underperform the market" studies. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:59:47] - Paul: Well a few minutes of googling didn't help me find studies on individual investors. Mostly it was just about individual investors making bad decisions based on market swings and media stuff which I think you are trying to filter out. So we need a study on disciplined long term individual investors to see how they did. -Daniel
[2018-10-04 11:56:25] - Daniel: I mean, I have my theories (fees, cash cushions, etc), but I don't know how to prove it to you all. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:56:02] - Daniel: I assume: "why actively managed funds don't beat the market" -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:55:19] - Which question are you referring to? -Daniel
[2018-10-04 11:42:44] - I'm sorry, I can't adequately answer that question for you. Can you tell me how I could? -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:41:43] - Ultimately, I think we're asking different questions. I'm saying individual investors can beat the market and I have provided a LOT of data points to support my point (my own portfolio performance, 3/3 on stock market challenges, the Fool's performance, etc). You guys are asking why actively managed funds don't beat the market. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:39:17] - Daniel: And I do wonder what the success (or failure) rate of actively managed funds beating the market if you remove feeds from consideration. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:38:46] - Daniel: I really do think you're either underestimating the thin margin between beating the market and losing to it or underestimating the differences between actively managed funds and individual investors. I go back to the fees issue. I think removing fees makes it a much fairer comparison since individual investors don't pay themselves. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:35:57] - But I will concede that I haven't seen any studies about the success or failure rate of individuals. -Daniel
[2018-10-04 11:35:20] - I guess I can't wrap my head around that distinction as being the difference between a 90% failure rate of funds to beat the market and then suddenly everyone would be great if they were just on their own. -Daniel
[2018-10-04 11:33:25] - Daniel: Again, I think you're making the mistake of equating actively managed funds with individual investors. I haven't seen any evidence that INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS lost to the market the majority of the time. I think that's an assumption people are making here that I haven't seen backed up. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:32:03] - Daniel: Right, but by your own admission, those people apparently suck at their jobs and lose to the market all the time. I guess I'm confused by your argument that these professionals are simultaneously too dumb to beat the market and too smart for you to beat.
-Paul[2018-10-04 11:30:10] - Daniel: I think Apple has a brighter future than Sears. I think Twitter has a brighter future than Snap. I think Alphabet has a brighter future than GE. I could be wrong on some of these, but I don't think there's something magical about investing to where I suddenly am completely incapable of judging quality. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:29:33] - Paul: I guess because I think there are thousands and thousands of people who spend way more time on stock picking than me and still aren't able to consistently get it right. So I don't think I'm special enough to get it right. -Daniel
[2018-10-04 11:28:12] - Daniel: I guess I don't know why you don't think you could. People make judgments on quality in all aspects of their life. I choose restaurants I think will be better. I choose electronics I think will be better. I choose jobs that I think will be better. Am I always right? No, but I hope I am right more often than I am wrong... -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:26:12] - Paul: How do you know what will be a high quality company? This is the part where I think you lose me. You are trying to predict over the long term which companies will be successful. You think others can similarly do this. How do you know which will be successful over the long term? If I follow your PAUL system and choose different companies and fail is it the system or because I just was too dumb? -Daniel
[2018-10-04 11:21:53] - I'm not in the business of explaining why people do stupid things.
-Paul[2018-10-04 11:21:36] - Daniel: Why did people vote for Clinton and Trump?
-Paul[2018-10-04 11:21:13] - Daniel: Why don't they? I don't know. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:21:04] - Daniel: And I believe that if other people did that, they would also beat the market. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:20:46] - Daniel: Okay, sure, I claim I WILL beat the market and I will do it by buying a diversified mix of high quality companies and holding them for the long term. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:18:11] - The interesting claim is claiming the WHY you beat the market and then claiming you WILL beat the stock market. -Daniel
[2018-10-04 11:17:28] - I think showing you can is not an interesting claim. I think almost anyone would agree that someone can beat the stock market. -Daniel
[2018-10-04 11:17:08] - Just out of curiosity, does anybody know how many actively managed funds beat the market if you DON'T count fees? Because that's another big reason why actively managed funds are different from individual investors. Most individual investors aren't paying themselves to manage their money.
-Paul[2018-10-04 11:16:16] - And I think if I show that I can, as an individual investor, that is a more meaningful data point than showing that most actively managed funds (which are very different than individuals investing) lost to the market. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:15:19] - Ultimately, unless anybody here can do magic with statistics, I can't prove that individuals can beat the market. All I can do is show if I can or not. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:13:47] - Daniel: How about the performance of the Fool100 ETF? That should be insulated from many of the downsides to actively managed funds while still having the upside to picking individual companies.... and it is beating the market. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:12:34] - Daniel: Right, they could claim that, but how does that stop somebody from jumping in because they see the returns and then jumping out during a downturn? -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:12:24] - crypto trades, woo! all-in on crypto! ~a
[2018-10-04 11:11:46] - Paul: I guess maybe we need to define your claim more carefully. I would not dispute the possibility of you beating the market. Its totally possible. Do you think you WILL beat the stock market? -Daniel
[2018-10-04 11:10:25] - "put forth effort and track things"? "are smart"? "pick the right stocks"? "get lucky"?
[2018-10-04 11:09:45] - So if we reduce our sample size to only those people who select and invest in individual stocks, you think most of those people should be successful? Or could be if only they ____________? -Daniel
[2018-10-04 11:07:45] - Just because they can, though, doesn't mean they will, much in the same way so many people don't invest at all or don't use passive index funds or put all their money into penny stocks or crypto trades or whatever. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:06:38] - I think an active manager could claim to be set up for the long term, say they don't want short term money, and set up rules where you could only buy and sell for one week a year and only sell money that had been invested for five years and blah blah and could be pretty close to an individual. -Daniel
[2018-10-04 11:06:37] - Let me state my claim clearly here (maybe I should've done this earlier): I believe that I can beat the market over the long term by buying individual companies. I believe there is nothing special or magical about me, so if I can do it, most others can too. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:04:58] - Daniel: "enough drag" The line between beating the market and losing to the market is pretty slim, I think. There doesn't have to be a ton of drag to swing from one to the other. I wonder how many actively managed funds would beat the market if we gave them a few more percentage points of performance.... -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:03:44] - Paul: I'm claiming that most people don't. The way I have to back that up is mostly based on wall street performance though so you sidestep that argument by claiming individuals are different. I'm not sure yet how to get data or anything to back or refute that part. -Daniel
[2018-10-04 11:03:28] - Daniel: Actively managed funds have to serve many masters, including some who want their funds to beat the market every quarter or every month or maybe not even just beat the market, but not lose money. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:02:48] - Daniel: But seriously, though, an individual investor is VERY different from an actively managed fund. Individual investors have completely control over when they invest and how long their time horizon is and even what they invest in. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:02:42] - I'm not sure I understand the factors that produce enough drag to cancel out that apparently you think the stock picking part is simple for anyone who puts forth effort. Like what do you think the managers of all these funds do if not put forth effort? -Daniel
[2018-10-04 11:01:47] - a: What claims have I made that require them? I claim that I think I can beat the market. It sounds to me like you (or at least Daniel) are making the stronger claim that most people can't. -Paul
[2018-10-04 11:00:51] - Daniel: I think it is a mistake to equate actively managed funds to individual investors because they frankly have more differences than they have in common. The only thing they have in common is picking individual stocks. It's like equating me with McDonalds because we both eat hamburgers or something (okay, that analogy is messy). -Paul
[2018-10-04 10:59:53] - "Why is it incumbent on me to provide them?" your claims require them? something something razor. 90% is fairly impressive, but i challenge the smell of where you pulled those numbers from.
~a[2018-10-04 10:58:59] - Daniel: Well, I think I have the topic for a PvtM article.
-Paul[2018-10-04 10:58:37] - So you think actively managed funds fail because of their investors? Hedge funds control their infows and outflows more tightly I thought and aren't suddenly all successful. -Daniel
[2018-10-04 10:57:03] - Daniel: Because they are at the whim of their investors and can't control their inflows and outflows, for one. What if half your investors piled into your fund in 2008 and panicked and wanted their money back after the crash? How would you possibly beat the market then? -Paul
[2018-10-04 10:55:55] - I guess if they do to you then that answers the question of what you think distinguishes you. -Daniel
[2018-10-04 10:55:35] - I get they need a cash cushion - and that there have potentially a more limited selection of stocks but those don't seem enough to me to account for their failure rate. -Daniel
[2018-10-04 10:54:37] - Because I don't understand why an actively managed fund couldn't do the same things as an individual? -Daniel
[2018-10-04 10:53:03] - Daniel: Because it still sounds to me like you are equating actively managed funds with individuals. -Paul
[2018-10-04 10:52:36] - Daniel: "Sure but there are also lots of people that are smart with their money, attempt to beat the market, and fail." Can I get some names/examples? -Paul
[2018-10-04 10:52:06] - a: So.... I guess 90%? But that's a number I pulled completely out of my ass. -Paul
[2018-10-04 10:51:51] - a: I don't have the numbers. Why is it incumbent on me to provide them? How could I provide those numbers? I will say that at the Fool, they had probably a dozen (or more) different services recommending different stocks from different analysts and I think all but one were beating the market. -Paul
[2018-10-04 10:51:43] - Paul: Sure but there are also lots of people that are smart with their money, attempt to beat the market, and fail. I don't understand what you believe distinguishes you from them. I guess just being an individual? An individual who is putting "forth effort to track things". That is all it takes? -Daniel
[2018-10-04 10:50:23] - With probably a healthy dose of laziness and people with not enough money to invest I guess to account for all the non investing population. -Daniel
[2018-10-04 10:49:51] - Daniel: There are plenty of examples of things that are pretty clearly smart financial things to do that tons of people don't do: invest in the market, contribute to 401(k)s, pay off their credit cards in full every month, have an emergency fund, etc. -Paul
[2018-10-04 10:49:48] - And ignorance? -Daniel
[2018-10-04 10:49:41] - Paul: Greed and arrogance. -Daniel
[2018-10-04 10:47:45] - Daniel: "what is preventing all the other people who are putting "forth the time and effort to track things" from all blowing up the market" The same thing that is preventing them from investing in the first place? I guess I could turn your question around on you and say, "If passive investing is so great, what is preventing everybody from doing it?". -Paul
[2018-10-04 10:47:05] - paul: does "CAN" refer to greater than 50%? or does "CAN" refer to *average* returns *will* beat the market? or neither? does CAN just refer to greater than zero people? i think, like daniel, i'm trying to get some usable numbers. ~a
[2018-10-04 10:46:53] - Daniel: "why then do so many fail?" Do they? I haven't seen much data on the success rate of individual investors. I guess I just think that there are ways to invest that work better than other ways (doesn't seem like a revolutionary concept). -Paul
[2018-10-04 10:43:51] - (2) I think actively managed funds have inherent disadvantages that make it difficult for them to beat the market (especially net of fees), but I also think actively managed funds are significantly different from individual investors and I think this is an underappreciated point. -Paul
[2018-10-04 10:43:49] - What is it that you believe is special to you that the others lack? Or do you disagree with the premise that so many fail? -Daniel
[2018-10-04 10:43:38] - Paul: I guess I don't understand what is preventing all the other people who are putting "forth the time and effort to track things" from all blowing up the market. Maybe I need you to reiterate your thoughts on why they can't but it just seems like if you can beat the market with your system why then do so many fail? -Daniel
[2018-10-04 10:43:04] - Here is my short statement that I think might answer a lot of your questions: (1) I think individuals can (stressing CAN, not necessarily always will) beat the market by buying individual companies and I think there are plenty examples in history to support this. -Paul
prev <-> next