Why is this not simply disqualifying?
One can have the naive hope that people will start to care about competency.
Of course, we also have covid with estimated 1M Excess deaths... So, probably not.
Vanguard's lifecycle funds (picking them because they get promoted a lot as a good choice, courtesy of good marketing and lower fees and generally good returns). Their 2030 fund, the one that people are recommended to select if they're retiring around 2028-2032, is down 4.54% YTD, and down 1.42% for the last year. The current market effects have wiped out over a year in gains for a relatively conservative fund.
And that's all from the last two trading days, it was slightly up YTD on Wednesday. And all of this is before the effects of the tariffs come into play. We haven't actually seen the effect of higher import costs hitting companies and consumers yet.
So people approaching retirement are getting hit and hit hard, but it's not quite 20% for them unless they selected an aggressive investment strategy for some reason.
The worst for the Vanguard funds are down about 8% YTD (and likely to get worse) for anyone 25 years or more away from retirement.
EDIT: I don't usually respond to downvotes but it's really important to understand the stock market is a volatile investment. You shouldn't have money you're planning to use in the short or medium term in the stock market. It's a longer term (10 years+) investment.
At least in the Nordic countries, utterly uncontroversial conventional wisdom says something like:
* In your youth save almost-only in stocks; via some index fund, if you don't feel like being an active investor, following the market every day;
* Start with (funds that specialise in) high-growth (= high-risk) stocks; then, as you near middle age, slowly move over to lower-risk (= lower-growth) stocks (or funds specialised therein);
* In middle age, move over to having some part in state bonds;
* As you near retirement age, eliminate high-growth/risk stocks/funds altogether, and draw down the proportion of stocks/funds as a whole, going to an increasing proportion state bonds.
* As you retire, possibly move all-out of stocks / stock index funds and all-in on bonds... Except put some in an ordinary old bank account.
>your comments will be downgraded for lack of left-wing
The comment is kind of left leaning so I doubt that’s the reason for the down votes
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-update...
The tariffs are probably going to be a historical "turn of the tide" moment.
The disaffected are who control the reins and they are not liking what they're seeing. We just need to make sure they have an alternative.
His cult sees him as he was presented on The Apprentice -- rich, powerful, rich, and wise, and rich. Rich is good and if he's rich he's double plus good.
I think the only end to his cult is his shuffling off this mortal coil.
That's the problem: It should be, if not legally, at least in terms of electability.
But with enough of a proportion of racists in the electorate, it's no wonder racists get elected.
Good bye and godspeed, America; it was nice knowing you.
Not sure you ever "knew" America if you think this is the first time racists were ever elected.
1) Back then, racists were elected everywhere else too. America didn't much stand out just because of that.
2) Back then, America a) wasn't led by a moroniac[§], and b) didn't intentionally alienate itself from the rest of the world.
And I'm afraid it's really goodbye this time. I mean, 2016-20 was weird enough, but then we thought normalcy had returned... But then you -- or they? -- went and re-elected him. There's just no way of knowing where America will go; looks like a total basket-case.
Seems quite a lot of Americans agree with me on that, BTW. Didn't they ever know America either?
___
[§]: Maniacal moron, or moronic maniac? Can't make up my mind.
It gave Trump plausible deniability, he can claim he's just doing what great experts from the academia are advocating. And it gave us the market-crash and global trade-war. It's easy for billionaires to lighten up and have fun, but not for most other people.
Tariffs are a sales-tax, which means poor people have to relinguish a larger proportion of their income to the government, than rich people. It is great wealth transfer from ordinary people to the rich. And one can only conjecture that THAT is why Trump and Navarro advocate for it.
I'd guess: Navarro yes; Trump, no. In his case, it's just stupidity.
This behavior is not likely to be seen as a negative by Trump, but rather as a positive "go-getter" trait.
Trump has employed this method of inventing people to talk himself up for many decades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonyms_used_by_Donald_Trum...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsYKRUE_D5g
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/audio-from-may...
Its actually reasonable to believe that Navarro may have got the idea from Trump whether directly or indirectly.
https://x.com/bezprawnik/status/1303967275373015043
EDIT: Wait a second, I need to check something. EDIT 2: Huh, I think I fell for this the entire time.
It's "Z podobnym problemem mierzyliśmy się, kiedy sprawowaliśmy władzę w latach 2005-2007. Wtedy poszliśmy w kierunku bardzo eksperckim, właśnie otwartych konkursów jeśli chodzi o rady nadzorcze. Trafiali tam eksperci z rynku, trafiały osoby z tytułami naukowymi, z SGH, z innych uczelni. No i problem okazał się taki, że ich sposób myślenia o gospodarce, o zarządzaniu był zupełnie sprzeczny z tym, co Prawo i Sprawiedliwość ma w swoim programie."
Which translates to "We faced a similar problem when we were in power in 2005-2007. Then we went in a very expert direction, precisely open competitions when it came to supervisory boards. Experts from the market ended up there, people with academic degrees, from the Warsaw School of Economics, from other universities. Well, and the problem turned out to be that their way of thinking about the economy, about management was completely contrary to what Law and Justice has in its program."
... so that quote was from editiorial summarising it, not that person himself.