Everybody's Lying to You
fool.com
fool.com
I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic here. Alternatively, perhaps you're not from the United States.
In a small country, the interests are more aligned, for good and bad.
For instance, the US media have different opinions on lots of subjects! Here, you get at most two opinions.
But mainly, the US media seems to find lots of real scandals in your president administrations. That doesn't happen much with the local government and media...
Maybe there aren't any scandals here to find? (And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell, if you want to make a good deal?)
That said, there are lots of crappy media in the US. But obviously, some of the world's best ones, too.
Even in the internet age, when the cost of publishing is approaching zero?
That's odd.
Then there's the whole case with the tsunami tapes going missing.
The case with bodströms possibly advocating direct control of the police to raid TPBs hosting company.
I remember a whole array of ministers getting kicked out head first because of various visits to strip clubs in the 90's.
Then you've got Mona Sahlin cheating on her taxes as well as a wide array of scandals with Gudrun Schyman and alcohol.
That's just the things I can remember on the top of my head and I have just about barely payed attention to local news for the last couple of years until recently.
I think that we might be less sensationalist and have a shorter memory but we do have plenty of scandals. You have to realize though that we are only made up of 9 million people, their scandals should be both greater size and of greater numbers.
As for the two opinions thing, Americans are much more extrovert than Sweeds are. They like to yell at things, it's their thing. We like to sit and whine about things, that's our thing. I do think however that our politicians don't blatantly lie as much, our minister of finance isn't standing there telling us everything is great when it's obvious we hurting and going down deeper.
Now I happened to find Swedish media pretty boring, but that's another thing entirely.
The press do seem to have different standards for different politicians.
(I didn't follow the dance around foreign minister Bildt, but remember a journalist complaining that it was a democracy problem that Bildt had his own blog so he could get his own version out...)
That is hardly the same as leaking embarrassing internal papers (which have showed up quite often in Washington Post/NY Times).
Leaking of papers did happen with the Muslim Brotherhood guys that were sent back (and tortured) in Egypt. But how many more times?
The press has for decades gotten direct subsidies from the state here -- and I've seen notes that acknowledge influences, but note exactly how much...
That's really unfair. The Motley Fool is about as much a part of "the financial media" you speak of as Slashdot is a typical "news corporation". They have been acting as a watchdog and warning about various bubbles for a long, long time.
The Fool has always been an outsider, unafraid to speak the truths that no one else could-- that brokers don't have your interests at heart, that the market can't be timed, that 99% of all mutual funds lose to the market over a five year period, that all the great long term investors are value investors rather than technical traders, etc. The vast majority of "financial media" writers simply couldn't write those things and keep their jobs.
In that sense they really are like the Shakespearean motley fool.
Right...
My opinion is they're probably half right. I don't think anything is going to bounce back to where it was but I also think panic caused things to drop further than they needed to. So we'll probably see a small bounce eventually but from there it'll probably be a decade before we reach pre-bust levels.
How do you know?
The same people who didn't see it coming are all of a sudden experts on when it's going to end.
In other words I don't "know", I never claimed to "know" so you shouldn't accuse me of it.
If you're going to go so far as to quote the line at least read it first and try to look at what the author's actual meaning was.
For the record I based my opinion on the simple fact that things around me shouldn't cost as much as they do. The house two doors down from me is 2 bedroom, needs a new roof and was still valued at $750,000. In my opinion a two bedroom house simply isn't worth that so I don't expect it to bounce back to that value.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=F3WpzcinFc4C&dq=Didier+S...
Please go easier on the thumbs down stuff.
Here's why the long term outlook is bad: An aging population will necessarily convert assets of all classes into money in order to finance their retirement. Simple as that.
Short term, who the hell knows? Buy Citi on margin short term, if you feel like it.
I disagree with using the word "much," that money is going through the filter of consumables and living expenses. The parent poster's point is that retirement destroys wealth faster than it is created. (Which is why that wealth was saved in the first place. To believe otherwise is to subscribe to the Broken Window fallacy.)
You're exactl yright. Perhaps this is why people are almost asking to be creamed on their finances. The classic condition for stress is having to do sth and not being able to do it. People who have spent tens of years doing "economics" are none the wiser for it, their forecasts are about as correct as those of a bunch of taxidrivers: Zero, no statistical significance. And still everybody must do it or, even worse, judge the ability of others to do it. No wonder the snakes thrive. In my experience, people who are blunt and truthful to clients have a really hard time to get heard.
What's the intent here? Why not say "0.5% annually"? And why do people say "one-half"? Is this typical of economics journalism?
[edit] The whole sentence seems redundant anyway.
the average annual investment return from 1950-2000 was less than one-half of 1% per year
"annual investment return" implies "per year" and vice versa.