>you do know that bond prices and the bank rate are linked bank rate goes up bond prices go down
Yes, that is true. But how is the bond price relevant, from the Fed's perspective, if they aren't selling the bonds?
1,254 karma · joined February 5, 2014
Yes, that is true. But how is the bond price relevant, from the Fed's perspective, if they aren't selling the bonds?
What stocks?
We need a rule in financial threads that you can't boast about your investment results unless you're willing to prove it.
>Or you can try an ETF linear combination
Oh, brother. The guy back-tested 4 years of data (one of the all-time great bull runs) with a portfolio of 3 ETFs, one of which is a 3X leveraged QQQ fund. Do you not see the problems with that strategy?
This is why amateurs get crushed. Then they blame the financial world.
Holding Enron in a portfolio consisting of hundreds of securities will have little impact on the overall portfolio returns. That's the whole point of diversification.
The fees for VTI, which is Vanguard's Total Stock Market Fund is 0.05%.
On top of that, in Canada, most brokers will allow you to buy ETFs in a RRSP or TFSA account for no fees. Very cost efficient.
Why? The inflation adjusted CAGR of the S&P from Jan 1, 2007 to Jan 1, 2014 was almost 4%.
Forgive me if I don't believe this in the least.
I don't. I have much respect for the man.
But his NYT writings can sometimes lean towards what might be described as "left-wing blowhardism".
Generally? No.
I've taken and been around people who have taken mushrooms for over 15 years. I still dabble on occasion. I've never seen or even heard of someone reaching a "breaking point". This is not to say that it can't happen, but saying that mushrooms will do it, generally, must be supported.
That said, mushrooms are no fooling around. If you have no experience with "being high", and the altered mental state that that entails, I would never recommend diving into multi-gram does of 'shrooms. Once you've had some experience, it's much easier to tell yourself, "I'm high, this will pass. Enjoy it."
I try to separate academic Krugman from New York Times Krugman. It helps.
https://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/interstellar.pdf
(12 pages, quick read)
Your bar is very high. I hope you practice what you preach.
Personally, I think Bill Gates has been a net positive for the world.
Good point. Is he "mean" or not? More curiously, is he "successful" or not?
First, the degree to which he "held back" the internet, when contrasted with what Microsoft did positively for home computing and the internet, is debatable.
Second, if Bill Gates can't be construed as a good person doing good things in the world-- as "not mean"-- then this debate is mostly pointless.
"Criminals" are also good at being mistaken as mean people when they are really good.
Silicon Valley has the same proportion of mean, nasty, ugly people as anywhere else in the world. And some of these people are successful, just like everywhere else in the world.
I had (have?) the same issue. Maybe it's something that experienced programmers take for granted; there is a huge disconnect between writing code and developing software.
I've asked the same question, and received the same answer: get your hands dirty. I agree with the premise, and am working on it. But there's the disconnect. I can write a little Python, but have you ever tried to set up a Python development environment on your computer? I don't understand 95% of what is required.
All that said, I'm way ahead of where I was when I started, a year or so ago. I'll keep plugging away, and recommend doing the same. Hopefully we see a few good replies here to help us out.
I agree. And yet, this place is set aflame every time a financial or banking article is posted, questioning when "we" are going to do something about "those people".
It isn't constructive, at all.
He didn't co-found Paypal, and was an early investor in Tesla, not a founder. He did found SpaceX.
This isn't to take away from his accomplishments, just pointing out the inaccuracies that are perpetuated in the media that make him seem larger than life.
>but he's never been fired from his position as CEO as Jobs once was.
Wasn't he fired from Paypal after they acquired his company?
Yeah, I'm not sure why it's a surprise to anybody that you can load anything on a plane and get it anywhere in the world as fast as that plane can fly.
What's with all these mediocre Wired articles making the first page?
I have no idea if this is still an issue (doubt it), but it was in the early days of HFT. Anyway, I'm out of my element...'Dark Pools' is a decent read if you're into this stuff.
Historically, in the HFT world, it also involved getting ahead of big orders in the order book by taking advantage of how orders are systematically queued or prioritized.
This is slightly pedantic. The argument was about whether incurring ever-greater amounts of debt would result in the default of Japan, a country with a sovereign currency. It's a fallacy that is often repeated. As long as the debts are denominated in said currency, the answer is: no. A country with its own currency will always be able print more money to fulfill these obligations, making default practically (not literally, I guess) impossible.
The fact that they can choose to default, or that we may run out of trees, or ink, or whatever, is a bit outside of the scope of the argument.
Because they decided to issue it, mainly to instill confidence in a currency with a history of big inflation. But this isn't the norm.
It doesn't change the argument that it is impossible to be unable to "pay back" something that you have an infinite supply of.
Where do you see "multiple expansion" and "no earnings growth"?
MSFT:
Year ~P/E EPS
2010 20.24 $2.10
2011 12.09 $2.69
2012 9.70 $2.00
2013 14.50 $2.58
2014 13.94 $2.69I think you're both right. When you can print your own currency it is literally impossible to default on your debts, unless you choose to.
Often times defaulting has benefits to the debtor, like the Russians escaping from ridiculous fixed exchange rates in 1998.
How are us ordinary people benefiting when our wages fall and our debts become more onerous, both products of a deflation?
Please, provide us with examples of a sustained deflation that didn't harm the economy.
The supply of money has to grow at the same rate as the real economy, otherwise you can end up with "problems" associated with having "too few dollars". In other words, we need to keep increasing the supply of dollars to buy the growing output of goods we produce. This is common sense. Because it's impossible to hit that growth target exactly, we err on the side of caution and produce some inflation, which has the side benefit of preventing the hording of currency, as it naturally diminishes in value over time. For whatever reason most governments have decided on ~2% to be a safe, stable target.
One of the common misconceptions of deflation is that the lower prices should be good for consumers. Which is true, if terms of consumer goods. But keep in mind that wages and debt are also affected, which is where the real pain from deflation for the average person stems from.
Yes, and it goes beyond the incompetence, crimes and corruption. It's expensive.
Amongst all the municipal election hoopla in Toronto, I read a tidbit that last year the cost of policing increased by almost $400 per citizen.
Now, I'll be honest, I have no idea what it really costs to run a police force, but it surprised me that it's increasing at such a rate. One would think that policing would become cheaper over time, via technology, an overall decrease in crime rates, and the nature of new crime that often involves people sitting in front of computers, both solving and committing the crime. That is unless you're buying all the new military toys to subjugate the citizenry.