Silly thing heard during the Republican debates

[KRCummings]

We're not talking about general investing. We're talking about investing during the time the Dow surged from 8,000 to 12,000. And yes, given that fact, anyone can make money, period. Buy a lazy index fund. Every single retirement portfolio necessarily increased in value.

Sorry, but you're just flat wrong. Retirement portfolios are diversified and they all rode the surge. There's literally a zero percent chance that they lost money.

If you and Jen want to believe that she lost money, you're going to do it no matter what. Neither of you know a lick about investing apparently. But if Jen lost money when the Dow surged 50% in value, she's not going to make money in any situation.

I'm talking about general investing, it looked like he was talking about general investing. You came in with your portfolio fantasy. And there is never a zero percent chance of losing money in the market. And you keep changing the numbers. Stop doing that.
I don't claim to know things I don't know. I'm not you. I only claim what knowledge I actually have.

 

[mercury14]

You act as if that period was preordained, and advertised in advance with flashing neon signs that said, "Dow To Increase 50%! Invest Accordingly!"

You know now that's what happened. And yes, anyone investing in an index fund would, as of today, have done well.

But that's meaningless, just as the arbitrary end-date of today is meaningless. Are you selling your index funds today, or are you holding on to them? If it's the latter, you have the absolute potential to lose every penny you invested, tomorrow. You haven't earned anything yet. You've only shown gains in your investment.

You keep implying other people don't know anything about investing, but you haven't said anything that indicates even the most basic knowledge of it.

*Sigh*

What I'm saying is that during the period of time when the Dow went from 8,000 to 12,000, no retirement portfolios lost value. They all gained value, as retirement portfolios are diversified and follow the Dow.

All that stuff you're carrying on about telling the future is completely off-topic.

 

[Wrong Element]

You're fact-checking a Republican debate? Dude, there's neither enough time in the world for me to catalogue all their bullshit, nor enough money in the world to get me to listen to them.

 

[mercury14]

I'm talking about general investing, it looked like he was talking about general investing. You came in with your portfolio fantasy. And there is never a zero percent chance of losing money in the market. And you keep changing the numbers. Stop doing that.
I don't claim to know things I don't know. I'm not you. I only claim what knowledge I actually have.

Over the time the Dow went from 8,000 to 12,000, yes it was impossible to lose money assuming a diversified portfolio. All I'm talking about is hindsight.

 

[KRCummings]

*Sigh*

What I'm saying is that during the period of time when the Dow went from 8,000 to 12,000, no retirement portfolios lost value. They all gained value, as retirement portfolios are diversified and follow the Dow.

All that stuff you're carrying on about telling the future is completely off-topic.

I think a pretty good investment would be betting that you're wrong that every single portfolio made money.

 

[mercury14]

You're fact-checking a Republican debate? Dude, there's neither enough time in the world for me to catalogue all their bullshit, nor enough money in the world to get me to listen to them.

Herman Cain swears that Oklahoma had cases where Muslims tried to push Sharia law in their courts. Never happened.

There was a quasi-case in New Jersey where a low-level judge wouldn't grant a woman a restraining order because of her husband's religion. But it was overturned in a hot second.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

*Sigh*

What I'm saying is that during the period of time when the Dow went from 8,000 to 12,000, no retirement portfolios lost value. They all gained value, as retirement portfolios are diversified and follow the Dow.

All that stuff you're carrying on about telling the future is completely off-topic.

My mistake. I thought you said--and I hope I'm cutting and pasting correctly here--"We're talking about investing during the time the Dow surged from 8,000 to 12,000. And yes, given that fact, anyone can make money, period. Buy a lazy index fund."

If Literotica is incorrectly posting the words you mean to type, you should shoot Laurel and Manu a message. Or me. I'm the Lord. But if those are your words, at least own them and save the *sigh*.

 

[mercury14]

I think a pretty good investment would be betting that you're wrong that every single portfolio made money.

No I'm completely correct and it's undeniable. Here are the reasons:

1) Proper retirement portfolios have mutual funds which invest heavily in hundreds of stocks all across the Dow and S&P 500. Therefore when the Dow and S&P 500 increase, the entire portfolio goes with it. There's no possible way for this not to happen.

2) Retirement portfolios have managers which adjust their funds to market circumstances.

 

[mercury14]

My mistake. I thought you said--and I hope I'm cutting and pasting correctly here--"We're talking about investing during the time the Dow surged from 8,000 to 12,000. And yes, given that fact, anyone can make money, period. Buy a lazy index fund."

If Literotica is incorrectly posting the words you mean to type, you should shoot Laurel and Manu a message. Or me. I'm the Lord. But if those are your words, at least own them and save the *sigh*.

Sorry I should have said people who had invested during that time (or rather people who owned retirement accounts during that time).

 

[KRCummings]

No I'm completely correct and it's undeniable. Here are the reasons:

1) Proper retirement portfolios have mutual funds which invest heavily in hundreds of stocks all across the Dow and S&P 500. Therefore when the Dow and S&P 500 increase, the entire portfolio goes with it. There's no possible way for this not to happen.

2) Retirement portfolios have managers which adjust their funds to market circumstances.

I think you assume a lot. I suppose that's ok if it's what makes you happy.

 

[mercury14]

I think you assume a lot. I suppose that's ok if it's what makes you happy.

What am I assuming?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You're fact-checking a Republican debate? Dude, there's neither enough time in the world for me to catalogue all their bullshit, nor enough money in the world to get me to listen to them.

I dont get why anyone wastes precious life tuned to those ass-clowns.

 

[KRCummings]

What am I assuming?

That everyone in the entire world has the exact same kind of retirement portfolio for one thing. I'd call that a pretty big assumption. I know people who don't diversify for their own reasons. I know at least two that abhor mutual funds. They aren't starving so I figure they're doing ok but I also figure they've lost their ass more than once. Hell, I know they have.

 

[mercury14]

That everyone in the entire world has the exact same kind of retirement portfolio for one thing. I'd call that a pretty big assumption. I know people who don't diversify for their own reasons. I know at least two that abhor mutual funds. They aren't starving so I figure they're doing ok but I also figure they've lost their ass more than once. Hell, I know they have.

Everyone in the world? When did we start including Laotian peasants in the discussion?

I don't care if you know people who don't diversify their retirement funds. As I said I'm referring to properly diversified retirement funds - the ones that 100% of retirement planners recommend. You might now some chump who put 100% of his life savings into pets.com but that's not what I'm talking about.

Retirement funds that "abhor" mutual funds focus on things like bonds or metals, (virtually) all of which gained considerable value in the time period we're talking about.

 

[KRCummings]

Everyone in the world? When did we start including Laotian peasants in the discussion?

I don't care if you know people who don't diversify their retirement funds. As I said I'm referring to properly diversified retirement funds - the ones that 100% of retirement planners recommend. You might now some chump who put 100% of his life savings into pets.com but that's not what I'm talking about.

Retirement funds that "abhor" mutual funds focus on things like bonds or metals, (virtually) all of which gained considerable value in the time period we're talking about.

Last I knew the whole world invested in the US stock markets.
And you can change what you say to fit all you want. You've gone from all investors to only ones that invest the way you do because it fits your point. I on the other hand think you're full of shit. That's not news though. I've always thought you were full of shit. Deep down you know you're full of shit.

 

[mercury14]

Last I knew the whole world invested in the US stock markets.
And you can change what you say to fit all you want. You've gone from all investors to only ones that invest the way you do because it fits your point. I on the other hand think you're full of shit. That's not news though. I've always thought you were full of shit. Deep down you know you're full of shit.

I'm talking about... retirement portfolios. Fine, a Laotian who invests in funds on the S&P 500 will have the same results. Why are you bringing it up?

And don't give me the bullshit line that I'm referring to retirement portfolios that "invest the way I do". This has nothing to do with me and your argument that it does is utter crap and misdirection. I pointed out the blatantly, *painfully* obvious fact that every single financial planner out there recommends a diversified retirement portfolio. These people go to school for this and have to pass a licensing exam - and they will fail if they abhor diversification.

It's a fact, sorry you're just dead wrong.

 

[richard_daily]

as long as weiner is in the spot light, who cares?

So what you're saying, is that you're going to milk a Weiner for all it's worth...

Hey, at least you finally got a job!

 

[richard_daily]

Sounds like your "culture of life" to me.

What he meant to say was: "someone else should do it". Everyone knows that grandpa doesn't have the balls to get off his couch and do anything.

 

[hortonhearsawho]

hopefully the saint sees it in himself to see the bruins though this playoff run

 

[busybody..]

Bachmann has mentioned her 23 foster children 4 times so far.

that you consider this silly

makes you a monster

but we knew that already

 

[busybody..]

Which ones?

Obama

CuntClinton

want more names?

 

[busybody..]

Silly things said?

Obama Tells A Whopper: If You’re Looking For “Partisan Rhetoric, I’m Probably Not Your Guy”…



How is THAT for SILLY?



How about


Obama saying his trillion dollar shovel ready program wasnt shovel ready and laughing at it?

SILLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



PATHETIC!

 

[rosco rathbone]

I actually watched the whole thing.

I thought Bachmann made a great impression. She came off as the person Palin is in theory. As far as I'm concerned, she won.

Pawlenty did nothing to convince me that he's anything more than a weaselly little try-hard. At least he left the bogus Texas accent at home.

I never paid much attention to Ron Paul. Did he always come off like a sun-crazed old prospector talking to himself, or is that a function of age?

 

[busybody..]

does anyone here think

that

a

MOTHER

mentioning her 23 adopted kids

is

SILLY?









































if there is, go back to 2006 and listen to what PUSSYPELOSI said about her 2-3 Grankids!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Cain: "Abolish capital gains tax"

Pawlenty: "The US can have the same economic growth rate as China and Brazil"

Moderator: "How do you know tax cuts on businesses will create jobs when the Bush tax cuts on businesses didn't create jobs" [all candidates refuse to answer]

Cain is correct.

Why do you look at America as a failed enterprise?

Of course the tax cuts created jobs, that's why Obama is at 9%.

He had a chance to create jobs with a tax hike and he went with the Bush plan instead of shooting for 11%