_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
J Larsen
-
Posts
2,582 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Donations
0.00 USD
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by J Larsen
-
-
Late 19th century.
I actually do think that I disagree with the main thrust of the article. The article states that "the differences that matter most" relate to material inequality. I agree that material inequality is diminishing, but I regard these as the least important differencies. If the point of the article is that the least important differences are decreasing, then there really isn't much of a thrust to the argument at all.
-
I'm still with Chas on this one (assuming I understand Chas correctly, and I have to admit I've misunderstood him in the past).
I'm coming at this one from personal experience. I grew up about as poor as one can be in America without being homeless - welfare checks and food stamps were our primary source of income. That said, we had a four room apartment, TV, VCR (it was 1990 by the time we had one, but still, we had one), I had my own stereo, etc.
I'm 14 years into my adult life now. I have been affluent for about three years, by which I mean I have an income that would make the overwhelming majority of the population envious. I am absolutley happier now, but it has nothing to do with the fact that my stereo, TV, apartment, etc are "high class." In that sense The Economist is correct. I derive my "excess happiness" from the fact that I am no longer stressed out about what might happen if things go just a little wrong. I am competely coinfident that I can withstand economic shocks now - in fact I withstood one earlier this year when I missed a significant amount of time at work because I needed to undergo a series of breathtakingly expensive medical procedures. Simply put, I am no longer worried about the future, short term or long term. With all due respect to anyone who may be reading this, I don't think that anyone who has never been truly poor is in any position to judge the value in that.
-
It is completely indefensible ( if revealing ) for The Economist to ignore the impact of wealth inequality as opposed to income inequality on wellbeing . What kind of wellbeing can one have if one doesn't have the security that wealth affords against twists of fate such as job loss or other interruptions of income or catastrophic illness ?
While I do not share your general antipathy for The Economist, I thought this article missed the mark, largely for the reason you described above.
-
I am not from Portland, but my father lives there now (he's originally from Queens).
-
The Hawthorne shops have to still be there though, right? There was a great vinyl shop called Birdland where I saw some pretty amazing records from time to time.
-
Thanks, that's it! I discovered a lot of great music there either through staff recommendations or by buying blindly.
-
Too bad. I don't remember the name, but there used to be a great store over on Burnside, on the other side of the river. They had a seperate room for classical and an upstairs area for "world music." Is it still there? IIRC, there was a pretty good Indian restaurant next door.
-
I haven't been in that store since at least 1999. Is it still there?
-
Was this connected to the store in Portland, OR?
-
Well, four years after starting this thread, I myself now own a video game system. I bought a Wii on more or less a whim a few months ago, and now have 10 games for it. Prior to the Wii, the thought of buying a system for myself never crossed my mind. Now that I have one, I have to admit it is a lot of fun. And you can download and play all those great SNES and NES titles if you want.
-
The Brooklyn Zoo is the only place I have seen capybara. They are impressive.
-
Absolutely not. I think technical analysis is a bunch of bullshit.
Have to disagree. Technical analysis is a tool. It's isn't the "answer"--nothing is. But it can be a useful tool. If you don't think the market doesn't pay attention to support and resistance levels, you're nuts!
I realize people pay attention to these things, but I still maintain that it is a bunch of bullshit. Now there is constantly all kinds bullshit affecting the market, but I tend to disregard it because I find its impact to be much less predictable.
-
Absolutely not. I think technical analysis is a bunch of bullshit.
-
I think we are saying the same thing in different ways.
You are correct that by sticking to comparing dcf valuation to observed prices, you will miss out on potential profits to be reaped from going long on overvalued stocks that continue to increase in value. For instance, I did not enjoy the benefits of RIMM's recent multiple expansion from around 60 to around 100 (those numbers are off the top of my head and are only roughly correct). To my mind, these profits are won by the so-called "momentum investors." I briefly experimented with this approach in a phoney portfolio and found that I completely sucked at it; it seems to me to be much more driven by luck than other approaches.
-
A value assessment won't yield you any growth stocks, and vice-versa.
I disagree with that. A properly executed value assessment should identify attractively priced growth stocks. That being said, I recognize that in the popular investing lexicon, "value investing" tends to refer to sticking with the tried-and-true names, while "growth investing" tends to refer to a focus on the up-and-coming names (although I have been floored by some of the blue chips that have been tagged "growth stocks" over the years). I personally find that focusing exclusively on one type of company or the other is a poor strategy.
-
Just as it is more difficult to predict how long a stock will stay undervalued than it is to identify an undervalued stock, it is also more difficult to predict how long a stock will stay overvalued than it is to identify an overvalued stock. In my view, what makes sucessful investing difficult is that it is sometimes profitable to go long on an overvalued stock or to go short on an undervalued stock (depending on your time horizon).
-
Unless you do your homework, namely spending an hour a week researching for each stock you own, "You won't beat the market, and you'll probably lose money," he writes. [Guy: It will take a lot more research than that...
Nonsense. A person does not have to spend 52 hours a year (or more) for each stock owned to "beat the market," that's just silly.
Cramer is an ass, but at least now what he's preaching makes more sense, especially compared to his previous churn churn churn ways.
I agree that people experienced in following the market don't need to spend an hour per week per stock to beat the market. However, someone inexperienced could easily spend more time and still underperform the market. I maintain that it is relatively simple to identify an undervalued security*. It is far more difficult to predict exactly when it will stop being undervalued, and that is the skill that really leads one to making money.
*It is at least as easy to identify an overvalued security, but generally more expensive and time consuming to profit in that situation.
-
Black Market Music is where I always used to go to look at old crappy guitars and amps.
-
If Ike Quebec is on a record, that's reason enough for me to buy it.
-
IIRC, Cramer has had some significant problems with the SEC regarding market manipulation.
Edit: Oh right, this was the guy who was idiotic enough to describe his illegal market activities in a TV interview.
-
Long time, no see.
-
-
Strange that so many people diss the Chico set, yet no one will sell me one.
-
If the issue really is just the title, why not just reissue it under a different name? Note that this is not my prefered solution, but it seems to be a decent way around a very silly problem.
Venuti/Lang in "Running Low"
in Mosaic and other box sets...
Posted
This one is going to be a tough call for me, especially with all the Mile sets going OOP simultaneously.
What is the general feeling about this set? I'm not too familiar with the material, but 8CDs of it strikes me as maybe a bit of overkill?