Mr. Welfare posted:
It's not a pyramid scheme. It's an upside-down reverse funnel system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
Here's a great and relevant article about sports stars and families bad with money: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/hotread141125/dallas-cowboys-tyron-smith-gets-control-battling-family-moneySuspicious Lump posted:I never actually considered that idea, I've been thinking about getting a bike anyway. I will seriously consider your food thought, thanks!  Mr. Welfare posted:
Oh, they are universal. In Bangkok, a Thai guy I knew mentioned an open seminar type deal about work opportunities he was going to (he knew I was looking to stay on and work for a year or two after my study course ended.) I tagged along with him and yep, pyramid scheme. I explained it to him and he nodded in understanding, then asked "Yeah, but if I get in early, I get rich, right?" 
Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:"Yeah, but if I get in early, I get rich, right?" I know it's not always the case, but it just seems like the greedier you are the more vulnerable you are to scams. It's like when these people are presented with opportunity to make money, the fact that it would come at the cost of some poor sucker turns on this greed instinct that blinds them to evidence that they are the sucker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Mr. Welfare posted:Used to know a girl, dimbulb wiccan alt-weirdo. Point that out to someone in one of those schemes and they'll tell you every company's org chart looks like that. And to an extent they are correct. The key difference being customers (people who pay for products) aren't included in a legitimate corporate org chart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Mr. Welfare posted:
Sorry for lovely quality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a231RLKyfPw
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Blackjack2000 posted:I know it's not always the case, but it just seems like the greedier you are the more vulnerable you are to scams. It's like when these people are presented with opportunity to make money, the fact that it would come at the cost of some poor sucker turns on this greed instinct that blinds them to evidence that they are the sucker. Yup, hence the number of scams that revolve around convincing the mark that they're taking advantage of the scammer. Someone in a tight spot needs to sell a prized possession, but wouldn't you know it, they're willing to sell it to you for a pittance in order to get fast cash. Or oh look, this shabby pool/card player is offering to bet big money they can beat you even though you've been wiping the floor with them all night.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Folly posted:Call his parents/next-of-kin/social worker/etc. This has moved beyond a bad-with-money issue and into a custodianship issue. Pass the buck. An update for anyone wondering about my bad-with-money roommate: we talked to him about this and he's set up an appointment with his doctor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
legsarerequired posted:An update for anyone wondering about my bad-with-money roommate: we talked to him about this and he's set up an appointment with his doctor. Good to hear. I linked this in the MLM thread but there's some people in the documentary that are good with money but there's a lot that are bad with money despite reading Rich Dad Poor Dad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPARaL3F498
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:
Back in the 1970s, my friend's dad got in early in a MLM and between that and his real job, he bought a house in a really nice city suburb-- but all his friends lost money when the bubble burst. It turns out that loving your friends over (and also causing them to introduce their friends into a bad business scheme) has some negative consequences. He spent the next few years paying his friends back their seed money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:Good to hear. That was interesting. Some of those people are obviously going down the wrong path, but others really have it figured out. I liked the lady who talked about freedom being the number one thing to be concerned with, despite the fact that she indulges herself in fancy things. She recognized the fancy things really don't matter. There is hope for humanity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Rick Rickshaw posted:That was interesting. Some of those people are obviously going down the wrong path, but others really have it figured out. I thought the mixture of people made it quite well balanced and a nice BBC piece. There are clearly some people there breaking the most basic financial rules by living beyond their means going to these courses. The young couple weren't making any money and not going by the Rich Dad Poor Dad formula. That book suggests buying your first house and the young couple weren't targeting saving for their first house, and weren't targeting houses with potential improvements to increase valuations. I think that lady really had her poo poo together and was pretty intelligent about what she did. The older couple that had $4m in properly were making 30% of their income from property and 70% from telling people how to make themselves rich. There seems to be a good target market for making money and it isn't property.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
I am an excellent money manager. I AM AN EXCELLENT MONEY MANAGER. I AM AN EXCELLENT MONEY MANAGER! I AM AN EXCELLENT MONEY MANAGER!! I AM AN EXCELLENT MONEY MANAGER!!! I AM AN EXCELLENT MONEY MANAGER!!! I AM AN EXCELLENT MONEY MANAGER!!!!!!!!!!!! *high fives the thread*
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Bisty Q. posted:I AM AN EXCELLENT MONEY MANAGER!!!!!!!!!!!! *puts 5 pence in a jar* I ALWAYS PAY MYSELF FIRST *pays for 2000 pound brainwashing session with a credit card*
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Today's Oglaf is strangely on point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Normally I wouldn't mention this because this woman obviously has some issues but she tried to screw me over a couple times so I don't feel bad. Back when I was living with my cousin there was this woman (employee under him, single mom) that baby sat his kid for free  and was always around. It was obvious she wanted a relationship with him but apparently she was the only one that couldn't see he wanted nothing to do with her (he's also a scumbag) but gladly let her watch his kid for free.One day she shows up at the apartment with a copy of the wall street journal, tells me and him that she hasn't read it in awhile but she used to be a broker or something. Then she just stared at the paper for an hour and would make "huh" or "hmm" noises every now and then while spongebob blared for 4 hours on TV. I didn't know anything about stocks back then but even I could tell she was full of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Normally I wouldn't mention this because this woman obviously has some issues but she tried to screw me over a couple times so I don't feel bad.  "What advantages does this motor car have over, say, a train--which I could also afford!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Normally I wouldn't mention this because this woman obviously has some issues but she tried to screw me over a couple times so I don't feel bad. Was he hitting that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
I know crossposting from the stock thread is like shooting fish in a barrel but my godnebby posted:I think you can make a compelling argument that if your goal is diversification, and your method is investing in index funds, you're fooling yourself and being lulled into a sense of safety. If you really want to diversify, you should be diversifying correlations which are a function of return drivers not merely of asset classes. For example, if you are just sitting in a few different 'diversified' asset class index funds, under certain financial conditions correlations between those funds is going to go to 1 and your portfolio is going to crater. (Or skyrocket, depending on the conditions.) In either case this is a bad sign with regards to your diversification -- if you are truly diversified your portfolio should be consistently delivering lower volatility than any specific asset class. Also, the argument that reducing volatility is inherently a good thing is also kind of a mixed bag: the common financial wisdom is that you can "diversify away" certain types of volatility without reducing your expected returns, but this is based upon a whole number of assumptions about markets. For a good treatment of this see either "Jackass Investing" or "Expected Returns."
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 16:22
|
|
Bisty Q. posted:I know crossposting from the stock thread is like shooting fish in a barrel but my god WHAT IS GOING ON IN THAT POST? I tried to read it like six times, but I couldn't do it. My eyes just kept leaping around from word to word in both paragraphs. I don't think I managed to read a single sentence from beginning to end. Are those words some sort of evil incantation?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Blackjack2000 posted:I know it's not always the case, but it just seems like the greedier you are the more vulnerable you are to scams. It's like when these people are presented with opportunity to make money, the fact that it would come at the cost of some poor sucker turns on this greed instinct that blinds them to evidence that they are the sucker. Also see: the entire history of Bitcoin
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Bisty Q. posted:I know crossposting from the stock thread is like shooting fish in a barrel but my god A little further down the page he gets called out as making "a random bet" by Arkane, who if I recall correctly is notable for wagering a significant amount of money on Mitt Romney winning the 2012 election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Normally I wouldn't mention this because this woman obviously has some issues but she tried to screw me over a couple times so I don't feel bad. Along those same lines. An old roommate of mine had recently gotten accepted to dental school, and a neighbor that had dropped out of a lovely state school suddenly got it into her head that she wanted to go to med school and become a doctor. I think she finished one semester of undergraduate before dropping out, and had been working as a waitress for the previous year or two. My roommate is a super nice guy, and refused to burst her bubble. I remember she came over to our apartment once with a binder full of notes from some biology books he had lent her a few weeks earlier. For about an hour she would spout nonsensical bullshit from her "notes" and then he would just go along with it being the nice guy he was. She eventually lost her job as a waitress and moved to Florida with her stepdad. It was so weird to see someone that was so out of touch with reality. My roommate and I talked about it later and realized that 1) She had no idea how hard it is to become a doctor, likely because she is from a poor family/community and has never associated anyone that has done it or even applied. 2) She had recently finished watching the firt two season of Grey's Anatomy and decided that this was the life for her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
quote:
It can only go up uP UP!!! then explode.  https://events.miraqle.com/Martin-Aircraft-Offer/Home/?page=Key-Offer-Details
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:It can only go up uP UP!!! then explode. To be totally fair, this isn't that far out. Ultra-light rotorcraft ARE a thing, though uncommon, and jet packs have been made and tried. They're typically found unsuitable for one reason or another (noise, range, control), but they're not a total pipe dream and you could potentially find a niche market of buyers. I'm not optimistic but it's not total crazy town. That said I'm not an Australian so I can't read that site.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
The main point nebby made that I agree with is that you inherently cannot remove the risk-reward ratio in return on investment. This doesn't mean that risk = high reward, but it does mean that high reward = risk. That's one of the lessons in 4 Pillars that seems to be lost for whatever reason. But anyway, it's ok to happily accept lower returns in exchange for less risk; I personally do it in my 401k. Totally happy to make 3% less than an S&P 500 index fund if it means my downside is better protected. I do this because I accept that I'm a loss averse human being, and losing 40% of my 401k in a year would cause me more agony that making a 40% return would provide pleasure, and I know this in part because I lost 40% of my much smaller 401k in 2009 alone. I don't believe in efficient markets though, so you will also see me posting in the stock trading thread. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. I do believe that on certain occasions arbitrage exists. I think the history of humanity shows that. I'm willing to risk certain amounts of money on that. Not my 401k, but certain amounts. He also makes an interesting point about diversification. He's just saying that while you may feel diversified because you're invested in different asset classes, those classes may be more highly correlated than you think, and some event may occur that affects them all. Picture a Venn diagram - he's saying that your asset classes' circles may be tighter than you think. Ideally they have no overlap - perfectly diversified.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:The main point nebby made that I agree with is that you inherently cannot remove the risk-reward ratio in return on investment. This doesn't mean that risk = high reward, but it does mean that high reward = risk. That's one of the lessons in 4 Pillars that seems to be lost for whatever reason. My bigger problem is that, as someone who doesn't really do the stock thing past index funds, it read like he copied as many words from the glossary of a stock trading textbook as possible in an effort to sound more legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Renegret posted:My bigger problem is that, as someone who doesn't really do the stock thing past index funds, it read like he copied as many words from the glossary of a stock trading textbook as possible in an effort to sound more legitimate. If you read the thread, nebby generally backs his poo poo up. I know people don't often agree with him, but he's one of the last people here I'd accuse of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Rurutia posted:If you read the thread, nebby generally backs his poo poo up. I know people don't often agree with him, but he's one of the last people here I'd accuse of that. Yeah. It's funny to hear someone say "I don't know poo poo about this topic, but I'm going to weigh in and say that someone else is full of poo poo"
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Rurutia posted:If you read the thread, nebby generally backs his poo poo up. I know people don't often agree with him, but he's one of the last people here I'd accuse of that. I don't know enough to argue the truth or falsity of his basic premise, but his logic is wrong. He claims that asset-class diversification is not good enough, and you should instead diversify along some other means. Then he says the market is too unpredictable to do that, so you should just "make your guesses". That's just silly. If simple diversification isn't perfect, and the alternative method is impossible to realize, that doesn't mean you give up on diversification as a strategy! It means you use the most proven, most practicable method available to you, i.e buying the market. Sounds to me like a very wordy self-justification for someone who has invested their ego and time in being "the stock picking guy". Edit: the other thing is that his advice (to the extent that it is correct) can only apply to people who are really really in to investing. 99% of the population does not have the time to do enough research to understand his post, let alone implement his strategy. Simple diversification gets 95% of the value for 99% of people, and it can be accomplished in about 10 minutes, one time. Magic Underwear fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Bloody Queef posted:Yeah. It's funny to hear someone say "I don't know poo poo about this topic, but I'm going to weigh in and say that someone else is full of poo poo" It's more that District Selectman posted:The main point nebby made that I agree with is that you inherently cannot remove the risk-reward ratio in return on investment. This doesn't mean that risk = high reward, but it does mean that high reward = risk. That's one of the lessons in 4 Pillars that seems to be lost for whatever reason. This actually reads like the English language, where nebby's stuff does not. e: you don't have to actually understand a topic to recognize the markings of someone using big words for the sake of using big words.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Huh? Its two blocks of text, but if the content is hard to understand maybe don't trade stocks. Its not crazy arcane academic journal content.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Whoops, when I originally posted, I thought I was in the Stock thread. I wasn't looking to be ~defender of nebby~. I just meant that this guy really does his research and does a lot of reading, if he's talking a bit tooty, it's more likely to be a product of that than because he's trying to sound like he knows more than he does. With that said, I wouldn't exactly follow his advice. v v Renegret posted:e: you don't have to actually understand a topic to recognize the markings of someone using big words for the sake of using big words. I don't think he was using big words at all, to be honest. He used precise language. The thread's audience being what it is, it didn't really blip my radar. And I think that's important to keep in mind when reading posts from the Stock thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Nothing's happening at work today and I'm bored out of my mind. To make matters worse, /r/PersonalFinance isn't that interesting today, either. http://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/2nuco6/18m_trying_to_figure_out_living_situation_next/ 18M, trying to figure out living situation next year (mortgage vs rent) posted:As I'm no longer living in a dorm next year, I have to figure out where I'm going to live. I found a house with four other guys and rent works out to about $450 a month, without utilities. Reasonable, I can pay rent with money i save during the summer and a part-time job during the year. My mother thinks rent is a waste, especially considering I'm not living there for four months, but still paying rent (one year lease, won't be occupying it during the summer years). She wants to find a studio apartment somewhere, with mortgage instead of rent. It would probably cost more per month (not too sure to be honest), and the down payment would need to come out someones pocket. Note I'm paying for university largely on my own, and i don't expect either of my parents to be working in a few years (mother is a stay at home, father is in his 60s with medical issues, no retirement savings, first generation immigrants, albeit no debt). I feel like rent is tnd easier to bail ship if something were to come up, and probably cheaper. so, should i go with the house for $450 or a mortgage on a studio? he easier option with a lot less strings, easier to manage on my own, a What we have here is a college kid who just doesn't understand the kind of commitment being a homeowner is, with a stay at home mother who thinks renting is "a waste of money". Like that ground hasn't been beaten to death yet. And this guy I just pity: http://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/2nrre0/i_am_a_28_yr_old_from_canada_with_250_dollars_to/ I am a 28 yr old from Canada with 250 dollars to my name and no idea how to save money posted:Like I said, i'm 28 years old, I've been working since i was 16, but i've been so terrible with my money, that I only have 250 dollars, which is whats left of my most recent paycheck. 28, lives at home with parents, working for peanuts, doesn't know how to stop spending his money on stupid poo poo so he could get his life back together. There was also someone who asked if it was a good idea to buy a 11k car on a <20k/year earnings because that person lived with their parents and didn't have any bills. I'm not even going to honor that by digging it up again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Renegret posted:/r/PersonalFinance isn't that interesting today, either. Disagree. quote:I'm 33, have my house fully paid off by wise choices (I think ). I live with my girlfriend, and have 2 rooms rented in my current house. While the income from the rooms isn't needed to pay my bills, extra money is always nice. My income after taxes, 401k, etc is 1200/2 wks (not including renters, 300/renter (Yes, I know it's cheap, I'm trying to help these guys get their finances together so they can save enough to move out)). Average monthly expenses are $1500 including gas, utilities, food, everything. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
That's really more E/N though. Sad when parents become leeches.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:That's really more E/N though. Sad when parents become leeches. I'm worried about the kind of person who's such a slave to their parents that they'd seriously consider doing that in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
I was reading a r/pf thread where they're discussing the benchmark for car payments as 20% of your income. That can't be right, can it? Some kid with a $60k job bought a $30k car with a 72-month 1.9% loan or something like that, and is talking about what a good choice that was. Then again, I guess when I was young and making $300 take-home a week, my $10k car payment was around $300. Ugh. We now have a fully paid cheap car and make a lot more than that, and I'm annoyed by the $200/mo insurance cost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Old Fart posted:I was reading a r/pf thread where they're discussing the benchmark for car payments as 20% of your income. That can't be right, can it? Some kid with a $60k job bought a $30k car with a 72-month 1.9% loan or something like that, and is talking about what a good choice that was. I think the standard is 15%-20% of your income on transportation. Of course that includes gas,insurance,parking, and maintenance as well as the car payment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:That's really more E/N though. Sad when parents become leeches. Renegret posted:I'm worried about the kind of person who's such a slave to their parents that they'd seriously consider doing that in the first place. Not to beat a dead horse, but it is (or can be) a cultural thing. Many people in Asia would be pretty aghast at the idea of taking the people who sacrificed so much for so many years to raise them and kinda telling them to gently caress off in their old age/time of need. I'm not going to pretend like there aren't pros and cons to either side of it (having lived in China, Thailand, and Japan I've sorta seen both), just trying to provide some perspective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
Slow bad monies day? It is me and probably a lot of other goons. Steam sales are killing me, combined with Christmas shopping. My wife wants a Kuerig for $99 bux and I'm pretty sure she'll use it for a month or so and then it'll collect dust for the rest of the year. But I'm going to buy it for her because of reasons (like I love her). Bad with money. Also I can't stop buying small video games. The sales are SO GOOD, 90% off are you kidding me? I need help
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 21:45
|
|