valdas
Mentor
Not necessarily the state: in Europe, in many cases, there are independent «social insurance carriers» (agencies), some of them already implemented in the medieval times — wait, US citizen (except the native Americans) weren't in America, then
I understand, but I am talking about the concept of social security in general where social insurance is the part of the "ecosystem". Different countries have different financing models so I don't thing we can clarify and purify the terminology. There could be different social contributions (or insurance). In some cases it can be very specific/dedicated (e.g. unemployment contribution in Finland) it some cases very general (x% as a "social insurance" tax from gross salary - goes to the same pot to be used for pensions, social benefits, unemployment).
David Murphy
Mentor
I have been influenced a good deal by Peter Lynch and Warren Buffet.
I am also a follower of Dave Ramsey, and I agree 100% with his philosophy about borrowing money: i.e. avoid borrowing money entirely. Ramsey's stock market investment advice is a bit simplistic however, but not unreasonable as a starting point.
My philosophies:
1) I do not take money advice from broke people - ever. I don't remember who recommended that, but they were dead-on IMO. There are lots of them out there (many in the news media) giving appallingly bad investment and business advice daily. I consult only with financially successful investors for ideas and use them to form my own judgements.
2) I do not let others manage my money. This is one of the best ways I know how one can lose it. One must understand and manage ones own assets.
3) I am patient and not overly averse to risk, and I have a long time horizon. There is no such thing as not taking risks. Leaving money in a savings account has risks: it is devoured by inflation and only benefits the banks. (banks are entities I try and avoid)
4) I avoid fee based investing in any form. I make my own choices. Keeping investment expenses low is a priority for me.
I think real estate and the stock market are good for the average small investor. Both have significant short term risks and often require a long time horizon (like a decade or more sometimes) to make money. The stock market, in particular, is not for the fainthearted. Real estate can be fun actually, but keep in mind that historically it is riskier than the stock market.
David Murphy
Mentor
Forgive us sire, we are only petty little bourgeois people talking about small things on our Off Topic thread. I do confess, we are, regrettably, so uncouth. Just remember, not everyone can aspire to your high ideals.
Asim
Well-known
thank you...
thank you...
thank you for your input.
i'm in my mid 40s with a wife and two elementary aged kids. i've saved a considerable amount but i'm at a cross-roads in my life. i am moving out of my career of working as an educator in international schools. i just thought i would ask about investments to be able to brainstorm my own ideas.
currently i'm moving back to canada temporarily but am worried about investing in property there because there seems to be a major bubble forming. plus it's an expensive country to live in. i'm willing to live overseas in a cheaper country... currently portugal or turkey is on my radar.
i'm planning on putting money in the stock market, acquiring property to rent out, and getting cryptocurrency... bitcoin, ethereum, litecoin, etc.
i've moved around the world all my life... two years on average in one location. so the idea of receiving a pension is out of the question. i feel that i could retire now, but feel that it would eventually get boring just going on bicycle tours with my leica. and its hard to predict what my senior years will be like at my current age.
thank you for your input. i'm sorry if this thread has been difficult for anyone to follow. i hope you don't feel that i'm forcing you to contribute and read.
thank you again
thank you...
thank you for your input.
i'm in my mid 40s with a wife and two elementary aged kids. i've saved a considerable amount but i'm at a cross-roads in my life. i am moving out of my career of working as an educator in international schools. i just thought i would ask about investments to be able to brainstorm my own ideas.
currently i'm moving back to canada temporarily but am worried about investing in property there because there seems to be a major bubble forming. plus it's an expensive country to live in. i'm willing to live overseas in a cheaper country... currently portugal or turkey is on my radar.
i'm planning on putting money in the stock market, acquiring property to rent out, and getting cryptocurrency... bitcoin, ethereum, litecoin, etc.
i've moved around the world all my life... two years on average in one location. so the idea of receiving a pension is out of the question. i feel that i could retire now, but feel that it would eventually get boring just going on bicycle tours with my leica. and its hard to predict what my senior years will be like at my current age.
thank you for your input. i'm sorry if this thread has been difficult for anyone to follow. i hope you don't feel that i'm forcing you to contribute and read.
thank you again
Asim
Well-known
i value your feedback more than contributors at any investment forum. why? because investment forums are full of so many inexperienced "experts" that you really don't get any advice of value.
Well, that's the difference, again: thanks to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 and the more recent Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 here in Europe — more precisely: EU plus several associated countries — even temporary employees who are permanently «hopping» between different jobs and countries have a pension … or a couple of pensions from different countries …
Roger Hicks
Mentor
No, no. Everyone knows that the EU is a vile communist fascist authoritarian invention that never did anything for the common man. English speakers seem more aware of this than most.
As for the more relentless money-grubbers here, well, I know (and have known) people who live only on the state old age pension. Both Frances's state pensions and mine come from two sources: the UK (where I paid in longer than she did) and the USA (where she paid in longer than I did). I also have a tiny French state pension.
A lot of what happens in anyone's life is a mixture of luck (including where and when you were born, and your genetic make-up) and cumulative privilege. People who think that their (relative) success is down solely to their own intelligence and hard work are deluded and indeed contemptible.
Cheers,
R.
David Murphy
Mentor
I also get the impression that real estate is getting fairly expensive in Canada, at least in most places compared to a few years ago (I was looking at new houses near Vancouver about 2000 - wish I had bought one!). You can also probably buy real estate in the USA - no restrictions on foreign ownership here as far as I know.
Regarding a coming bubble (of any investment), if you could predict when bubbles will come then you don't need our advice, in fact you will soon be very wealthy if you exploit that knowledge. My point is that no one really knows what the market will be doing and when in the short term.
Your ideas about investing seem reasonable except for the currency investing part. Currency trading has a reputation as being highly speculative and risky - a legalized form of gambling really. Why engage in that when there are time tested investments??, and yes rental real estate is one of them.
Canada, despite possible high costs, is a very stable and affluent place, and much of it is quite desirable as a place to live, and that is an excellent climate for real estate or other investing - People want to be there and have great confidence in it.
Portugal «a cheaper country»?
Not unlike Canada or California, Portugal is also a very stable, affluent and desirable place, at least the parts of Portugal where it's nice to live
dmr
Registered Abuser
Interesting thread, and very diverse views.
I agree with the above! There are all kinds of so-called "experts" in finance who are so full of it. You see them at work, in social circles, and on the media. I'm no Warren B., but I can do math and I can anticipate trouble spots.
I'm personally approaching retirement age. I have a 401k, a bank IRA, and I'm a limited partner in a private investment fund. I also have a few minor holdings and, of course Social Security, which, if I hold off retirement for a couple more years will do quite well for me.
The first two above have done very well since the Great Recession and I've moved them from more risky "growth" categories into more stable ones. I'm bracing for an economic slowdown in the near future. (Possibly the trigger for retirement.)
Lacking a total economic meltdown, I'm feeling comfortable financially.
Ronald M
Mentor
You are correct, but I use the terms loosely because the general population misunderstands them.
Nazis were socialists. Means of production was privately owned, i.e. Krupp Works.
Russia is communist and the state owns the means of production.
What is amazing with these systems is how a few people benefit greatly and the rest share the crumbs. Put simply there is a why work attitude when you can not get ahead. There was a saying in Russia "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us".
Shareholder is perhaps capitalist partly because he owns the means of production as the partial owner among many of a company.
The trouble we are having today is taxing and regulations are so onerous that people of means chose to make money by stock, bonds, financial dealing and not by owning companies and employing people which grows the pie. This is the reason why 90%+ of the gains in the economy in the past decade or two have gone to the top percent of the people, i.e. already rich. Could this be why socialism seems attractive?
Then you have the government and student loans. College always was expensive so uncle sam came along and provided loans. College answer was to say the customer or student has access to more money so we will raise our fees. Cost of higher ed has grown way out of proportion to other costs.
Secondary cost is graduating students have a huge debt load and can not afford houses and cars. This hurts the economy badly.
China is coming along very slowly. You can start a business and become owner if you can get the permits which is not easy.
I will pass on what happened here very recently. A relative has a small business that helps others with human resources, i.e. payroll , training etc.
He had a great idea to improve that segment in functioning and he met a congressman in Washington. He agreed it was a terrific idea and would improve things. He wanted to know what it was worth to get it into law, i.e. solicited a bribe or campaign contribution. What a way to run the government.
The government is trying to address these issues now because it is the only way to grow the pie. Resistance is high. I leave it to the reader to determine why.
narsuitus
Well-known
Socialism: You have two cows.
You keep one and the government gives the other to your neighbor.
Communism: You have two cows.
The government takes both of them and provides you with the milk.
Capitalism: You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a cattle herd.
Author unknown to me
Roger Hicks
Mentor
You missed the next stage, which is, "With a monopoly on milk and meat, you overcharge everyone who does not have a dairy or meat herd."
See my earlier post, first with reference to cumulative advantage -- where did you get the cows in the first place? -- and second with reference to luck: neither your one cow nor your one bull is infertile, nor have you trouble with wolves on your farm.
In other words, the joke you refer to (I hope it's a joke, given the thread) works as a joke because it's grossly over-simplified. As economics, it smacks of Ayn Rand. Which is to say, grossly over-simplified.
Until I emigrated to the USA in 1987, I was quite right wing. Then, when I saw what the right does when insufficiently tramelled, I moved well to the left; and also back to Europe in 1992. The purpose of a state is to benefit its citizens. All of them. A state that benefits only a few of its richest people is simply contemptible, whether it's Putin's Russia, Trump's America, or Kim-jong-whichever's North Korea.
Cheers,
R.
narsuitus
Well-known
It is rather difficult to establish a monopoly when anyone can go to a livestock auction to buy and/or sell cattle.
Ranchu
-
@Ronald M:
So, Mr Ronald M: you're trying to tell us that the blue guy on the left was the Krupp family, and the National «Socialists» were killing them?
Hmmmm, must be a very very good school where you have been taught history, Mr Ronald M. — I guess, Breitbart College, am I right, Sir?
valdas
Mentor
It is an oversimplification again... You are right in the ideal world, but then take into consideration various entry barriers (such as tax benefits, patents, customer switching cost) and the picture is less rosy. Sure, it does not apply to all industries, but very often we see it in the industries where it hurts the most. But even if we stay with the cattle - how will you compete with the company that has 10,000 cows, treats them like sh**, feeds hormones and antibiotics, uses cheap non-unionised labour (if any - maybe just machines) and therefore is able to produce milk which is 3 time cheaper than from your 2 cows? Or even if not cheaper, they can afford to carry losses for several years so that all small farmers are pushed out of business and then they can increase the price... Unless we have regulations that protect us from this (and then right wind will cry the river how the freedom is limited - e.g. "customers must have the freedom to buy cheap **** that they don't know what it is made of and what are the consequences of using it")
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Very true, but crass oversimplification is the stock in trade of economists, especially economists from the political extremes.
Cheers,
R.
ruilourosa
Member
what an humongous lack of interest and knowledge is this thread!
you can never see socialism through the glasses of greedy capitalism...
from wiki
Nationaler Sozialismus: "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of a new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good" and to accept the priority of political interests in economic organisation.
nazi party is an "alternative" socialism as are alternative facts to facts themselves... (long for lies...)
you can never see socialism through the glasses of greedy capitalism...
from wiki
Nationaler Sozialismus: "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of a new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good" and to accept the priority of political interests in economic organisation.
nazi party is an "alternative" socialism as are alternative facts to facts themselves... (long for lies...)