Man Built a $188M Fortune Investing in Stocks Then Donated It to Charity

Post by voisin » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 10:59 AM UTC

idrios wrote: post #121

TeMPOraL wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to say something heretical here, but: I'm increasingly convinced that the whole compound interest thing is bullshit. Not math-wise, the math checks out. Just propaganda-wise. In practice, with interest rates available to general population, a typical person isn't going to accumulate any meaningful wealth unless they were already wealthy. Say you're saving $500 a month for 10 years, on an account with 5% int…

Honestly, I agree with everything you just said. I will say that if you continue the pattern for 20 years you end up with $200k, of which $83k was made in interest -- and after 30 years you'll have $400k, $200k made from interest. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 averages about 11% interest annual. The article is vague on some details, but if you did what it sounds like the man in the article did and invested $500/year into th…

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 12:45 PM UTC

RhysU wrote: post #142

lotsofpulp wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only tax benefit is if your state offers one for 529 plans.

Not true. Realize capital gains each year in a UTMA account up to the kiddie tax limits. File a return for the kids instead of putting their gains on the parent's return. It can be significant over 18 years.

Post by colecut » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 3:46 PM UTC

krageon wrote: post #150

colecut wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luck is still subjective. A good investor does not feel like he is gambling. He just knows industries well enough to make educated guesses that are likely to happen. Someone else could put up the same amount of money because he overheard a tip in a bathroom. In my opinion, that person is gambling. But really its all the same and it's all subjective. The gambler was lucky, the investor was smart, who cares they both w…

You're essentially not engaging with my comment at all, just repeating what you said before. I don't find that a compelling way to have a conversation.

Post by zpeti » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 8:19 PM UTC

krageon wrote: post #151

zpeti wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the most ridiculously untrue comment, and it's not only untrue its the worst possible attitude for the individual to have. You prevent yourself from attempting anything to change your circumstances, while rolling around in self pity and building resentment towards successful people. Too much of this destroys societies, and having it personally yourself destroys your life.

I appreciate that you think it's ridiculously untrue. This means that you're either already rich (and therefore lucky), or you think you might be rich soon definitely (but aren't right now). In both cases, your line of thinking isn't compelling. In the former, it's because you suffer from survivorship bias and in the latter it's because you're clearly not an example of what you're trying to say.

Post by jopsen » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 6:31 AM UTC

ihm wrote: post #159

jopsen wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that root cause being that our society requires that some labor in terrible conditions for little pay because it is necessary to maintain profits. Economic theory would argue that: "little pay" is because they produce "little value". I know pay and value are not aligned. But better education, health prospectives and stability (not war) tends to improve pay throughout an economy. Individual acts of charity, especial…

> Economic theory would argue that: "little pay" is because they produce "little value". Any economic theory that predicts this is probably not very useful, since this claim is easily falsified. Consider e.g., the situation of Amazon workers who are paid low wages and forced to maintain such a pace that they need to go to the bathroom in bottles and bags, but whose labor on the other hand caused Jeff Bezos' wealth to…