Okay, does that actually mean anything unless the companies maintaining the index portfolios are at risk of going under?
Is Vanguard about to go bankrupt? (lololol)
51–60 of 122 posts
Okay, does that actually mean anything unless the companies maintaining the index portfolios are at risk of going under?
Is Vanguard about to go bankrupt? (lololol)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are several issues to be aware of with the way society and technology is evolving for sure, but when you just shout "wake up sheeple!" and offer nothing but hand waving, you are not contributing much in that regard.
Yes, true. But I am not a salesman to sell you a solution. All I ask for is to be more conscious about these, sometimes subtle, sometimes less so - things. If it helps you, here's a simple framework of mine to develop some kind of directional feeling for technology: If it helps to lessen the power of a single entity it's perfect, if it enables you to do new things it's good, otherwise, it might only be a distraction.…
Some of the debt statistics fail to account for the cash Corp America is holding on their balance sheets, so that's an incomplete picture. Also, I posit that a lot of the inflation in indexes relate to redistribution of wealth. When fewer people have more, they are willing to pay more for just about everything: cryptocurrencies, stocks, houses in prime areas, etc. Bubble status would require some proof points suggest…
While there surely must be some crappy indexes out there, one could argue that more indexing by (individual) investors is a sign of a more people understanding the difficulty of stock picking and harsh effects of management expenses on investment returns.
I’m very happy indexing in my retirement portfolios, but am curious as to what the arguments against it are. The few I’ve read have seemed to be active fund managers scared at the prospect of losing their livelihood to a better product.
The reason? Too much capital, not enough growth to invest in because demand isn't growing. Demand isn't growing because 60% of the population is barely scraping by. How do you increase demand? Roll back the tax cuts to the wealthy who have nowhere to put that money except into speculation and bubbles. Redistribute it back to the working class in the form of tax cuts, credits, higher minimum wage, and social programs.…
Among the things that people can't afford and really need, the most common ones are healthcare and housing. The problem with giving people more money to stimulate demand for those things is that it only solves half of the problem. Healthcare is limited by the supply of doctors so no matter how much government subsidizes it, the amount of people who can be seen by the constant number of doctors will be the same. In pr…
US could save money in healthcare while improving it by reorganizing the healthcare. Even wealthy people get worse treatment than they could because the way incentives work. https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/6addvo/the_wealth...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to pay tax on your savings? What country are you in?
Not the parent comment but in the Netherlands where I live you have to pay tax on your savings once it exceeds about 21K EUR. The government then makes up that you must be at least getting 4% (up to 9% if you have up to 1M) interest, and it wants 30% of that interest of anything over that 21K EUR limit. Meanwhile the current interest at banks is anywhere from 0.05% to 1% here (most major banks are around 0.2%).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
practically free indeed, vs the practically have to pay for keeping my savings on a savings account... shrugs in discontent (tax is higher on my savings then the interest i get, for those that didn't understand)
pretty sure you're not paying any tax on the money in your savings account (beyond income tax in the year in which it was earned)