>Whats the difference between "idiots have to be scammed" vs "people who can't fend off a knife fighter while en route to the grocery store have to be stabbed"? Consent.
You're missing a key word: informed consent. Both are lacking that.
The gap between consent and informed consent is narrow.
The gap between consent and threat of violence may as well be the grand canyon.
This is the reason dollar-cost-averaging works. You buy less (shares) when the market is high, and more when it is low, without thinking about it and without trying to "time" your transactions (which almost always fails unless you have inside info).
So what you're saying is you avoid timing the market (which doesn't work) by timing when you buy shares? What?
You buy at a regular cadence, and sometimes it's low and others it's high, but on average you do OK.
I’m old enough to remember when you couldn’t just buy one share (you had to by a “lot” of 100), and when I actually received a paper stock certificate that I had to sign and mail to my broker. Rubes will try to beat the market and one in 1000 will succeed. Ignore them and follow the basics. I’ve been investing since the 80s and all my peers that did the boring thing are retiring comfortably.
This is the reason dollar-cost-averaging works. You buy less (shares) when the market is high, and more when it is low, without thinking about it and without trying to "time" your transactions (which almost always fails unless you have inside info).
So what you're saying is you avoid timing the market (which doesn't work) by timing when you buy shares? What?
No. You invest the same amount of money at a regular cadence throughout the year. The end result is that you obtain less shares when the price is high, and more shares when the price is low. It's explicitly not timing the market.
The problem is that I have been seeing some version of the “crash imminent, sell everything” thesis for my entire life. Almost nobody who “saw the crash coming” in the case of the dotcom bubble, or covid, or the subprime crisis made any money, because almost nobody gets the timing or magnitude of the crash right. You can find YouTube channels that have been warning people that a crash is imminent for the last two yea…
I just always buy and never sell until the leadership and the board of the company appear to be going full retard. And not in a good way like Netflix pivoting to streaming in 2006 but like HP in 2006. Haha.
Even worse is the 'air drop' craze of the crypto world. I also think the people that invested (and lost) their money in HAWK coin knew what they were doing.
They wanted to pump and dump the coin and couldn't get out fast enough. It's just another way to gamble.
The federal reserve literally just got through a monetary tightening policy that paid zero regard to the stock market. The fed will juice to keep employment up and tighten to keep inflation down. They will not support stocks at the expense of those mandates
We're dealing with people who interpret the words "price stability" to mean "prices should increase exponentially, we'd consider it a serious problem if they stayed level". It seems a bit of a stretch to go from that to believing that their mandate constrains them somehow. Their mandate can be interpreted to mean whatever they want it to mean. They're a political beast, they're going to do whatever they can get away…
The Federal Reserve targeting "price stability" literally does mean that they target prices increasing exponentially by an average of 2% per year[1]. The mathematical form is P(t) = P₀(1.02)ᵗ, where P₀ is the initial price level and t is time in years.
We're dealing with people who interpret the words "price stability" to mean "prices should increase exponentially, we'd consider it a serious problem if they stayed level". It seems a bit of a stretch to go from that to believing that their mandate constrains them somehow. Their mandate can be interpreted to mean whatever they want it to mean. They're a political beast, they're going to do whatever they can get away…
It’s impossible to keep prices perfectly steady, the Fed could not possibly be that precise. If they tried, we would bounce back and forth between inflation and deflation, which would be incredibly destabilizing to long-term investment… and therefore destabilizing to job growth and capital improvement, innovation, etc. So instead the Fed aims for a small amount of inflation. That way when they miss a bit, we still st…
The Fed has stated that one benefit of a small amount of inflation is that it provides employers with a mechanism to effectively revise wages downward without employees quitting (by denying them an annual raise), but yes - they have never stated that they are trying to inflate the debt away.
No one had an opinion about Vietnam? I was 13 in 2003, plenty of people had an opinion about 9/11, civil liberties, and Iraq.
I don't recall any opinions about Vietnam and would probably have remembered if someone had expressed an opinion to me. And the war or whatever we call the situation in Gaza would be something I'd want to shield my 13-year-old child from having any knowledge of if I were a parent -- for basically the same reason I'd want to shield them from learning about sadomasochistic sex as long as possible.
Just curious, why would you want to shield them from reality? At 13 they’re only a few years from becoming a full fledged adult. Unsheltered life is coming at them fast. I don’t have children yet, so maybe my perspective would change if I did, but (while I would not intentionally expose them to harsher realities) I would never shield my kids. Instead, I would want them to be curious and ask questions while I still had a large influence in their lives, so that I could help guide them and give them tools and strategies to navigate a complex world. I experienced a fairly sheltered (religious/conservative) upbringing socially, but we had a subscription to US News & World report during the height of the GWOT which I read cover to cover. I understood geopolitics before I understood how to make friends. My transition to adult life was tough socially, but I at least had a decent understanding of how the world worked on a macro scale. If children are not sheltered socially, then they’re already encountering pretty much everything through their social circles. And with the internet, 10x+ that.