61–70 of 79 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just gotta love how this white, Australian born cis-male [...] He didn't bring sex or race into it. His points are just as valid regardless of your sex or race. You're the only one here discriminating based on sex or race.
Opportunities to make money vary for the most part according to sex, race, place of origin, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opportunities to make money vary for the most part according to sex, race, place of origin, etc.
But the guy in the clip wasn't talking about opportunities to make money, he was talking about laws and taxes.
Conversely, if you have bad debt, every penny that goes towards paying it back could instead go towards the kinds of purchases he endorses using "good" debt for.
There's no principled distinction between the two.
Especially for those working in tech, there are ways to put the odds of becoming wealthy greatly in your favor. It's our choice to act on it or ignore it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to remember this is an old school guy (late 40s, early 50s?), coming from a time where driving a loud car is seen as a "cool" thing to do and a way of measuring your dick size. Troy is a great speaker and he certainly makes a good career out of it (and selling stolen passwords to companies), but he also loves to show off his wealth which is a bit old school and weird nowadays. From my experience, the happies…
I'm not too far from his age range. The "blatant brag" kind of plays out by your late 20s. At least it should, IMO. It's mostly just signalling to females, anyway.
It obviously should, but a casual observation of the world around me seems to indicate that it doesn't.
Not really for tech professionals exclusively. His reasoning should really be replaced by: 0. Get a well paid job. Theres also this "Bad debt is the likes you have on a credit card. It's almost always accrued on a depreciating asset (for example, a new TV) and it's very often at a high interest rate" Why is depreciation always mentioned as a problem of bad debt? My house will depreciate if I don't maintain it. Surely…
That Kerry Packer clip is terrible. In summary he says (and I'm trying to neutrally paraphrase his words): "Since I was a boy, 10,000 new laws have been passed, and the country isn't any better. The new laws that have been passed are just for the sake of it, and you take away someone's freedom every time you pass a new law" This sounds a lot like the Trumpian: "If there’s a new regulation, they have to knock out two.…
I enjoyed the clip on taxes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBg7DnQjjcY
Yada Yada Taxes are theft... oh my. Just gotta love how this white, Australian born cis-male was educated in a public school, going there every day over public roads, in a town kept safe by public police, in a house that never burned down because of public firefighters, never fearing saying the wrong thing in a free constitutional democracy protected by judges, politicians and a military — lecturing everyone about th…
You’ll get all those public services regardless of how many taxes you pay. And if somehow everyone else decides to do it as well, you can be sure the politicians will rapidly figure out a way to finally make it illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Housing debt is a little special because you have an obligation to provide yourself and your family shelter, so your best alternative is rent instead of going without or delaying the purchase until you can save enough money to buy it free and clear. In general, debt is good if having it is cheaper than the alternative. The way that often happens is if the asset you buy with the debt is worth more, in income or apprec…
As I said, bad debt is a combination of whether you actually need, and can afford the thing, and interest rate. You need a house, so an affordable house would be fine, one that you cant afford isn't. Yes an appreciating asset shifts the balance somewhat, but doesn't inherently make bad debt good. I suppose its best to look at where each outlook ends up? The appreciating asset = good view would suggest you buy the abs…
As long as the numbers work out, though, It does seem entirely reasonable to take a loan to buy a house with the intent of renting it out for income. If the rent you receive can cover the maintenance and loan interest, you can sell it on again any time you need your capital back and bank the appreciation (or lose the depreciation, prices move both ways).
>> just take one simple truth away from a glance at it: investments grow over time This statement is false. The truth is that "investments have grown over time". It's not necessarily true that they will continue to grow over time. The efficiency benefits of corporate growth have been reached long ago and are on the decline. Corporate growth today relies on crooked government policies, stock buybacks and other methods…
I don't understand the ire against share buybacks. They're just a more tax efficient and flexible form of dividends to shareholders than traditional cash dividends. Dividends (broadly construed) are the original reason an investor placed money into a firm. If you outlaw all forms of dividends, you end arms-length investing, which surely harms people more, IMO.
Not OP, and I think his ire is misplaced here... but MY ire against share buybacks is because the flexibility is misused.
Setting aside taxes - share repurchases benefit stockholders more than dividends when a company's shares are undervalued; the converse is also true. However, management's incentive tends to be to maximize their comp (particularly stock options) by juicing the stock as it rises. Companies usually buy high, and suspend share repurchases when the stock is low.
There are exceptions; AAPL corporate finance does a great job. But as a rule, company treasuries do a lousy job of trading in their own shares because of poorly aligned incentives.