There was a thread a couple years ago called "Saving for College": http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/http://77.104.139.218/~gyroscop/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=3 I looked into some of the options today, thinking that I might be able to use them to defer some extra income for tax purposes.  ...

They can assemble all they want.  The problem is when the government agrees that for an entire profession (eg, teachers) that they will only hire people from a single organization, and anyone who's not in that organization need not apply. If a private company wants to slit its throat and agree to th...

Let me ask you - is this ad appropriate?  It was paid for by private money, with the sole intention of influencing the presidential election: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDTT1yRNsFE&feature=player_embedded Why shouldn't whoever made that video be allowed to say whatever he wants? Government ...

Are we talking about 3.2% nominal return in a deflationary environment?  What's to complain about there?

Very exciting!  I hope to be getting my copy very soon now.

PS - Maybe it's time to change the banner ads to link to the hardcover version?

PPS - Oh, I didn't see the handy link from one to the other.  Doesn't much matter then.

Oh I wasn't trying to sound snarky either, and I think I may have.  I probably (very reluctantly) agree that the "rule of law" is a myth.  PS, I've read that article you linked to before and found it quite, well, I suppose depressing is the word.  Certainly assumption-challenging.  It's di...

Coming back around to the beginning of this segment of the thread: having a "rule of judges" rather than a rule of law makes Storm's graphic a couple of pages ago even more relevant.  I interpret it as a strongly pro-Romney advertisement.

Public employee unions shouldn't even exist.  I'm okay with teachers getting together to expound a political position, but that doesn't mean that one such group should have a monopoly on all teaching jobs.

Actually the first amendment is quite clear.  The muddiness comes in with the 14th amendment, and subsequent court decisions that have ruled that the first amendment applies at all levels of government. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech".  This limits federal laws...

Why shouldn't they be allowed to try to convince people to vote a particular way?  Nobody's forced to vote in a manner they don't want to, no matter how many dollars are involved.  You believe that the Koch brothers (or whoever) should have a gun pointed at them and be told what they can and can't p...

The whole McCain-Feingold ban of speech leading up to an election is so completely wrong at every level.  Originally, an organization called Citizens United was banned (BANNED by the federal government) from advertising a movie it had produced.  What kind of sense does that make?  What country are w...

Oh please!  Why should a group of people not be able to pool their assets in order to argue a political position? The answer to "getting money out of politics" is to limit the vast and ever-increasing role of government in our lives.  Corporations feel that they must influence lawmakers be...

Also look into the Ghostery extension.  It automatically blocks a bunch of third-party trackers, which you can whitelist for given sites if you want to.

http://www.ghostery.com/download

The issue is that ALL polls (except perhaps for this unskewedpolls.com) have an algorithm to "correct" for biases.  The trick is that leaving a poll uncorrected is biased, and if you're going to apply a correction, there's no way to really know whether you've done it too much or too little...

Note that that is *real* CAGR, that is, after accounting for inflation.

I looked into some of these things, but what I've so far been unable to answer for myself is where I'd be crossing the line into usury. Extracting huge interest rates from people already in bad financial shape so that I can pep up my cash returns isn't something I'm 100% sure I'm ready to do.  But t...

The whole shift from "global warming" to "climate change" makes it very apparent that I'm being marketed to, and also that the watermelons are setting things up so that any event can be taken as "proof" of their contention.

doodle wrote:You're right Xan, I forgot. Only radical Muslims kill people.

I didn't say that Christians don't kill people.  I'm asking who is killing in the name of Jesus Christ.  The only thing I can think of is something like abortion clinic bombers, but that's only a handful of people tops.

I also go with the multiple PP strategy.  One taxable, one tax-deferred.  I looked into other options but the complexity spun out of control.

doodle wrote:Today Christians kill in his name....

Who?

We have a portfolio that guards against the future being unknowable and protects us against "black swan events". If most scientists are correct "climate change" has the potential to severely disrupt our life on this planet yet people (in America) are very quick to call it hogwas...

Storm wrote:I've long since finished trying to win an argument with Reub.

Then what's with all the spam on the other thread he just started?

Arturo wrote:i mean that i will give my opinion when i finish it :-)

Oh, hah!  Sorry.

Arturo wrote:

MediumTex wrote: If you're reading the book, that should answer your questions in a pretty comprehensive way.

The book was written for people exactly like you (i.e., skeptical beginners).

I'm anxious to hear what you think about the book when you finish it.

done! :-)

...and?