Mitt Romney pays a paltry 15% in taxes, how about you?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Stop online piracy; stop job killing.

Jandurin

I live a mile away from four corners. At least they're fixing up university blvd now, except it makes the morning commute a total pain. As if the 29 traffic wasn't enough.shakmaster13

I kinda like Silver Springs tho.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

Minimizing risk would also minimize potential for return and loss. That's an investment strategy that is focused on wealth preservation. This is not the only type of investment strategy that exists.

airshocker

I disagree, there are many ways to minimize risk without taking a loss on returns.

None of this changes the fact that risk is still a downside to investing.

An investment with little risk and high returns would make one a billionaire in short order.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I kinda like Silver Springs tho.

Jandurin

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I kinda like Silver Springs tho.

Jandurin

idk.

had a friend who lived walking distance from the metro.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]I have no idea what percent I pay and I don't really care.surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I kinda like Silver Springs tho.

shakmaster13

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I kinda like Silver Springs tho.

coolbeans90

idk.

had a friend who lived walking distance from the metro.

An investment with little risk and high returns would make one a billionaire in short order.

superfluidity

I don't even know what you're getting at anymore.

Are you against me doing research on my investments in order to minimize risk?

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Jandurin"]I have no idea what percent I pay and I don't really care.HarlockJC

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

An investment with little risk and high returns would make one a billionaire in short order.

airshocker

I don't even know what you're getting at anymore.

Are you against me doing research on my investments in order to minimize risk?

Why would I be? Minimizing risk is a perfectly reasonable investment strategy for some people.

Why would I be? Minimizing risk is a perfectly reasonable investment strategy for some people.

superfluidity

Then start making sense in your posts. You can't say that risk isn't a downside if you think it's perfectly acceptable to minimize that risk. That makes no fvcking(TAKE THAT, CB!) sense whatsoever.

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

Why would I be? Minimizing risk is a perfectly reasonable investment strategy for some people.

airshocker

Then start making sense in your posts. You can't say that risk isn't a downside if you think it's perfectly acceptable to minimize that risk. That makes no fvcking(TAKE THAT, CB!) sense whatsoever.

Why doesn't that make sense? It's perfectly reasonable to minimize risk if one's goal is wealth preservation. Other goals would result in a higher allocation of riskier assets, which is also perfectly reasonable.

Why doesn't that make sense? It's perfectly reasonable to minimize risk if one's goal is wealth preservation. Other goals would result in a higher allocation of riskier assets, which is also perfectly reasonable.

superfluidity

Because you keep trying to say that risk isn't a downside. :lol:

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Risk is a bad thing in the market. If there was minimal risk and a substantial amount to gain, that would be a good thing. Minimizing risk and maximizing gain is what everyone desires. Risk can be in indicator of how much there is to gain, but that doesn't make it a good thing. The gain is what the "good thing" is, not the risk.

Are you really this stupid?

superfluidity

Since you're insulting me, I'll just point out that this statement shows you clearly understand little about investing.

Risk literally determines how much there is to gain or lose. As a basic example, a corporate bond pays more interest than a government bond, because there is a higher risk that a corporation will default than the government.

If it weren't for that higher risk of default, that higher rate of return would simply not exist.

Thus, risk isn't bad, it's a factor that determines the potential for gain and loss.

You still don't understand. Just because risk is correlated to gain doesn't make it a good thing. If you're not mentally retarded, then you would try to minimize risk while maximizing gain.

Using your logic, I would just try to maximize risk when investing and not give two **** about potential gain. If a man came up to me and told me to invest in this crappy apartment complex in a bad area and the return was awful, I would not invest in that complex.

I will defend Romney on this issue. He is paying exactly what he is supposed to be paying by law. Otherwise he would be in jail for tax evasion. You can blame the system and the laws for allowing low capital gains taxes, but that's a separate issue. I dont know of any person that is going to paymore taxes than they owe.

Risk is always a downside in investing. Always. There's no advantage to higher risk. There are other things such as higher returns that can entice someone to invest in certain commodities, but that doesnt change the fact that risk is bad. And risk and rate of return are not always correlated as you put forth. There are investments which carry various levels of risk and return. A smart investor will try to pick products which maximize returns and minimize risk.

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

Why doesn't that make sense? It's perfectly reasonable to minimize risk if one's goal is wealth preservation. Other goals would result in a higher allocation of riskier assets, which is also perfectly reasonable.

airshocker

Because you keep trying to say that risk isn't a downside. :lol:

Because it merely determines the potential for gain or loss.

I will defend Romney on this issue. He is paying exactly what he is supposed to be paying by law. Otherwise he would be in jail for tax evasion. You can blame the system and the laws for allowing low capital gains taxes, but that's a separate issue. I dont know of any person that is going to paymore taxes than they owe.

sonicare

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

Why doesn't that make sense? It's perfectly reasonable to minimize risk if one's goal is wealth preservation. Other goals would result in a higher allocation of riskier assets, which is also perfectly reasonable.

Because you keep trying to say that risk isn't a downside. :lol:

Because it merely determines the potential for gain or loss.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

Why doesn't that make sense? It's perfectly reasonable to minimize risk if one's goal is wealth preservation. Other goals would result in a higher allocation of riskier assets, which is also perfectly reasonable.

superfluidity

Because you keep trying to say that risk isn't a downside. :lol:

Because it merely determines the potential for gain or loss.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Because you keep trying to say that risk isn't a downside. :lol:

Because it merely determines the potential for gain or loss.

You still don't understand. Just because risk is correlated to gain doesn't make it a good thing. If you're not mentally retarded, then you would try to minimize risk while maximizing gain.

Using your logic, I would just try to maximize risk when investing and not give two **** about potential gain. If a man came up to me and told me to invest in this crappy apartment complex in a bad area and the return was awful, I would not invest in that complex.

SpartanMSU

You've just incorrectly assumed that because I disagreed with your conjecture that risk is inherently bad, that I must believe risk is inherently good.

I know this must be difficult for you, but please reread what I said and reply with a response to my actual argument rather than that one you've fabricated for me.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] No it doesn't. There's no direct correlation. If my non-college-uneducated uncle asks me for $10,000 because he wants to start a web company for some idea he has about starting a website that is a database of naked girls in movies, that would be high risk, with little potential for gain. Just because something is high risk does not mean that it has high potential. Or do I regret getting into this argument?gaming25

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

You still don't understand. Just because risk is correlated to gain doesn't make it a good thing. If you're not mentally retarded, then you would try to minimize risk while maximizing gain.

Using your logic, I would just try to maximize risk when investing and not give two **** about potential gain. If a man came up to me and told me to invest in this crappy apartment complex in a bad area and the return was awful, I would not invest in that complex.

superfluidity

You've just incorrectly assumed that because I disagreed with your conjecture that risk is inherently bad, that I must believe risk is inherently good.

I know this must be difficult for you, but please reread what I said and reply with a response to my actual argument rather than that one you've fabricated for me.

Irrelevant. My argument doesn't rely on you thinking that risk is a good thing. It relys on you thinking it's not a bad thing. Feel free to actually make a real argument when you're ready.

No it doesn't. There's no direct correlation. If my non-college-uneducated uncle asks me for $10,000 because he wants to start a web company for some idea he has about starting a website that is a database of naked girls in movies, that would be high risk, with little potential for gain. Just because something is high risk does not mean that it has high potential. Or do I regret getting into this argument? Edit - and yes, I'm thinking of the movie Knocked UpEngrish_Major

That isn't a risky investment, that's a certain failure.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] No it doesn't. There's no direct correlation. If my non-college-uneducated uncle asks me for $10,000 because he wants to start a web company for some idea he has about starting a website that is a database of naked girls in movies, that would be high risk, with little potential for gain. Just because something is high risk does not mean that it has high potential. Or do I regret getting into this argument? Edit - and yes, I'm thinking of the movie Knocked Upsuperfluidity

That isn't a risky investment, that's a certain failure.

I don't really know much about his finances, so I'm not really in a position to have a valid opinion on this... and I don't know how much I'm paying...

[QUOTE="ColdExistence"]We should probably ask the 1337 azn countries for advice on how to improve our education. lol Jandurin

It's easy.

Have school on Saturday.

Have exercise breaks.

Make students compete about test scores that are obviously placed AND have real repercussions for failing.

What are 'real repercussions'?

And I think they need a more personally tailored, to the individual, system.

I don't like History and I hate Language Arts, but I love Physics, have an interest in engineering, and programming, genetics... So, why is it that I'm forced to learn, and do well, in classes that I have no interest and really aren't going to benefit me? What is the obsession with this 'well rounded' education? What has Shakespeare ever done, or said, that will ever have any benefit to me?

Kids should be exposed to as many fields as possible, so that they can find what they're interested in, but making them required for a final grade, that effects your ability to go to higher education, is sorta bs.

Also, why is age important? Why are you placed in a grade 'cause you're a certain age, shouldn't you just be placed in classes based on a certain ability? Plus, I think that would cause some competition right there, you have some young kid in your class, you have to be smarter, or your pride's gonna get hurt, unless you have none...

I don't think that adding an extra day of school will help, or an exercise break... If anything I'd just hate that. I'm not fat, why do I have to exercise waste of damn energy and time that I could be better spending in my beloved fields of study. I personally think, you'd just make it worse. Maybe voluntary exercise breaks, that'd be fine, or requisite to fatties and then if anyone complains about 'equality' - some are smarter than others, others are fat 'n such, some beautiful, some ugly.. there is no equality in the real world.

I don't think that adding an extra day of school will help, or an exercise break... If anything I'd just hate that. I'm not fat, why do I have to exercise waste of damn energy and time that I could be better spending in my beloved fields of study. I personally think, you'd just make it worse. Maybe voluntary exercise breaks, that'd be fine, or requisite to fatties and then if anyone complains about 'equality' - some are smarter than others, others are fat 'n such, some beautiful, some ugly.. there is no equality in the real world.

Inconsistancy

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] No it doesn't. There's no direct correlation. If my non-college-uneducated uncle asks me for $10,000 because he wants to start a web company for some idea he has about starting a website that is a database of naked girls in movies, that would be high risk, with little potential for gain. Just because something is high risk does not mean that it has high potential. Or do I regret getting into this argument? Edit - and yes, I'm thinking of the movie Knocked UpEngrish_Major

That isn't a risky investment, that's a certain failure.

Pretend that instead of your uncle making a porn site, it had been a competent business person. Now there's actual investment opportunity to assess since there is some potential for gains. This would still probably be an enormously risky investment, but there is potential for large gains only because of how risky it is.

If a large company decided to get into the porn business, it would have a higher likelihood of success and thus be a less risky investment, but one investing in that company would take a much smaller slice of any gains compared to the same size investment with the small business person's startup.

Because it merely determines the potential for gain or loss.

superfluidity

That still doesn't change the fact that risk is a downside. It seems to me you just don't want to admit you're wrong, which is kind of sad.

Risk is inherently a downside. HOWEVER, it does serve a purpose in determining things like return in markets -- THAT SAID, it is still a downside, ceteris paribus.

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

Because it merely determines the potential for gain or loss.

airshocker

That still doesn't change the fact that risk is a downside. It seems to me you just don't want to admit you're wrong, which is kind of sad.

It would be a downside in an alternate universe where risk wasn't required for return. I don't think anyone on this forum lives in such a universe.

It would be a downside in an alternate universe where risk wasn't required for return. I don't think anyone on this forum lives in such a universe.

superfluidity

Actually, it's more like every single person except you knows that risk is indeed a downside.

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

It would be a downside in an alternate universe where risk wasn't required for return. I don't think anyone on this forum lives in such a universe.

airshocker

Actually, it's more like every single person except you knows that risk is indeed a downside.

You go ahead and believe that, meanwhile I'll be retiring at approximately age 40 because I actually understand basic financial concepts.

Risk does not determine rewards. That's a misunderstanding of how investments work. People are confusing the correlation. There are some very low risk investments that carry high returns and conversely there are high risk investments that carry low returns. The risk does not neccessarily correlate to reward. It's just that a smart or informed investor is not going to invest in a high risk commodity with a low return.

That's one of the reasons that capital gains aren't taxed at higher rates. If you tax them too much, then no one would bother risking their money. The other reason has something to do with being taxed twice, but I dont quite understand that explanation.

Risk does not determine rewards. That's a misunderstanding of how investments work. People are confusing the correlation. There are some very low risk investments that carry high returns and conversely there are high risk investments that carry low returns. The risk does not neccessarily correlate to reward. It's just that a smart or informed investor is not going to invest in a high risk commodity with a low return.

That's one of the reasons that capital gains aren't taxed at higher rates. If you tax them too much, then no one would bother risking their money. The other reason has something to do with being taxed twice, but I dont quite understand that explanation.

sonicare

I have never once in this thread said that risk determines reward, that would be insanity. I would just bury money in the ground and wait for it to sprout money trees if that were the case.

Risk does determine the potential for reward. There are no investments with low risk and high returns, I challenge you to find any such investment and when you do I'll thank you for making me a billionaire.

I pay 150%.

:(