WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by frame609 on 2005-06-08 04:34:20 +0000

I can't wait to wake up tomorrow afternoon and read all of the attempts at defencing the tax cuts. C'mon, gang! Bring it!

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-08 04:36:46 +0000

I got a better post for tomorrow... wait, IT IS TOMORROW!

Posted by frame609 on 2005-06-08 04:38:32 +0000

Fucking CRAZY TIME TRAVEL!

Posted by frame609 on 2005-06-08 17:12:59 +0000

......and no attempts.

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-09 15:06:54 +0000

• a federal budget deficit of $412 billion in 2004
• a (projected) federal budget deficit of $350 billion in 2005

Thanks to increased revenues, the budget deficit this year _may_ decrease, the first time in four years. No thanks to controlling spending.

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-09 16:40:44 +0000

no thanks... even though I am participating in them, these "the sky are falling" posts are starting to make my eyes glaze over. _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-09 19:03:36 +0000

Dude, it already fell. That's my point. June 6th, 2001 was salad.

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-09 19:59:35 +0000

If it already fell, whats the point in warning us about it? Bragging rights? 'I Told You so?' I'm not sure I get it. _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-09 20:24:38 +0000

Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it, and they might keep these people in power by voting for them. What do you want to do, ignore it? I think that's what Bush wants us to do actually. But I won't. I want change.

Posted by tgl on 2006-01-10 19:19:17 +0000

Well, we tease him a lot, 'cuz we got him on the spot, welcome back. Disclaimer: This post not about Gabe Kapler.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-10 19:27:13 +0000

yep. we're over 11,000 on DJIA - Im sure all the Chicken Littles will explain it away. but Im pretty confident that investing my $$$ in the Stock market over a period of 20+ years will yield much better results than stuffing it in a mattress or worse yet, waiting for the uber progressive movement of wonderful government to come and save me / help me in my retirement... *My emerging markets stock had a 44% rate of return from 12/31/2004 to 12/31/2005* - what a shitty economy, eh? Ed.: shrunk pic.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-10 19:46:37 +0000

Are you actually arguing the economy is good because the Dow is back to where is was 4 years and 7 months ago? That your rate of return for one year makes up for the losses of the past? Do you really think you get a "worse" return on investment through government bonds than just "stuffing it in a mattress"? And then if I explain this to you, I am a "chicken little"? Your ignorance in econimcs is astounding.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-10 19:58:19 +0000

why do you put your foot down and deem me ignorant? can't you accept a point of view other than your own? I dont deem you ignorant for your views...

Posted by mr. mister on 2006-01-10 20:34:49 +0000

that was the emerging markets fund. Not a very good indicator for our economy. People are investing in other countries because there economies are more likely to create a higher return. Bush Sucks - He's not green he's mean!

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-10 20:42:10 +0000

you can add Lev Co. Stock, Small Cap, spartan Index (a S& P index fund pretty much), and other well performing US equity based stocks into the portfolio. I don't see how someone in their late 20's or early 30s. with so much time to invest, would put a lot of money into bonds, without risk there is no reward. If you are retiring in the next 5 years swinging for the fence doesn't make a lot of sense. [earnestly, w/ no intentional sarcasm or condescension]What would you, db, recommend for a good text on economics so I can see your point of view more?[/earnestly, w/ no intentional sarcasm or condescension]

Posted by tgl on 2006-01-10 20:45:50 +0000

Wow, I was actually posting this as *good news*. 20+ years in the stock market _may_ give you better performance than stuffing your savings in a mattress. "Past performance is no indication of future returns", isn't that what they say? Regardless, you are putting words in my mouth. As I doubt I have ever claimed that relying on the government is an individual's surest way to a comfortable retirement. It's the biggest falsehood of the "Save Social Security" spectacle: IT"S NOT A RETIREMENT ACCOUNT! If you find that you'll be depending solely on Social Security to fund your retirement, then you will be living in poverty. Sounds fantastic, doesn't it? No wonder the Republicans want to dismantle it. The clamor for poverty must be tempting for Joe Six-Pack... Does your 44% return in the past year make up for the abyssmal returns of '97-'00? FEMKX has actually outperformed in the period that I've been lamenting! Alas, one mutual fund does not an economy make. In fact, FEMKX has 10-yr annualized return of 2.74% Sounds like mattress stuffing, or at least, government bonds. ;) It is true that if you've _started_ investing in this particuar fund in '03, then you are doing pretty well. Woe to the money that went into this well prior to that.

Posted by tgl on 2006-01-10 20:47:44 +0000

I have money in bonds. Some. Maybe... 15% of my portfolio?

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-10 20:49:43 +0000

It's why you adjust yr portfolio from time to time. All Im saying is that living in America isnt always the gloom/doom picture that is presented here and many other places. Many many bad / wrong things in our country, but they beat the heck out of any alternatives I can think of, and call me a Pollyanna if you must, the world could stand for some optimism as opposed to more cynicism. Back to economic texts: I have been attempting to pore through FA Hayek's The Road To Serfdom as well as reading books by Peter Lynch and looking into the history of folks like Alexander Hamilton. To keep things constructive here, what are other quality resources are out there that you guys like? What am I missing? yours in (hopefully declining) economic ignorance, NP

Posted by tgl on 2006-01-10 20:52:10 +0000

I posted that the DJIA has finally returned to a level only previously achieved on June 11, 2001... which I applaud! What's wrong with wanting the US to be better? Sorry for my patriotism.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-10 20:57:45 +0000

" posted that the DJIA has finally returned to a level only previously achieved on June 11, 2001... which I applaud! What's wrong with wanting the US to be better? Sorry for my patriotism." Which I certainly appreciate, I should have made it a point to also regard the good news you pointed out here in this thread. My apologies. I guess my head was stuck in the thread we were all going back and forth with a few weeks/months back in where it was said in no uncertain terms that our economy sucked.

Posted by tgl on 2006-01-10 21:03:14 +0000

I can't speak for db, but I don't think his exasperation is due to a lack of insight into various economic theories. Much as the DJIA is just an index that may or may not fully reflect the health of the entire US economy (there, I said it!) you can't look at last year's returns of a single mutal fund and say "Things are going great!". Especially, as Mr. Mr. pointed out, the fund in question is doing so well partly because of negatives in the US market (rising interest rates, creeping inflation, declining wages, and the weak dollar). It's also true that barring a collapse of the US Treasury (now, there's a Chicken Little story), putting your money in T-Bills is still a better bet than mattresses. If you're reading Hayek and Hamilton, then you're way ahead of me as it relates to various macro- theories. Galbraith, though, temper 'em with Galbraith.

Posted by tgl on 2006-01-10 21:06:07 +0000

Well, yeah, in no uncertain terms the economy sucks. ;) Call me a child of the waning '90s.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-10 21:53:43 +0000

I was posting a specific example of a Fidelity, a Boston Massachusetts company, (read: USA Company) mutual fund that I have in my portfolio that did extremely well. I agree, after thinking about the post more carefully, that posting Lev Co Sto or S&P Index would have proved my point abit better. (Went for the eye popping number - sorry) It's also notable that Emer. mkts is like 10% of my portfolio - I might have made people look at one tree instead of the forest - My point is that our economy does not suck right now. consumer confidence from a standpoint of December spending, DJIA, S & P, et. al are all up. I understand inflation and other things you guys mention that also have to be considered when measuring how the US is doing overall. I had so many years of being afraid to even open my 401K statements, and now, I m seeing positive rates of returns globally through all of my funds (90 % of which are strictly US by the way)and by paying attention to this information, I am hoping to learn more so I wont have to depend financially on others later in my life and to be able to help the little Ween listener go to a good college. I feel more positive about these goals of mine today than I did a few years ago. Is that so wrong?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-10 22:19:03 +0000

Null P. THIS IS NOT A POINT OF VIEW ISSUE! I beg you yet again, please stop arguing facts. T-Bonds are at about 4% right now. Under the mattress = 0% You said "worse yet, waiting for the uber progressive movement of wonderful government to come and save me / help me in my retirement." Factually wrong, and one does not need a text book to know this. Nothing personal.

Posted by tgl on 2006-01-11 01:01:15 +0000

Fidelity is indeed a USA company, but the fund FEMKX is over 90% foreign stocks. Clearly an indication of foreign markets, not US markets. Maybe we shouldn't quibble, everything is global right? There's nothing wrong about being pleased with performance. I am happy the markets are moving generally upwards. I too have about 10% in mutual funds focused on international stocks. Based on my pessimism I should probably re-allocate. Indeed, it seems that I'm doing OK if I want to hedge my bets against inflation (7% in bonds). Then again, my new philosophy is "hold 'em". Which I picked up after getting burned by switching from State Street, to M.I.G., to Fidelity, to American Funds over the course of 1999 and 2000 (more due to employment status rather than investment strategy). I was seeing better returns, overall, in 2003, for example: RAFAX, RLBAX, AEPG, SMCWX If only I'd had as much money in 2003 as I have in 2006, then everything would be swell! ---- Holiday spending was fairly flat relative to last year, so I thought. The S&P is only up 1% for 2005. DJIA is up 5%, good news, but still off 700 points from an all-time high in Jan. 2000. Granted, that was the peak of an unsustainable bubble. The economy does not suck. Could it be better? Definitely. Are their indications that current monetary policy could make the economy really sucky? I think so. Here's my point: The economy will continue to work for me (I can't argue I'm _worse_ off than I was 5 years ago), however, not everyone can afford to put money in the financial markets. Moreover, the economy is changing such that more and more people will be unable to do so (namely, rising interest rates, creeping inflation and stagnant wages). There I go again, worrying about others.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-11 01:13:00 +0000

Your comments here: ________________________________ .

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-11 06:43:23 +0000

NP, I believe you mean "the greater the risk, the greater reward" not "without risk there is no reward" for financial markets. Whether it be US Bonds or even a FDIC insured CD, most have yields (read 'rewards') over 3.5% (with I-Bonds peaking at 6.73%) and absolutely no risk. I have about 10% in bonds, but many I know have over 40% and did much better than I since summer '01.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-11 12:59:48 +0000

whatever, dude.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-20 20:32:18 +0000

Whoops... The only conciliation is that 'black Fridays' typically don't bleed into the next week.