Finance/Investing ITT

[funcrew]

I lost all my money daytrading back in October 08.

Since March 09, I started with $300, and am now up to $14k from trading on BAC, C, WFC, and FITB. I figure Ive roughly tripled my money in about 5 or 6 months.

If I could roughly triple my savings every 6 months, I could definitely retire in 2 years. Can I just send it all to you for you to manage?

[Kruzen]

You don't deal in numbers, yet try to post charts to prove your point? (yet fail to realize the mechanics of the money supply and relationship to prove level?)

Simple assumption that if you participate in MLMs, you're more likely to be a sucker for poor economic theory from a writer who doesn't know what he is talking about (like the one you quoted).

You gather different information from the charts than I do. I believe the results of human action are observable by looking at the resulting data. If you think for an instant you can stimulate the market (in a good, long term, stable way) by artificially setting interest rates then you obviously have a different set of beliefs related to the function of our economy than I do.

You make a lot of assumptions related to participating in MLMs. I utilize my connection with the mlm in question for their drop shopping and purchase front end. Without sidestepping the purpose of this thread, I make lots of money off of it and I don't spend any. Not a bad investment.

If I'm a sucker for believing hayek, rothbard, mises, then so be it. I'd rather be a fool than try to stomach the bullshit that bernanke is trying to convince the world of.

[rwh11385]

Austrian theory doesn't blend well with Keynes. You deal in numbers and I deal in praxeology.

I don't understand the criticism of one of my revenue streams, either. But fair enough.

You don't deal in numbers, yet try to post charts to prove your point? (yet fail to realize the mechanics of the money supply and relationship to prove level?)

Simple assumption that if you participate in MLMs, you're more likely to be a sucker for poor economic theory from a writer who doesn't know what he is talking about (like the one you quoted).

[Kruzen]

BiosLifeBoy: Don't agree? Fine. But if you don't, you could at least know the proper definitions and principles of our economy. I can't really take your opinion seriously since it is based on absolute ignorance. It's like tjts1 or whoever.

Austrian theory doesn't blend well with Keynes. You deal in numbers and I deal in praxeology.

I don't understand the criticism of one of my revenue streams, either. But fair enough.

[rwh11385]

MaxBell, most people talk to a Financial Advisor because they don't want to think for themselves. It's about being a salesmen and having it easy, not making sure they know what is going on. If they knew shit, they wouldn't need an advisor. Because plenty of people like Kruzen are so mixed up that it is laughable, there may always be room for someone to do the work for them.

BiosLifeBoy: Don't agree? Fine. But if you don't, you could at least know the proper definitions and principles of our economy. I can't really take your opinion seriously since it is based on absolute ignorance. It's like tjts1 or whoever.

[nando]

that's basically it. Somebody is wrong. Whoever isn't will be a little bit wealthier on the other side.

farbin - no, I didn't, but I did notice that most of my portfolio was up significantly. Something about solid earnings growth, fundamentals, and I suppose an accomodative Fed. You know what they say about fighting the Fed in markets..

[Kruzen]

Wow. Thanks for pointing out yourself that:
a) you have no idea what you are talking about
b) you are relying on someone else's opinion rather than your own and are unable to be critical of their reasoning

"holding onto the money" and "start lending again"... lol

Banks are in fact loaning money, just not at the leverage they were previously. (which I mentioned earlier) It will be a while or never until banks use as much leverage as they were using.

The Fed cannot control the money supply totally, but only the base and interest rates. It is up to our banks how much they want to loan out per money they have, which determines our effective money supply. Even if they tripled the base, it does not mean M3 is larger than it was in 08, etc. (It's actually still smaller which charts show clearly)

Velocity is based on spending habits and transaction rate. The velocity of money will not increase much greater than it is compared to recent changes over the past 10 years, besides perhaps recovering. Velocity of money is a factor in money supply equation but with online transactions and transfers already pretty mainstream, there won't be a great leap compared to recent I would say. If more transactions happen, it's more likely to recover GDP than go to raise price level. Anyone who refers to banks controlling the velocity instead of referring to this as leverage is a moron.

M * V = P * Y
Money supply * Velocity of transactions = Price Level * Y (Output aka GDP)


Bernanke will be able to see when M3 reaches a healty level again and adjust interest rates to curb inflation to the healthy, ideal level (2%).

Okay. I disagree with your standpoint on the economy and your faith in bernanke. We'll see who'se right in a few years.

I really feel that Canada and the US need to wake up, stop racking up debt and work to be financially free.

best advice in the thread

[Farbin Kaiber]

Anyone else notice silver went up almost 91 cents today?

[MaxBell]

Oh god, we're into charts. I'm a financial advisor, and I don't think I would ever start showing clients charts. Even the most technically inclined ones.

Here's what I think EVERYONE should know:

1. 158$ invested at stock market averages from 25-65 will give you 1mil at retirement.

2. Their FIN (Financial Independence Number). It's an industry term for the amount of money they need to retire tomorrow.

3. Anyone can look back and say I should have bought gold. However, if you are able to look back and see gains, it may be too late. Too many uneducated "investors" try to catch falling knives and get burned.

4. Middle-class finances are simple if you boil them down. Save to reach your FIN, spend less then you earn. I don't often mention this, but I am a millionaire through the company that I've built. However, I never buy new cars, I owe a small apartment in a good location and I don't waste my money on stupid shit that I will use 5 times. (E30 not included in that)

I really feel that Canada and the US need to wake up, stop racking up debt and work to be financially free.

And to address the original question? AGF Emerging markets, Large Cap Dividend fund, if you're in the states, contact your nearest Primerica office. Their a great company that I have nothing but good stuff to say about them and their investments.

[rwh11385]

Banks are holding onto the majority of the fiat money made available through the bailouts instead of loaning it out and back into the economy like the fed intended for them to do.

The Fed has tripled the money supply and reduced interest rates to zero.

A stronger economy is trying to get off the ground but can't because all the newly created money is being retained by the banks in reserve.

Eventually the banks will start lending again, and the velocity of money will increase.
When that occurs, inflation will begin to show signs that even Bernanke can't ignore, and he will respond by raising rates.

Eventually, increased velocity, inflation, high oil prices, and interest rates will conspire to crash the market again. And we start the whole thing over again — if we can.

Wow. Thanks for pointing out yourself that:
a) you have no idea what you are talking about
b) you are relying on someone else's opinion rather than your own and are unable to be critical of their reasoning

"holding onto the money" and "start lending again"... lol

Banks are in fact loaning money, just not at the leverage they were previously. (which I mentioned earlier) It will be a while or never until banks use as much leverage as they were using.

The Fed cannot control the money supply totally, but only the base and interest rates. It is up to our banks how much they want to loan out per money they have, which determines our effective money supply. Even if they tripled the base, it does not mean M3 is larger than it was in 08, etc. (It's actually still smaller which charts show clearly)

Velocity is based on spending habits and transaction rate. The velocity of money will not increase much greater than it is compared to recent changes over the past 10 years, besides perhaps recovering. Velocity of money is a factor in money supply equation but with online transactions and transfers already pretty mainstream, there won't be a great leap compared to recent I would say. If more transactions happen, it's more likely to recover GDP than go to raise price level. Anyone who refers to banks controlling the velocity instead of referring to this as leverage is a moron.

M * V = P * Y
Money supply * Velocity of transactions = Price Level * Y (Output aka GDP)


Bernanke will be able to see when M3 reaches a healty level again and adjust interest rates to curb inflation to the healthy, ideal level (2%).

[Kruzen]

I prefer TMS to CPI for measuring inflation. the CPI is a result of inflation/deflation and not a measure of it.



Banks are holding onto the majority of the fiat money made available through the bailouts instead of loaning it out and back into the economy like the fed intended for them to do.

The Fed has tripled the money supply and reduced interest rates to zero.

A stronger economy is trying to get off the ground but can't because all the newly created money is being retained by the banks in reserve.

Eventually the banks will start lending again, and the velocity of money will increase.

When that occurs, inflation will begin to show signs that even Bernanke can't ignore, and he will respond by raising rates.

Eventually, increased velocity, inflation, high oil prices, and interest rates will conspire to crash the market again. And we start the whole thing over again — if we can.

[rwh11385]

The Fed is trying to counteract the great decrease in money supply so that the economy can keep running. Deflation slows GDP, or at least limits its growth.


wish i could have found a better chart but meh.


Look at M3 and the monetary base. When they were greatly boosting the base while M3 was decreasing, there was deflation through most of 2009. Simply pointing to monetary base and ignoring the bank multiplier is pretty simplistic.

In fact, there was a 6-year or so trend from 01 to 08 where the inflation grew and it looked as if the monetary base slowed. Banks were leveraging more and more and speculation (in oil, corn, etc.) drove up prices. Pointing to MB is not very telling

[rwh11385]

Gold is historically stable as a basis for currency. It's merits as a currency speak for itself.


http://markets.ft.com/markets/commodities.asp

Gold can't be taken directly as people are speculating using it. Same reason why oil and corn are higher than if they weren't being used to generate profits while trading. Jut look how retarded that chart looks... bubble.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7769126/US-money-supply-plunges-at-1930s-pace-as-Obama-eyes-fresh-stimulus.html

And the monetary base is trying to bring back the monetary supply since banks have stopped multiplying because of not having as much leverage.






But then again, if you completely ignore the concept fractional-reserve banking and the changes in banks in recent years... then I guess you can simply look at monetary base between finger painting and playing on the playground.

[Kruzen]

maybe because of people's psyche's (anticipated inflation), but there hasn't been a 500% increase in monetary supply, nor anywhere near that much inflation, and other commodities have not followed suit.

Gold is historically stable as a basis for currency. It's merits as a currency speak for itself.

http://markets.ft.com/markets/commodities.asp

edit: I will be the first to say the value of gold is artificially inflated because people are investing in it like mad. But I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years gold is valued at what it currently is or higher with the fed's behavior.

[nando]

maybe because of people's psyche's (anticipated inflation), but there hasn't been a 500% increase in monetary supply, nor anywhere near that much inflation, and other commodities have not followed suit.