I will not argue with you regarding the spelling ["just deserts"]
Much though I hate to be pedantic <g>.. you shouldn't argue here, for you'd be wrong. It's pronunced with the stress on the second syllable, like deserve, and spelt exactly as shown; 'desert' as a C13 derivation from OF 'deserte', from the Latin 'deservir' - and nothing to do with sandy wastes at all. Just as tekboy said. Check the OED, Collins or MW if you really want more...
As to the substance of the argument, effectively on whether certain investments were good; well, I'll check back in a few years. I wouldn't dare call someone a fool for investing in CSCO: unlucky, maybe... depending on timing... but wrong? Well, what return do/have/will they make on cashing out?
I'd agree I've invested in some stocks that have since plunged from their highs. Well, fallen 40-60%. OTOH, selling 50% of said holding at 100% profit covers most mistakes: this wasn't hard over the last few years. With perfect hindsight, no doubt I should have cashed out various and switched... but brokers don't pay for hindsight. And given the time and effort, I believe that I've taken easy money, and anyone buying gorillas since the word was coined has done so also.
Meanwhile, schadenfreude is at best unworthy - and, worse, might invite divine retribution... unless you retain perfect timing? <g>
<edit> and having read on, you did address the content of my latter paragraphs... <sigh>. OK, so long as we remember the revered Buffett claims not to understand tech companies, so won't invest in them. Fair, sure. But limiting the chance of huge returns in a short time (5-10 years or less), which is the aim of many recent investors - and one Cisco, or Dell, or Microsoft, means retirement for most of us... if caught early. I wonder how many recent investors claim(ed) to understand at least some portion of the tech sector? That can work, after all. |
