your comment is ... wrong.
You should recall what my comments before you criticize them.
You said you have to sell an investment to make money.
You failed to recall what I said about your narrow esoteric definition of investment. Virtually no fund managers agree with your view.
I gave you a simple example where your idea is obviously not true.
You gave an example where your definition might fit, but under the explication I gave, is misleading or false. You didn't address my pointed counter arguments. Instead, what you did and what is standard among pedestrian comprehension, is embrace your own questionable view.
That's standard behavior among chatties. They never address the counter arguments to their own arguments that I make. They ignore them. In contrast, I address ALL of their arguments in greater detail than they know. The challenge for you is to take me on on your turf. Problem is, you don't know your turf. You think you do, but I've already shown that you don't, and you avoid the exposure I provide into that lack.
You can say it was luck,
And this is the proof that you think you know your own turf, but you don't. I'm sure you don't understand what I mean, so I will explain it to you. I didn't say it was luck, now, did I. What did I say? You don't know because your closed mind couldn't understand it. What I said was you're looking backward and then projecting forward in that QCOM could have gone bust and then what would you be projecting now? Like most chatties and like most of your previous comments years ago on this thread that got you banned for years, you would have been saying that investment is possible because the WS crooks cheat everyone out of everything. Instead, here you are parading around showing off your capitalist macho. What a damn hypocrite and typical 'crat. So if one plays the projection game then ceteris paribus you should have been in MSFT, and thereby such projection transcends luck. In any event you define investment in terms of compounding without knowing it.
You are right that right now I haven't earned more from my QCOM investment than I would have done in a compounding savings account.
I didn't say that either and it's trivially false. I specifically implied a return on compounding on the integrated interest rate available on money held at a substantially lower risk during the interim would have been inferior to QCOM's return.
Oh, hang on, that probably isn't even right as interest rates were as low as 1% for the last few years. They were only about 4% in the 1990s for small-time depositors.
And not for that reason, but for the inherent nature of risk premium, compounded or otherwise.
But you are confused about the risks of QCOM vs savings account. Most people are.
Look junior, I wrote the book on this subject before you were out of high school. That gives me authority. You have to obey authority without question because you can't even so much as mount a counter argument to the points I've already made, but worse, you can't formally argue your own position. An academic wouldn't give you two minutes of time for not knowing basic principles.
They think the USD is a risk-free investment. They are wrong.
You can't define "risk free". You can't explain what "perfect interest rate" is, yet you presume to reach these grandiose conclusions involving their intimate dependence. Further, I don't know anyone who thinks the USD is risk free. Try this: go post that on any Yahoo chatboard. They'll laugh you out and they are amateurs.
The USD is sure to go to zero [or near enough to it].
'crat reasoning. If the dollar goes to zero, please tell me what QCOM will be worth. Please tell me what you will be worth. Oh? You will buy gold? The only gold you'd be able to purchase would be down at the pawn shop and you wouldn't have enough guns to fight your way there. Your reasoning is stuck in a box. It reachs all these conclusions that becone absurd when taken to their logical conclusion outside the box.
My guess is that it will take about 20 years to do so.
Ah. He chooses the secret 'crat golden parachute escape. You make the failure sufficiently far ahead so that others should change their behavior according to your narrow minded knownothing view, but not so near that you might be impacted, or sufficiently far so you will be able to go into protection mode. What a joke. It's clear you have learned nothing from history. 30 years ago there was a similar collection of clowns spouting the same song and dance. Good thing that most didn't believe them including you. The evil that you and your kind do is to rally ignorance around stupidity, and that has the effect of keeping the Lil Guys poor. You should be proud of your contribution to the war on wealth, proud of smashing the capitalist pigs, (except don't anyone mention your capitalism got wimmen and capitalist got likker)
In fact, QCOM, combined with a wide range of other companies, is a much less risky investment than the USD. They will almost certainly NOT go to zero. The USD will definitely go to zero.
Please tell me what QCOM's value will be designated in? Ounces of gold?
I noticed the other day that $ill Gates and Warren Buffett seem to be doing okay with investments.
Have you checked MSFT and BRK.A on a long term chart? No. You argue from illiteracy. Why should anyone believe that you have investigated anything? You live in wealth. You don't need to do anything but attack wealth(to make sure the Lil Guys get their fair share, but we won't talk about your share, now, will we).
I have no idea what my risk was in QCOM. Neither do you. It was apparently no risk as the fact is they succeeded.
It's clear you haven't even taken an undergraduate class in finance.
If I'd held cash, I'd have been carrying a risk too, that the USD or NZD would implode and have their true values recognized.
But you did carrying risk, hypocrite. Sure sign of a capitalist who disapproves of everyone's else's money because they didn't get it fairly, in contrast to your's, which of course, was gotten by your hard work, education, and achievement, especially in the higher areas of intellectual pursuit.
No more. I'm putting you back on ban, not because you've misbehaved, but because you're a 'crat, a hypocrite, and impossibly illiterate. |
