prosperity

Sure. Investing in what you know is the ideal. Now...it's a two edged sword because you want to know a lot but not "too much".... "too much" being a term that is completely arbitrary. ------> In a word, "insider trading". Let's say you are very knowledgeable about a company or product. You know pretty much everything there is to know. You know the manager of a company or whatever. Or, like David, not only do you know about the industry, you work in it. You buy a bunch of stock from a company that you personally have worked with or for in some capacity in your life. The laws that make up "insider trading" are ambiguous and could potentially do you in if someone in the DA's office is feeling ambitious. The argument goes like this: I mean, how many small time investor's get nipped for insider trading? I have no idea, you might never get caught, but the scenario I described above can be made to fall under those laws. To me, it's almost like going 5 or 10 miles over the speed limit. Is it illegal? Yep. Will you get caught and pulled over? *shrugs* Maybe, but probably not. If you were going 20 miles over the speed limit, then yeah probably. I mean, the laws on insider trading are much more open ended than the laws on speeding, but I hope you get my analogy....basically, if it's hard to prove that you had an unfair advantage, or it's not obvious that you traded on inside information, you might be able to do what you want and make money. If you make it obvious that you are trading on inside information or have information that the market doesn't know yet (which, by the way, is how you really make any money in the market; even index funds or passive investing rely on the after-effects of trading on "inside" or "privileged" information) then there's a good chance you could end up like Martha Stewart. ...ironically, the best investments are ones in which you pretty much know with a great deal of accuracy and certainty that you are going to make money. Getting the information and using it to profit under that scenario, however, just happens to be illegal.

I will agree that B of A has a lot of bad business practices as far as practices that make it attractive to do business with them. I do not agree that they are doing anything morally wrong in terms of how they run their business. It is, after all, theirs to do with what they want.

I think you misunderstood me. I did not say the problem was with the real assets. I said the problem was with what they were tied to in terms of valuation. I agree that the hyperinflation will make those real assets not very attractive (unless they are tied to some other medium of exchange), but even the slow burn can make them unattractive if the inflation rises faster than the rate at which real assets are able to produce more real assets. I hope that makes sense.

A principled approach to budgeting will solve that problem. I don't want to come off as mean, but your victim mentality is the problem, not the bank charging fees or rearranging the clearing of your checks. Spending less than you make is the solution.

The problem with real assets is that they are all valued in terms of dollars. So, when you cash out to move onto the next investment or if you want to use that asset you have....tada....dollars. It's a gamble if the currency is being inflated. However, if you think that the dollar will return to a gold standard or NOT be inflated out of existence, then you would naturally push ahead with dollar based investments. However, no fiat currency has ever survived. You cannot separate money from value. As to David's investment strategy, David, I think K-mac provided some good broad-based, general advice. As to your specific stock investments, the first thing you need to determine is actually if it is worth your time. I wrote a blog post about this just recently: http://www.twintierfinancial.com/the_uncom...-your-time.html If you determine that it is worth your time, you then need to determine whether you want to speculate in the stock market or whether you want to invest in it. There is a big difference. If you want to speculate, or even if you want to invest, you really should pick up a few books by Benjamin Graham. For starters, "The Intelligent Investor". I have it sitting on my shelf, and I think pretty much anyone doing their own investing should have it on their shelves as well. If you want to speculate, you will need to start hob nobbing with industry insiders (the industries you want to invest in) and get to know them, and their business (and be careful that you don't cross the gray line of "insider trading"). Learning how to pick stocks is a skill. You need to know how to do it, then you need experience doing it. Real Estate is really a whole 'nuther ball of wax. I almost don't think of it as an investment as much as a business-unless you are buying a REIT. The fundamentals that drive Real Estate are a lot different than what drives securities.

I thought this was cute, and funny when you consider ehow.com's slogan, the nature of their articles (which are typically short, 500 word articles), and the broad scope of the Philosophy of Objectivism. Indeed, how to do just about anything, hahaha http://www.ehow.com/how_5350098_live-objectivism.html

Except that most options contracts expire after 3 months, and longer ones expire after 6, unless you are buying LEAPS. And, if you are not careful with options, and accidentally write an options contract instead of buying one, you face unlimited loss potential. They're not for amateurs, IMO. As for the mining companies, I said it wasn't EXACTLY the same. But, the right mining company will move a few paces ahead of gold. At least, it's happened before, though as I said, it doesn't happen as a rule of thumb, or because it has to happen that way. They can trail the metal for various reasons. One of the big reasons has to do with how they sell the gold. Do they lock in a set price for "x" number of years, or do they sell at the current rate? That can make a huge difference between the stock staying ahead of gold or languishing. And, they go in cycles. So, you may only hold the company during the times of the year when production is up. When it's out of season, you sell, or lose money as the stock price retreats for the year. And, are they doing business in foreign countries that have a record of nationalizing businesses? That's not going to do wonders for you as a shareholder. Lastly, as a counter to your example, may I present Iamgold, Coeur D’Alene Mines, and New Gold?

Nope, it's not. I promise. It's not an investment, it's simply a way to preserve the value of your fiat currency (at this point in time). I say simply, though that does not imply that it is somehow inferior to an alternative. Gold really only functions as a savings vehicle at this point and hopefully at some point, it will be restored to its rightful place as money. Yes you're right. It didn't "all of the sudden" lose value. However, when people recognize the value is what changes, or can change, quickly. A rise in gold would typically indicate the first wave of investors or savers (or institutions) recognizing a weakness in the dollar. Let's say that money is being printed at a rate which effectively doubles the money in circulation. I'm sure you don't need too much of an imagination for this...as soon as people realize this, they head towards commodities that offer stability - i.e. gold. The fact of the matter is that the currency has already lost its value with the printing of the money - de facto. This is what happened in 1979 after an average rate of inflation of maybe 3% prior to that. In fact the FED's San Fransisco branch reports that inflation in '79 alone skyrocketed to over 10% (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2004/el2004-35.html). But, prior to that, there was a steady, albeit "low", inflation of the money supply. Yes, some exciting things happened when I was born. I didn't know people would make such a fuss about it...but in truth, do you think, coupled with a dramatic rise in oil prices in a very short period of time and the state of affairs in Iran at the time, this could cause people to get a little jumpy? I think so. Lots and lots of people moved to gold, causing a temporary "self-fulfilling prophecy" before the metal calmed down. But, the damage from inflation was done, which was the real cause, and you saw a dramatic real rise in the price of gold from $35/oz in 1971 to $587.50 on Jan 1, 1981. It then went into a slow downward trend after that for some time while the big "G" was cooking up another scheme to save the world. But, during the 1980s, you really didn't make any money with gold in terms of dollars, but you did preserve the value of your money from erosion. The 90's weren't all that hot for gold either, as an investment. You'd have done better with tech stocks, much better. I agree that some people do buy gold as a fad, sometimes. I agree. I think it represents what Ayn Rand called a "philosophically objective value" in a broad sense. In a narrow sense, it's easy to see it as a "socially objective value", which would cover your statement about it being faddish at times.

Gold is not an investment, not the metal anyway. And, it's not a great way to think about a commodity. The nature of a commodity as an investment is quite peculiar. In the case of gold, it is really one of a few objective measures of value. So, if you are going to buy it, buy it to preserve your wealth, as a way to save money. Just remember that the reason the price of gold appears to "fluctuate" every day is because it is denominated in terms of fiat currencies. So, ask yourself: is it gold that's fluctuating, or is it really the value of the currency?

Yes. The reason you would buy a mining company is if you were looking to leverage gold without buying an options contract. I mean, it's not EXACTLY the same, but the miners tend to move several times the price of gold. On the other hand, everything is denominated in fiat currency. So, if you want to buy real value, buy the commodity. Gold is cycling again. There are some good and bad reasons to own the metal right now. October is traditionally when gold is at its highest. Next month is when gold traditionally backs down. If that holds, then this will just be another cycle. Is the sky falling yet? I don't think so. However, I think we all know where fiat currencies eventually end up so gold isn't a terrible play. I use companies like Kitco and Goldmoney.com for myself and clients. It works well, and the people running those organizations are what was left of the smart guys and gals at Morgan Stanly and Chase Manhattan as well as several large mining companies.

I guess this really depends on what he says now that I think about it. I remember him once saying that the free market was good, then saying later on that it needed to be controlled. He's constantly saying that his healthcare plan is "good for everyone". THAT is what I don't trust, or don't believe perhaps I should say. I think you're right from the perspective of, well, when he says he wants a universal healthcare system, I think he means it.

Obama says a lot of things. Whether or not you trust what he says is another matter. I don't (trust him). I am reminded of a Penn and Teller skit: "I'm not taking pie from you, I'm giving it to me."

I think the redeeming quality of pulp fiction is that it starts out glorifying criminals and then by the end, you realize that they either figure out that they shouldn't be doing what they're doing (Joules) or, they die a much deserved death (Vincent), or, they suffer the consequences of being a criminal in other various ways (mia and marceles). The small time drug dealers are also painted as the garbage they are. Though, maybe that's just the way I look at the movie???

Yeah, that's what saved the movie, I think. The fact that he overcame the deception. The film festival was put on, as you may have guessed, by a college professor who taught *drum roll* - philosophy. heh.

I went to a film festival last year and they used this in conjunction with the movie "The Truman Show" to "demonstrate" how easy it is to invalidate the senses. Sheesh.

This is a tough one that I've personally struggled with for many years. Do you get what you think you can out of the other person and settle into the idea that "this is the best I can find"? Or, do you keep searching, knowing full well that it could potentially lead you to a life of solitude in terms of romance. How valuable is romance in your life, and is it worth the risk? What I found with my past relationships is that I could only admire, or love, the other person "down to a certain point". There were always fundamental differences, usually religion. I found that I was really running up against the wall of altruism. I just could not find an Objectivist, let alone an Objectivist that would also have a personality that complemented mine. Fortunately, I don't have that problem anymore. I think it's perfectly OK (from a moral standpoint) to date non-Objectivists as long as you keep in mind that the probability of it becoming a long-term, deeply romantic and satisfying, relationship is nil (or pretty darn close). Kendall hit on a very good point. You have to value the other person and you have to feel valued or "visible". At some point, you have to face the very real (and likely) possibility that you will discover where their flaws are, and you'll have to make a choice about leaving (or the relationship will end) and start over again, or trying to get them interested in Oism. How do you reconcile that they'll never (or may never) see "eye to eye"? Well, you look for the best in them and focus on that. Just realize that if you are being honest with yourself, the feeling of love and admiration for this person is likely only going to go "so far" unless something happens and they decide to choose O'ism as their philosophy. I say that not because I think you should be searching out "titles", or because Objectivism is "magical", but because of what is common among people who choose Objectivism as their philosophy. I think the philosophy brings out the best in a person, helps them define themselves, and gives them the tools required for genuine self-esteem. Just be mindful that you can't "convert" anyone. You can show them everything, try to convince them to get interested, but in the end, accepting the philosophy is something that has to be initiated by the individual. Personally, I found the process of dating non-O'ists unsatisfying and emotionally draining.

Just out of curiosity, what does your user name imply? I'm guessing it implies something based on the last sentence.

Firstly, this reminds me of Ayn Rand's "extremism: the art of smearing" lecture. But, I guess to have a good understanding of what you mean, you would have to explain if you are attaching a moral connotation to consistency and if so, why. IF you are indeed implying consistency as the vice, and advocating "shades of grey" as it were in this view, then the same absolutely does not go for being "too strict" with Objectivism. You are discounting the fact that Objectivism is based entirely on reason, while religion is based entirely on non-reason. What dogma would this be? I disagree. You don't say to your lover "I love you, but I don't agree with (or don't regard as important or significant) any/most of the values that you hold important, or I don't regard them as important....but I still love you anyway for your own good or because you deserve it or because we share some non-essential values, or for no particular reason at all (except that it has nothing to do with the things you value in life or regard as important)". That sounds like a very insulting and disingenuous way to tell someone you care about them. What would you expect a man or a woman to say in response to a message, whether explicit or implicit, like this? So, are you saying that "the ends justify the means"? I think there's more to that statement. "Opposites attract, at first. Then they repel." But, many times it doesn't work like that at all.....relationships are based on common values. The more important the values, the stronger the potential relationship. No values = no relationship. Why would you be friends with someone while explicitly or implicitly discounting or outright disagreeing with their highest values? Why would they want to be friends with you? That's the illusion - that it doesn't matter. But it does matter. "Living in the moment" all the time requires context dropping. What's the context? Your life. Not 30 seconds, 30 days or 3 months into the future, but 30, 40, 50 years or more depending on your age. If you spend too much time "living in the moment" and ignore the future, you're shortchanging yourself and the other person. People need to think long range. The longer the range, the better

I totally agree sNerd. I think the passive approach really only works when a minority of investors are doing that. Without actively trading, there is no one to make the markets efficient. That was one of the issues I had listening to interviews with Rex Sinquefield - he was always saying that you couldn't beat the market but this would mean that all information is reflected in every stock at any given time, which of course can't be true. But the alternative to that - at least the popular alternative - is the CAPM, so .....

Galt Aureus makes good music http://www.youtube.com/sbgalt

Well..the Efficient Market Hypothesis is arbitrary.

Only problem with DFA's philosophy is that it represents an intrinsic approach to investing. Not that you can't make money at it, but the reasons are arbitrary.

Now that's ridiculous, and frankly, what bugs me about a lot of the religious folks I've run into. Not all of them...but there have been times when folks do find out I am an atheist, and their attitude towards me changes totally. They complete "forget" all of the good qualities they liked about me (if it was a situation where we had known each other for a while). You could put on a T-shirt that says "A = A" or "Who is John Galt?" of something when you go to the restaurant. Doesn't seem like something to get stressed out about. I'm sure your friends don't think you're all the sudden religious, do they?

You pay 40% of your tax dollars into a black hole called "health care" in Canada that doesn't offer the same quality of care as a free market system. Even the U.S. offers, all other things being equal, faster wait times (or maybe that's lower wait times). Your "facts" as they are, aren't really facts at all. They're simply wrong - factually. You'd pay no where near what you do in taxes and thus for health care under a free market system. A close example would be 1920s America. Of course, it's not a perfect example as there is a discrepancy in technology between then and now, but like I said, all other things being equal, your health care would be cheaper under the free market (or something closer to it that what you have). AND, your care would be better.

His foreign policy would embolden the enemy and invite pretty much any State that sponsors terrorism to attack us. We are not the bad guys, but he's bought into the "blowback" cycle of violence theory.