provocative financial article

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Worth a read, IMO. This guy has been pretty consistently gloomy to be sure, but I think there may be some wisdom in what he's arguing.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-street-is-stealing-another-20-from-you-2010-03-02?pagenumber=1

I thought it was an interesting article, but I have a few issues/questions.

1) What does this guy propose we do with our money? He recommends not investing in stocks, bonds, commodities, mutual funds, and ETFs. This leaves savings accounts, checking accounts, and maybe money market accounts. Does he trust the FDIC to continue insuring those accounts? Should we all be stuffing money under our mattresses? If someone had done that for the last 10 years, they'd have lost ~20% as well due to inflation.

2) The 10-year point is a completely valid time-frame to choose when reviewing returns. However, we have just gone through the worst recession in U.S. history. So, it makes sense that our 10-year time-frame is gonna look pretty grim. Pick any other 10-year period in the last 50 years, and I think returns would look considerably better. Or include this most recent recession, but look at a 20-year or a 30-year period instead. Again, the returns don't look half bad.

In fact, it's highly doubtful that you, your portfolio, your family or your America will make it past 2012, let alone into that comfortable retirement you may be planning for 2020.

This is where the guy just goes crackpot. I, my family, and America won't survive past 2012? WTF? How did this statement get into a mainstream media source? This is a "Thunderdome" reference. Give me a break.

Back on topic: I am in no way denying that America is in for some rough financial and economic times. I actually agree with the commentator that stocks are a poor investment in the long-term because I think we're gonna see some significant financial upheaval in our lifetimes. (I'm 28 for reference.) I wouldn't be surprised if America defaults on its debts and undergoes a depression. I think investing in concrete objects (gold, silver, land, etc.) is probably pretty wise. But, I really doubt we'll all be facing roves of cannibals anytime soon.
 
I thought it was an interesting article, but I have a few issues/questions.

1) What does this guy propose we do with our money? He recommends not investing in stocks, bonds, commodities, mutual funds, and ETFs. This leaves savings accounts, checking accounts, and maybe money market accounts. Does he trust the FDIC to continue insuring those accounts? Should we all be stuffing money under our mattresses? If someone had done that for the last 10 years, they'd have lost ~20% as well due to inflation.

2) The 10-year point is a completely valid time-frame to choose when reviewing returns. However, we have just gone through the worst recession in U.S. history. So, it makes sense that our 10-year time-frame is gonna look pretty grim. Pick any other 10-year period in the last 50 years, and I think returns would look considerably better. Or include this most recent recession, but look at a 20-year or a 30-year period instead. Again, the returns don't look half bad.



This is where the guy just goes crackpot. I, my family, and America won't survive past 2012? WTF? How did this statement get into a mainstream media source? This is a "Thunderdome" reference. Give me a break.

Back on topic: I am in no way denying that America is in for some rough financial and economic times. I actually agree with the commentator that stocks are a poor investment in the long-term because I think we're gonna see some significant financial upheaval in our lifetimes. (I'm 28 for reference.) I wouldn't be surprised if America defaults on its debts and undergoes a depression. I think investing in concrete objects (gold, silver, land, etc.) is probably pretty wise. But, I really doubt we'll all be facing roves of cannibals anytime soon.

As to the bold, I agree. Not sure what happened to him there....

And, no he clearly doesn't offer any alternatives. I think he's just trying to balance out the extremes with the other end being represented by the likes of James Cramer ("MAD MONEY").....
 
This is where the guy just goes crackpot. I, my family, and America won't survive past 2012? WTF? How did this statement get into a mainstream media source? This is a "Thunderdome" reference. Give me a break.
I'm investing in land in way rural Montana on a fresh water river, gasoline, guns and ammo.
I'm ready for after the apocalypse, you better get started, you're running out of time.🙄
 
I'm investing in land in way rural Montana on a fresh water river, gasoline, guns and ammo.
I'm ready for after the apocalypse, you better get started, you're running out of time.🙄

:laugh: If that kind of apocalypse comes, I'm pretty much screwed since I'm starting med school this fall and don't foresee myself owning land, access to clean water, gasoline, guns, or ammo any time in the next 10 years. My best bet is to grab my immediate family and hole up with the in-laws who have all 5 of those things already.

My biggest hope for the apocalypse is that Sallie Mae goes bankrupt the day after I finish med school. That way I can kiss my 200K+ student loans goodbye. 👍
 
I'm investing in land in way rural Montana on a fresh water river, gasoline, guns and ammo.
I'm ready for after the apocalypse, you better get started, you're running out of time.🙄

Diesel might be a better choice than gasoline for a whole bunch of reasons. I think our future looks more like a slow-crash Argentina than Thunderdome, but 👍 on eventually moving someplace rural. The sooner I can permanently get away from cities/California the better.

Though the McDonald v Chicago case before SCOTUS today gives me some short term hope for at least one of the problems that plagues California.

The problem with Montana is that it gets cold up there. I cannot abide cold weather.
 
:laugh: If that kind of apocalypse comes, I'm pretty much screwed since I'm starting med school this fall and don't foresee myself owning land, access to clean water, gasoline, guns, or ammo any time in the next 10 years.

🙂 You don't need a custom walk-in vault full of NFA guns ready to arm the local militia. Every American non-felon ought to be armed though.
 
🙂 You don't need a custom walk-in vault full of NFA guns ready to arm the local militia. Every American non-felon ought to be armed though.

Unfortunately, I shot a man in Reno. Just to watch him die.





j/k obviously. But, on a serious note, I probably won't buy any guns. I'm not adverse to self-defense (or gun ownership in general), but I really doubt I will ever in my life take the time to become safe and proficient enough with a gun to the point where having one would increase my safety instead of decrease it.

I'll probably invest in some pepper spray and trust that my wife won't kill me. (The statistically most likely person to do so.)
 
As to the bold, I agree. Not sure what happened to him there....

And, no he clearly doesn't offer any alternatives. I think he's just trying to balance out the extremes with the other end being represented by the likes of James Cramer ("MAD MONEY").....

Yeah, that's a very good point. I feel sorry for people watching Jim Cramer for actual financial advice. I wouldn't trust that guy further than I could throw him. And I'm a scrawny dude, so that's not very far...
 
Last edited:
If you shoot a gun once in your life, you will realize how insane this statement is. Learning to shoot is a joke. There is really nothing to it. If teenage girls can shoot a gun safely, you can too. 😉

I didn't mean to give the impression that I haven't shot guns before. I've shot rifles, handguns, and shotguns all on several occasions. So, I can unlock a safety and pull the trigger at a target. But if I'm under actual physical attack in my home or on the street, am I gonna handle myself well enough to help the situation? I don't know. Hope I don't ever find out.
 
I'm not adverse to self-defense (or gun ownership in general), but I really doubt I will ever in my life take the time to become safe and proficient enough with a gun to the point where having one would increase my safety instead of decrease it.

More and more I see responsible gun ownership to be one of our important civil obligations to society, like being an informed voter.

While it's better to not vote at all if one hasn't taken the time to think about the issues, and it's better to not own a gun if one doesn't have a basic level of proficiency ... ideally everyone would an informed voter and proficient gun owner.

I recognize I have a minority opinion in valuing gun ownership to such a degree.
 
More and more I see responsible gun ownership to be one of our important civil obligations to society, like being an informed voter.

While it's better to not vote at all if one hasn't taken the time to think about the issues, and it's better to not own a gun if one doesn't have a basic level of proficiency ... ideally everyone would an informed voter and proficient gun owner.

I recognize I have a minority opinion in valuing gun ownership to such a degree.

Out of a combination of curiosity and on the advice of two colleagues, I took a 8 hour basic firearms course this past weekend. Having practiced handling and shooting a handgun safely (I shot a Glock one day and a Sprinfield the other day -- I think both used 9 mm bullets) I found many of my previous concerns were based in ignorance. Their level 2 class covers more practical stuff (shooting more rapidly, drawing from a holster, etc.), but requires that you own a gun, holster, and ammunition. When I get the equipment, I intend to take that level 2 class.

I went into the class thinking I would take it just to get the basics, but I now see the value in owning a gun. So I agree with pgg totally about the importance of being a responsible gun owner.

But I realize this thread is heading further and further off the original topic so I will say no more.
 
Last edited:
More and more I see responsible gun ownership to be one of our important civil obligations to society, like being an informed voter.

While it's better to not vote at all if one hasn't taken the time to think about the issues, and it's better to not own a gun if one doesn't have a basic level of proficiency ... ideally everyone would an informed voter and proficient gun owner.

I recognize I have a minority opinion in valuing gun ownership to such a degree.

pgg, I agree 100%. I have a "CCW" and it's pretty much a simple assertion of OUR 2nd Amendment Right. I don't hunt, and likely won't (at least large mammals which is my prerogative), but having a means of protection against tyrrany can never be bad.

cf
 
pgg, I agree 100%. I have a "CCW" and it's pretty much a simple assertion of OUR 2nd Amendment Right. I don't hunt, and likely won't (at least large mammals which is my prerogative), but having a means of protection against tyrrany can never be bad.

cf

I had one in Virginia but California is a "may issue" state ... the local PD has been considering my application since November. Though I'm hopeful that 2A incorporation through McDonald will (eventually) get rid of discretionary issue.
 
I had one in Virginia but California is a "may issue" state ... the local PD has been considering my application since November. Though I'm hopeful that 2A incorporation through McDonald will (eventually) get rid of discretionary issue.

I personally never carry.... However, I believe that a government should fear the people versus the other way around. I think the founding Fathers wanted it that way.....
 
I personally never carry....

If nothing else having a CCW makes it simpler to transport firearms, even just from your house to the range. You don't have to worry about whether they're loaded or not, if they're in a container, where the container is, if the container is locked, if the ammunition is in the same or different container, if it's technically within a really contorted stretched arm's reach, if the back part of a minivan counts as a "trunk" ...

And if the day comes when you wake up to Katrina or the LA riots and you feel you need to carry, it's too late to submit the application. 🙂


However, I believe that a government should fear the people versus the other way around. I think the founding Fathers wanted it that way.....

I think you're right.
 
No.

California prohibits loaded open carry. Unloaded open carry is legal, but beyond its value as a protest, there really isn't much point.

Guns are heavy, man. You could hit "some dude" over the head with it if nothing else. 😛
 
"Some dude" always travels with a bunch of friends, or so I'm told by trauma patients who were SOCMOB'ing or going to Bible study. I'll be looking out for him.

haha...once a trauma surg resident told me that their patients always came in to the hospital because of "one dude and two bitches on the street"...and they were always on their way to church.
 
Last edited:
Top