Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 87797	2008-03-04 12:18:00	US election poll!	george12 (7)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
646370	2008-03-14 13:49:00	that is the worst logic i have heard in a long while it could be that he was lucky, or smart, and picked to invest in companies/stocks that he thought would do well. all it takes is for you good investments to outnumber your bad ones and you'll turn a profit, and in a growing economy the law of averages would suggest you would make a profit from spreading your money (rather than putting all your eggs in one basket) just because you have no control doesn't automatically mean you will lose money Yes, I know. But what I was talking about was zqwerty's point that no investor has control which is total BS. I have no idea what his rant about people donating money to good causes was about. He IS smart btw, Berkshire Hathaway has never lost money in any financial year since Warren Buffet took over and has been returning 16% (annualized) That obviously means he does have control over what gets invested where and how those investments behave.	beeswax34 (63)
646371	2008-03-14 14:02:00	That obviously means he does have control over what gets invested where and how those investments behave. isn't obvious to me at all	motorbyclist (188)
646372	2008-03-14 15:37:00	isn't obvious to me at all He has control in the fact that he can pull his investments out if he feels that they aren't working to his benefit. The behaviour = the return and performance of the investment in question. I should have qualified my statement. While he has no direct control over investments (making share prices go up/down etc) he does have control over through the fact that he can take his money elsewhere. And that is true for almost any investor as long as their money is available to them and not lost in the ether world somewhere...	beeswax34 (63)
646373	2008-03-14 23:13:00	He has control in the fact that he can pull his investments out if he feels that they aren't working to his benefit. oh right yeah that would help a lot towards towards success	motorbyclist (188)
646374	2008-03-15 01:09:00	oh right yeah that would help a lot towards towards success Um, it does. If you can pull your money out a under-performing investment and into a better one, how would that not help?	beeswax34 (63)
646375	2008-03-15 02:11:00	i wasn't being sarcastic in your previous comments i though by "control" you meant he actually had some influence over the value/performance of the stocks/companies he had money in. obviously not neccessary, while being able to withdraw funds from a failing investment is obviously a good thing	motorbyclist (188)
646376	2008-03-15 07:31:00	O.K. This being the original POLL it appears to be loaded. The question appears to be flawed in my view. The Republicans have now chosen their Candidate and this is John McCain so that appears to be that at the moment as the only other person conceded defeat. So now we get to the Democrats and this debate is not over yet. It boils down to:- If you are a Democrat would you rather vote for Clinton or Obama to represent the Democratic party given their promises, pledges, policies and etc. Whomever is chosen of the two will have to go up against John McCain. It may be that some Democrats will not wish to support either and suddenly become Republican. Do not forget the super delegates either. Personally I vote in New Zealand. I have a fair idea what I will get from the various parties but at the moment National has not come up with any policy so therefore how could I make an informed choice? Where is SurferJoe? The poll is reasonably fair, considering we aren't voting in the US election at all in the first place. If you'd vote republican you choose McCain. If you'd vote Democrat you choose Hillary or Barack.	george12 (7)
646377	2008-03-15 08:55:00	i wasn't being sarcastic in your previous comments i though by "control" you meant he actually had some influence over the value/performance of the stocks/companies he had money in. obviously not neccessary, while being able to withdraw funds from a failing investment is obviously a good thing Ah sorry. My sarcasm detection skills have been rusty of late.	beeswax34 (63)
646378	2008-03-16 16:57:00	Let me try to nutshell a little of this: The Democrats: . . . . are typically pro-labor and unions . The are also called the "tax-and-spend" party as they like to tax the workers and sent the money to social pork barrel and special favor groups . They want the "cradle to grave" government intervention in all aspects of the citizen's lives . Somehow social security money gets "lost" during Republican times as they like to borrow it for other, non-essential projects like publishing books and pamphlets for school libraries like: "Susie Has Two Mommies" and "My Dads: Steve and Poindexter" . The Dems also have the ears, eyes and the nose of Hollywood as they are media whores who have little or no shame . The Republicans: . . . . are typically pro-big business and less government intervention on local politics and personal freedoms . Citizens are allowed to earn what they can or what they want with little or no help in the form of government assistance or handouts . Typically, taxes are lower during Republican times and the citizens get a fair shake with more interest in banked monies and investments . War mongering is rife during Republican times, as the economy is geared to the defense industries and the war machinery . Expansionist tactics are also enacted and the "sword rattlin'" gets rather loudest then too . Hollywood hates the Republicans with a vengeance . There is an occasional fence jumper, but all in all, the actors and writers and movie moguls would not feel the slightest bump if a Republican accidentally fell under the wheels one of their limousines . Neither one of these parties actually do anything good nor do they actually assist the people except in small, infrastructural ways and then only if you are a friend of a politician . Both are totally corrupt and morally bankrupt . Snidely (I am never snidely . . this is an exception) . . . the Democrats seem to have troubles with their zippers in their pants . . . but I also imagine that trait is not theirs alone either . The Kennedy curse runs across party lines . But to digress (I almost never digress . . and this is my SECOND exception today) . . . . I don't vote, so I guess I am in the same boat as a lot of NZers . . . but I DO read the news . . . I just like to know what the enemy (both parties) are doing all the time . I hear the talk of the people in my neighborhood and in my activities all day and although I would never put any person . black, woman, green or polka dotted in a position of any form of supremacy over another person, I can feel sorry for the poor worker-bees in the turmoil and the opacity that covers the truth . There are a lot of us who feel the same way too . . . . . (6 . 7 million and counting) . Interesting little tidbit here: Geraldine Ferraro "retired" from Hill-the-Pill's campaign machine . Seems she said something like: Barack Obama would not be where he is if he wasn't black . . . WooHoo! Los Angeles Times Link ( . latimes . com/news/politics/la-na-ferraro13mar13,1,4732563 . story" target="_blank">www . latimes . com) Don'tcha just luv it! <and the pig got up and slowly walked away>	SurferJoe46 (51)
1 2 3 4 5 6