I've got a small position at Lending Club and it's doing really well. It's been easy to use, good (not excellent) interface, easy to track the loans you've made & does a good job with notifications. Not much there for doing anything advanced with the portfolio math--I've used a separate spreadsheet to track things *as well as* use their reporting.    The one catch with them I find is that when you put an order in you have to wait longer than you might expect for the process to complete--that is, even after the loan is *funded*, it still has to be *reviewed*, so the lead time before your money begins earning interest might be 2 weeks + 1 week of review time.


">  The number of upvotes on your post has absolutely zero relevance to the fact that you believe Trump has caused this minuscule reduction in the deficit.  Did he reduce the deficit? Yes or no?  Did he reduce more than any other president in 6 months? Yes or no?  Does huge reduction in deficit start with a ""miniscule"" one? Yes or no?  Are you so unhappy with this good news because it Trum? Yes or no?  If no to the above, than why are to unhappy to wired up over this good news?"


Yes, nothing is impossible! :) You can buy it directly from the factory of manufacturer, but then you will have to pay for sea shipping of this car. E.g. you can buy it directly from Japanese Toyota but then you will have to pay to sea cargo ship to deliver your car in container from Japan. Since this car is already your property, before importing to US, I doubt that you would need to pay any custom fees. In the end, the total payment might be a lot cheaper that you can buy there, but you need to be prepared to all this hassle


I know other people are chiming in on their opinion of best screens but here's mine: HTC One X/EVO 4G LTE/(Windows)8X. Best screen, hands down.  To answer your question about how it's better than others, including Samsung, is the software. The engine that produces the color and also the type of screen. Samsung chose a different screen on the S3. It's a larger phone, so the costs may have been higher to go with a non-PenTile type screen and therefore the density of the pixels suffers. Then again, it's still a great screen, in my opinion. Makes me wonder what the next step is.


What a silly question?  They took all the Tax payer money and bought all the bad loans that the banks had on their books. They put all the bad loans as assets on the Feds books.  But because it was bad and was not really worth anything, they created a further $1 Trillion, and loaned it out to all the Banks to show as tier I capital, and paid an interest of 2.5%, while the Fed rate was effectively 0%, on the understanding that this money could never leave the Fed, and was only for display purposes, hence they could over leverage that $1 Trillion many times over.  The Banks then seem capitally adequate and required no further activity in the lending market as they generated 2.5% of fucking hot air, and the rest of the funny money could be played with in the ever buoyant Fed Stimulus supported equity markets.  So no real money ever entered the real economy, no real organic growth occurred, so the Fed started to fudge the figures to show a employment and growth, but because there was no liquidity, there was no inflation.  In short, all that grew since 2008 is the Size of the bubble between the Fed and the banks, and our paychecks went to the bankers bonuses for  a job well done.


Ask to meet with different advisors, and talk with them. Treat it as in interview process, and do not just go with the first one that comes along. Make sure you ask about their fees, and get everything in writing. Pay close attention to the fine print; it is here where hidden fees exist. If you don't understand something, speak up and ask.  It would be worth your time to investigate solutions outside of ML as well at, for example, Vanguard. Not every bank/investment firm is the same.  Ask if the wealth management is a fiduciary, meaning they legally must have YOUR best interest in mind when making financial decisions with your money. This is definitely not a requirement everywhere, which can ultimately have lasting impacts in terms of wealth appreciation and even preservation.


"Let's just focus on the ""why would a bank need to accept deposits from private clients part"" and forget the central bank for a moment. I'm a guy. I have a wife and two kids. They have this pesky habit of wanting to buy stuff. When I get paid, I could just get a check, cash it, stuff it under a mattress, and pull it out when I need it. Hey that worked for a long time didn't it? But sometimes it's nice to write checks. (Just kidding, that's so gauche...) I use my debit card. I use my credit cards, but they need to be paid somehow. My light and phone bills need to be paid too. If only there were someone out there who could facilitate this transfer of money between me, the private client and the merchants I'm forced to spend my money at. Now some of those merchants have plans. Light bills I can pay at my grocer if I choose. But most of the other's don't. Luckily I have a bank that's willing to do this, for a fee. So basically they do it because there's a void in the market if they don't. I don't know if it's true what they say about supply creating its own demand, but it certainly is true that demand creates supply!"


Selamat datang dalam blog resmi Cara Menurunkan Asam Lambung Tinggi secara alami, kami merkomendasikan obat herbal Gastric Health Tablet untuk menyembuhkan penyakit asam lambung. Sebelum kami membahas khasiat dari obat herbal Gastric Health Tables, kami akan memberikan sedikti penerangan terlebih dahulu mengenai penyakit asam lambung. Silah anda simak pembahasan berikut ini.


"“It’s a small town, so they might be more likely to see the big media company as an outsider, not fully understanding the meat product or the company’s production methods or any of that,” Lidsky said.  Oh, small town people see big media as outsiders? Let's see MSM is all owned by 5- multi billion dollar corporations with elite bilderberg/bohemian grove Globalist boards. No one except ""the 1%"" is an ""insider."" Anyone who sees MSM news as ""on their side"" or ""an important source of information"" is a useful idiot shill for the corporate elite who I promise has nothing but disdain (evidenced by their constant lying and fake stories) for all Americans."


In terms of preserving good relationships one approach is to charge a nominal rate of interest. maybe a few percent of the total and agree a time when it should be paid back. This may actually make them feel better about borrowing them money, especially, especially if it is something like business loan or buying a house or car.  If they need the money for a real crisis and they have no clear strategy for paying it back then it may just be better all around if you make it clear that it is a gift.  What you don't want to do is set up a situation where you are creating unnecessary problems down the road and that will very much depend on your individual relationship and how seriously you take the loan.  Here it is important that you are completely open and honest about the arrangement so take the time to make sure that both parties understand exactly what they expect from each other.


If you had asked just about anybody to go for sushi in the 80s, they would have been disgusted, if you could have even found a place that served it. Now it's *everywhere* and banal.   I think it's inevitable that insects will play a big part in the future of food.


"Say we are in 'normal times.' Passbook rates are 5% or so. Longer rates, 6-7%. I offer you a product with these terms, for $10,000 I will return a ""Guaranteed"" $10,000 in 6 years and based on the stock market, 1% for every 2% the S&P is up beyond 10% at maturity. As the seller of this product, I take $6666, and buy a fixed investment, 6 years at 7% in treasuries will return the $10000. Really. I then take the $3334 and buy out of the money calls on the S&P each year to capture the gains, if any, and to deliver on my promise.  This is one example of a structured deposit offering. They can have nearly any terms one can imagine. Tied to any product. S&P, Crude Oil, Gold. Whatever."


These are plans similar to 401k plans. 457(b) plans available for certain government and non-profit organizations, 403(b) available for certain educational, hospital, religious and non-profit organizations. Your school apparently fits into both classes, so it has both. These plans don't have to allow ROTH contributions, but they may, so you have to check if there's an option. The main (but not only) difference from IRA is the limit: for 401(k), 403(b) and 457(b) plans the contribution limit is $17500, while for IRA its $5500 (for 2013). Additional benefit of 457(b) plan is that there's no 10% penalty on early withdrawal, just taxes (at ordinal rates).


I stopped using pre-authorized payments for things like telephone etc., because it made it more possible/likely for a fraudulent charge to sneak by. But if there is an occasion for choosing pre-authorized payments (like charities, and places of exact fixed price) I use my credit card because then I also get points. Furthermore, I reason (perhaps wrongly) that if there is intermediary step between actual money (bank account) and the source of the bill then it gives me better chance of catching irregularities and hence a little safer.  I am sure other members here will laugh my naivety, but there you have it.


"Negative - the original plan was to purchase a right of way easement through the reservation from the tribe. When that became economically prohibitive they rerouted it. That's when everyone threw a fit about it crossing a river.  My understanding was the tribe set a price and the company said ""too high"" - and rerouted it."


> 5. Beware of the Internet The Internet creates unique challenges for employers, especially with the advent of smartphones and tablet. Too many employees spend too much time:  Redditing? :-)  I've certainly seen how all of these things can happen, sometimes without poor intention on the part of the employee. Frankly, if I have a higher level employee that has time to waste in the first place, I think the blame goes on me for not managing well. Sure, there's more to the story, but I try not to walk around with the mentality that my employees are trying to find any way they can to blow their time. That thought makes me sad...


We constantly hear that there are not enough trades-people to fill manufacturing roles. This is what happens when you offshore everything possible for the last 30 years. No one wants to go into a trade that will be offshored plus there are too few of those positions to apprentice in. Stop the boo-hooing big business, man-up and invest in some of your fellow citizens.


Obviously, it varies from place to place, dependent on factors such as, say, what rent/public transportation costs in whatever city your business is located in, but, overall, i'd say 15-25$ an hour should cut it, at least, for the average American. That's about $600-$1000 dollars a week, $3000-$5000 a month, assuming you're working 40-hour weeks. Of course, my ideal scenario would be UBI but that's a whole other thing.


Do not let the cost of dental treatment prevent you from getting the best of general dentistry in Melbourne. You can have the dental treatment that you? ?want at Caulfield South Dental Surgery clinic. Dr. Shujia Cheng offers a full range of dental treatments, including the regular examinations and hygiene appointments, dental implants, and smile enhancements to help you look your best. Let her make it easy for you to spread the cost of your investment. To start your journey to dental well-being, please call on +61 3 9523 7530.


If this were to happen, maybe it would encourage people to maintain their own stuff. Mow their own lawns, maintain their homes etc.. If someone quoted me 16k for a new roof, I'd march my ass straight to the roofing supply store and figure out how to do it myself.


> Mr. Musk should have known in August, when production guidance was reiterated, that the company wasn’t going to produce 1,500 Model 3s by the end of September.  ...and what about those 400,000+ deposits on the Model 3? Does anyone think all those people are going to wait five or six years for their cars?  EDIT: There's always the issue of Musk's [pronouncements in the past](http://np.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/753sda/youtube_may_not_be_responsive_to_complaints_about/) that could be interpreted as defense-in-advance.


> why is it that in the soviet union, which redistributed wealth to an extreme had a population that was equal, but all equally poor?  Yes, welfare programs are exactly equivalent to communism and also the downfall of the Soviet Union was a direct consequence of their welfare programs and totally unrelated to anything else.  Furthermore Ayn Rand was right, being poor is evil and poor people are holding the wealthy back from achieving their potential. Let's remove all the taxes, trickle down economy is a fact, that money is going to go directly into the poor people's pockets due to ECONOMY, so we don't need to worry about like one or two percent of the people hoarding all of it and/or using it to influence new regulations that help prevent other players from entering markets.


"Consider buying a legal ""mother daughter"" property, rent out the top part, and live in the ""mother"" component."


"> I've done the math  Look, your random assertions are meaningless.  Show your work.   Edit: Oh, and by the way, compare the bay area (which has a federal [""low income"" limit of about 105k](http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/22/in-costly-bay-area-even-six-figure-salaries-are-considered-low-income/) with [the rest of of the country](https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2017/select_Geography.odn) where the low-income limit is closer to 40-50k for most states.   200k is also much more than 120k."


"The answer posted by Kirill Fuchs is incorrect according to my series 65 text book and practice question answers. The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite. THE MARKET MAKER ""BUYS AT THE BID AND SELLS AT THE ASK"", he makes a profit form the spread. I have posted a quiz question and the answer created by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). To fill a customer buy order for 800 WXYZ shares, your firm requests a quote from a market maker. The response is ""bid 15, ask 15.25."" If the order is placed, the market maker must sell: A)   800 shares at $15.25 per share. B)   800 shares at $15 per share. C)   100 shares at $15.25 per share. D)   800 shares at no more than $15 per share. Your answer, sell 800 shares at $15.25 per share., was correct!. A market maker is responsible for honoring a firm quote. If no size is requested by the inquiring trader, a quote is firm for 100 shares. In this example, the trader requested an 800-share quote, so the market maker is responsible for selling 8 round lots of 100 shares at the ask price of $15.25 per share."


Protest opinions aside. Will taking this away from the team's actually help?  The article mentions rent payments they make. Are they actually renting space he owns or do they subsidize it as a sort of here's some extra money type thing?   According to the article excluding what they call rent payments leaves about 12 million. Would the economic stimulus from that not out weigh what they would get from cutting him off?


"A straddle is an options strategy in which one ""buys"" or ""sells"" options of the same maturity (expiry date) that allow the ""buyer"" or ""seller"" to profit based on how much the price of the underlying security moves, regardless of the direction of price movement. IE: A long straddle would be: You buy a call and a put at the same strike price and the same expiration date. Your profit would be if the underlying asset(the stock) moves far enough down or up(higher then the premiums you paid for the put + call options) (In case, one waits till expiry) Profit = Expiry Level - Strike Price - (Premium Paid for Bought Options) Straddle"


It sounds cold, but the law has to hold people to their agreements. There are exceptions for unconscionable terms, but I don't think this gets close to that level. This is certainly audacious, but not quite shocking to the conscience. Maybe there's an argument to be made regarding whether a reasonably prudent person in the party's position would have known what they were agreeing to under the circumstances (depending upon how the provision was presented), but without a lot more information we can't say whether that angle has a snowball's chance in hell.  You should read the terms governing every important agreement you enter into. It sounds like a huge burden, but for any major undertaking you really do need to grit your teeth and trawl through the whole thing. If you don't like what you find, ask for a second look from a lawyer to confirm your suspicions, or just walk away.   Bank service agreements, loan/mortgage applications, major venue reservations, and employment contracts (ESPECIALLY employment contracts!) all deserve that much time. Typically the terms you might not like are address circumstances that, as a practical matter, don't really concern you, but you might be surprised at how often you find deal-breakers like this crawling around in the woodwork.


Firstly, call up the company and speak to them over the phone. The right questions must be asked as this will make great difference. Questions are important because you would be able to get every possible information, so that you take the right decision.


And now we get to live through five years of cargo-cult copies of this deck (and managers who force their team to use it as a template) because there will be people who take the article at face value and think it's all about the deck. It's not a $10M pitch deck. It's a $10M pitch team, and this is one of their tools. There were also phone calls, emails, meetings, etc. And in fact it's very likely that what closed the deal wasn't the deck, but what was said in that room.


"The size terminology for lumber is based on the rough cut dimensions from the mill, not the actual size of the board at Home Depot. There's post finishing done to 2x4's, etc from the big box stores.  It's been that way for 50 years.  If a couple of hipsters got their feelings hurt because they didn't know what they were doing, tell them to watch a youtube video about lumber before screwing up a home improvement project.  They wouldn't have the slightest idea what to do with an actual rough cut 1x6 anyway.  They'd get home with it, and if by some miracle they managed to plane it, they'd realize they're left with a 3/4""x5 3/4"" board,  just like you get from Home Depot.  Grow up, pansies."


HMRC may or may not find out about it; the risks and penalties involved if they do find out make it unwise not to just declare it and pay the tax on it. Based on the fact you asked the question, I am assuming that you currently pay all your tax through PAYE and don't do a tax return. You would need to register for Self Assessment and complete a return; this is not at all difficult if your tax situation is straightforward, which it sounds like yours is. Then you would owe the tax on the additional money, at whatever applicable rate (which depends on how much you earn in your main job, the rate tables are here: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/current-rates-and-allowances ). If it truly is a one off you could simply declare it on your return as other income, but if it is more than that then you would need to look at setting up as Self Employed - there is some good advice on the differences here: http://www.brighton-accountants.com/blog/tax-self-employment-still-employed/ :  Broadly, you are likely to be running a business if you have a regular, organised activity with a profit motive, which continues for at least a few months. If the work is one-off, or very occasional (say, a few times per year), or not very organised, or of very low value (say, under £2,000 per year), then it might qualify as casual income. If you think it is beyond the definition of casual income then you would also need to pay National Insurance, as described in the previous link, but otherwise the tax treatment would be the same.


As a sole trader you would fill out an Individual Tax Return and complete the Business and Professional Items Section P1 to P19, then enter the amounts from that section into Item 15 in the Supplementary Section of the Tax Return. Any business income as a sole trader will be included into your taxable income for the year together with other sources of income you may have earned in the same income year. Whether you get a tax refund will depend on the amount of taxable income you make, the amount of tax you have already paid in instalments throughout the year, and any tax deductions and tax offsets you can claim.


This isn't really the right sub, but check your Student's Union to see if they can give you any legal help or go to the Citizen's Advice Bureau. You need to get this cleared otherwise you may have problems getting lines in the future.


The details of any bank accounts are irrelevant. If you're self-employed, you submit your tax return to HMRC at some point after the end of tax year. HMRC then tell you how much tax you owe and when payment is due, and you then pay it. HMRC don't have access to your bank accounts. Note that interest earned on a bank account is treated as taxable income, and banks normally automatically pay the tax due on your behalf, at the basic rate of 20%. If you're self-employed, you need to declare this income on your tax return. And in the case of a joint account, that interest is treated as being split equally.


">Collective bargaining existed before the government officially granted people that right.   Collective bargaining is an ambiguous term that could refer to many concepts. There is voluntarily agreed to collective bargaining, which has nothing wrong with it, and then there are laws that FORCE the employer to collectively bargain with a union if a union requests it, which is a mandate and violates the employer's contract liberty.  >However we've been through that in this country, and child labor, unsafe working conditions, and 80 hour weeks.   I [responded](http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/117gq5/walmarts_employees_went_on_strike_this_month_for/c6kaesg) to this claim made by another Redditor as well:  >The prevalence of child labor was decreasing long before any law was created prohibiting it. Child labor is necessary in poor countries because people are far less productive per hour worked. As productivity increases, parents can afford to send their children off to school instead of working, since their own work is enough to support the family.  >Child labor is something that needs to disappear on its own, in response to changing economic conditions. If you introduced a law prohibiting child labor in a poor country like Cambodia right now, it would lead to widespread hardship and an increase in mortality.  >In other words, no government mandate created due to union-pressure can possibly lead to beneficial change, since laws that limit people's economic rights, under the assumption that 51% knows what's better for the minority than they themselves do, generally do much more harm than good.  Nothing good comes for the country from using the threat of violence (as all laws do) to deny people a right to manage their own property how they see fit.  >Like all laws, there is a balance to be struck between individual rights and the common good, and what can be seen as a ""right"" for one can often be seen as a ""right to violate another's rights"" for someone else.  There is no game theoretic reason to assume, or empirical evidence that suggests, that violating people's property ownership rights leads to a greater betterment of the common good than would have happened with property ownership rights intact.  >>The mighty is those who use the force of government or the threat of violence (e.g. violent strikes) to prevent another party from exercising their contract liberty and firing them.  >This is some pretty extreme hyperbole, and hard to take seriously.  As history over the last century has shown, it's no hyperbole. Labor unions-backed regulations (soft-socialism) has succeeded in spite of the resistance of employers.  >Union membership in this country has dwindled to around 10%, down from around 50% during the middle of the century, and the erosion of the middle class has been the undeniable result.  Because unions have destroyed nearly every major industry where they had a natural tendency to form (large scale capital intensive manufacturing operations where large numbers of workers were concentrated in one place).   In no union-dominated industries did unions fade due to greater power by employers: vehicle manufacturing, low-value-high-volume consumer-goods manufacturing, ship-building, passenger rail service, US Steel. In all of these industries, the number of unionized employees declined because the industries themselves contracted in the US.  >Use the ""force of government""? You know, we may have the right to strike in this country, but there's no law that says a company can't hire replacement workers, indefinitely.  The force of government prevents companies from refusing to collectively bargain with a labor union.  >Threat of violence? Violent strikes? This is a straw-man if I've ever seen one. Who is threatening violence here?  This existed before government laws were created that made legal threats on behalf of employees that want to keep unionized employees employed and force companies to collectively bargain with a union.  Now of course the strikers themselves are not directly threatening violence, since they are backed by the force of government.  >Objectively, when you look at the wealth disparity in this country, it's pretty hard to argue that the right to collective bargaining has resulted in an unfair advantage for workers.  Collectively bargaining doesn't benefit workers in general. It benefits in the short-term, those workers who are employed and unionized, at the expense of long-term wage growth and employment opportunities for the unemployed and non-unionized employees."


"I'm interested in the answer to this question too. I got a job as an accounts receivable analyst about 4 months ago. It mostly involves running SQL queries on the companies database and determining whether things like the timing and movement of products/cash are appropriate.   About 95% of my day is spent in Excel either analyzing data trends, correcting accounts where product or cash is out of alignment, and writing my boss/the c-level conclusions based on the state of all things AR.  The other 5% of my day is staring vacantly at a blank piece of paper as I try to wrap my head around what I should be asking our database, and how to organize the results to find out what I need to be finding out. I would honestly say 30% of the work is mindlessly easy for me (now that I know what I'm doing), 50% of the work is smash-my-face-against-the-wall confusing, and 20% is ""I am solving problems by learning new things, hooray!"".  I was not particularly interested in finance, in fact my skill set was computers then I found languages and went on a decade long tangent learning that. Turns out languages don't pay the bills very well and I need a career. I can get my company to pay for some education, but I don't know if finance is what I really want to do.  Having read the rest of the comments in the thread, I will say I am not at all competitive with others (though I hold myself to very high standards). And if I feel others are too aggressive I will shut them out. I sometimes hear higher-ups in my company on the phone using their A-type personalities and wrestling with 3rd party companies and picture myself hanging up on them if I were on the other end of the phone."


Yes, it's still a mess, but I hope the information is good. Would love to hear your comments in regards to the language used (not a native English speaker) and the information given. The site is under development, it will look nice, will have a nice ebook, and whatnot. All help is appreciated. Thank you so much guys.


It is not delayed and if it didn't show yet - will not show on that agency's credit report. However, you may find it on another agency's report. There are three major agencies, and creditors don't always check all of them (each inquiry costs them money).


Can't totally agree with that. Volatility trading is just one trading type of many. In my opinion it doesn't depend on whether you are a professional trader or not.  As you might have heard, retail traders are said to create 'noise' on the market, mainly due to the fact that they aren't professional in their majority. So, I would assume, if an average retail trader decided to trade volatility he would create as much noise as if would have been betting on stock directions. Basically, most types of trading would require a considerable amount of effort spent on fundamental analysis of the underlying be it volatility or directional trading. Arbitrage trading would be an exception here, I guess. However, volatility trading relies more on trader's subjective expectations about future deviations, whereas trading stock directions requires deeper research of the underlying. Is it a drawback or an advantage? I.d.k. On the other hand-side volatility trading strategies cover both upward and downward movements, but you can set similar hedging strategies when going short or long on stocks, isn't it? To summarise, I think it is a matter of preference. Imagine yourself going long on S&P500 since 2009. Do you think there are many volatility traders who have outperformed that?


I probably haven't been alive for hundreds of years? No, I assure you I haven't been around for that long. As for me saying that I should've been in the solar eclipse glasses business, don't take it literally...I'm really just saying that the companies that make the glasses are raking it in right now. Getting into the business after the fact is bad timing, though...sure, there will be other eclipses and you could sell some glasses, but nothing like Monday's eclipse will occur again in our lifetime. The companies that make the glasses will never have sales like this again.  Which country are you from anyway?


Your own fault for taking out loans to get a degree in philosophy. If you have an automobile I would say get a job as a delivery driver, Pretty solid way to earn at least 15 bucks an hour. but regardless find a part time job and save scrupilously. Look at what you spend your money on and see where you can chop out expenses. Also look to see how you can find cheaper food. This is a great website to learn how to live on peanuts earlyretirementextreme.com


I'm curious to hear what exactly you would do with these *decent ingredients for home-cooked meals at a good price* while you're driving to your next destination, and need to eat before you arrive? Do you actually journey to your home every time you eat?


I would use student loans and avoid credit card debt if debt is your only option.   Here are the advantages I see:   Disadvantages:


"Entire books have been written on how to get to the end of the month before you get to the end of the money. It's a very broad problem. But in your case, let me point out that your salary never ""suddenly disappears"" (unless you're paid in cash and it blew away or was stolen while you were sleeping.) You spent it.  For a month, monitor your spending. One approach is to write everything down in a small notebook. Come up with categories like ""Rent"", ""Food"", ""Transportation"" and look at the totals. Over time, you can estimate what you spend in a normal week or month on these things. When you spend much more, you can ask yourself why. It might be because you just splurged money you didn't have on something you didn't need. It might be because something broke, and you hadn't been saving a small reserve month after month to pay for those repairs when they would be needed. It might be because some bills only come once a year or every 6 months, and you hadn't been saving a small reserve to pay that bill when it came in.  Once you understand where your money is going and why it sometimes runs out, you can work out what to do about that. It might involve spending less. But that's not the first step. The first step is not to be surprised by ""sudden disappearances"" that are anything but."


"I have no aspirations of opening or owning a pizza joint, but if I did, I would call it ""A New York Minute"" and do everything I could to make it authentic NY Pizza. Feel free to pm me my free pizza for life or certificate once it takes off. Thanks."


Good post. I remember about ten years ago TV wall mounts started at about $300CAD for a cheap one, and people couldn't buy them fast enough. I remember thinking at the time that a basic metal shop could pump them out for just a few dollars. One guy could probably make 10+ every hour.  Oh well - lesson learned I guess.


I sucks that people bought into a corrupt system and lost money on their investment. The compassionate thing to do would be for everyone to exclusively use cabs. If we all pay more for lower quality service, then we can subsidize the medallion owners and help a guys out.


Aside from daily living expenses, there are other costs worth considering, because they are just as important to your children’s development as their basic needs. These include education expenses, day care or babysitting and medical costs, birthday parties, bar/bat mitzvah, and car expenses.


So in your screenshot, someone or some group of someones is willing to buy 3,000 shares at $3.45, and someone or some group of someones is willing to sell 2,000 shares at 3.88. Without getting in to the specific mechanics, you can place a market buy order for 10 (or whatever number) shares and it will probably transact at $3.88 per share because that's the lowest price for which someone will currently sell their shares. As a small fish, you can generally ignore the volume notations in the bid/ask quotes.


I believe your statement is mostly correct:  ...all the expert recommendations are based on an inflexible conventional wisdom that presumes that all renters are relatively resource-poor. When you purchase a $50 electronic item at the store and are offered an extended warranty for $3, most people turn it down, not only because they don't think it's worth it, but also because in the event that the item fails between say years 1 and 3, they don't worry enough about that $50 to care if they have to buy a new one, or live without it. The percentage of your net worth also matters. For example, if you had an entire loss tomorrow, you'd be out $20K if you needed to re-purchase your possessions. (30K minus 10K in current coverage.) $20K is approximately 1/44 or 2.3% of your net worth. If a catastrophe occurs and you only lose 2.3% of your net worth, some might consider that lucky, so from that point of view it isn't really a big deal. But on the flip side, if the extra insurance only costs you $50 more per year, you may not even notice that dent in your net worth either. I think for most people, the value of items in their home may be their net worth, or at least a much larger percentage of it, in which case the insurance makes more sense. For someone in your position, it probably doesn't make much difference either way. If you had $300K in valuables in your house, perhaps your point of view would be different.


Shop Smart Live better pvc bag, eva bag, cosmetic bag.   If you are looking for durable, stylish and affordable cosmetic bags then you are at right place. We deal in all kind of cosmetic bag, eva bag and pvc bags.  We are wholesale dealers of all kinds of cosmetic bags and offer best quality material at most affordable prices. We also offer customized bags on request and maintain our reputation of providing high quality and best material in town.  We are trusted online wholesale dealers. You can browse our website and check enormous variety of pvc , eva and cosmetic bags.  You’ll find different sizes and styles to choose from and our products can also help you to satisfy your target customers. You can either choose bright funky design for young customers or can select from our decent and sophisticated variety of cosmetic bags for mature customers. You’ll not be disappointed in either case. Feel free to browse our website and check different categories available and fulfill your need of any kind of cosmetic and pvc bags. You can either order online or contact our representative to clear any of your doubts. Our representative will guide you and will address all of your concerns. You’ll not regret trading with us.


Disagree. These rules keep this place useable.   It started to get worse since Trump won and it's really annoying to see all the anti business comments in every comment chain.   If people want to moan about capitalism and Trump go to the  five million subs dedicated to doing that.


"The answer is simple -- your new job pays more than your old one.  As such, you're in a higher tax withholding bracket, even with the same number of deductions as before. Your withholding is computed based on how much you make each pay period, and the number of pay periods in the year.  So, if you were being paid weekly before then it was based on the assumption you made the same amount for every pay period in the calendar year.  This is why tax varies from week to week for hourly employees and people being paid overtime.  In your new job, you're being paid ""semi-monthly"", which makes for 24 pay periods rather than the 52 pay periods when you were paid weekly, so the amount of withholding (in dollar terms) is going to be much greater than when you were being paid weekly.  Add in the fact you're making $2,000 more (a month, I presume?), so that's $24,000 a year more.  It's definitely going to bump you into a different earning bracket for taxes, so even with the same number of deductions, you're going to pay more now. This isn't to say you won't be able to recoup some of that at the end of the year when you file your taxes, since your current withholding rate may have you over-paying.  As such, you'll see a nice refund. One final note -- You always have the option of changing your withholding if you like.  Many people will do that, claiming minimal deductions for the first few months of the year to let the maximum withholding take place, then they'll adjust their withholding deductions in the second half of the year to capture more in each paycheck.  If done right, it makes no difference in the total amount withheld, but it does allow the checks at the latter part of the year to be bigger than if withholding deductions were kept the same throughout."


Both content providers *and* end users already pay market rates for infrastructure and bandwidth as they should. Beyond that the internet should not be viewed as a nickle and dime profit center for either party nor should traffic be prioritized on public networks. The main reason is that it's extremely bad for network integrity. Data needs to freely flow not unlike the blood in your arteries.


I understand why people think its wrong, but I don't blame Apple for doing this.  Right or wrong the way our financial system works businesses must be growing or they will start to die.    Also, Apple is not responsible for the laws of the nations it does business in.  They could take a moral stand, but then that would be open them to a lot of hypocrisy.  I mean, Tim Cook and Apple might be against the death penalty, does that mean they can't do business in the US?  Besides, removal of the apps from the store does not mean people can't find ways to install VPN apps.  I don't think Apple should be responsible for taking a stand against the laws of a country.  That's for the people in those countries to do.


I knew my question was coherent and I knew what I was getting myself into when I started this thread. I actually do have a lot of trading finance and stock books in my bookshelf. Although I can go try to find a solution to my problem it's still not the same if I were to ask someone just gave me a straight answer. But if you want to respond abstractly then I understand.


It is creepy how wealthy companies always get these tendencies to change their structure and functioning  to pay the least possible taxes and get into all kinds of this shady shit. I once heard that if you study the behaviour of companies as if they were people, many of them would get diagnosed as psychopaths, and this kind of behaviour is an example of that.   Why does the most profitable company on earth have this perverse urge to increase that money in such shady ways? Why not live up to your honour and pay taxes back to the country that gave you the chance to develop and grow?


Lol typically you choose a major and most of your classes are about that subject. A big part of being a professional is being able to work productively with diverse people. So, understandings diversity issues can actually be very helpful in the work world.


10 years into my career.  Here are my notes:  1. Don't work overtime as a salaried employee.  If there's more work than people then management needs to hire more people.  Sure, there are times when shit hits the fan and there's no other option, but that should be a 'once every two years' event, not a 'once every week' event.  2. Be a rockstar.  If you're spending time 'looking busy' because you finished a 3 hour job in 1 hour ship the results to your manager and ask for more.  Those results will be noticed and will move you from entry-level to mid-level to senior.  3. Skills pay the bills.  Always work on learning new things to bring value to your employer.  This is also required to move up the chain in your career, and leads into my #4.  4. Get paid what you're worth.  Maintain an understanding of what similar skillsets are paying in your area and either maintain or exceed that.  Your employer has an incentive to pay you as little as possible.  Show them comparable salaries for the same position paying more and make them match it.  If they won't match it find someone who will.  5. Don't correct your boss/salesperson when they are presenting to management/customers.  Instead, let them know after the meeting.   Your #2 points (both of them) are something that I struggled with when I was new in my career.  It was incredibly frustrating to *know* something, but not have anyone listen due to the fact that I was a 'kid'.  Unfortunately it's a part of life.  If you can do #2 and #3 on my list for a couple of years people will start listening.  It's a great feeling being a 24 year old kid in a room full of my boss's bosses, and my boss's boss's bosses and having them listen and consider my opinion, but it's not something that's given to everyone. You need to earn it.


Melbourne Australia and I'm 20. I'd get some management experience in this field first but I can certainly feel that happening soon. I'm in no rush to do this but it is 100% something I would do  I have a friend who is an accountant who will be in this with me :)


Their biggest source of growth will be the chinese global train line project.   Combine fast trains to europe + warehouses Alibaba is building(i think now in poland) - you'll get alibaba prices with reasonable shipping times to all of Europe. not sure how amazon can compete with that.


"Did a math undergrad, this is apparently super common in math/compsci departments , especially Adderal. I suspect the numbers are far lower than stated, however. They help you with mindless, repetitive tasks or cramming, but most of those kinds of drugs are just going to fry your brain, prevent you from thinking abstractly, and eventually turn you in to a zombie.  It's actually very frightening how non-chalant people are with (potentially dangerous) drug abuse. Taking care of your health; sleeping and eating well, will go a long way towards keeping you in peak condition without substance abuse. I get that in some fields (finance inclusive) the hours and workloads are almost fetishized amongst juniors, but personal health is just so much more important than trying to win the ""longest hours"" competition.  With all that said, I obviously don't take them, but do love coffee and probably drink a bit too much in a day."


Does not surprise me in the least. Sony has zero innovation now. Their audio products are shit. Their TV production is hitting the end of the line. The PS3 barely survived launch and they were beaten badly by an affordable, innovative, and horrendously underpowered competitor. Their online store is a fucking joke and they spend too much time pandering to companies like Capcom and Konami (who have nothing but tapped out IP's now and they keep trying to leech as much out of them as they can which, after RE6 reviews have shown, is about to implode under their own weight). The Vita is not doing well at all and it's library of games is missing high demand games and most of them are ports of their lackluster PS3 counter parts.    I hope their president can turn this shit around, but his task and the depth of the issues may make that impossible. He's just starting to play catch up right now and it's going to be some time before they can surpass anyone.  They need to cut the fat, ditch what's not working for them and never will again (like their smart phones), and focus on innovation instead of beating old ideas into the ground and copycatting their competitors (i.e. PS Move).


Choosing a reputable and trustworthy company for managing your SEO is both an instinctive and calculated move. Getting SEO content goes a long way in promoting one’s business, so it is of utmost importance to carefully choose an agency or a consultant for that purpose. Browse to read full story.


But it does require math skill and ability to know and follow procedure - plus you need to pay someone enough that they aren't going to take bribes/steal from the till.  And there is the whole treating people like humans thing.  Which you seem to lack.


I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about making money off loans which weren't defaulted but on but were paid back with interest.  Anyway, in abstract preventing something bad absolutely counts as doing something good. The crisis could have been worse, and caused much more pain, hardship, and lost wealth. It was bad enough as it was, I'm personally glad it wasn't worse.


You can simply stick with some index funds that tracks the S&P 500 and Ex-US world market. That should provide some good diversification. And of course, you should always have a portion of your money in short/mid term bond fund, rebalancing your stock/bond ratio all the way as deemed necessary. If you want to follow the The Über–Tuber portfolio, you'd better make sure that there's minimum overlapping among the underlying shares that they hold.


"In a rational market, the market caps (total value of all shares of the company) should be determined by the expected future profits of the company, plus the book value (that is the value of all assets that the company holds). The share price is then calculated as market caps divided by number of shares - a company worth a billion dollar could have a million shares at $1000 each or a billion shares at $1 each or anything in between.  When profits drop, every investor has to re-think what the expected future profits of the company are. If all the investors say ""I thought this company would make a billion profit in the next ten years, but based on the drop in profits I changed my mind and I think they will only make 500 million"", then the share price drops. On the other hand, if profits dropped because of some predictable event, then that drop was already priced into the share price. If the profits dropped less than expected, the share price might even go up.  You can see the opposite effect: Share price might be very high because everyone expects huge growth in profits over the next ten years. If profits grow less than expected, the share price will drop. Share price depends on predicted future profits, not on profits today."


"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the ""market"" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market.  For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay.  As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders.  You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not.  Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)"


I think you can solve the problem of different wordings by having a lookup with a table of all the different ways companies spell the same words that returns a standard format that you use. That way you only need to update the table every time you come across a new company and you wont have to type it out all the time.


It's also bad to create skewed incentives that result in the best candidate not getting the job.   Or should we have no feelings for the other candidates who apply?   Edit: Hypothetical situation. My wife gets a job in another city, and I also need to relocate. I currently have a job. I am the best candidate for a new job, but don't get it because of the proposed tax credit.   Not only have you created an incentive for the company to hire a second best candidate, which is bad for the company and its customers, but I am unable to relocate.   Bad policy. Economic engineering that sounds good, but is not the most efficient means of allocating resources.


"You get a fat pile of cash.  The federal law prohibits the employer from asking certain kinds of questions^*. The way this is enforced is that if they do ask any of them, they have to pay a lot of money to the person they asked it from. This is not really done because the recipients of the money are deemed to deserve it, it's done to make asking such questions scary and potentially expensive.  ^* Interesting aside, the law doesn't really prohibit discrimination in general, it prohibits discrimination against ""protected classes"" that are fully listed in statute. As such, discrimination against, fe. gay people is perfectly legal in most of the USA. Getting sexual orientation listed as a protected class is a major objective for the gay movement."


I would like to add that coworkers who do give their employer free time are half the problem, as they are enabling this behavior from management. And, why do they do this? Because they are trying to impress management. So, the employee who gives free time to a company is actually *more* selfish than the one who refuses to work more than 40 hours. They are adversely affecting other fellow employees in their own self-interest. I severely resent any employee who regularly gives free time to a company.


The major drawback to borrowing to invest (i.e. using leverage) is that your return on investment must be high enough to overcome the cost of finance. The average return on the S&P 500 is about 9.8% (from CNBC) a typical unsecured personal loan will have an interest rate of around 18-36% APR (from NerdWallet). This means that on average you will be paying more interest than you are receiving in returns so are losing money on the margin investment. Sometimes the S&P falls and over those periods you would be paying out interest having lost money so will have a negative return! You may have better credit and so be able to get a lower rate but I don't know your loan terms currently. Secured loans, such as remortgaging your house, will have lower costs but come with more life changing risks. The above assumes that you are getting financing by directly borrowing money, however, it is also possible to trade on margin. This is where you post a proportion of the value that you wish to trade with as collateral against a loan to buy the security. This form of finance is normally used by day traders and other short term holders of stocks. Although the financing costs here are low (I am not charged an interest rate on intraday margin trading) there are very high costs if you exceed the term of the loan. An example is that I am charged a fee if I hold a position overnight and my profits and losses are crystallised at that time. If I am in a losing position at that time the crystallisation process and fee can result in not having enough margin to recover the position and the loss of a potentially profit making position. Additionally if the amount of collateral cash (margin) posted is insufficient to cover the expected losses as calculated by your broker they will initiate a margin call asking for more collateral money. If you do not (or cannot) post this extra margin your losing position will be cashed out and you will take as a loss the total loss at that time. Since the market can change very rapidly, such as in a flash crash, this can result in your losing more money than you had in the first place. As this is essentially a loan you can be bankrupted by this. Overall using leverage to invest magnifies your potential profits but it also magnifies your potential losses. In many cases this magnification could be sufficient to lose you more money than you had originally invested. In addition to magnification you need to consider the cost of finance and that your return over the course of the loan needs to be higher than your cost of finance as well as inflation and other opportunity costs of capital. The S&P 500 is a relatively low volatility market in general so is unlikely to return losses in any given period that will mean that leverage of 1.25 times will take you into losses beyond your own capital investment but it is not impossible. The low level of risk automatically means that your returns are lower and so your cost of capital is likely to be a large proportion of your returns and your returns may not completely cover the cost of capital even when you are making money. The key thing if you are going to trade or invest on leverage is to understand the terms and costs of your leverage and discount them from any returns that you receive before declaring to yourself that you are profitable. It is even more important than usual to know how your positions are doing and whether you are covering your cost of capital when using leverage. It is also very important to know the terms of your leverage in detail, especially what will happen when and if your credit runs out for whatever reason be it the end of the financing period (the length of the loan) or your leverage ratio gets too high. You should also be aware of the costs of closing out the loan early should you need to do so and how to factor that into your investing decisions.


"This is common. He worked there for 2 years under this scheme, so I'm guessing he was cool with it. Lawsuits pop up when they get mad at management. (*""I worked 70 hours a week for 2 years and they pass me up on the promotion? Hell no, lawsuit time.""*)  These mutually beneficial arrangements are almost always agreed on by employer and employee. Employees need hours, employers do not want to pay overtime."


The price of the stock is not really relevant, as your return is measured as a percentage, 6% return on a $100 stock is the same as a 6% return on a $1 stock, you just hold 100 times more shares at the lower price. I personally really like Eurosun Mining ESM, they are greatly undervalued and have the potential to double or triple in the very near term.


"“Nobody put me on this Earth to pay for everybody’s health plan. I know that sounds like Scrooge or somebody. But this is the real world.”""  Things like this ring a bit hollow when for what the US already pays for Medicare, the NHS covers everyone.  Not only that, but corporate subsidies and military spending far outweigh medicine expenditures.  It seems like a simple easy and wrong answer that avoids even a hint of reality."


"Ahh yes, the old ""We can't hire the people we want because the American people demand they not be corrupt"" complaint. All of these rich people are the real victims here, for not being able to put their hands in every single cookie jar. So sad."


I see you've marked an answer as accepted but I MUST tell you that STOPPING your 401k contribution all together is a bad idea. Your company match is 100% rate of return(or 50% depending on structure).  I don't care what market you look at, or how bad a loan you take out, you will not receive 100% rate of return, or be charged 100% interest. Further, taking out a loan against your 401k effectively does two things: It is a loan that must be repaid according to the terms of your 401k  AND in every 401k I've ever encountered, you cannot make contributions to the 401k until the loan is repaid. This in effect stops your contributions, and will almost certainly save you very little on your interest rates on your current loans. I have 4 potential solutions that may help achieve your goal without sacrificing your 401k match and transferring the debt from one lender to another, but they are conditional. Is your company match 100% up to 4% of your salary, or 50% of your contribution (up to a limit you have not yet reached)? This is important.  If it is 100% up to 4%, stop committing the additional 4% and use that to pay down your debt...and after ward set up that 4% as auto pay into an IRA, not into the 401k.  An IRA will make you more money because YOU have control over its management, not your employer. If it is 50% match, contribute until the match is met because you cannot get 50% rate of return anywhere, then take your additional monies and get an IRA.  As far as your debt, in this scenario simply suck it up and pay it as is.  You will lose far more than you gain by stopping your contributions. If you simply must reduce your expenses by 150$ month try refinancing the mortgage and rolling the 6500$ into it.  If you get a big enough drop in the interest rate you could still end up paying less. OR If you cannot make the gain there, try snowballing the three payments.  You do this by calling your student loan vendor and telling them you need to make much smaller payments, like even zero depending on the type of loan.  Then take ALL of the money you are currently spending on the 3 loans and put into the car payment.  When it's gone, roll the whole thing into the higher interest student loan, then finally roll it all into the last student loan.  You'll pay it off faster, and student loans have lots of laws and regulations regarding working with payers to keep them paying something without breaking them. WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT STOP YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS.  50% OR 100%, THAT MONEY IS GUARANTEED AT A HIGHER RATE OF RETURN THAN YOU CAN GET ANYWHERE, ESPECIALLY GUARANTEED.


I apply what you term 'money' to the word 'commodity'. And I agree with littleadv, you are just selling us your perspective on (such things as) precious metals.  What I want you to think about is these truths: When used as currency gold just has two values: utility value and currency value. I hold it is better to separate the two.  There is not enough gold in the earth to represent the value in aggregate economies of the world. Trying to go back to the gold standard would only induce an unimaginable hyperinflation in gold.  Recent years shows that gold does not retain value. See the linked chart.


They clearly learned that this was a bad move **and then backtracked**. If you reward them now, you positively reinforce their backtracking, and their thinking of consumers' needs. If you punish them now, you negatively reinforce these behaviours, making them less likely in the future.  Also, just because you didn't see a line item on your bill doesn't mean that you were not paying for this service. In fact, the people who use the service are being subsidized by other people who use cheaper-to-provide services, like paying via their bank. Should Verizon force some customers to give money to others because they won't use a cheaper method? This status quo is what is being reverted to.


On most exchanges, if you place a limit order to sell at 94.64, you will be executed before the market can trade at a higher price. However most stocks in the US trade across several exchanges and your broker won't place your limit order on all exchanges (otherwise you could be executed several times). The likeliest reason for wht happened to you is that your order was not on the market where those transactions were executed. Reviewing the ticks, there were only 8 transactions above your limit, all at 1:28:24, for a total 1,864 shares and all on the NYSE ARCA exchange. If your order was on a different exchange (NYSE for example) you would not have been executed. If your broker uses a smart routing system they would not have had time to route your order to ARCA in time for execution because the market traded lower straight after. Volume at each price on that day:


"You need a right hand. Call him or her the COO or VP of operations or Chief Dog Catcher. It doesn't matter. Your business depends on you outputting your core competency. You need someone you can trust to run the operational aspects of your business.   It's impossible to fill both roles and scale to any level.   Ninja edit: the other option is to offload some of the core competency to other employees, freeing you up to do what I affectionally call, ""CEO shit."" This is what I chose to do in my business and it has been very effective."


"Washington Post's website is cancer. Shame on whoever decided that was a good way to run a website. Looks like a geocities website from the 90's complete with popup ads and anti adblock nonsense. But anyway.  I like how the article cites Bill Gross. He is the star of one of my favorite stories in recent financial history. In 2011, during the debt ceiling madness, the S&P downgraded the US credit rating in an unprecedented move because they felt there was too much political turmoil for us to pay our debts on time. Bill Gross was the manager of Pimco's fixed income fund at the time, the largest bond fund in the world - I don't know how much, but probably hundreds of billions AUM? Gross was, and still is, one of the world's leading experts on FI securities. When the credit rating was cut, he predicted investors would flee from riskier US debt. He basically sold the entire fund's considerable holdings of US treasuries and fled to cash.    Then the market did something absolutely crazy: it bought *more* US debt after our debt rating was cut. Prices went UP and interest rates went DOWN. It was insane. I remember seeing Gross on MSNBC or whatever right after it happened and he basically said ""I'll be damned man, whodathunkit?""    ¯\\_(ツ )_/¯  That's when I officially 100% lost faith in active fund management and went to index funds only. I've always felt that there is very high efficiency in securities these days due to the free flow of information and enormous processing power to analyze it. That being said, the flight to index funds will probably tilt the ""balance of power"" in the other direction, and increase inefficiency, which will produce lower hanging fruit, and then stock pickers start winning again. Maybe markets will reach a natural equilibrium; or maybe we'll just see the tide come in and out every few years or decades or so."


"Anyone who has ""Always"" instead of ""Only when using app"" set in their location privacy settings in iOS.  Have a look in your phone - you may have more set that way than you realize.  It makes sense for some apps - such as one of my home automation apps which uses my phone as a presence detector for geofencing.  But it doesn't make sense for other apps. Yet I think the default Apple applies when an app requests to know your location the first time, is ""Always""."


I have the mortgage from Lender A. Can I get a HELOC from Lender B? Yes. Do banks pull my credit to approve a HELOC account? Yes. How is it reported to the credit bureaus and how does it affect my credit (Let's say my limit is $30k and I use all of $30k)?  It is reported as HELOC and the current balance. Similar to credit cards (in fact, some banks report it exactly as credit cards). Anything unique about it's tax deduction? Same as mortgage, except that the limit is $100K unless used for home improvement. Anything else to watch out for? LTV - Loan to Value. This is the ratio of your overall home value to the indebtedness secured by the home. Currently, your LTV is 93% (you have 7% equity). For HELOC, most banks require the LTV, including the HELOC, not to exceed 75%. So the chances you'll get a HELOC are pretty slim.


Chicago has several neighborhoods going through that same gentrification cycle. There are several more city neighborhoods that will probably see that kind of rebuilding before Gary, many of which you pass through traveling between downtown and Gary. Transit between Chicago and Gary exists, but it's not as good as transit to other suburbs because of the lack of cooperation between Illinois and Indiana.


Yup, people pretend like it is some huge conspiracy but gasoline won because the alternatives just weren't as safe/convenient/clean (in ways that people can immediately notice).  Even now, electric cars have the same issue, the range and convenience just aren't there yet.  Safety seems to be OK, but that might just be because there aren't a lot of them, yet (I honestly don't know).


I take the route of the tortoise.  I subscribe to the adage that you invest in an excellent index fund like VFINX and forget about day trading and trying to make short term gains. Just like I would do at a casino I do gamble a bit for fun.  Using etrade you can purchase some Vanguard or a billion of other things.  I purchased some Apple, Google, Verizon, and Ford (when it was at 1.3) and all of those have been good investments.  However, I don't invest the majority of my money in to individual stocks.  I just do this with some 'play' money. After maxing out 401k, etc. I put away my 6 months of safety net in a money mark and put the rest in Vanguard.


You'd have to investigate, ask the right questions. I'd say that's a speculative bet since the electric companies would see that coming a mile away and would have a plan so that it didn't materially affect their business. I don't think it would affect securities or derivatives market significantly enough to bring certain profits. Once again I'm no expert though, it all depends on what your research uncovers and how confident you are in your prediction.


"My tax preparing agent is suggesting that since the stock brokers in   India does not have any US state ITINS, it becomes complicated to file   that income along with US taxes Why? Nothing to do with each other. You need to have ITIN (or, SSN more likely, since you're on H1b). What brokers have have nothing to do with you. You must report these gains on your US tax return, and beware of the PFIC rules when you do it. He says, I can file those taxes separately in India. You file Indian tax return in India, but it has nothing to do with the US. You'll have to deal with the tax treaty/foreign tax credits to co-ordinate. How complicated is it to include Indian capital gains along with US   taxes? ""How complicated"" is really irrelevant. But in any case - there's no difference between Indian capital gains and American capital gains, unless PFIC/Trusts/Mutual funds are involved. Then it becomes complicated, but being complicated is not enough to not report it. If PIFC/Trusts/Mutual funds aren't involved, you just report this on Schedule D as usual. Did anybody face similar situation More or less every American living abroad. Also the financial years are different in India and US Irrelevant."


"You are your own worst enemy when it comes to investing. You might think that you can handle a lot of risk but when the market plummets you don't know exactly how you'll react. Many people panic and sell at the worst possible time, and that kills their returns. Will that be you? It's impossible to tell until it happens. Don't just invest in stocks. Put some of your money in bonds. For example TIPS, which are inflation adjusted treasury bonds (very safe, and the return is tied to the rate of inflation).  That way, when the stock market falls, you'll have a back-stop and you'll be less likely to sell at the wrong time. A 50/50 stock/bond mix is probably reasonable. Some recommend your age in bonds, which for you means 20% or so. Personally I think 50/50 is better even at your young age. Invest in broad market indexes, such as the S&P 500. Steer clear of individual stocks except for maybe 5-10% of your total. Individual stocks carry the risk of going out of business, such as Enron. Follow Warren Buffet's two rules of investing:  a) Don't lose money b) See rule a). Ignore the ""investment porn"" that is all around you in the form of TV shows and ads. Don't chase hot companies, sectors or countries.  Try to estimate what you'll need for retirement (if that's what your investing for) and don't take more risk than you need to. Try to maintain a very simple portfolio that you'll be able to sleep well with. For example, check into the coffeehouse investor  Pay a visit to the Bogleheads Forum - you can ask for advice there and the advice will be excellent. Avoid investments with high fees. Get advice from a good fee-only investment advisor if needed. Don't forget to enjoy some of your money now as well. You might not make it to retirement. Read, read, read about investing and retirement. There are many excellent books out there, many of which you can pick up used (cheap) through amazon.com."


What fact?  >It's true that some Americans don't pay federal income tax. But virtually all Americans pay some form of tax, whether it's sales, payroll, state income, or property tax.   >Over 60% of those who don't pay income tax are working; they pay payroll tax, which goes to support Social Security and Medicare. Another 22% of those who don't pay income tax are the elderly; most of them don't work.   >In fact, only about 8% of Americans pay neither federal income tax nor payroll tax, because they are unemployed, are students, or are disabled.   >What is missing from all this talk about tax is the fact that although the rich pay higher taxes than the poor, middle-class people actually pay a higher percentage of their income in total taxes. True, federal income tax rates are progressive, with rates going to 35% for the top earners. But deductions and special treatment of capital gains reduce actual tax rates for the top earners. So what we end up with is upper-middle-class taxpayers paying the highest actual percentage of their income, over 31%, according to a 2010 study by the group Citizens for Tax Justice.  http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/opinion/ghilarducci-mcgahey-romney/index.html


"So I'm in Australia and we have our very own housing price/credit bubble right now (which is finally deflating) and I'll try explain it as I understand. I welcome anyone to chime in and correct me.  The problem we faced (still face to a large degree) is the idea of rising asset prices and how this fuels a feedback loop into increasing personal debt, all based on the false assumption that house prices always go up. Now before I continue, house prices *do* always go up in the long run, but so does the cost of everything and we call that inflation, adjusting for this effect usually reveals that house prices are cyclical in the long term and never really 'grow'. So that aside we in Australia recently saw a long period of increasing house prices (as did the USA and Europe, and more recently China), the thing about house price is it is your 'equity', I'll try and explain: (all figures are made up to provide a simple example) if you borrow $200,000 to buy a house that costs $250,000 you owe the bank 80% of the equity (what your home is 'worth', and notionally this is value that you own) in your home and the bank will be happy, remembering that they make money on your interest payments, not your principal repayments. If your house then increases in value to $300,000 but you still owe $200,000 then you now owe only 66% of your equity. The bank sees you as a lower risk and encourages you to borrow more to get back up to that sweet spot they had before of 80% - this is a nice tradeoff between risk and reward for the bank. You, the consumer, have just been mailed a new credit card with a 50k limit (hypothetical) and theres a new iMac being released next week, and you really did want to trade in your 5yr old car (see where this is going yet?). Not only is this type of spending given a mighty boost but consumers feel like this house thing has done them very well and suddenly they have the ability to borrow lots more money, why not get a second house and do it all over again? The added demand for investment housing drives prices, throw in some generous government incentives (here and in the USA) and demand is pushed hard, prices grow more and the whole thing feeds back into itself. People feel richer, spend more from their credit cards, buy another house, etc.  But what happens if your house 'value' then drops to $240k? The bank now sees you as a high risk, so do the bank's investors, you have negative equity, the bank demands the difference paid back to it or it might take your home. Somehow, nobody believed this would happen.  Hopefully you start to see the picture? In Australia we are now facing a slow melt in housing prices which has not yet hurt en masse but it has dried up the credit cards, retails spending has collapsed and everyone is worried about the future.  Now to realise where the USA got to you have to also understand that banks were not merely asking for a maximum of 80% owed on the asset, many of them let this figure go to 100%, since hey prices always go up, right? They then in some cases went further and neglected to look into your income and confirm you could even *repay* your loan. Sounds dodgey? This is just the setup.  Remember I mentioned the bank's investors? Well banks/smart people basically figured out a clever way of 'dealing with' the risk of a few outliers with bad financial situations by collecting large numbers of home loans into a single entity and selling it on. Loans were graded according to risk and I believe they were even cut up into smaller pieces (10% of your high risk loan assigned to 10 different 'debt objects' with different risk profiles). These 'collateralised debt obligations' were traded from one bank/investment firm to another with everyone happily accepting the risk profiles until eventually nobody knew what risk was where. Think about it like ""I'll throw 10 high risk loans, 50 medium risk loans and 40 low risk loans into a pot, stir it up and sell the soup as 'pretty safe' "". This all seemed like a very good idea until it gradually became clear just how much of these loans were in the 'extremely stupid high risk' category. This is probably extremely confusing by now, but thats the point, investors could no longer judge how risky an investment in a bank or financial institute was, the market did not correct for any of this until it was all too late.  The moral of the story is when people tell you an investment is guaranteed to make you money, you stay away from that investment. And to specifically answer your question you can't solely blame government incentives as you might be able to see, but they play a part in a giant orchestra, there are many factors that drive this sort of stupidity, stupidity being the primary one."


Why do they have to endorse every check every time they want to   deposit it? They told you why. They said it was because it was made out to one person and there were   others on the account that could withdraw money from the acct., so   endorsing it acknowledged that the payee still wanted to deposit the   money, knowing others could take the $ out The reason they insist on it may have something to do with their responsibility in case of elder abuse. They are worried that you may be using your parents' money without their knowledge, and if it ends up being true and they didn't enforce the requirement - they may also be liable. I have a joint account with my spouse, and they do not let us deposit checks written to both of us unless we both endorse. This is similar, and stems from the same concern. So here's the unusual situation In case of a death of a joint account holder - the whole account is frozen until the estate is executed. You cannot deposit a check of a deceased person to such an account.


I see a couple of ways of getting at this.  One would be to switch to a VAT.  That would capture a good amount of revenue on anything that's made here.  Second, I want IP to be taxed.  We pay property taxes, so I think that trademarks and copyrighted works should be taxed just like how real property is taxed.  You want to register the Burger King logo in the US?  Sure thing!  You will pay a percentage of its value every year and you get to use it exclusively with the full protection of the US courts your taxes help fund.  I also see this as a good way out of the IP cesspool we're currently in.  Copyright has become unreasonably long mostly because Disney doesn't want to lose the rights to Mickey Mouse.  Look, I *am* sympathetic to Disney's argument.  Mickey genuinely is important to them.  But Mickey is fucking things up for everyone else.  So I think Disney should pay a percentage of Mickey's value every year.  In exchange, they keep their copyright forever as long as they keep paying.  Now, if the copyright tax isn't paid, then the property becomes public domain forever.  This would let Disney have what they want while non-profitable copyrights become public domain, as they should.  Anyhow, the one thing all the big tax-avoiding companies have in common is IP.  If you tax their IP in exchange for protection in US courts, there's really no way around that.  They will either have to pay or let their IP go public domain.


I have coworker who reported that he leased a Nissan Leaf from 2013-2016 and was offered $4000 off the contracted purchase price at the end of the lease due to a glut of other lessees turning in for a lease on the newest model with greater range.  It's not clear that this experience will be repeated by others three years from now, but there is enough uncertainty in the future electric car market that it's quite possible to have faster depreciation on a new vehicle than you might otherwise expect based on experience with conventional internal combustion powered vehicles. Leasing will remove that uncertainty. Purchasing a lease-return can also offer great value. I looked at the price for a lease return + a new battery with the extended range, and it was still significantly cheaper than buying a completely new vehicle.


"Gambling is never a wise investment. Even assuming that the stated odds are correct, there can be multiple winners, and the jackpot is shared between the winners, so the individual payout can be significantly less than the total jackpot. If I were to take a dollar from you and a dollar from your buddy on the promise that I'd give the two of you a total of $3 back if you both guessed the result of a single, fair coin toss, would you take the offer? Note, also, that the ""jackpot"" value is quite misleading: it's the sum of the annual payments, and if you reduce that to present value it's significantly less."


When setting these up for my own bill payment, I was surprised, after the fact, to see that a couple I thought would be a mailed check were actually instant transfers, and for others, vice versa. On line banking typically asks you for the due date and they handle from there. If you need this detail before the payment, I'd ask the bank. Else, it's easy to see after the fact for a given payee.


> That's either a lie, or if true, then   It's **in the fucking article which you clearly did not fucking read**.    > The Port Authority receives no tax money and funds itself through tolls, rents, surcharges on airline tickets and other fees.  I think we're done here.


Of course, the situation for each student will vary widely so you'll have to dig deep on your own to know what is the best choice for your situation. Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, the best choice would be to use the Unsubsidized Stafford loan to finance graduate school if you need to resort to loans. The major benefits to the Unsubsidized Stafford are the following: You'll be forced to consider other loan types due to the Unsubsidized Stafford loan's established limits on how much you can borrow per year and in aggregate. The borrowing limits are also adjustable down by your institution. The PLUS loan is a fallback loan program designed to be your last resort. The program was created as a way for parents to borrow money for their college attending children when all other forms of financing have been exhausted. As a result you have the following major disadvantages to using the PLUS loan: You do have the bonus of being able to borrow up to 100% of your educational costs without any limits per year or in aggregate. The major benefit of keeping your loans in the Direct Loan program is predictability. Many private student loans are variable interest rate loans which can result in higher payments during the course of the loan. Private loans are also not eligible for government loan forgiveness programs, such as for working in a non-profit for 10 years.


tl;dr: The CNN Money and Yahoo Finance charts are wildly inaccurate. The TD Ameritrade chart appears to be accurate and shows returns with reinvested dividends. Ignoring buggy data, CNN most likely shows reinvested dividends for quoted securities but not for the S&P 500 index. Yahoo most likely shows all returns without reinvested dividends. Thanks to a tip from Grade Eh Bacon, I was able to determine that TD Ameritrade reports returns with reinvested dividends (as it claims to do). Eyeballing the chart, it appears that S&P 500 grew by ~90% over the five year period the chart covers. Meanwhile, according to this S&P 500 return estimator, the five year return of S&P 500, with reinvested dividends, was 97.1% between July 2012 to July 2017 (vs. 78.4% raw returns). I have no idea what numbers CNN Money is working from, because it claims S&P 500 only grew about 35% over the last five years, which is less than half of the raw return. Ditto for Yahoo, which claims 45% growth. Even stranger still, the CNN chart for VFINX (an S&P 500 index fund) clearly shows the correct market growth (without reinvesting dividends from the S&P 500 index), so whatever problem exists is inconsistent:  Yahoo also agrees with itself for VFINX, but comes in a bit low even if your assume no reinvestment of dividends (68% vs. 78% expected); I'm not sure if it's ever right.  By way of comparison, TD's chart for VFINX seems to be consistent with its ABALX chart and with reality:  As a final sanity check, I pulled historical ^GSPC prices from Yahoo Finance. It closed at $1406.58 on 27 Aug 2012 and $2477.55 on 28 Aug 2017, or 76.1% growth overall. That agrees with TD and the return calculator above, and disagrees with CNN Money (on ABALX). Worse, Yahoo's own charts (both ABALX and VFINX) disagree with Yahoo's own historical data.


Sure thing -  Treasuries Bonds/Bills are what the US Gov uses to borrow. However it's slightly different than taking out a loan. It's basically an agreement to give (repay) a set sum of money at a certain time in the future in exchange for a sum of funding that's determined by market forces (supply & demand). The difference between today's price and the payment in the future is the interest.   For example (completely made up numbers):  - Today is 08/05/2017 - The government issues a bond that say it will pay who ever owns this bond $105 on 08/05/**2018** - The market decides that $105 from the US government paid a year from now is worth $100 today.   In other words the US Government is borrowing for one year at a rate of 5%       (105 - 100) / 100 = .05 = 5%  Now consider Saudi Arabia's petroleum company, Aramco.  Because petroleum is traded in dollars, when Aramco makes a sale, its paid in USD. Some of that is going to be reinvested into the company, some paid out in dividends to share holders but inevitably some of that will be saved someplace where it can make interest. Because treasuries are traded/issued in dollars and because Aramco's businesses deals primarily in dollars, treasuries are the natural place to store that savings, especially because the market considers them extremely safe.   If they exchange the USD into the Saudi currency to store the money in Saudi assets, Aramco is subject to  *exchange rate risk*. If the riyal depreciates relative to the dollar, Aramco will lose wealth on the exchange back to dollars when they go to move those funds back into their business. It's in their interest to deal with assets denominated in USD (i.e. T-Bonds) in order to avoid this.  So now because the Saudis want T-Bonds as well, the additional demand pushes the market price of our bond from $100 to $102. And the effective one year borrowing rate for the Government goes from 5% to 2.9%.      (105 - 102)/102 = .029411 = 2.9%  And there you have it, cheaper borrowing. It's also worth noting how this encourages business around the world to deal in dollars which are directly controlled by the federal reserve. This makes the US's position extremely powerful.


Eh I look back now and realize the difference you are speaking of has to do with the state level rather than the federal level.  I was think the federal budget still continues to grow.  The issue is state budgets did shrink at least by about 200 billion.    He's not really using a theory.  He's using data on how government spending increased this current GDP forecast.  It is written in the statistics of the second paragraph.


For some reason I really see people being more comfortable going the way of [harrison bergeron](http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html).  While I'm for the abilty to enhance people, sadly I feel it'd become a much more desisive way to divide the population of haves and have-nots. You can try to sugar coat it as much as you want saying it won't happen.  Company A patents Process A. Company B patents Process B and does something like Process A. Company A sues Company B and wins. Company B's product now raises in cost due to royalty payments. Both companies feel the need to keep massive war chests of money to fight over stupid shit while people suffer. Think Software Patents only in your body.  Yeah, I'd love to have some enhancements. But I don't think businesses are the ones that should develop them. WELL WHO SHOULD THEN! I don't know...


There's no point in making a scene.  I would just left.  Either this was a fluke and that a bad employee or something common.  The fact they are still in business says it was fluke and/or they got rid of the bad employee.


This really comes down to tax structuring (which I am not an expert on), for public companies the acquiror almost always pays for the cash to prevent any taxable drawdown of overseas accounts, dividend taxes suck, etc.  For a private company, first the debt gets swept, then special dividend out - dividends received by the selling corporate entity benefit from a tax credit plus it reduces the selling price of the equity, reducing capital gains taxes.


Fully refurbished to factory standards. The Alcatel 2021I Dual Stage Rotary Vane Pump is coupled with a NW25 Inlet Flange and NW25 Outlet Flange. This Alcatel Rotary Vane Pump has a peak pumping velocity of 14.6 CFM and a final pressure of 1 x 10-3 Torr. It has been thoroughly examined and is ready for broad range of applications within the research and industrial industries.


They are advertising the echo so people will start ordering their groceries (and everything else on amazon) via the echo. They aren't adding a best buy into whole foods. Just showing people the future is here. Order your groceries with your voice while you head is in the refrigerator looking for things you need.


"We also have a ""minimum daily balance"" account that requires a decent balance, but I'd much prefer to have my money elsewhere, growing little to any interest, versus sitting around collecting dust. Ours is a daily average, so you could have a lots in there for a few days to help make up the days when you're under."


I have always thought that Netflix should go the Amazon route. Amazon has been opening up bookstores in Seattle, San Diego, Boston and other cities over the last couple of years?   Recently, retailers (fashion and the like) have been keeping their brick and mortar stores as essentially giant billboards for their online store - a migration from physical to virtual. And with Amazon, we have officially crossed over to a time in which an entirely online retailer is establishing physical locations.   I'm not saying that business has changed its mind about e-commerce or anything.  Rather, it's proof that no vendor, not even Amazon, can do without an [omnichannel](http://www.visualnext.com/business/what-is-omni-channel-and-what-are-the-benefits/) approach to commerce and marketing.   **TLDR: Forget passwords, Netflix should definately set up Blockbuster-like stores.**


The Food and Drug Administration is urging food distributors, retailers and food service vendors to remove from the market oysters, clams, mussels and scallops imported from South Korea because of possible contamination with human waste and norovirus.  The decision follows an FDA evaluation that determined that the Korean Shellfish Sanitation program no longer meets adequate sanitation controls. The federal agency is in discussions with South Korean authorities to resolve the issue.  An FDA spokesman, Curtis Allen, said Thursday the decision to call for the removal of the mollusks from the market began with norovirus outbreaks in November and December.  Curtis said no illnesses from eating the shellfish have been reported this year. Four norovirus illnesses, including three in Washington state, were reported in 2011. Norovirus causes vomiting or diarrhea.  (Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)


Yes you are right. The cannibalisation comment was for opening up every pricing point.  The article is quite specific to app pricing published by an individual. It doesn't apply to say a food product or a durable being brought to the market.  A thing on the last comment. Wondows may sell three versions but the distinction is there and clear. A light version, a regular version and an enterprise version. They are labelled pretty much the same as Home, Professional and Enterprise. Good marketing or names to distinguish between the products. Different needs for different products. An app is priced much less and uses can be trivial (yet invovled).


Wells' auto portfolio is 4% of their asset base Wells' auto portfolio yields around 5.5% Wells' auto portfolio is about 15% of their consumer services Wells' auto portfolio is likely around 8% of their net income  After digging into it, I underestimated how much wells Fargo was exposed to the consumer side. You are right - definitely not something to sneeze at, even if I doubt the $800 million hit for damages will by any means cripple the stock to the tune of 15%  Leaving both comments up as a reminder to myself to do more research.


Two verities are changing: Atos, a French IT company, is phasing out email. In the U.S., Verizon Wireless is partnering with three cable operators. If these trends continue, the telework and corporate communications worlds quickly will look different.


"Maria, there are a few questions I think you must consider when considering this problem. Do fundamental or technical strategies provide meaningful information? Are the signals they produce actionable? In my experience, and many quantitative traders will probably say similar things, technical analysis is unlikely to provide anything meaningful. Of course you may find phenomena when looking back on data and a particular indicator, but this is often after the fact. One cannot action-ably trade these observations. On the other hand, it does seem that fundamentals can play a crucial role in the overall (typically long run) dynamics of stock movement. Here are two examples, Technical: suppose we follow stock X and buy every time the price crosses above the 30 day moving average. There is one obvious issue with this strategy - why does this signal have significance? If the method is designed arbitrarily then the answer is that it does not have significance. Moreover, much of the research supports that stocks move close to a geometric brownian motion with jumps. This supports the implication that the system is meaningless - if the probability of up or down is always close to 50/50 then why would an average based on the price be predictive? Fundamental: Suppose we buy stocks with the best P/E ratios (defined by some cutoff). This makes sense from a logical perspective and may have some long run merit. However, there is always a chance that an internal blowup or some macro event creates a large loss.  A blended approach: for sake of balance perhaps we consider fundamentals as a good long-term indication of growth (what quants might call drift). We then restrict ourselves to equities in a particular index - say the S&P500. We compare the growth of these stocks vs. their P/E ratios and possibly do some regression. A natural strategy would be to sell those which have exceeded the expected return given the P/E ratio and buy those which have underperformed. Since all equities we are considering are in the same index, they are most likely somewhat correlated (especially when traded in baskets). If we sell 10 equities that are deemed ""too high"" and buy 10 which are ""too low"" we will be taking a neutral position and betting on convergence of the spread to the market average growth. We have this constructed a hedged position using a fundamental metric (and some helpful statistics). This method can be categorized as a type of index arbitrage and is done (roughly) in a similar fashion. If you dig through some data (yahoo finance is great) over the past 5 years on just the S&P500 I'm sure you'll find plenty of signals (and perhaps profitable if you calibrate with specific numbers). Sorry for the long and rambling style but I wanted to hit a few key points and show a clever methods of using fundamentals."


Almost every company I know of charges something like 2% per month on past due accounts.  They are not financial institutions, so it's probably quite legal.


"Hey, I hope I didnt come off as harsh on you.  I'm not sure how much I can help, but Id be glad to give you tips on getting you name in the door with the big companies, and other career-y advice.  If you haven't already though, please read this article on [negotiating from the perspective of an engineer](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/).  I don't think anyone truly enjoys negotiating, but with experience it becomes much easier and more natural.  See yourself as an asset - because you obviously are if they are offering their money to you!  And in reading your post - let me say this.  Never see your company as your friend.  Yeah, you might be friends with your boss and coworkers, you all might be in a softball league and hangout, but when it comes to the hours of 9-5, to someone somewhere in your chain of command you are a line item that costs them X amount of money and makes them X amount.  Don't forget that, and don't let yourself have ""feelings"" towards the company.  If the company isn't smart enough to hire a backup, even after you have advised them to do so, that is their doing and any repercussions are for them to take.  I'm not saying be unflexible, but if you ever, ***ever***, start to think about making or not making a major decision (such as not leaving a company) that is bad for your bottom line in exchange for helping out the company or due to ""feeling"" in some way towards the company, stop, forget your feelings, and do what logic alone tells you to do.  You and your company are not friends.  If the company can find someone cheaper to do your job, they will do so with no feelings towards you.  And the being solo part -- yeah, thats not a good way to go early in your career.  I've made it my objective to surround myself with people smarter than me who are willing to guide me, even at the cost of current financial gains, simply because as a young professional learning from others is one of the top priorities for me now.  Running solo - being shoved to a corner to do your work alone - is a huge no-no IMO."


"One thing I've noticed is the way he threw around the word ""society"" as in ""Buffett says it ought to be the responsibility of society to take care of them as they are retrained to re-enter the workforce.""  Does that mean Government, or non-Governmental organizations, families, or just unorganized, neighborhood help?    'Society' is a nebulous word in this instance."