"I agree that cutting spending is generally a bad idea in a bad economy. However, we cannot sustain deficit spending forever. Our government has been spending money it doesn't have for decades. Now that we need spending to boost the economy, we've started to run out of ammunition. Years of stupid spending have caught up with us in the midst of a major depression. It's bad, but reality.  So many people (including many people here on Reddit) have ideas that our debt-GDP ratio isn't a problem. Many people have pointed out that other countries have survived with much higher GDP ratios than ours. That is true, but we can't make that comparison based on that one variable. Those countries seemed to be on the brink of a major economic expansion as they conquered market shares in the global economy or developed new industries. As their economies started booming, they were able to pay down their debts. People argue that when our economy improves we can do the same.  The problem is that after spending $5 trillion, we are still in a terribly stagnant economy after three years of recovery. How long do they think it is going to take before the recovery kicks in? It's inevitable that sooner or later we need to cut debts. Even if we do see a sudden economic rebound, the amount of debt it would take to get there would be extreme at this rate. That would require major cuts in spending which would send us right back where we started.  Some people say that paying the debt is similar to paying down a mortgage. By those standards we are doing fine and it is more than affordable. That is a bad argument. For one thing, the revenue we generate in taxes is coming from economic growth developed by that spending. If you cut one, you cut the other. The way our economy is working right now, in order to generate more revenue to pay down the debt, we need to take on more debt. Also, unlike a mortgage, we are at the mercy of the financial markets. When investors decide that we have too much debt, the rates will rise or they stop buying altogether. Then we have to rely on the federal reserve to finance it, which can cause serious inflation. If we lose our reserve status (anyone who thinks this isn't possible is sadly delusional) then we are basically going to end up like Greece because we wouldn't be able to pay off our debts to foreign investors with our printing press.  It's also important to note that America has a very big advantage it doesn't really deserve. We have the world reserve currency. People say that we deserve to have that because our economy is stronger. That is circular logic, because so much of our economic strength is due to the fact we had the reserve currency in the first place. Where would we be without it? Would we still be the strongest economy in the world? I think that's an impossible question to answer, because we have had it and given a free pass for so long that we don't know what life would be like. We can sit and chastise Europe for not doing as well as us, but the truth is we have a huge advantage so it's not a valid comparison. Also, we may be doing better for now. But if our sovereign debt bubble bursts (either due to the loss of world reserve currency status or otherwise) we won't be any better off.  I don't believe in austerity in a depression, but this unsustainable deficit spending seems equally reckless. I think we need a more strategic plan that rests somewhere in the middle ground. Cutting spending on wasteful projects and redirecting that money into areas that are going to have a high return on investment in the form of GDP growth. Obama's roads don't qualify. Otherwise, if we keep wasting money we will someday reach the point where deficit spending is no longer an option and we have to cut it regardless of how stagnant the economy is. That would be really bad and we need to change gears before we reach that tipping point.   To answer your question, I think the people you speak of are wrong, but not stupid. They certainly have good points. The problem is that everyone looks at it as an ""either/or"" situation rather than seeing a continuum where the real answer may lie somewhere in the middle."


Yup. SAP and Oracle are customized to each individual company with little to no overlap. Being experienced in one companies SAP setup does not guarantee that one would be familiar with another companies set up.   Adding to that, Companies complaints about having people graduate without the skills they need is a load of bullshit. Instead of complaining should have partnered with the schools to make sure that students were learning and gaining experience in the things they actually need.


"Since you are going to be experiencing a liquidity crisis that even owning physical gold wouldn't solve, may I suggest bitcoins? You will still be liquid and people anywhere will be able to trade it. This is different from precious metals, whereas even if you ""invested"" in gold you would waste considerable resources on storage, security and actually making it divisible for trade. You would be illiquid. Do note that the bitcoin currency is currently more volatile than a Greek government bond."


There are two things you need to keep in mind when you look at Inflation as an entity. Inflation is necessary to keep in check the value of goods. As per Moore's Law for example, a mobile phone that you buy for £100 today will be available for £50 in two years. With increased purchasing power, one needs to maintain balance between the purchasing power and its value. If you think about the 'loss' at a rate of 2% you would have £96.04 (in terms of today's value) in two years. But if you looked at the same cell phone as leverage for your business where it allowed you to do work and earn £1000 in two years - the investment would clearly offset the cost of inflation. Inflation is incentive for people to spend their money. If you for example spent all of your £100 today, it is £100 income for someone else. He has further incentive to spend it creating a chain of transactions. In theory while this is a true mathematical loss, the increasing purchasing power helps you leverage your financial asset to get a return on your investment.


Fuck. This isn't a business post, necessarily (in the business subreddit, I know), but I go to whole Foods to find really niche products (specialty-local coffee) and to get their desserts and eat a meal there while walking around. I hope they don't drop these portions of the WFM model.


Safety shoes were once used by mine workers in South Africa and very few staff across the world. These Shoes were bulky, ugly and were used by men only if they really required strong protection. They come with waterproofing, steel toes, solid leather material to avoid any injuries to the feet. But today, ask any leather safety shoes supplier in Qatar, safety shoes are making fashion statements.


"If it could, it seems yet to be proven.  Long Term Capital Management was founded by a bunch of math whizzes and they seem to have missed something.  I'd never suggest that something has no value, but similar to the concept that ""if time travel were possible, why hasn't anyone come back from the future to tell us"" I'd suggest that if there were a real advantage to what you suggest, someone would be making money from it already.  In my opinion, the math is simple, little more than a four function calculator is needed."


Capital One's normal master card is known to approve people with limited or bad credit history. If not that look into a secured credit card.  You put down a deposit of $200 or more and you get that much in credit, sometimes more.


They are the largest non government employer in the country. They have an absolutely massive consumer base. They made that profit while constantly lowering prices for their customers. I bet you use them on a regular basis. It is kind of funny watching your faux indignation. Isn't Apple your product provider of choice? One of the most expensive over priced producers currently on the market. With one of the lowest paid work forces on the planet. But well paid for their market. You just ooze hypocrite. Like most Apple  social warriors. Its funny listening to people like you speak for others you would never be caught mingling with.


"Why even bother?  Why are you working?  Go get food stamps for this one reason, it's the only thing THEY give you in exchange fir policing all land use. You cannot even get police services. 911 is just a [make it worse] option : ""Stop attacking me or I will [make it worse] for both of us"" Soon a criminal wont even care vecause things can't get any worse.  Why are you working?"


There are several questions to answer before help can be given. How much revenue did you have this year? What is expected revenue growth for next few years? Are you operating as a sole proprietor, partnership or corporation? If a corporation did you maintain your books on the cash basis or accrual? I recommend you seek a CPA not a bookkeeper. And, don't wait until end of year to fund one.


This might be better suited to r/personalfinance but if you're looking to invest I'd say start with an index fund. The MER's (fees) for most other mutual funds take too heavy a chunk of returns to be worth it in a market where actively managed funds are either underperforming of performing at par with passive funds.   Additionally if these are your first investments, make sure you're doing it with investment goals in mind. Is this money you're saving for short, medium, or long term? For medium and long term investing make sure you're doing it through a tax efficient instrument like an IRA or 401k.


> Also by your own definition, no one in the middle class is in poverty.   No.  By the US government's definition of poverty, nobody in the middle class is in poverty because they don't want to admit that the middle class is poor now.   > I’ve also never said everything is fine, I’ve only said it’s improving systematically.  And you're wrong.  Technology is improving our lives as our broken economic system erodes our prosperity.  You can focus on the improvements and ignore the growing problems and pretend everything's alright, but it's not.   Worldwide, the middle class is losing prosperity as measured by net-worth.  We have no money, and since we earn our money from each other, no way to earn it.  This is a growing systematic problem that technology can't solve, and is only making worse.  Since economic health depends on the ability of the public to spend money, reducing how much they have to spend is dangerous.  It makes for recession-prone, bubble-prone, collapse-prone economies.  Since economic collapse is a driving force behind radicalization, drug use, war, and starvation, we see these problems growing in places even as advances make them easier to solve.  The root of all of this is a broken economic system that is pushing us towards a dystopian future.


Yeah, that's what I do, just buy the indices and forget it. My portfolio is so boring it's elegant, and makes money too.  4.5% YTD and 5.9% in 2016, not bad for a 30/70 stock bond split for this 70-year-old. Oh, did I tell you my costs are .06%! I am enjoying the freedom of my retirement.


> Also, wtf did the rich people do to deserve to be punished?  When America thrived from the 40s-60s the top marginal tax rates were in the 70%'s. The rich still got rich. Then they lobbied it down to the 30%s, doubling their take at our expense.


There is a wide variety of housing styles tailored to give numerous options for families who are considering real estate property from Military in Virginia. This also means that the prices are pretty flexible, and people from different income levels can actually buy Military Homes for sale. One can choose from townhouses with several bedrooms to detached houses.


By in large they are. I've worked in this industry. Inversions work because the US has CFC tax and the highest tax rate in the world, 35%. This means that any money made by the company in any part of the world is subject to US tax less tax paid locally.   E.g. Burger king in Dublin pays 12.5% locally and 22.5% to the US.  The company inverts to a country that doesn't have CFC then transfers all the non-US companies to the other jurisdiction.  Now what also tends to happen is income stripping such as intra-group, inter-company loans with the interest stripping earnings. That or intellectual property. However a company can only do that where the new group is made up of 80% other co and 20% existing co, at a minimum. This doesn't happen too much.  Have a look at this article by a top Irish law firm: http://www.arthurcox.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/April2014_SpotlightOn.pdf


You could use paypal to transfer money. You can pay with paypal and your UK contact could transfer the money to his bank account through paypal. I just received money this way from the US and paid 9 EUR for this. Receiving the funds is as quickly as clicking a button on the paypal site. Transfering it (without costs) took 1-3 days). It is by far the easiest way. If you are uncomfortable using paypal, the other option would be through your own bank account, where you would transfer using IBAN/SWIFT. The SWIFT bank account is usually the IBAN code plus a branch code. Often it is difficult to find the branch code, in that case you can use the IBAN+XXX. In the latter things might be delayed, but I actually haven't noticed the delay yet, since international transfer always seem to take between 1 and 10 days. The international transfering of money costs, except if it is within the EU region. The way to transfer money through Internet banking differs, from bank to bank. They keywords you need to look for are: SEPA, SWIFT, IBAN or international transfer.


"If you don't want to get income tax taken out of your check, then get a 1099 job and stop blubbering like a baby. You are not doing your case any help. If fact, I am more positive that ""anti-taxers"" are out of their gourd."


>I might have an answer! I imagine they're capitalizing on people's laziness. I live in the Bay Area where some people probably don't mind paying $35 to not have to walk 100 feet to the office and drop off a check.  Except that at their end they then have to deal with the cheques, have someone to receive them and so on, deal with the inevitable bounced cheques too.. Seems like a shitty plan, but yeah, I suppose if someone can gouge you they may well do so.


The calculation is to figure out how many dollars you get in return for the amount of dollars you spend. In your case, you know you get 1000 points for $1000 dollars, and can redeem one movie ticket for 1000 points. Therefore, Granted that you could also redeem a $8-9 ticket, making your return 0.8-0.9%.  In addition, this can get more complicated for some points cards that may give out free points, and is especially so if there's an intermediary such as AIR MILES, for which points can be earned in numerous ways. To get really nitty gritty, you could to keep a spreadsheet where you list number of dollars spent, number of points gained, number of points redeemed, and value of reward received. Thus, you can figure out exactly what your cost is for each point (second factor from above), as well as the ultimate value of each point with respect to rewards redeemed (first factor). I'm considering doing that myself since I'm prone to spreadsheet addiction, but this method is likely overkill for most points cards.


Yes. Not doing so would be like turning down a raise. The best advice in almost every situation is to at least contribute up to the amount that the company will match so you get the full benefit. One thing to clarify that you might not be understanding. The vesting period is only for the money the company matches, not your own investment. Even if you leave the company before the account is vested or fully vested, you can transfer to a 401k at your new employer, or roll over into an IRA, or take as taxable income (and pay a penalty if it is an early withdrawal), all your contributions together with any investment gains or losses that have occurred. Ditto whatever part of your employer match that has vested by the time you leave. Often, the employer matching contributions are invested in the  same funds in the same proportions that you have chosen for your own contributions and thus will have incurred the same gains or losses as your own contributions, but  what you are entitled to take with you is the part that has vested. Also, you mention that it is unlikely that you will stay the entire 5 years. However, if you plan to at least stay a couple of years it makes sense to get the 20%, 40%, etc. of the match that you vest during your stay. Again, it's free money.


How much should a rational investor have in individual stocks? Probably none. An additional dollar invested in a ETF or low cost index fund comprised of many stocks will be far less risky than a specific stock. And you'd need a lot more capital to make buying, voting, and selling in individual stocks as if you were running your own personal index fund worthwhile. I think in index funds use weightings to  make it easier to track the index without constantly trading. So my advice here is to allocate based not on some financial principal but just loss aversion. Don't gamble with more than you can afford to lose. Figure out how much of that 320k you need. It doesn't sound like you can actually afford to lose it all. So I'd say 5 percent and make sure that's funded from other equity holdings or you'll end up overweight in stocks.


I am 10 years out of college and been debt free for 4.  My school would have cost me $180k for 4 years.  I was aware of the cost to go to the school I wanted and so I worked in highschool for every possible scholarship available.  I then went into a degree program which I knew was a good investment, engineering.  I came out of college in the middle of the recession with you guessed it, around $100k in debt.  I moved to a place where the cost of living made it so I could get a job and save.  I did not live a lavish lifestyle, I invested my money well, and I worked hard.  Garbage in, garbage out.  Go to a bad school, not worth it.  Do not work hard in college, not worth it.  Work hard in a major which has no economic value, not worth it.  Do not set yourself up for success by working hard in high school, getting things like AP credits and scholarships, not worth it.


With painful 20/20 hindsight, I earnestly say - max it out hard.  The reason is the sheer opportunity of it.  As a young person you have time on your side - you have so many years for the earnings to compound!  It is many times more advantageous to max it out now, than fail to do so and be in your 40s trying to catch up.   Use the Roth 401K if your company supports that.  After that, max out a Roth IRA if your income is low enough to use them.  Otherwise, max out a traditional IRA (this will not be tax deductible because your income is too high), and the next day, convert it to Roth. That conversion will be tax-free since you already paid taxes on that money.  401K money is untouchable.  No one can ever take it from you - not with a lawsuit, not with bankruptcy.  As such, never give it up willingly by borrowing from it or cashing it out early, no matter how serious the problem seems in the short term. How do you invest a 401K when the market is so scary?  I found out when I became a Board member overseeing management of an endowment.  Turns out there's a professional gold standard for ultra-long-term, high growth, volatility-be-damned investing. Who knew?


"It depends on how big the dilution is. Could be a good trade. Do the math yourself, many times nobody else has as all the employees think they are going to get rich because ""options"" :)"


Sao Mai Building rất cám ơn vì được Jimmy Group lựa chọn là 1 trong những địa điểm thích hợp để đặt Trụ Sở  Trong thời gian qua, nhiều đơn vị biết đến Sao Mai Building làm Hương không hiểu là vì sao … nay Hương đã hiểu là vì Jimmy Group đã đăng thông tin địa chỉ 12 Yên Thế – Quận Tân Bình của Sao Mai Building.  Hương rất trân trọng và thật lòng cảm kích JIMMY đã cho đăng thông tin về Sao Mai trên trang tài chính sạch của nhà đầu tư là Vàng Vật Chất và càng cảm kích hơn khi Jimmy Group đã góp phần giới thiệu về Sao Mai Building trong suốt thời gian qua.  Rất cám ơn Jimmy Group và cá nhân JIMMY !


Yes, as long as you are responsible with the payments and treat it as a cash substitute, and not a loan. I waited until I was 21 to apply for my first credit card, which gave me a later start to my credit history. That led to an embarrassing credit rejection when I went to buy some furniture after I graduated college. You'd think $700 split into three interest-free payments wouldn't be too big of a risk, but I was rejected since my credit history was only 4 months long, even though I had zero late payments.  So I ended up paying cash for the furniture instead, but it was still a horrible feeling when the sales rep came back to me and quietly told me my credit application had been denied.


they rather import than hire low quality local. that's pretty much what all US companies do right now. remember Cisco firing 1800 (5% of staff)? at the same time they are about to hire over 2000 abroad at new Cisco offices.


"Those advantages you've described (tax treatment and employee match) are what you receive in exchange for ""locking up"" the money. Ultimately it's a personal choice of whether that tradeoff makes sense for you situation (I'll echo the response that the real answer to your question is planning). Roth options (either 401K or IRA) may be good compromises for you, since you can withdraw those contributions (but not the earnings) without any penalty, since you've already paid taxes on them. Another avenue to explore may be a self-directed IRA or a Solo 401(k), depending on your circumstances and eligibility. In both cases, there are plan providers that structure the plan to allow you to use the money to invest in things besides traditional stocks, bonds, and mutual funds (often referred to as ""checkbook control"" accounts). They are very commonly used among Real Estate investors (this thread from BiggerPockets has quite a bit of info). You'd want to consult with an accountant or financial adviser before going down that path."


People did go to jail for crimes ranging from mortgage fraud to traders cheating customers when selling MBS products. Two, it wasn't a little bit of regulation, Dodd frank put massive capital handcuffs on wall st. The bill being voted on now is to decrease some of the harshest parts of DF, not to remove the whole thing. And three, the only thing that compares to 2008 is 1929 to 1941, the Great Depression. Something like that won't be seen again for 100 years. The best thing to do when the economy goes through a recession is to hold on to what you have, ride it out, and if you have the capital, buy when stocks are cheap.


It depends on the market that you participate in. Stock markets are not zero sum as JoeTaxpayer explained. On the other hand, any kind of derivative markets (such as options or futures) are indeed zero sum, due to the nature of the financial instruments that are exchanged. Those markets tend to be more unforgiving. I don't have evidence for this, but I believe one of the reasons that investors so often lose their money is psychology. The majority of us as humans are not wired to naturally make the kinds of rigorous and quick decisions that markets require, especially if day trading. Some people can invest time and energy to improve themselves and get over that. Those are the ones who succeed.


> Cheaper energy is equivalent to a pay raise  No it isn't.  A pay raise can be distributed as the payee feels fit, cheaper energy only serves one area of expenditure, which as I stated, isn't the major area that somebody who is struggling financially needs help.  We don't need more competitive pricing in products, we need business in America to stop focusing on profits for their shareholders over providing decent wages to their employees.  America is one of the most  (if not the most) competitively priced marketplace in the world.  The average person doesn't give a shit that flowerpots cost $3.40 each instead of $3.60, they care that they have shitty healthcare, cannot afford to buy a house, cannot afford rent, cannot afford decent food, have no job security.    Corporate profits have skyrocketed, the super-rich keep getting richer, bankers make decisions based on their bonuses rather than the sustainability of their decisions.  Cheaper energy isn't going to solve one of those problems.  Corp. profits vs wages:  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/trade-record-corporate-profits-your-miserable-salary


"Does your company offer a 401k? or similar pre-tax retirement plans? Is your company a publicly traded company? These questions are important, basically the key to any of your investments should be diversification. This means buying more than one kind of investment, amongst stock(s), bonds, real estate or more. The answer to ""How Much"" of your salary should go to company stock, is subjective. I personally would contribute the max toward a retirement plan or even post-tax savings, which would be invested in a variety of public companies.  Hope that helps."


Stock markets have not been the cause of any of the problems. They display the symptoms of the problems, but they don't cause them.  The problems have been caused by the corruption of government (lobbying and political donations), insufficient, excessive and inappropriate regulation, and ignorance on the part of those who vote (demanding more services and less taxes and worrying more about wedge issues than sound governance).


If you are younger, and you not under undue pressure to buy a home at any particular time, investing in the market is a reasonable way to prepare.  Your risk tolerance should be high.   Understand that this means you may buy in 3-4 years instead of 1-2 if the market takes a down turn.  It took ~3-4 years for the S&P 500 to recover from the 2008 crash. I doubt anything that severe is in the making, but there is always an element of risk involved in investing. If you and your family will be busting at the seams of your current rental in a year, then maybe the bond fund advice others have provided is a better option.  If you are willing to be flexible, a more aggressive strategy might be appropriate. Likely, you want something along the lines of the Vanguard S&P 500 mutual fund - something that is diversified (a large number of stocks), in relatively safe companies (in this case the 500 companies that Standard and Poor's think are most likely to repay corporate bonds), and 'indexed' vice 'actively managed' (indexed funds have lower fees because they are using 'rules' to pick the stocks rather than paying a person to evaluate them.) It's going to depend on you and your situation - and regardless of what you choose consistency will be key: put your investment on automatic so it happens every month without your input.


"What was the true reason they wanted to use my accounts for? We wouldn't know the true reason. The scammer can do multiple things. What exactly he would do in your case ... I am very eager to know what a person was up to who would give to me so much information about themselves. I know some of you will jump on the chance to yell ""it was not their true address"", but.... it is where they wanted me to send the cards to. And I was to give proof of my identification ie; a copy of my drivers license, my articles of incorporation and the real estate development project prospectus. Also they were only willing to work with certain banks ie; Citibank, Bank of America etc. I can not understand what they were doing wanting such access to accounts that had no money in them save the amount I used to open them with. It looks more like they would open accounts under your name, but they would be controlling the accounts. i.e. what goes in and out. i.e. they would be able to deposit and withdraw from a new account they set-up. They would want to use this account for illegal activities, so that if caught, the account opening paper trail leads to you. Even if they gave you an address, it could be rental. Like they have copies of your Company registration and ID proofs, they can use these to get another rental property ... and then send letters to some and ask them to met there."


Assisted living can give seniors a new lease of life; it can be the best place for them.     There are many benefits offered by these assisted living facilities:   Safety – it provides a safe and comfortable environment for elders. Certain installations like bars to grab onto while in the shower or ramps and panic call buttons can go a long way in reducing falls and accidents.     As safe as we may try to be, accidents do happen. There is always a 24-hour emergency alert system so if residents have emergencies in their own apartment or room, they can summon immediate help. These facilities also hire trained professionals who work round the clock to attend to these emergencies.    Meals – there are many elders who don’t enjoy eating alone. Assisted living community offers freshly prepared meals. The main pull, however, are the communal meals. People tend to eat better when they have company.     Transportation – most centers provide group transportation for shopping, community events, and clinic appointments. This gives elders the freedom to go where they want to, with no restrictions what so ever.     Less worry- residents will not have to worry about repair responsibilities. If something is not working, they simply alert the administration and the problem is fixed. Living is a community eliminates the fear of letting in a stranger to fix a bathroom pipe and getting an expensive repair bill.     Socialization- this is perhaps the best reason to let elders stay in an assisted living community. Social skills of elders can decline as lifelong friends have health issues or have died. This can cause depression to set in and a reluctance to be socially active. At assisted living communities, ones the residents adjust to the lifestyle, they start enjoying the company of like-minded people. They play cards together, listen to music, exercise, have snacks, go to community events and even invite people over to entertain them. They can even enjoy intellectual stimulation as most communities provide classes, book clubs and art workshops to help them expand their horizon and keep their senses sharp.     Summerfield is one such Utah Retirement home, where residents get assistant as per their requirement and still enjoy their independence.  Visit Us: http://sta.sh/01elak39wpju


I like the article concept, about seeking help where needed. This is something where an advisory board comes into play.   That said, it is super important that you seek advice specifically in areas you are lacking. You want fresh ideas and people that will challenge your ideas.


"The June 2014 issue of Barclays Wealth's Compass magazine had a very nice succinct article on this topic: ""Value investing – does a rules-based approach work?"".  It examines the performance of value and growth styles of investment in the MSCI World and S&P500 arenas for a few decades back, and reveals a surprisingly complicated picture, depending on sector, region and time-period. Their summary is basically: A closer look however shows that the overall success of value   strategies derives mainly from the 1970s and 1980s. ... in the US, value has underperformed growth for over 25 years   since peaking in July 1988. Globally, value experienced a 30% setback   in the late 1990s so that there are now periods with a length of   nearly 13 years over which growth has outperformed. So the answer to ""does it beat the market?"" is  ""it depends..."". Update in response to comment below: the question of risk adjusted returns is interesting.  To quote another couple of fragments from the piece: Since December 1974, [MSCI world] value has outperformed growth by   2.6% annually, with lower risk. This outperformance on a risk-adjusted   basis is the so-called value premium that Eugene Fama and Kenneth   French first identified in 1992... and That outperformance has, however, come with more risk. Historical   volatility of the pure style indices has been 21-22% compared to 16%   for the market. ... From a maximum drawdown perspective, the 69% drop   of pure value during the financial crisis exceeded the 51% drop of the   overall market."


OP:  - I graduated with a Finance Degree from USC with a focus on financial analysis and valuation  - Failed to get accept into one of the major investment banks with a 3.7 (turned out for the best). I thought my world was fucking over.   My career trajectory in the last 4 years has been:  Commercial Insurance (1.5 years, 40hrs/week)> Consulting (1.5 years, 80hrs/week) > Technology firm (current, ~40hrs/week).  At this point, I have parlayed by financial modeling experience into a strategy and corporate planning role.  My income has gone from 50K to 85K in those 4 years.   Takeaway: Don't worry so much about being at a target school. Connections/internships (which you can get despite your school of choice) will determine where you end up. Join any relevant investing / finance clubs. Develop a network and learn to leverage that network's network (I didn't learn the true value of this until after I graduated). Furthermore, there are a VARIETY of small, boutique firms where you could get an internship/first-job that would be  great springboard into a larger firm. Sometimes your circumstance dictates a small start with a rapid increase. Do not get so hung up on your school and focus more on the opportunities your school opens up for you, and take advantage of those.


"Corporations aren't required to uphold your civil rights. A business can kick you out for hate speech, for any speech, or for carrying a gun, or whatever other reason they want.   They can't do it on the basis of inclusion in a protected class, and I'm fine with that being the line.  Who said I want to start a fight with you? I merely responded to your points.  Corporations should be able to ""oppress"" as much as they want except against people in a protected class based on their inclusion in that class. (Ie, if you don't want to bake a gay wedding cake for John because he's gay, that's not okay. If you don't want to bake a gay wedding cake for John because he's being a dick to your staff, that's fine.)"


Without knowledge of the special provisions of your loan contract, the one with the highest interest rate should be paid first. Or, if one's fixed payment is much larger than the other, and it is a burden, then it should be paid first, but refinancing may be an option. Socially speaking and possibly even economically since it could affect your reputation, it is probably best to either refinance the cosigned loan or pay that off as rapidly as possible. Economically speaking, I would recommend no prepayment since the asset that is leveraged is your mind which will last many decades, probably exceeding the term of the loan, but some caveats must be handled first: Many would disagree, but I finance the way I play poker: tight-aggressive.


If you have a negative balance on your credit card, you can call the issuer and have them send you a check for the amount. Some will do it automatically for large amounts or if it stays negative over some period of time. Usually credit card issuers don't let paying more than the current balance, but it still can happen sometimes if you pay off your balance and then get a refund, for example.


Geloman's Indian Spares provide all types of  Indian motorcycle's spare parts in the United States. We design the every spare part of the Indian motorcycle. Our huge spare parts collection corresponds to the 741 model. If you have an Indian 741 Motorcycle and you want to service and change the spare parts this motorcycle, then you can visit our workshop. It derived from the two famous Indian Scout models already in production for several years.


Just my opinion, but if their prices were the same at Amazon AND if there customer service wasn't a joke, I'd rather  buy it in person.  The ability to return things if needed are much easier at a store than through the mail.


I imagine that they check it because if they accept one from you and then their bank discovers it when they try to pay it in, it's their loss.


"The ""Yield Pledge"" looks like a marketing promise to me. It may well be true, but I'm not sure it's useful. As you say, it's currently not the best account out there. If those extra $24 per $10000 are really important to you, why not do your own analysis? Put the money in the highest interest account you can find, and then every three months survey the accounts available and, if it isn't still the highest, transfer the funds to the one that is. Personally I wouldn't put that much effort in for $24, but you may be different."


> Observe this in the corporate world by looking at the example of General Motors. G.M.’s 2009 bankruptcy came at the end of a long decline dating back to the early 1970s, when Japanese cars first began to intrude on U.S. markets.  So what you're saying is that Microsoft has only 40 years left.  That sounds terrifying indeed.


So the OP said you can live a decent life on min wage, but the only way to do it is to suck off of the rest of your family, or work staggered shifts?  Ahh, never seeing your spouse, the american dream in action!


No. Getting more credit lowers your credit utilization ratio (if you don't use it), which raises your credit rating, this can also be done by asking for a higher limit on your existing credit card. Also, there is a chance that the company you got your first card from won't pull your credit a second time when they go to the underwriter. As any extensions of credit lower your credit score, although the credit utilization ratio is weighted more heavily.


Yes, if the call expires worthless, leaving you with stock. Then you can exercise your put when the stock goes below put strike price.


Lucky that I found the trade association for my industry, volunteered to do an additional 2-3 hours of work for free for two years and got a lead on an internship for my troubles? I guess, if you call that luck. I don't, I fucking earned it.


"If you make $10 in salary, $5 in interest on savings, and $10 in dividends, your income is $25, not $10. If you have a billion dollars in well-invested assets, you can take a loan against those assets and the interest payment on the loan will be smaller than the interest you earn on the assets. That means your investment will grow faster than your debt and you have a net positive gain. It makes no sense to do this if the value of your asset is static. In that case, you would be better off just to withdraw from the asset and spend it directly, since a loan against that static asset will result in you spending your asset plus interest charges. If you have a good enough rate of return on your investment, you may actually be able to do this in perpetuity, taking out loan after loan, making the loan payments from the loan proceeds, while the value of your original asset pool continues to grow. At any given time, though, a severe downturn in the market could potentially leave you with large debts and insufficient value in your assets to back the debt. If that happens, you won't be getting another loan and the merry-go-round will stop spinning. It's a bit of a Ponzi scheme, in a way. The U.S. government has done exactly this for a long time and has gotten away with it because the dollar has been the world's reserve currency. You could always get a loan against the value of the U.S. currency in the past. Those days may be dwindling, with more countries choosing alternative currencies to conduct business with and the dollar becoming comparatively weaker into the foreseeable future. If you have savings, you can spend more than you make, which will put you into debt, then you can draw down your savings to pay that debt, and at the end of the month you will be out of debt, but have less in savings. You cannot do this forever. Eventually, you run out of savings. If you have no savings, you immediately go into debt and stay there when you spend more than you make. This is simple arithmetic. If you have no savings, but you own assets (real estate, securities, a collection of never-opened Beatles vinyl records, a bicycle), then you could spend more than you make, and be in debt, but have the potential to liquidate assets to pay off all or part of the debt. This depends on finding a buyer and negotiating a price that helps you enough to make a real difference. If you have a car, and you owe $10 on it, but you can only find a buyer willing to pay $8 for the car, that doesn't help you unless you can refinance the $2 and your new payment amount is lower than the old payment amount. But then you're still $2 in debt on the car even though you no longer possess it, and you've still increased your debt by spending more than you made. If you stay on this path, sooner or later you will not have any assets left and you will be in debt, plain and simple. As a wrinkle in the concrete example, let's say you have stock options with your employer. This is a form of a ""call."" You could also purchase a call through a broker in the stock market, or for a commodity in the futures market. That means you pay up front for the right to buy a specific amount of an asset at a fixed price (usually with an expiration date). You don't own the stock, you just have the right to buy it at the call price, regardless of the current market value when you buy it. In the case of employee stock options, your upfront cost is in the form of a vesting schedule. You have to remain employed for a set time before a specific number of stocks become eligible for you to purchase at your option price (the stocks ""vest"" on a certain date). Remain employed longer, and more stocks may vest, depending on your contract. If you quit or are terminated before that date, you forfeit your options. If you stick around through your vesting schedule, you pay real money to buy the stock at your option price. It only makes sense to do this if the market value of the stock is higher than your option price. If the current market value is lower than your option price, you're better off just buying the asset at the current market value, or waiting and  hoping that the value increases before your contract expires. You could drive yourself into debt by spending more than you make, but still have a chance to eliminate your debt by exercising your call/option and then re-selling the asset if it is worth more than what you pay for it. But you may have to wait for a vesting period to elapse before you can exercise your option (depending on the nature of your contract). During this waiting period, you are in debt, and if you can't service your debt (i.e. make payments acceptable to your creditors) your things could get repossessed. Oh, don't forget that you'll also pay a brokerage fee to sell the asset after you exercise your option. Further, if you have exhausted your savings and nobody will give you a loan to exercise your stock (or futures) options, then in the end you would be even further in debt because you already paid for the call, but you are unable to capitalize it and you'll lose what you already paid. If you can get a loan to exercise your option, but you're a bad credit risk, chances are good that the lender will draft a contract requiring you to immediately pay back the loan proceeds plus a fee out of the proceeds of re-selling the stock or other asset. In fact the lender might even draft a contract assigning ownership of your options to them, and stipulating that they'll pay you what's left after they subtract their fee. Even if you can get a traditional loan, you will pay interest over time. The end result is that your debt has still cost you very real money beyond the face value of the debt. Finally, if the asset for which you have a call has decreased in value lower than the current market value, you would be better off buying it directly in the market instead of exercising your option. But you'll pay transaction fees to do that, and the entire action would be pure speculation (or ""investment""), but not an immediate means to pay off your debt. Unless you have reliable insider trading information. But then you risk running afoul of the law. Frankly it might be better to get a loan to pay off your debt than to buy an ""investment"" hoping the value will increase, unless you could guarantee that the return on your investment would be bigger than the cumulative interest and late fees on your debt (or the risk of repossession of your belongings). Remember that nothing you owe a debt on is actually yours, not your house, not your car, not your bicycle, not your smartphone. Most of the time, your best course of action is to make minimum payments on your lowest-interest debts and make extra payments on your highest interest debt, up to the highest total payment you can tolerate (set something aside in a rainy day fund just in case). As you pay off the highest-interest debt, shift the amount you were paying on that debt to make extra payments on your next highest-interest debt until that one is paid off, and repeat on down the line until you're out of debt, then live within your means so that you don't find yourself working at McDonald's because you don't have a choice when you're in your 80's."


I don't know if anyone has heard of this road trip that's coming up, but it should be a great gathering of some of business' brightest minds. I'll be at the Portland, OR event and possibly the Seattle event.   Who else is going?


If the Euro went bust then it would be the 12th government currency to go belly up in Europe (according to this website).  Europe holds the record for most failed currencies.  It also holds the record for the worst hyperinflation in history - Yugoslavia 1993.  I'm not sure what would happen if the Euro failed.  It depends on how it fails.  If it fails quickly (which most do) then there will be bank runs, bank holidays, capital controls, massive price increases, price controls, and just general confusion as people race to get rid of their Euros.  Black markets for everything will pop up if the price controls remain in place.  Some countries may switch to a foreign currency (i.e. the US dollar if it is still around) until they can get their own currency in circulation.


I don't know what you mean by ad spend, but have you checked out glassdoor or indeed.com? They both give you a salary range for common positions in your area. Don't offer the maximum number you see, be reasonable based on your experience and such.


Although this is off-topic since it is about economics I'm going to write a short answer in case it is decided that it is on topic. I will remove this if it gets migrated. The key to why printing extra money causes inflation and a change in exchange rate has nothing at all to do with whether or not it is announced or done in secret. The quantity of money in circulation (by whichever measure) is what informs the value of the currency not whether you tell people that it has changed or not. Announcing it should increase the volatility somewhat around the time of the announcement but the long term effects will be the same no matter what. Whether or not they announce it printing more money will mean that there is more in circulation which will reduce the value of each unit of the currency by the dilution amount which in turn will increase inflation and decrease the exchange rate.


It is almost always cheaper to do regular maintenance then to fix problems because you didn't change the oil or check the transmission fluid.


Simply put, the government has no balls to fight corruption.  Ideally, the government would have enough people to oversee and make sure corruption like this doesn't happen. But the politicians cut a lot of money out for this type of enforcement (primarily because they had money donated to them by these same businesses). This looks great for the politician as it looks like they're cutting government fat, let's say something like a hundred million dollars. These opportunists fleece these companies and when they go under, they plead and beg the government to bail them out or else they'll have to fire all these people and it'll kill the economy. So the government steps in and bails out these companies for a few billion - now they look like they are being proactive and 'saving' the economy.  All at the expense of you of course. It's too bad politicians don't do what they believe is best but do what their donors believe is best for themselves.


This isn't super specific to your question, but I'd recommend that you invest a ton of time in practice questions (then review the answers to the ones you got wrong). This is a good strategy for most exams, but it's particularly true for the Series 7, as the S7 is notorious for using questions on the actual exam that are almost identical to practice questions. I was amazed at how many questions I recognized almost word-for-word when I took it.   I recently took my CFP test, so I'm pretty brushed-up on testing concepts and that sort of thing right now. If you are running into anything in particular, feel free to PM me!


A credit card is not a bank account.  It is, essentially, a contract to extend a line of credit on an as needed basis through a process accepted by the provider(purchase through approved vender, cash advance, etc).  There is no mechanism for the bank to accept or hold a deposit.  While most card issuers will simple retain the money for a period of up 30-60 days to apply toward transactions, I have had a card that actually charged a fee for having a negative balance in excess of $10 for more than 30 days(the fee was $10/month). So no you can not DEPOSIT money on any credit card.  You need an account that accepts deposits to make a deposit.


Absolutely.  We used to go to Applebee's or TGI Fridays back in the 90's regularly.  Food was good, atmosphere was fun.  Closest analogue I can come up with today would be Bar Louie - nice.  Now, they've cut back on so many expenses it's just not what it used to be.  Food is crap, service is meh, the value just isn't there anymore.  I'd rather go to my local guy with 40 craft taps and a damned good burger I know was fresh rather than spend the same amount of money on a reheated burger and a bud light.


In the United States, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation protects the first $500,000 you have at a brokerage including up to $250,000 in cash. This means that if the firm holding your securities fails financially, you have some coverage. That insurance does not prevent your investment itself from losing money. Even traditionally save money market funds can potentially lose value in a situation called Breaking the buck. This means that the Net Asset Value of the fund falls below $1/share. Alas, during periods of market calamity, even traditionally safe stores of value are subject to increased risk.


Eh, to be completely fair to Marissa, she was Google's first Product Manager. The entire point of a PM is that they're the CEO of their product and determine the strategy of the product going forward. Yeah she made a bunch of idiotic moves, but on paper, she was a pretty decent fit and had tons of experience in the same market Yahoo was in, and at an executive level as well.


A business consultant is more of an expert you turn to for help with your business. They teach you skills you don’t know, analyze your business and create an action plan for you to implement. Business consultants the goals you have for your business and help you create the plan of action required for you to actually accomplish those goals!


There is no sure thing in investing. Everything has a risk component. Sure, people talk about these cryptocurrencies like they have nowhere to go but up, but there are massive risks with these. For example, they could be declared illegal, the exchanges could go bankrupt (and some have), the backing companies off the ICOs could fail, the algorithms behind them could have a fatal flaw with unknown consequences, they can be stolen in unusual ways, everyone could suddenly realize that they have no real value...


I think you hit the nail on the head there!  HP used to innovate with lots of R&D investment, until it started to stall and like what you mentioned, these CEOs simply look at most of these as 'COST centre' and took them out.   > Tough to innovate with nothing but sales and marketing.  I like that!


I got that notion from Max Kaiser, his ideas about that are mostly about interest rate apartheid - banks and rich people get money at zero interest, we pay 9, 10, 30%.  I think it involves everything from how we are seen in the eyes of the law to assuming risk, etc.  We are expected to play by the rules and they are not.


The vanilla advice is investing your age in bonds and the rest in stocks (index funds, of course). So if you're 25, have 75% in stock index fund and 25% in bond index. Of course, your 401k is tax sheltered, so you want keep bonds there, assuming you have taxable investments. When comparing specific funds, you need to pay attention to expense ratios. For example, Vanguard's SP 500 index has an expense ratio of .17%. Many mutual funds charge around 1.5%. That means every year, 1.5% of the fund total goes to the fund manager(s). And that is regardless of up or down market. Since you're young, I would start studying up on personal finance as much as possible. Everyone has their favorite books and websites. For sane, no-nonsense investment advise I would start at bogleheads.org. I also recommend two books -  This is assuming you want to set up a strategy and not fuss with it daily/weekly/monthly. The problem with so many financial strategies is they 1) don't work, i.e. try to time the market or 2) are so overly complex the gains are not worth the effort. I've gotten a LOT of help at the boglehead forums in terms of asset allocation and investment strategy. Good luck!


A 401(k) is an investment just like any other investment. You generally get two types of return lumped into that number, but there can be more and you should read your funds prospectus carefully. If you aren't investing in direct companies, you're using mutual funds for instance, then you should read the funds prospectus to see how they handle these situations for the underlying securities they hold for you. Although I think this is the basic answer to the question as you asked.


I think the strategy may be promising, you can run seasonality tests on a lot of different instruments.....  but always fear the data mining bias, meaning the future probability of these events may only be 50/50.  I.e. Is there an actual relationship or are you uncovering a relationship of noise?  The classical way to doing this is to partition your data into two sets, (i.e. every odd year vs even year).  Uncover relationships in one set. Then test the other to see if it is present there.


"Yahoo Finance: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=VFINX+Profile Under ""Management Information"""


Call Comcast during a non-peak time (first thing in the morning?), wait on hold, and politely explain what happened and request a $50 credit. Also politely request that your premium support request be handled for free given how much hassle you've had getting disconnected. They'll be able to tell your premium request was never answered because there are no notes on your support tickets. Calling them is much easier than any of your other options.


Because now instead of getting a little profit from the kits they might get a lot more when peple have to buy one of their brands. I am sure they thought this through and know a lot more about I than anyone here.


I like to put money I am going to spend in my Quicken register (similar to Money in my limited experience) and that is the big ticket feature missing from mint.com.  Mint.com can only tell you what you did, or in a very general sense what you plan to do. As a register, mint.com is flexible enough for me to categorize my transactions.  As a planning / budgeting tool mint.com is very simple and fast to get going, but lacks the depth of a budget I want to manage every week.  Mint.com also tracks my investments, but I freely admit my investment management is nothing more than putting money into the same accounts.  I bother with investment tracking other than looking to see it isn't zero. I say try mint.com.  Mint.com has a place to totally delete your account.


"Also within Germany the tax offices usually determine which tax office is responsible for you by asking where you were more than 180 days of the year (if e.g. you have a second flat where you work). That's a default value, though: in my experience you can ask to be handled by another tax office. E.g. I hand my tax declaration to my ""home"" tax office (where also my freelancing adress is), even though my day-job is 300 km away.  So if you work mostly from Poland and just visit the German customer a few times, you are fine anyways. Difficulties start if you move to Germany to do the work at your customer's place. I'm going to assume that this is the situation as otherwise I don't think the question would have come up.  Close by the link you provided is a kind of FAQ on this EU regulation About the question of permanent vs. temporary they say: The temporary nature of the service is assessed on a case-by-case basis.  Here's my German-Italian experience with this. Background: I had a work contract plus contracts for services and I moved for a while to Italy. Taxes and social insurance on the Italian contracts had to be paid to Italy. Including tax on the contract for services. Due to the German-Italian tax treaty, there is no double taxation. Same for Poland: this is part of EU contracts. By the way: The temporary time frame for Italy seemed to be 3 months, then I had to provide an Italian residence etc. and was registered in the Italian health care etc. system. Due to the German-Italian tax treaty, there is no double taxation. Same for Poland: this is part of EU contracts. Besides that, the German tax office nevertheless decided that my ""primary center of life"" stayed in Germany. So everything but the stuff related to the Italian contracts (which would probably have counted as normal work contracts in Germany, though they is no exact equivalent to those contract types) was handled by the German tax office. I think this is the relevant part for your question (or: argumentation with the German tax office) of temporary vs. permanent residence.  Here are some points they asked: There is one point you absolutely need to know about the German social insurance law: Scheinselbständigkeit (pretended self-employment). Scheinselbständigkeit means contracts that claim to be service contracts with a self-employed provider who is doing the work in a way that is typical for employees. This law closes a loophole so employer + employee cannot avoid paying income tax and social insurance fees (pension  contributions and unemployment insurance on both sides - health insurance would have to be paid in full by the self-employed instead of partially by the employer. Employer also avoids accident insurance, and several regulations from labour law are avoided as well). Legally, this is a form of black labour which means that the employer commits a criminal offense and is liable basically for all those fees.  There is a list of criteria that count towards Scheinselbständigkeit. Particularly relevant for you could be"


"This is a joke article, right?  Besides the fact the author apparently can't use a space bar to save his life, the article is basically saying ""Silly CEO, you expect all these creative free spirits to do actual 'work'?  What's wrong with you, being concerned with things like 'profit'. If you want to hire a bunch of disloyal slackers who will jump ship the second someone else utters the word 'stock options', you're going to have to get over this whole 'work ethic' thing."""


It just means that they think that in the long-term, interest rates should be around 3-4%, i.e. probably between 3% and 4%, but perhaps a bit lower or higher occasionally.


Well, all the client visits in the world aren't going to help them if their active strategies are on par with passive so if they have resigned themselves to that fate they should just call it a day and wrap up shop.


How about the fact that when a stranger calls me at 3pm on a Tuesday it means only a few things:  * I've forgotten to pay a bill * Someone I know is in the hospital * Someone wants my opinion on something I don't care about  At 3pm on a Tuesday (like nearly every other weekday afternoon) I'm busy.  I answer the phone to ensure it isn't a forgotten bill or someone in the hospital, but it's usually someone trying to sell me stuff or ask for my opinions.  I always decline.  BECAUSE I'M BUSY, LIKE EVERY OTHER WORKING ADULT WITH A FAMILY!


Since near-term at-the-money (ATM) options are generally the most liquid, the listed implied vol for a stock is usually pretty close to the nearest ATM volatility, but there's not a set convention that I'm aware of.  Also note that for most stocks, vol skew (the difference in vol between away-from-the-money and at-the-money options) is relatively small,  correct me if I'm wrong, IV is the markets assessment that the stock is about 70% likely (1 Standard Deviation) to move (in either direction) by that percent over the next year. Not exactly.  It's an annualized standard deviation of the anticipated movements over the time period of the option that it's implied from.  Implied vol for near-term options can be higher or lower than longer-term options, depending on if the market believes that there will be more uncertainty in the short-term.  Also, it's the bounds of the expected movement in that time period. so if a stock is at $100 with an implied vol of 30% for 1-year term options, then the market thinks that the stock will be somewhere between $70 and $130 after 1 year.  If you look at the implied vol for a 6-month term option, half of that vol is the range of expected movement in 6 months.


"compulsive eating, and other compulsions, are also an issue If this is true, then this is not a money problem.  This is a psychological problem that manifests itself in overspending. I would make an appointment with a counselor or therapist ASAP to start dealing with this problem before the symptoms get any worse.   That said, here are some practical things that you can do to reduce overspending: The most important thing is that this be done TOGETHER.  You cannot dictate to him how yo spend your (plural) money, you cannot take away credit cards and give him an ""allowance"", etc. It mush be something that you both agree is important. If you cannot agree on a plan to get on a budget, then counseling would be in order."


People clamoring for more and more regulation will always be disappointed because businesses will always find ways to get around it.  And, it is the usually the incumbent businesses that are able to do so, while new businesses find increased barriers to entry.  The correct solution is to remove the root source of the tuition bubble, get rid of the government subsidies for higher education altogether.


"A checking account almost never earns any significant interest. A checking accounts often does not have any limits in terms of how many times you can draw funds from it. A checking account often comes with a debit card allowing you to pay online, draw cash from an ATM machine etc. A savings accounts has much higher yields, so you should be getting a decent interest. Unfortunately in the current climate this is not always true (especially not with the big banks) so you may want to look into a high-yield savings account. A savings account is often limited in terms of number of transactions, meaning you can't constantly draw funds from it, it must be stable. A savings account often does not come with a debit card. No, a savings account should not be used for regular transactions. It's an account to park your money for a medium/long time. Understand that banks loan out the money in your savings account to third-parties, so if it would constantly fluctuate, they can't have this money available to others. In return of you parking your money with your bank, you should get a nice return (interest). Yes, but it's not common. Assuming you are from USA, passing banking data (account number and routing number) to third-parties is not safe. In Europe it's totally safe to share your account number to accept money. Depends, some banks do charge fees, some don't. Often there are fees when you're not using the account (no transactions), or when you don't have a certain minimum in an account. Assuming you are American (please specify this information clearly in future) I would look into an ""internet bank"", like Ally. They don't have many fees and they have an excellent high-yield savings account. They also give you a debit card. Disadvantage is that they don't have physical branches."


Yeah, that's it! We just need to **RAISE TAXES** on those icky **RICH PEOPLE** -- as opposed to, you know, **FINING** people who engaged in **CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES**.  See the difference? The latter is justice, whereas the former is robbery.


> plus they get to be the Wal-Mart of the internet and outprice all of their competitor  It's all [about market cap](http://evonomics.com/amazon-accounting-corporate-profits-rich-peoples-income-invisible-bezos/) not the appearance of investment.  They turn most of their profits into dividends, so they get taxed (from investors) once at a 20% rate, rather than a 35% then 20% (48% total).  They are basically exploiting a glitch where dividend payments are tax deductible to the company, rather than (rightfully) being considered profits being collected by the owners.


Banks, the big ones, have shareholders and the board to answer to.  Credit Unions have members and the board to answer to.  You become a member by joining a CU. Banks' prime objective is profit maximization, a credit union's prime objective is members' welfare.   Personal experience: I didn't mind that the banks charge fees, what was frustrating was keeping up with the policy changes.  Have X amount to avoid Y fees.  Once you fulfill that, do something else to avoid some other fees.  You miss one notice and you'll pay dearly!  This constant jumping of hoops was enough to switch. Not saying CUs don't change rules, but in my opinion, not as frequently as big banks.  On fee, for instance, my overdraft with my CU is $5.  With BofA it was something like $35 before regulations put a cap on such ridiculous fees.


>Show me some other great empire in history that managed to purchase its own debt.  Name a great empire that did not purchase it's own debt.   You calling something a Ponzi scheme when it clearly fails even the most naive definition and after being pointed out the hole in your naming is plain willful ignorance.


The biggest issue I can see is that in order to have your parents protected properly, they'll have to register an interest in the property (ie, the 25%). I can't see the mortgage lender being too happy to have a second lienholder on the house for a total of 100% of the purchase price. Usually their conditions state that they'll need to be informed of other debts secured on the house and might actually have a say in that. Another way of accomplishing this is putting your parents on the house's deeds but that might also complicate matters with the lender and cause additional problems when it comes to selling the property. Not to mention that if anything bad happens to your parents, their stake in your property would be counted as one of their assets and you might find yourself in the situation where you have to come up with 25% of the property value right now or you might find that you have to sell the property to the first bidder simply because you do need the money as quickly as possible. Personally I wouldn't do it (especially without legal advice), the legal structure can be a nightmare and you'll just end up painted into a corner.


"I know some CEOs (for both big and small companies).  A few have admitted to me on a few occasions they themselves don't have the slightest idea about being a CEO.  The world changes too fast so they have absolutely no idea what's going to work and what isn't when it comes time to make decisions.  All they can do is rely on the recommendations of the people that work under them at which point it becomes a matter of trust:  Do you trust the recommendations from your CTO?  Who did he trust to make that recommendation?  The trust chain goes waaay down and it makes you wonder if the people who ""know"" (at the end of the chain) shouldn't have been able to just make the decision themselves."


Prediction: costs won't go down.    The basis for that is the cost of insurance for health has never gone down in the history of that product mainly due to the fixed market.  There is competition, but pricing is so rigged as health insurance companies and employers have completely removed pricing from consumers experience.    Until everyone has individual/independent insurance away from their jobs, healthcare costs will never be in check. When employers gtfo of your business and stop providing benefits and people have to buy their own insurance, that is the only time there will be any real market or real pricing in healthcare/medical.


>Ms. Beauregard has to break it to her mother that she does not intend to keep the Hitchcock dining room set or the buffet full of matching Lenox dinnerware, saucers and gravy boats.  Why does she have to tell her? Tell mum that she will cherish her stuff and keep it forever.  Once the old girl kicks off, chuck the shit straight in the bin.


> then everyone will run off to by guns & ammo before the government comes to take them all. It's gotten sadly predictable.  Won't happen, the driver for the increased sales was fear of new restrictive legislation, not the shooting itself.


"> Bernie sources:   I would agree, it looks like the tax would cover all those that buy stock, bonds, and derivatives. However, this article didn't really cover the specifics. What would the tax be? Would it a flat dollar amount per transaction? That would make sense as it would focus more on those that do high volume traders. That wouldn't really impact me, as I already pay $9 per transaction. And I don't do many transactions. A couple dollars more, and I would be fine.   > To answer your Enron example, no corporation would have enough power to actually do something like that if they didn't have at least partial backing by the government.  Ah, but corporations [edit - wouldn't] have the power to do much of anything without someone to enforce their policies. Name one market that doesn't have an enforcement agency of some type. That is a mighty big assumption that the ""free market"" would make it work... especially since one doesn't really exist.   And that would be the crux of my argument. All of the things you say about the perfection of the market to regulate itself is so far not proven.   Take a market like Kansas - over the last 6 years, they just underwent one of the largest deregulation, de-taxation experiments of any state in the union. The results were less than stellar. Kansas is lagging the national average in growth. And they took a hundred million dollar surplus and turned into a couple billion dollar deficit almost overnight. And who suffers, of course the most poor. They shut down schools, fired teachers, and shelved many infrastructure jobs - jobs that would have been fielded by lower wage workers... And those infrastructure projects were undoubtedly in lower income areas.   I would say, if you truly believe in what you preach then live it. Start a commune somewhere. Demonstrate how it is effective. That would have more power than preaching some amorphous unproveable policy over the internet."


It works across the entire city of London. This isn't a pipe dream with no real-life examples.  In reality, people watch out, drive slower, and keep their eyes open so they don't cross all the time. No one wants to die in the streets after all.  > You lack common sense and to be honest, I have never have read anything so ridiculous.  This is the 'common sense' that I have lived with all my life in a city shared by millions of people in a first world country.   > You are saying that despite the fact that it is not only safer for pedestrians to use a consistent and well known area to walk,  If people don't use cross walks, you should change the rules so drivers don't expect people to use cross walks and thus start paying attention to the *reality* that people are crossing all the time.  > I can think of many reasons of why you lack any sort of logic, but I just don't have the time to pick apart why this is the worst comment I have ever read on reddit.  Nope you can't. I do dare you to though, because it'd be an interesting discussion.


"Greatowl's response is pretty cynical. I'm not a wall street analyst but I do read some of the research and there is a lot of respectable analysis out there. There are many smart analysts who consistently get poached from the equity research departments to join the buy side. I'd also contend that level of accuracy is an incomplete measure of performance. It doesnt matter if you're right or wrong, what matters is how much you make when you are right and how much you lose when you are wrong. Soros is purported to have a 30% ""batting average"" but the guy makes a killing when he's right (source: Inside the House of Money)."


"Bonds still definitely have a place in many passive portfolios.  While it is true that interest rates have been unusually low, yields on reasonable passive bond exposures are still around 2-4%.  This is significantly better than both recent past inflation and expected inflation both of which are near zero.   This is reasonable if not great return, but Bonds continue to have other nice properties like relatively low risk and diversification of stock portfolios (the ""offset[ing] losses"" you mention in the OP).  So to say that bonds are ""no longer a good idea"" is certainly not correct.  One could say bonds may no longer be a good idea for some people that have a particularly high risk tolerance and very high return requirements. However, to some extent, that has always been true. It is worth remembering also that there is some compelling evidence that global growth is starting to broadly slow down and many people believe that future stock returns and, in general, returns on all investments will be lower.  This is much much harder to estimate than bond returns though.  Depending on who you believe, bond returns may actually look relatively better than the have in the past. Edit in response to comment:  Corporate bond correlation with stocks is positive but generally not very strong (except for high-yield junk bonds) so while they don't offset stock volatility (negative correlation) they do help diversify a stock portfolio.  Government bonds have essentially zero correlation so they don't really offset volatility as much as just not add any.  Negative correlation assets are generally called insurance and you tend to have to pay for them.  So there is no free lunch here.  Assets that reduce risk cost money, assets that add little risk give less return and assets that are more risky tend to give more return in the long run but you can feel the pain.  The mix that is right for you depends on a lot of things, but for many people that mix involves some corporate and government bonds."


you asked for strategies which use deep in the money options:  dividend mispricing can use deep in the money options, basically its an arbitrage play on ex-dividend dates. and any kind of spread can use deep in the money options, depending on how wide you want your spread to be


Apple never gave the US government entrance into that terrorist's iPhone and it made their company look great.  It took extremely complicated and expensive security hackers from Europe to break in to the phone after a long time.  I think it was one of the guys from the Boston marathon bombing?  I don't know why my earlier comment got downvoted - it's the truth


This was such a wonderful and clear explanation. It has helped me to understand (at 28) a concept that I have always been a bit murky on. I would feel safe making the bet that you are a teacher of some sort. I would find it extremely interesting to hear you thoughts on why we don't use the gold standard anymore. Do you work in finance?


"Welsh had pushed the stock about as far as one could by using GE's capital as collateral to borrow money at rates much lower than banks.  So GE was able to out bank the banks for many years.  The problems with this all came back under Immelt.  Welsh sort of shit all over the culture of technology and engineering and Immelt was never able to recover that as the capital business fell apart.  The company really hasn't been able to make good choices.  Anything they buy does worse.  They need to stick to markets with a high cost of entry and long lead development times.  This is very contrary to the ""Silicon Valley"" tech world of today, but it is where GE has remained successful (See GE Medical and GE Aviation)."


Slippery slope logical fallacy. Nobody is talking about exceeding the GDP per capita, just increasing the minimum wage to a level where someone can actually survive without working 80 hours per week. As it stands, [there is not a single county in the nation where someone can afford to rent a 1 bedroom apartment on the current federal minimum wage](http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/only-point-1-percent-of-us-minimum-wage-workers-can-afford-a-1-bedroom.html).


I'm old enough to remember when normal companies didn't openly associate their brands with politics, when Michael Jordan was willing to sell his shoes to Republicans as well as Democrats, and when companies and consumers weren't publicly shamed for their every perceived slight.   Yes, I know business and politics have always been intertwined, but we've reached a point of dysfunction that I've never witnessed.


"The Wikipedia page for Repurchase Agreement has two relevant pointers on this topic:  The legal title for any securities used in a repo actually pass from seller to buyer during the term of the agreement. In basic terms this means that if one sells a bond on repo with a promise to buy it back, then the ownership actually transfers to the buyer for that period of time.  If a coupon is paid during this time period, it can either go to the buyer or the seller. Usually, the coupon payment goes to the initial owner of the security pre-repo (our ""seller""). But sometimes the repurchase agreement will specify otherwise. So, again in basic terms, usually the repo seller/initial security owner receives any payments made during the term of the repurchase agreement. (Both points are in the first paragraph of the section ""Structure and Terminology"".)"


This.   White collar crime isn't currently prosecuted to the same degree as blue collar crime. Probably because it's not as visible in everyday life (as opposed to say, a kidnapping).  I'm glad to see this and I hope people are beginning to demand harsher punishments for these types of crimes.  In a world that is becoming increasingly more structured around financial markets, white collar criminals should be prosecuted accordingly as their actions can have significant consequences in the lives of numerous people.


The lifetime combat death rate for males in early Ireland and medieval Iceland was somewhere around 1/4 or so; it was absurdly high.  These also weren't modern societies that were dependent on large-scale projects to keep us all alive such as municipal water and electricity, and a functioning modern banking system.  I don't know anything about Quaker Pennsylvania. Details?


"I've tried Mint, and I've tried Quicken. Now, I think Quicken is an annoying, crashy little piece of software, but it is also quite capable; overall I think it has the features you want. You can enter your bills, broken down by category, in advance. You can enter your paychecks, broken down by category (gross income, federal income tax, state income tax, social security, SDI, transfers to tax-protected 401(k) account, etc) in advance. You can enter in your stock trades and it can tell you how much you'll need to end up paying in capital gains taxes. You can even enter in your stock option vesting schedule in advance (it's a royal pain because you can't go back and change anything without deleting everything, but you can do it). It'll forecast your bank account balance in all of your bank accounts in advance with a shiny chart. It'll even model your loans, if you set it up right. I didn't do too much with the ""budgeting"" tools per se, but the account-balances-daily features sound like the closest thing to what you're looking for that's likely to exist. The only thing that's a trifle tricky is that transfers from one account to another may take multiple days (hello, ACH) and you'll have to decide whether to record them at departure or arrival."


"Congratulations on the job offer!  That type of matching sounds good if you plan to stay at a company for more than a year. My experience has been that 401k matching can range from 2% up to 8% for your typical starting job, so a total of 6% is good. You would definitely want to contribute at least 5% to take advantage of the ""Free"" money. Loan provision could mean that loans from 401k are allowed. I did some research and found that not all company 401ks allow for you to take a loan out of your 401k. Typically this is bad practice since you are robbing your 401k of it's major advantage - tax free compound interest.  Source"


I don’t see this area turning around anytime soon. It’s extremely poverty ridden . Plus I believe a lot of the stipulations in buying one of these $100 homes is that you rehab it and live in it.   I’m not positive on the details though.   Last time this area was wealthy was during the al Capone era. He had a lot of money in it. But even that was ilegal money.


I started out in compliance at a software company, despite having little interest in compliance. I did that for ~2.5 years, then worked with my manager to arrange to work 10 hours/week in the Marketing department, then after ~6 months of that, I moved to Marketing full time. If you kick ass in whatever job you have and work on extra skills (learning to code/improving at Excel will give you lots of options, such as software engineer or data analyst positions), you ought to be able to parlay the experience you've gained plus the other skills you have into something you're more interested in. Most companies would rather keep a good employee in the building than risk losing him/her.


"Apartment complexes have had a long history of not accepting cash for payment of rent. This eliminates the problem of robbery and strongly reduces the risks of embezzlement.   THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE  Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution states:   No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts Previous editions of banknotes stated that the notes were redeemable in gold or in lawful money. The Mint Act of 1792 set gold and silver as legal currency (and that one did not have to accept ""base metal coins"" for more than $10 which is why coin rolls only go up to $10). The Coinage Act of 1873 dropped silver and made gold the legal standard for currency. In 1933, the ""redeemable in gold"" was changed by federal statute and the legend you mention was added. Prior to 1933, someone could demand that you pay them in gold and not with a bank note. Legislation in 1933 ended that. This clause in the Constitution leads some political groups to wish to return to a gold standard. I recommend reading the book Greenback as it describes how our currency got the way it did and why that clause appears on currency."


No, you cannot. 401k must not be discriminatory, i.e.: you cannot have different matching for different employees.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://bruegel.org/2017/06/the-universal-basic-income-discussion/) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** > UBI&#039;s supporters generally propose UBI as a replacement for the current &quot;Welfare state&quot;, which may increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce them.  > Some UBI proponents may argue that by ending current programs, we would reap large administrative savings that we could convert into UBI payments.  > Doland took on the challenge and offered a taxonomy of three kinds of libertarians who might take a UBI very seriously, arguing that UBI could very well be a policy for pragmatic critics of well-intentioned but ineffective government, for classical liberals, and for advocates of personal freedom.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6grw2f/bruegel_the_universal_basic_income_discussion/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~142143 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **UBI**^#1 **benefit**^#2 **poverty**^#3 **Income**^#4 **Welfare**^#5"


"It's sad just how uninformed most of us are be default. Even a Google search of most politicians will only bring up a barebones summary and a bunch of opinion. Personally, I just can't spend the time each election to figure out what the actual nature of the folks running might be. Stress from work needs alleviation or I'll break down, normal life stuff takes over most of the time, and at the end of each day if I try and do any political research I'll just fall asleep with it on my phone's browser read half-way through. It's impossible to look at every decision someone has made and figure out the reason *without* a swarm of editorials, so if their opponents want to wave a few ""flip flops"" around I'd have *no* way of reliably working the truth from the lies. Not to mention that Google et all filter my results, so anything positive about people I don't like and criticism of people I do like is buried beneath stuff that affirms my bias.  In the end, it's a mess that makes it impossible for me to do a damn thing if I wish to be a responsible voter, so I just don't vote. This leaves the polls to those who vote with their hearts closed and wallets own."


This sounds like a grumpy old man more than anything.  >He said that if Obama is re-elected and imposes Obamacare and higher taxes, he may just have to let more of his remaining 7,000 workers go. He said he might even shut down the company.   That's just poor leadership.  If I don't win, I'm just taking my ball home so no one can play.  In other news, a new resort company was launched in a territory left unoccupied by Westgate Resorts.  Properties in Orlando and Branson selling for below market prices.  Plenty of well-trained workers are immediately available.


Yes.  Short and sweet.


"Then can you elaborate on what you meant by ""at the end of the day, fiat currencies are based on trust and accountability of the government""?  I would normally *agree* with that statement, but your use of it as a point of concern in your previous post appears to contradict what you just said."


Technically you owe 'self-employment' taxes not FICA taxes because they are imposed under a different law, SECA. However, since SE taxes are by design exactly the same rates as combining the two halves of FICA (employer and employee) it is quite reasonable to treat them as equivalent. SE taxes (and income tax also) are based on your net self-employment income, after deducting business expenses (but not non-business items like your home mortgage, dependent exemptions, etc which factor only into income tax). You owe SE Medicare tax 2.9% on all your SE net income (unless it is under $400) adjusted down by 7.65% to compensate for the fact that the employer half of FICA is excluded from gross income before the employee half is computed. You owe SE Social Security tax 12.4% on your adjusted SE net income unless and until the total income subject to FICA+SECA, i.e. your W-2 wages plus your adjusted SE net income, exceeds a cap that varies with inflation and is $127,200 for 2017. OTOH if FICA+SECA income exceeds $200k single or $250k joint you owe Additional Medicare tax 0.9% on the excess; if your W-2 income (alone) exceeds this limit your employer should withhold for it. However the Additional Medicare tax is part of 'Obamacare' (PPACA) which the new President and Republican majorities have said they will 'repeal and replace'; whether any such replacement will affect this for TY 2017 is at best uncertain at this point. Yes SE taxes are added to income tax on your 1040 with schedule SE attached (and schedule C/CEZ, E, F as applicable to your business) (virtually so if you file electronically) and paid together. You are supposed to pay at least 90% during the year by having withholding increased on your W-2 job, or by making 'quarterly' estimated payments (IRS quarters are not exactly quarters, but close), or any combination. But if this is your first year (which you don't say, but someone who had gone through this before probably wouldn't ask) you may get away with not paying during the year as normally required; specifically, if your W-2 withholding is not enough to cover your increased taxes for this year (because of the additional income and SE taxes) but it is enough to cover your tax for the previous year and your AGI that year wasn't over $150k, then there is a 'safe harbor' and you won't owe any form-2210 penalty -- although you must keep enough money on hand to pay the tax by April 15. But for your second year and onwards, your previous year now includes SE amounts and this doesn't help. Similar/related:


The mathematics make it easier to understand why this is the case. Using very bad shorthand, d1 and d2 are inputs into N(), and N() can be expressed as the probability of the expected value or the most probable value which in this case is the discounted expected stock price at expiration. d1 has two σs which is volatility in the numerator and one in the denominator.  Cancelling leaves one on top.  Calculating when it's infinity gives an N() of 1 for S and 0 for K, so the call is worth S and the put PV(K).  At 0 for σ, it's the opposite. More concise is that any mathematical moment be it variance which mostly influences volatility, mean which determines drift, or kurtosis which mostly influences skew are all uncertanties thus costs, so the higher they are, the higher the price of an option. Economically speaking, uncertainties are costs.  Since costs raise prices, and volatility is an uncertainty, volatility raises prices. It should be noted that BS assumes that prices are lognormally distributed.  They are not.  The closest distribution, currently, is the logVariance Gamma distribution.


"Assuming you are executing your order on a registered exchange by a registered broker, your order will be filled at the best bid price available.  This is because brokers are legally obliged to get the best price available. For example, if the market is showing a bid of 49.99 and an offer of 50.01 and you submit an order to offer 1000 shares at 5.00, your order will be filled at 49.99.  This is assuming the existing bids are for enough shares to fill all of the 1000 shares being offered.  If the share you are offering lacks the necessary liquidity to fill the order - i.e., the 49.99 bid is for less than 1000 shares and the ""level two"" bids are not enough to fill the remaining shares, then the order would be posted in the market as an offer to sell the balance (1000 - shares filled at 49.99 and those filled at level two bids) at 5.00.   I'm pretty sure that the scenario you are describing would be described as market manipulation and it would be against the law."


For the mechanices/terms of stock investing, I recommend Learn to Earn by Peter Lynch. I also like The Little Book of Common Sense Investing by John Bogle. It explains why indexing is the best choice for most people. For stock picking, a good intro is The Little Book of Value Investing by Chris Brown. And then there is The Intelligent Investor by Ben Graham. IMO, this is the bible of investing.


"Yes, this is a miscellaneous itemized deduction. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html For this to impact your taxes, you have to be itemizing deductions (have total deductions greater than standard deduction), and the total of all miscellaneous deductions needs to exceed the ""2% floor"" described in the IRS link above."


This problem is unfixable. Maybe the future holds a world where everyone will understand basic computing, how to use technology in a functional way and probably how programing works at a fundamental level and even then you may still have insufferable morons with too much power running business.


"Generally speaking, so-called ""hard assets"" (namely gold or foreign currency), durable goods, or property that produces income is valuable in a situation where a nation's money supply is threatened.  Gold is the universal hard asset. If you have access to a decent market, you can buy gold as bullion, coins and jewelry. Small amounts are valuable and easy to conceal. The problem with gold is that it is often marked up alot... I'm not sure how practical it is in a poor developing nation. A substitute would be a ""harder"" currency. The best choice depends on where you live. Candidates would be the US Dollar, Euro, Australian Dollar, Yen, etc. The right choice depends on you, the law in your jurisdiction, your means and other factors."


"One common rule of thumb: you can probably get 4% or better returns on your investments ('""typical market rate of return is 8%, derate to allow for inflation and off years). Figure out what kind of income you will want in retirement and divide by 0.04 to get the savings you need to accumulate to support that.   This doesn't allow for the fact that your needs are also going to increase with inflation; you can make a guess at that and use an inflated needs estimate.  Not sophisticated,  not precise, but it's a quick and dirty ballpark estimate. And sometimes it's surprisingly close to what a proper model would say."


Median household income is rising, but it is far below the level before the Great Recession, and even then, it was still stagnating. What this means is that the economy is running on stimulus, and unless median household income not only regains the level before the Great Recession but also rises at the rate before the 1970s, we are only heading for a future economic correction bigger that the Great Recession and most likely bigger than the Great Depression relatively in every way.


"Wow. It's clear I'm outnumbered.  When I'm approached with the question (and keep in mind, it's usually a couple data points and little else) ""I am getting started, with no other money do I fund a retirement or emergency account?"" I often suggest they put the funds into a Roth, in a money market fund, and treat it like an emergency account. If there's in fact an emergency, there's no penalty to withdraw the deposit and we're talking peanuts for interest today.  With no emergency, two things could happen: A) As the account grows beyond what's needed for emergencies, the excess can be invested long term. B) As the investor earns more money and saves up enough to have a true emergency account separate from the IRA, the Roth can be fully invested long term. The 'Bad idea' stems from the view that one is using their Roth as an emergency account, which of course is bad. The subtle difference is one has no retirement savings and puts their Emergency account into the otherwise unused Roth. As time passes, they've protected more funds to grow tax free.  In the end, the most important thing is whether the person is saving and not tapping for simple non-emergency things. I'd rather see a guy with $25K in his Roth and no other funds than to have $5000 in his bank account because every time it gets larger he feels compelled to spend it.  My answer to Matt is to treat it for now as you intended, low risk, CD or cash (money market)."


The snide answer is because they can. The psychological answer is that it drives loyalty. Because you have spent money on the membership, you are more likely to go back several times in the year in order to get your money's worth. Once you are in the store, impulsiveness can have its way with you, as you leave the store with a cart full of items that you didn't know you needed until you saw their low price.


Gonna have to disagree with you there. I've literally worked places where the boss talks about going on vacation to Europe all the time while most of the workforce are on food stamps because they aren't paid a fair wage. Gets pretty old struggling to eat while the ones at the top are being propped up by stolen wages. People talk about tax being theft when I'd argue it's the ones at the top taking an ever increasing piece of the pie who are stealing from everyone.


No, if you are a nonresident alien, you cannot deduct sales tax. You can only deduct state income tax. 1040NR Schedule A (which is page 3 of 1040NR) does not contain an option for sales tax, like 1040 Schedule A does. If you are a resident alien, then you can deduct sales tax.


"> is it worth the risk to give up ""guaranteed"" money welding to take the risk and run another location  I think not.  you're acting smarter now than 90%+ of college kids who are clueless and are going to end up flipping MBA burgers  welding is a very in-demand professional skill.  I read recently some earn up to $180,000 per year for mission critical welding like planes, space ships, some military applications, precision equipment etc  plus, there's no reason to commit to anything now.  you have to wait for the man in control to pass along, a new location to be selected and built and nearly open for business for you to think about it  stay the course.  you're doing great"


That's what patents are for. You're given a monopoly on your idea for a period of time. Now I think the period of time is too great, and I don't think patents should apply to software or living organisms, but that was their intended purpose.