"To be fair, Kodak has always been at the forefront of Digital photographic technology - this article seems to paint a picture of a company which has taken its foot off the accelerator, as opposed to a much more typical scenario of the company that *develops*  the technology almost never being the one which successfully *exploits*  it.  20 years ago Kodak invented the Photo-CD - ahead of its time in many ways, it basically flopped as the mass market was not really technically prepared to be able to use the format - it ended up gaining at least a fair level of acceptance among professional photographers...  in 1975 the first digital camera (as noted) was built using then-new CCD image sensor technology at Kodak Eastman by engineer Steven Sasson - a decade later Kodak scientists developed the world's first MegaPixel sensor, capable of producing a photo-quality 5x7"" print, in 1986...  the first camera to use Compact-Flash - a format still popular today - was the Kodak DC-25 in 1996...  in 2000 Kodak teamed up with Qualcomm to develop the core technologies for the creation of high-quality digital cinema systems - to give credit where it is due, Sony has largely been the driving force behind digital cinema for the last ten years...  in 2001 Kodak introduced the EasyShare digital camera and (in 2003) printer dock, allowing many households to finally enter the Digital age Kodak had promised a decade earlier with the Photo-CD - solid-state storage technology such as Compact-Flash by now basically replacing the CD as the preferred medium...  it also launched the first Digital Photo Frame around the same time - the ""Smart Frame"" licensed to Kodak by Weave Innovations, it could download images from Weave's online Story Box network, or you could load images onto it via Compact-Flash...  in 2005 Kodak launched the EasyShare Photo Printer 500, for use with virtually any brand of digital camera and recently introduced camera phones, and in 2006 it entered into partnership with Motorola for purposes of global cross-licensing and marketing around mobile imaging products - in 2007 it had a similar arrangement with Sony-Ericsson and in 2008 introduced the world's first 1.4micron 5 Megapixel sensor - developed specifically for mobile phones...  I think it is a mistake to categorise Kodak as a company which ""couldn't foresee a future in which film had no role in image capture"" or, as an early adopter of internet and online distribution one that is ""dependent on outdated distribution technologies"" and while it is true that ""consumer demand for Kodak's traditional products has evaporated"" it is also equally true that Kodak has expanded its interests far beyond those traditional products - from printing and long-lasting dye technologies, to photo frames and the development and patenting of OLED technology, through to the ""Easyshare"" philosophy of connecting cameras and phones and printers and even those frames to wirelessly share your digital photos - even to being involved in the Mars Rover project and developing CCD technology for Space - this is a company which may not be pulling in the major profits of days gone by,  but it is *not*  from a lack of foresight!  Either way, it is rather sad they became such a minor player in a market they helped create."


Do we need salespeople anymore?  Do I need someone who may or may not know their shit when I can research online with various sources?  Paying all these salespeople who come off as forcing a deal isn't what 2017 retail should be about.  Go in your BB.  Look at potential TV buyers ask questions.  Then listen to the salespeople.  We have Magnolia in BB around here and they actually know what they are talking about but most BB without them do not.


I don't think it has to be either-or. You can profitably invest inside the SIMPLE. (Though I wouldn't put in any more than the 1% it takes to get the match.) Let's look at some scenarios. These assume salary of $50k/year so the numbers are easy. You can fill in your own numbers to see the outcome, but the percentages will be the same. Let it sit in cash in the SIMPLE. You put in 1%, your employer matches with 1%. Your account balance is $1,000 (at the end of the year), plus a small amount of interest. Cost to you is $500 from your gross pay. 100% return on your contributions, yay! Likely 0-1% real returns going forward; you'll be lucky to keep up with inflation over the long term. Short term not so bad. Buy shares of index ETFs in the SIMPLE; let's assume the fee works out to 10%. You put in 1%, employer matches 1%. Your contributions are $500, fees are $100, your balance is $900 in ETFs. 80% instant return, and possible 6-7% real long term returns going forward. Buy funds in the SIMPLE; assume the load is 5%, management fee is 1% and you can find something that behaves like an index fund (so it is theoretically comparable to above). 1% from you, 1% from employer. Your contributions are $500, load fees are $50, your balance is $950. 90% instant return, and possible 5-6% real long term returns going forward (assuming the 6-7% real returns of equities are reduced by the 1% management fee). (You didn't list out the fees, and they're probably different for the different fund choices, so fill in your own details and do the math.) Invest outside the SIMPLE in the same ETFs or equivalent no load index funds; let's assume you can do this with no fees. You put in the same 1% of your gross (ignoring any difference that might come from paying FICA) into a self directed traditional IRA. At the end of the year the balance is $500. So deciding whether or not to take the match is a no brainer: take it. Deciding whether you should hold cash, ETFs, or (one of two types of) funds in your SIMPLE is a little trickier.


No. You will be penalized for taking your 25k out so you will only get like 18k out. Plus you can slowly pay back the credit cards but you can't build up the 401k as fast. You can also try a service that can negotiate the amount down for you (so you would only pay 16k or something).   Protect the 401k.


Symptoms of this condition vary from person to person. However, when quality of life is already affected and sufferers wish to go back to normal activities like running in popular trails like the Cherry Creek Path, perhaps it’s time to consider deep-tissue massage in Denver for pain relief.


"*A Libertarian's take on the above passage*:   As long as capitalism is actively working, businessman and profiteer are synonymous, and neither is bad; neither will be able to stay in business without benefitting society by keeping willing customers.  So where does the above ideal fall apart?  Monopoliesl. Adam Smith himself warned about natural monopolies (think Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt, yet I personally wouldn't call them demons).    Yet, I can't think of a single example of one of them today, yet we still have a massive number of demons obstructing capitalism.  **The real demons are government-sanctioned monopolies**.    * Giant barriers to entry, permits, certifications, extensive tax code, licenses, etc are only the beginning.    * A patent grants an automatic 20-year monopoly, for better or for worse.  For medicines, probably worse.  * Did you know you can patent a fucking *gene* now?  Government-supported.  *  Software and design patents are so broad it's trivial for any established firm to put a newcomer out of business simply through legal bullying.  * What if the people are unhappy with which defense contractor the gov't picks to do work in Iraq?  Is that capitalism?  * The government pretty much gave at&t a blank check to ""own"" the entire Internet backbone as long as they *promised* to invest the money and not dump it to their shareholders (*cough*).  * Cable TV trusts... Argh, corruption at its finest.  My family only has the ""choice"" of a single cable provider because of the gov't approved anti-competitive practices.  Zip code 18015.  Not exactly a remote area, either.  All the above examples are clear abuses of power, and none would disagree other than the direct beneficiaries.  Where does the Libertarian perspective diverge from the Keynesian one, then?  * Keynesians believe that we need rules in place to prevent companies from exploiting positions like these.  * Libertarians believe that the government should not have the power in the first place to enable these abuse methods to arise in the first place."


> and beautiful to see a lecherous industry taken down a peg.  This could be a view we feel about Amazon in the future. We just happen to hate the pharmaceutical ~~industry~~ business more right now.  edit: correction, pharmaceutical business, not industry. big difference. thanks /u/dakatabri


I looked into the investopedia one (all their videos are mazing), but that detail just was not clear to me, it also makes be wonder, if a country issues bonds to finance itself, what happens at maturity when literally millions of them  need to be paid? The income needs to have grown to that level or it defaults? Wouldn't all the countries default if that was the case, or are bonds being issued to being able to pay maturity of older bonds already?  (I'm freaking myself out by realizing this)


You could do a voluntary repossession. While a repossession never looks good on your credit a voluntary repossession is slightly better. A good friend of mine had a situation like this about 11 years ago.  She was in an accident didn't have replacement coverage insurance and was left with a large chunk of debt on a wrecked vehicle that she then rolled into a new car. In the end it came down to the simple fact that she could not afford a car loan on a vehicle that never was worth as much as she owed.  Since the car was worth less than the loan she really couldn't sell it to fix the problem. She called and arranged a voluntary repossession.  She stopped making payments, and parked the car till they came and picked it up.  (Took about 4 months and 20 phone calls from her for them to come get it.)  In the mean time, I purchased her a much older used but decent car for a couple thousand and she paid me back over the next year.  The total she paid me back was less than the money she would have paid in the 4 months it took them to come get the car.  In fact by the time they picked up the car she had paid back over half on the car I bought her. Yes the repossession did stay on her credit for seven years but during that time she was approved for a mortgage, cellphone plans, and credit cards etc.  Therefore I don't know that it did that much damage to her credit. When her car was sold at auction by the repo company it sold for much less than the loan amount. Technically she was on the hook for the remaining amount. The outstanding balance on the loan was then sold several times to several different collection agencies. Over the years since then she has gotten letters every now and then demanding she pay the amount off, she ignores these.  Most of these letters even included very favorable terms (full forgiveness for 20% of the amount)  At this point the statute time has run out on the debt so there is no recourse for anyone to collect from her. The statute time limit varies from state to state.  Some states it is as long as 10 years in others it is as short as 3 years. What this means is that counting from the date of the repossession, incurrance of debt, last payment, or agreement to pay whichever is later if the statute period has elapsed and the lender/collector has not filed a suit against you by the end of the period then they have effectively abandoned the debt and cannot collect.   Find out what that period of time is in your state.  If you can avoid the collection agencies till that period runs out you are scott free. You just have to make sure that you do not ever send them any money, or agree to pay them anything as this resets the calendar. If you do not want to wait for the calendar to run out if you wait long enough you will probably be offered favorable terms to pay only a fraction of the remaining amount, you just have to wait it out. Note, I normally would not endorse anyone not paying off their debts.  However sometimes it is necessary and it is for this type of situation that we have things like this and bankruptcy.


No. You have been purchasing protection from unexpected emergencies. You got the protection you paid for. That money has been spent. Some insurance plans do pay you something at the end. They do this by charging you additional money, and investing it. At the end, you get some of the profit n that investment, after the company has taken payments for managing this account. You can do better by setting up your own investments, separate from the insurance.


"> PayPal isn't even the largest, let alone the only processing company,  You could say the same about any public utility. (except the one largest one, technically)  > And Visa/Mastercard don't control the issuing of cards to individuals, banks do.  My point was that VISA/MasterCard have stepped in to block on the merchant side, in the case of WikiLeaks. Are you saying they are unable, *both* contractually *and* technically, to affect the consumer side?  But also by selectively quoting me you are (deliberately?) side-stepping what *actually happened* in the WikiLeaks case, to focus on the consumer side.  > No one is denying legal use of money and PayPal is nowhere close to having a monopoly.  You must buy things in different corners of the Internet than I do. The customer experience (to me) is that there is ""the store"" or you can pay with PayPal. Yes, ""the store"" is actually a payment processor but this is a quick slippery slope to ""what? You can just set up your own payment processor once they've all blocked your legal business""."


>[**Scheriton! Новый майнинг! Подарок 100 GHS! Торопись, стартуй вместе с нами! не упусти возможность!!! [3:06]**](http://youtu.be/5ky1UlGi-d8)  >>¦ Ссылка на регистрацию в проектах:  > [*^Финансовый ^Вектор*](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAOABF2yT1SjVqI7RK9aIUg) ^in ^People ^& ^Blogs  >*^3 ^views ^since ^Aug ^2017*  [^bot ^info](/r/youtubefactsbot/wiki/index)


according to the Options Industry council ( http://www.optionseducation.org/tools/faq/splits_mergers_spinoffs_bankruptcies.html ) put options  the shares (and therefore the options) may continue trading OTC but if the shares completely stop trading then: if the courts cancel the shares, whereby common shareholders receive nothing, calls will become worthless and an investor who exercises a put would receive 100 times the strike price and deliver nothing. The reason for this is that it is not the company whose shares you have the option on that you have a contract with but the counterparty who wrote the option. If the counterparty goes bankrupt then you may not get paid out (depending on assets available at liquidation - this is counterparty risk) but, unless the two are the same, if the company whose shares you have a put option on declares bankruptcy then you will get paid


There's a difference between a functioning financial system and the unregulated dysfunctional one we have now.  Apple can still make IPads if there's some reasonable usury law, and  if there's separation between government-insured deposits in banks and investment banks, as there was prior to Gramm-Leech-Bliley.  Apple could also operate if there were some reasonable regulations on derivatives and all those other obscure financial Instruments.  Apple could also operate if commodities markets weren't wide open to speculation.  Apple could also operate if there were some reasonable regulations in place to stop vulture capitalists from cracking working companies open like ripe nuts, extracting all the value, and then discarding the bankrupt husks.  None of this stops an actual business from running.


I remember when humorist Dave Barry discussed some guy who invented the software that guaranteed that no two airline passengers ever paid the same fare.  As with much of Dave Barry's stuff, it has way too much truth in it. Research when the best time frame to buy your tickets is.  It varies wildly with time of day, time of week, time of year, whether the plane is half-empty or not, which airline you're traveling on, etc. Beyond that, if you can rack up frequent flier miles fast enough, you maybe can offset the cost of one of those trips.


Elders are there because they are old, not because of selfishness. So?   You don't see them generating massive wars, child prostitution or torture either. By the way, during the race to space the first one to invent the cellphone, get a satelite into space, a man into space, a woman into space was the Soviet Union. Was that the selfishness model too?


"A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a ""margin-call"". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations."


Yes.  Have been a Product Manager.  Key difference is: CEO has responsibility for Capital Allocation.  Product Manager doesn't do that.  Product Manager has a boss, who is an FTE of the same company, reviewing their expenses.  Has to ask permission for a day off.  All sort of other things.  Not the same.    It's a stupid metaphor, designed to inflate the ego of the target.  And the targets love it.


I believe it.  I'm in IT in a company that I've been trying desperately to push to go 100% digital.  We're being cockblocked by several board members and one of our accreditation firms is saying it's a no-go.  The accreditation firm still makes us respond to letters by filling them in with a typewriter.  It's not on special paper or even any sort of letterhead.  It doesn't make any sense.  Our HR director that was fired several months ago was solely advertising job openings in newspapers.  They were hiring people that don't even know how to copy and paste or add two cells in excel.  Then they wonder why important billing gets fucked up after these people handle those documents.


"I have a mildly exceptional relationship with Social Security. When I was eight years old my father died, leaving nothing but a mountain of debt and an apartment full of trinkets. My mother received Social Security Survivor benefits checks in lieu of his child support payments, which kept me fed and clothed until I graduated high school. She also worked, sometimes multiple jobs, and did what she could to provide health and stability. I consider myself privileged even though we were often financially ... Disadvantaged.   When I graduated high school and the checks from Social Security ended, I went on to college, financed a good portion of it, but also received a lot of scholarships and aid along the way.   As I near 30, I still wear enough student debt equivalent of a new, mid-class sedan, but I am financially solvent, work a good job, and can afford my own rent, child support, actual child costs, and regular living expenses. While I can still ferret away some of my income into my 401(k), I still need to save for my child's education. I still need to save up for a home. I still have to save up for – and often spend for -  a more immediate future.  I do not anticipate Social Security being available to  in any meaningful sense of the word, when I retire. But I ""already got mine"" in a sense, and I consider my SSI deductions to be contributions back into the system that kept me fed, kept me healthy, an kept me teachable.   I preferred the notion that Social Security didn't become available until someone had exceeded their life expectancy. I preferred the notion that Social Security should never need to be used by anyone. I would much rather the safetynet never be depended upon. But the contributions were much appreciated all the same, and I can now appreciate how those contributions need to be a bit more randomized, more spread across the populace.   I am pretty sure this is enough to have people shrieking a me that I'm done kind of socialist. All I know is that I miss that 4% from my paychecks (and I'll miss the full 6% when the ""holiday"" ends) but that it might help someone thrive, like it did me.   My only regret is that the safety net is squandered on old people."


Фирмата предоставя най-добрите технологии и други електронни услуги.Ако искате да закупите онлайн, тогава можете да посетите уеб сайта на компанията. Нашата компания е известна в България. Основно, ние предоставяме на банката за захранване и USB банки мощност дават на вашия телефон някои допълнителни сок в движение. Можете да ги намерите във всякакви форми и размери от различни търговци на дребно, но защо да не създавате свои собствени. Изработка на 3D Power bank е полезно нещо.Ако имате iPhone, смартфон, вие вероятно знаете, че резервното копие на батерията трае около 1 час.Направете своя собствена банка за захранване, за да зареждате телефона си в движение. 3D публикувана Power Bank. Четирите клетки предлагат 16 000 mAh, които трябва да излязат с някои такси. Спираловидният продукт изглежда съвсем правилно и извор в малко по-евтино от закупуване на банка за захранване с подобна възможност.


"> Is your time frame any longer than intraday? I imagine you wouldn't want to carry that risk overnight if you're a broker or selling a route..  Most brokers these days are executing in an agent capacity, so they're never holding the risk. They execute what they can, the customer keeps what they can't.   > So, say for instance you join a bid a few levels down, you aren't really get filled, you start hitting the offer and eventually you realize you're competing with someone for the shares offered, so you take out the price level and bid on all the exchanges so that you're first on the bid at that level, then repeat until someone that can match your appetite starts to fill you on the bid?  Lifting* the offer (hit bids, lift offers). And I suppose that's a stategy, albeit a somewhat simple one. Passive routing strategies differ from firm to firm and algo to algo. What is your customer going to think if you bid up a new price level only for the stock to rally completely away from it?  > Right, so say you need 100k shares, there are 10k offered at 9.98, 25k offered at 9.99, and 65k at 10.00, you might just enter an intermarket sweep order of 100k @ 10 limit and hope that you can get most of the shares off before everyone can cancel? I imagine there has to be a lot of bidding it up to attract sellers and then letting people take out your bids all day...  ""Bidding it up to attract sellers"" sounds an awful lot like [spoofing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoofing_(finance\)), just a heads up. Sure though, if you want to tighten a spread or create new levels with aggressive passive liquidity, that is a strategy. The same caveats as I mentioned above apply.  Anyway, if market impact isn't an issue for the customer, sure, take liquidity until you're filled. Don't forget about getting good size done in the opening and closing auctions (MOO/MOC). If you're too passive you risk the market moving away from you and pissing off the customer. If you're too aggressive you risk moving the market too much and pissing off the customer."


This actually makes sense, although it's about twice as complicated as any concept I've seen laid out in a business, rather than economics context, so it's no surprise that people (as you say) get it wrong.   Also, it emphasizes that corporate taxation is not exactly an easy thing to deal with.


Apart from legal requirements to have insurance, e.g. 3rd party car that other answers have covered well. We can think of all insurance as protecting our “usable” income, as we can use cashflow to pay the costs of a loan to replace whatever we decided not to insure.    So for example, if I don’t insure my house contents, I can replace them on my credit card if needed. Therefore we are paying for insurance out of our income, so as to protect our income, knowing that the cost of the protection is on average more than the benefit we get from it. But we all know that having an income of $50K is less than double the value of having an income of $25K.   (E.g. being able to eat and remain warm is more important to us then being able to go on anther holiday.)  This is way when someone has a higher income; it requires more money to effect their actions. Loss aversion is another factor; we are people not logistical machines.


I'd start with learning how to read a company's financial statement and their annual report. I would recommend reading the following: All three books are cheap and readily available. If you really want to enhance your learning, grab a few annual reports from companies' websites to reference as you learn about different aspects of the financial statements.


Are you sure that's what it means? Also why does anyone care if it's EVER been given antibiotics ?   You have drugs in your tap water and your worried if an animal has ever in it's life been sick and given antibiotics. That's mindbogglingly retarded.


Actually I think direct financial kickbacks are a minor factor in this problem. In most cases a physician makes nothing from the writing of a prescription. What does influence a physician is the never ending attempts of pharmaceutical companies to 'educate' them. This goes far beyond simple drug reps visits given that most medical conventions and a goodly number of 'continuing education' events are manufacturer sponsored. There are many hidden benefits that flow from this tactic, and few could be expressed as 'direct payoffs'. It's a race between professional ethics and marketing tactics, and at least in the USA ethics are often left in the dust.  There is also another factor which may have even greater weight - the demand from patients, one's medical education/indoctrination and society in general to ''do something''. The value of literally doing nothing isn't emphasized enough in medical education; nor is it appreciated by the general public. Sometimes ''doing something'' is fairly benign. Wave your hands, prescribe a pill or engage in alternative/voodoo medicine. Most diseases will get better on their own despite the doctor's best efforts.   Once more this situation is at its worst in the USA. American physicians are notoriously aggressive and are very prone to overtreatment. Given the long standing and well documented failure of the American system to measure up in terms of outcomes compared to other countries this aggression has nothing but negative empirical support in its favour. The dismal performance of US  medicine isn't only because of its gross inequalities. There are other factors at play, and overtreatment is one. You won't necessarily get *better* treatment because you are either wealthy or have wonderful insurance, but you will definitely get *more* treatment.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-21/ecb-sees-trump-administration-as-key-risk-to-global-economy) reduced by 68%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The European Central Bank cited the government of U.S. President Donald Trump as a key reason why the risks to the global economy remain tilted to the downside.  > &quot;Since the U.S. election, pressures for more inward-looking policies have risen,&quot; it said.  > &quot;In particular, there is significant policy uncertainty surrounding the intentions of the new U.S. administration regarding fiscal and, especially, trade policies, the latter entailing potentially significant negative effects on the global economy.""   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6imebn/ecb_sees_trump_administration_as_key_risk_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~149467 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*: **policy**^#1 **U.S.**^#2 **economy**^#3 **global**^#4 **ECB**^#5"


Which is why it's *ludicrous* that they're doing so poorly.  They were perfectly positioned to move to the online world and dominate.  They've got experience running catalogue-based sales... but their website is mediocre and they've failed to market it properly.  Unlike pure-online stores, they have a store customers can go to for service/returns and so they can shop with confidence.   Sears could've had it in the bag.


Patience is the key here, I hate to say! There are five factors to FICO credit scores:  Payment history is adversely affected by late payments - so always pay on time, otherwise your report will be haunted for seven years! 👻 Credit utilization has to do with how much of your available credit is currently in use - lower is better, but 0% isn't good either because they want to see that you're using credit. 10% or less is a good goal, and try to keep any single card balance to 30% or less when its statement close date rolls around. Credit history is based on the average age of all of your accounts, cards or otherwise, the older the better. Don't close either of your other cards (because that would cause your average account age to fall), and make sure to use the store card at least occasionally, because lenders sometimes decide to close unused lines of credit. Credit mix has to do with the different types of credit you hold and is why your bank's website suggested taking out a loan. It also has to do with the number of accounts overall; I've never found a satisfactory answer for what the sweet spot is, but I suspect it's in the 6-12 range? You wouldn't want to get several new ones at the same time because... New credit is affected by the credit inquiries (hard pulls) that occur when you apply for new cards or loans. Inquiries stay on your report for two years before falling off. This is almost certainly where your score dropped. You also mentioned not knowing if some hospital bills are still affecting your score. You'll want to review your credit reports and find out, plus checking your credit reports regularly is a really great habit to get into because errors (and fraud) can and do happen. There are three credit reporting agencies: Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion, and you'll want to review all three. You can get one free report from each of them every year: https://www.usa.gov/credit-reports It can take a couple of months for a new credit account to show up on your credit report, so your score should recover and go even higher once that happens. Sit tight, as annoying as that is!


"It's interesting that after reading this article you would make an assumption about where the stock market is headed. This article specifically says that the only way to know that is to know where interest rates are going, and for that we can guarantee no one knows.   The takeaway is this: ""The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage. The products or services that have wide, sustainable moats around them are the ones that deliver rewards to investors.""  Intelligent investors should have no concern about what ""the market"" is doing. Analyze businesses, not the stock market."


Let's break this into two parts, the future value of the initial deposit, and the future value of the payments: D(1 + i)n For the future value of the payments A((1+i)n-1) / i) Adding those two formulas together will give you the amount of money that should be in your account at the end.  Remember to make the appropriate adjustments to interest rate and the number of payments.  Divide the interest rate by the number of periods in a year (four for quarterly, twelve for monthly), and multiply the number of periods (p) by the same number.  Of course the monthly deposit amount will need to be in the same terms. See also: Annuity (finance theory) - Wikipedia


I suppose you think that considering women and Africans as chattel is an admirable trait, or thinking of Native Americans as only fit for slaughter. Maybe you likewise agree with most of our Founding Fathers that the only people fit to vote are male white property owners. They held plenty of opinions that we would consider beyond the pale of respectable discourse today; that does not diminish their accomplishments, but it does remind us that idolatry is not a useful way to view history.


"As of right now, I believe the ""ground chuck"" looks pretty much exactly the same as how ground chuck beef looks now. What's really important is that Memphis Meats understands that taste is EVERYTHING. If it doesn't taste right, or doesn't at least taste damn good, then it's DOA."


Join one of the largest selections of naughty singles in the UK. Benaughty.com is a website for those seeking a more adventurous dating experience. Browse naughty photos, or chat and flirt online with hot girls and guys. Create a profile for free and start being naughty today.


So long story short, you predict Amazon will build up customer loyalty by treating them well, then screw them over when the time is right?   Only the dumb customers will stick with them then. If they try to screw consumers over, it will just create favorable conditions for an outsider to easily and quickly win their business. Therefore I doubt it will ever happen.


I think one of their problems is that so many things have reached such a high level there's no motivation to pay a premium for Sony anymore. Unless you have two TVs side by side I can't tell the difference. The cheap one will look really good to me, and if a higher end Sony was beside it, it would look even better. I won't buy an MP3 player for the sound or build quality, they're all good enough for me. I have an iPod touch and using it as an MP3 player was very low on the priority list.


"I always looked at it that ""business class"" is the standard class. If you want to save money for your personal travels then you can fly economy, if you want luxury you can fly first. But if your company wants you to travel, they shouldn't force you to fly less than business.  Economy is the loss of basic essentials (space, meals, drinks) in return for a lower price. It's not the way it should be as standard."


My take is that he can avoid a big tax hit by leaving it as and giving   the untouched fund to the heirs. 100% correct. By withdrawing now he'll be subjected to the income tax on the gains. Since his gains are almost the whole value of the account, he'll actually find himself in the highest bracket, not the lowest as Joe suggests. Not only that, but his SS income will become taxable as well. Capital gains are included in the AGI. By leaving as is, the heirs will get stepped up basis, and the whole 700K will not be taxed (its below the estate tax threshold, and the basis for the heirs will be the value at death).


Your best approach is to assess rent levels in your local area for offices of a similar size. You need to take into account all the usuals - amenities, parking, etc, just as if your home-office was provided by a third-party. Get your $/sq ft and work out the monthly amount. With this figure, you need to then work out what % of it you can charge. If the space is used exclusively for the business, charge 100%. If it's used about half the time, charge 50%, etc. I would strongly advise you to do two things - 1. make sure your accountant and your attorney help you get this squared away. 2. document everything about how you arrived at the cost. Nothing fancy, but dates, realtors, addresses, $/sq foot. A simple table will do. By doing these two things, if the IRS should come around to chat, you should be covered.


"I've received letters notifying me of data breaches in the past.  In the end, I've never signed up for the offered protection service, figuring if ""they"" can hack Target or ADP or the IRS, they can hack anybody, like...  Equifax. And now Equifax has been hacked. My family's Social Security Numbers were stolen from a hospital database.  I think that information, plus public information was used to gain further data from the IRS FAFSA tool.  (we got a letter from the IRS).  Ultimately, fraudsters used whatever data they had to file a tax return with the IRS and with the Cali FTB (we don't and never have lived in California).  We got letters from both, and managed to stop the fraud before it really impacted us...other than having to file a paper tax form this past tax season. Anyway...  in a world where Equifax gets hacked:  the only solution is: I don't bother with the crazy password schemes you talk about...  I have a few different passwords I use, but most my investment accounts use the same username and password. It's all about risk.  Bruce Schneier says the same thing.  The amount to spend on security should depend on what you're trying to protect.  I don't care much if somebody gets into my google account, because I have a google account just because I have to.  I barely use it at all.  Similarly my yahoo account.  My yahoo account uses my ""insecure password"", and my investment accounts use my ""secure password"".  Credit Card info?  Meh.  Unless they get into the credit card company database, which undoubtedly has my Social Security Number, it's not that big of a deal.  Yeah, they can make fraudulent charges, but there are legal protections, so in theory I can't be out any money. So think this way:  what's the risk, and what's the appropriate level of effort to take to mitigate that risk."


This or you can know someone. Without a 4.0 from a business school you're going to have a tough time getting an interview.   Also, get your MBA from a top 25 school. The analysts at these companies make $50,000-$65,000 and work 80-100 hours a week. Not worth it. MBA grads will start around $100,000 with the same hours.


The new payment on $172,500 3.5% 15yr would be $1233/mo compared to $1614/mo now (26 bi-weekly payments, but 12 months.) Assuming the difference is nearly all interest, the savings is closer to $285/mo than 381.  Note, actual savings are different, the actual savings is based on the difference in interest over the year. Since the term will be changing, I'm looking at cash flow, which is the larger concern, in my opinion.    $17,000/285 is 60 months. This is your break even time to payoff the $17000, higher actually since the $17K will be accruing interest.  I didn't see any mention of closing costs or other expenses. Obviously, that has to be factored in as well.  I think the trade off isn't worth it. As the other answers suggest, the rental is too close to break-even now. The cost of repairs on two houses is an issue. In my opinion, it's less about the expenses being huge than being random. You don't get billed $35/mo to paint the house. You wake up, see too many spots showing wear, and get a $3000 bill. Same for all high cost items, Roof, HVAC, etc.  You are permitted to borrow 50% of your 401(k) balance, so you have $64K in the account. I don't know your age, this might be great or a bit low. I'd keep saving, not putting any extra toward either mortgage until I had an emergency fund that was more than sufficient. The fund needs to handle the unexpected expenses as well as the months of unemployment. In general, 6-9 months of these expenses is recommended.  To be clear, there are times a 401(k) loan can make sense. I just don't see that it does now.  (Disclaimer - when analyzing refis there are two approaches. The first is to look at interest saved. After all, interest is the expense, principal payments go right to your balance sheet. The second is purely cash flow, in which case one might justify a higher rate, and going from 15 to 30 years, but freeing up cash that can be better deployed. Even though the rate goes up say 1/2%, the payment drops due to the term. Take that savings and deposit to a matched 401(k) and the numbers may work out very well.  I offer this to explain why the math above may not be consistent with other answers of mine.)


This is an interesting discussion. I've never been a part of a large corporation, but aren't these functions good for morale. If they gripe about saving money, and then cut all the employees functions becoming the most uncaring and dispassionate company in all of companydom, wouldn't that also kill productivity?


It might be reasonable, or it might be their error.   Right now you have their assertion that they overpaid.   So the range of outcomes runs from them collecting $0 to the full amount they assert.  You are in a negotiation now, get your mind in this game. If they demonstrate to your satisfaction that they overpaid, you should pay.  If the reason is not convincing, well, can they collect it?  If there is a final pay then thats their last shot to do it internally.  Is the amount in question more than the pay? When you were hired you may have authorized them to make correction withdrawls from direct deposit.  I don't know if your new orders to your bank override this.  If this is a risk ask the bank for a new account and close this one.    Did you already sign exit interview paperwork that may ask you to do certain things like not work for a direct competitor, release and hold them harmless, or not discuss the company publicly? If not then  there are two negotiations in play and it is fair to ask, in condideration for your signature, to settle any potential overpayment claims for $0 or as the money now stands.  Do they do this to other people who leave?


"The (interest bearing) mortgage of £300,000 would be SIX times your salary. That's a ratio that was found in Japan, and (I believe) was a main reason for their depressed economy of the past two decades. Even with an interest free loan of nearly £150,000, it would be a huge gamble for someone of your income. Essentially, you are gambling that 1) your income will ""grow"" into your mortgage, (and that's counting income from renting part of the property) or 2) the house will rise in value, thereby bailing you out. That was a gamble that many Americans took, and lost, in the past ten years. If you do this, you may be one of the ""lucky"" ones, you may not, but you are really taking your future in your hands.  The American rule of thumb is that your mortgage should be no more than 2.5-3 times income, that is maybe up to £150,000. Perhaps £200,000 if £50,000 or so of that is interest free. But not to the numbers you're talking about."


How can foreign companies open Liaison/Project/Branch office in India?   Foreign company can set up Liaison/ Branch Offces in India after obtaining approval from Reserve Bank of India. Reserve Bank of India has given general permission to foreign companies to establish Project Offces in India subject to certain conditions. A Liaison office can carry on only liaison activities, i.e. it can act as a channel of communication between Head Office abroad and parties in India. It is not allowed to undertake any business activity in India and cannot earn any income in India. Expenses of such offices are to be met entirely through inward remittances of foreign exchange from the Head Office abroad. The role of such office is therefore, limited to collecting information about possible market opportunities and providing information about the Company and its products to the prospective Indian customers. Know More @ M+V


Rates are a complex field. I will assume that context wise you are talking about rates for a individual saver quantities. The two rates you are asking about are personal bank saving account and exchange traded bonds. The points you want to compare between them are. In general, a bond is what we called a fixed rate instrument. This means that for the life of the product, it will yield a fixed percentage of its face value at a regular period. Baring any extreme circumstances (such as bankruptcy), no external factors will change the payment schedule on a bond. Conversely, by placing your money into a bank, you will accrue interest rate at some value related to some published interest rate. For example, if tomorrow, the Treasury decided to try to stimulate the economy, they could slash the interest rate, this would directly affect the rate at which your savings account would accrue interest. In general, a bond has a maturity date, where the capital is finally released from the bond. Until such date, you cannot access the money directly (you can however sell the bond, but it would likely be at a discounted value). Therefore, in general, you cannot get access to the money whenever you want it. As for a saving account, normally one can access the funds instantly, if not within a few days. This seems to the reason people seem to be focusing on. For each bond, the issuer of the bond is obligated to pay you the holder of the bond fixed payments at an interval, plus the capital at the maturity. However, obligation does not mean guarantee. If the issuer, is unable to make the payments, they may go into bankruptcy to avoid paying you. There are companies setup to advise people on the likelihood of each bond issuer on their ability to honour their debts. For example Standard and Poor issues a rating which goes all the way up to AAA for bonds. Recently, many sovereign countries have lost their AAA rating from S&P. Meaning that S&P feel that the possibility of these countries going bankrupt is non-zero. Conversely, banks may also be unable to give you your money when requested. In the US, the reserve requirements means that at any one time it only holds 10% of the money it owes to its customers. This can mean that if every customer turns up to the bank to demand their money, that bank would be unable to pay. This situation is called a Bank Run. During such a situation, the bank would likely collapse and default. In many modern countries, the government put into place guarantees on the first xxx amount in saving accounts, but otherwise, your savings could be lost. There are many complex reasons to choose one instrument over another (including some I have avoided), even if at the outset, they could appear to have the same rates.


I would strongly, strongly advise against it. Others here are answering the question of, having decided to invest in property, how one ought to ensure that one invests in the right property. What has not really been discussed here is the issue of diversification. There are a number of serious risks to property investment. In fact, it is one of the riskiest types of investment. You face more of almost every type of risk in property than maybe any other asset class. It is one thing to take on those risks as part of a diverse portfolio including other asset classes. It is quite another - extremely irresponsible - thing to take on those risks as your sole investment, when your portfolio is in its infancy. So no, do not invest in property when you lack any other investments. Absolutely not.


No one can afford homes anymore. That's the real issue. Purchasing power. The next generations cant afford to buy a home because they don't make enough money and the boomers have everything already. Until the boomer generation goes away, these problems will continue to get worse.  Most people can't afford $450k new construction and have money left to live on.


I was in the next town over and we weren't too familiar with the restaurants and decided to eat at BWW for maybe the second or third time in years. Frankly, the food, especially the wings, were mediocre at best. The catch is, if you're young, there are literally dozens of better places like bars to get wings. If I wanted wings and a sports bar atmosphere, I'd go to a local pub.


IANAL (and nor am I an accountant), so I can't give a definitive answer as to legality, but AFAIK, what you propose is legal.  But what's the benefit?  Avoiding corporation tax? It's simplistic – and costly – to think in terms like that. You need to run the numbers for different scenarios, and make a plan.  You can end up ahead of the game precisely by choosing to pay some corporate tax each year. Really! Read on. One of the many reasons that self-employed Canadians sometimes opt for a corporate structure over being a sole proprietor is to be able to not pay themselves everything the company earns each year. This is especially important when a business has some really good years, and others, meh.  Using the corporation to retain earnings can be more tax effective. Example: Imagine your corporation earns, net of accounting & other non-tax costs except for your draws, $120,000/year for 5 years, and $0 in year 6.  Assume the business is your only source of income for those 6 years.  Would you rather: Pay yourself the entire $120,000/yr in years 1-5, then $0 in year 6 (living off personal savings you hopefully accumulated earlier), subjecting the $120,000/yr to personal income tax only, leaving nothing in the corporation to be taxed? Very roughly speaking, assuming tax rates & brackets are level from year to year, and using this calculator (which simplifies certain things), then in Ontario, then you'd net ~$84,878/yr for years 1-5, and $0 in year 6. Overall, you realized $424,390. Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600,000 was 29.26%. vs. Pay yourself only $100,000/yr in years 1-5, leaving $20,000/yr subject to corporation tax. Assuming a 15.5% combined federal/provincial corporate tax rate (includes the small business deduction), then the corp. is left with $16,900/yr to add to retained earnings in years 1-5. In year 6, the corp. has $84,500 in retained earnings to be distributed to you, the sole owner, as a dividend (of the non-eligible kind.) Again, very roughly speaking, you'd personally net $73,560/yr in years 1-5, and then on the $84,500 dividend in year 6, you'd net $73,658.  Overall, you realized $441,458.  Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600K was 26.42%. i.e. Scenario 2, which spreads the income out over the six years, saved 2.84% in tax, or $14,400. Smoothing out your income is also a prudent thing to do. Would you rather find yourself in year 6, having no clients and no revenue, with nothing left to draw on? Or would you rather the company had saved money from the good years to pay you in the lean one?


> sugar input costs higher by about $1 billion above **government support prices** ...Many of those companies, who oppose the **government's support** for the sugar industry  I can't explain details, but USA has been charged more for sugar than anyone in the world for decades.  it's this **government support** crap


Lets assume you put the max of 5000 per year in a Roth IRA.  You have your home and all other debt paid off, and your investment earns 10%, a few points below the market average.  You will have $822,470 at 65, 1005K at 67 that you can draw on tax free.  It is a fairly tidy sum and should keep you from working as the greeter in WalMart. This kind of return should be expected from most mutual funds, and you could invest some time in reading about how to pick good returning funds.  An index fund, which shadows a market index, should have that kind of return.  And yes that is 10% per year.  In investing it is about momentum. I too write software for a living, and would suggest you should be able to contribute about double that amount and still be comfortable.  That would set you up for a pretty comfortable post-work life style. You understand the value of building passive income.  Traditionally that is accomplished through dividends of reliable companies, but are now accomplished a variety of ways.  Keep in mind the way you are asking this question opens you to many scams.


Isn't Big Mac sauce just a 1000 island dressing or something   edit: heres the recipe  1/2 cup mayonnaise. 2 tablespoons French dressing. 4 teaspoons sweet pickle relish. 1 tablespoon finely minced white onion. 1 teaspoon white vinegar. 1 teaspoon sugar. 1/8 teaspoon salt.


"not sure how you could be more wrong.  my favorite part by far was the fedora worthy ""nonsense, and unworthy of further comment."" definitely followed by a little tip, wasn't it?  you've missed every single point i bought up. i'm not acting like investors are fat cats - you're borderline illiterate, and spend too much time on r/libertarian or watching fox news, so you jumped at the opportunity to straw man ""a dang pretentious librul."" what i said was ""relatively elite,"" exactly because i'm not saying they're cigar chomping pigs- they have a lot of money relative to most of the population.  i simply don't care enough to try to go point by point. my whole point was that the comment i was replying to represents the style of mainstream economics that misrepresents basic phenomena, and your reply was just a doubling down.  ""they are rational"" - lol literally choke on your MLP figurine. you've no idea what you're talking about. your other posts indicate a greater ignorance - you don't know how to watch the vix, or why your options move the way they do? really shocking /s"


Summarized article: New residential construction rose 15% in September while building permits for private housing construction grew 11.6%, significantly beating analysts' expectations.  While housing starts are still about 60% below the peak reached in January 2006, the rate has picked up at its fastest pace since July 2008.   A pickup in home sales combined with the Fed's efforts to lower borrowing costs has helped bolster homebuilder sentiment to a 6-year high this month.  * For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit


Now today, Lawn Curbing has become more famous well known as it comes in different color, shapes, and stamps to give an alternate look. With such an innovative procedure, it is presently workable for homeowners to make a phenomenal take a swan at the front or back yard. Curbing is most important for your home an extraordinary look and adds additional interest to the outside. Additionally, it spares time on weeding, cutting and edging.


Since no one else answered this part of your question yet:  Checking your own credit score or report will not affect it in any way.  It only hurts you when someone looks it up to run a credit check at your request for the purpose of possibly getting a loan, for example a car dealership. This only hurts it a tiny bit, and is not worth worrying about unless you are going to 20 different car dealerships who each do a check. However, it is a good idea not to let them run your credit until you are seriously ready to buy a car. In fact, it is better to just get financing somewhere else and not let them run it at all.


Buffett is a value investor. His goal is to buy good companies when the market is overly worried and prices them below intrinsic value. When the market is highly priced it is much more difficult for him to find things that he thinks are at an attractive price. When people are very worried and the market has crashed, stocks are then priced below their intrinsic value and he can use the cash he keeps in the company to make attractive purchases. Remember that Buffett is not concerned with the ups and downs of the price of Berkshire Hathaway stock, he is concerned with the economic value of the assets that the company owns. So if all stock prices crash and he can buy things that are at bargain prices, he is happy no matter what Berkshire stock price does in the short run. One consequence of value investing is that because you are buying assets at bargain prices, the total value of your assets drops less in a bear market than the highly priced stuff that drives the major indexes.


I live in Oklahoma which most major jobs here do rely on the oil industry.  What bugs me is this notion you are stating. For every non American with a job that is a American without period. Second most jobs do give two shits not in my state anyway about education they want to see how little they can pay you.     I don't care if the stats say it is 4% I care about facts and the fact is most are under employeed or have stop looking for work. So you think I am stupid for not wanting use my education to work for slave wages. Why two months because all employers look at your last wages here and I was over qualified apparently because I am use to making way more like most Americans who are smart.


> They have enough nationwide 800 MHz spectrum for good voice and LTE coverage and penetration, and they have enough 2.5 GHz spectrum to outdo every other carrier in capacity.   I didn't know this (non-American). Fair call.   > The argument about tower count is largely irrelevant with today's mobile data demand.  In the long run sure. In the short term I'm going to disagree with you. If I ask you to deploy 800mhz over a city and 2600mhz over a city for coverage purposes. You'll definitely have the first project done before the first (all else equal). Its like acceleration vs top-speed; the 800mhz car gets you to acceptable speed faster than the 2600mhz stuff, but in the long run getting to their top speeds take both players the same amount of time   > The argument about accuracy is also ridiculous considering the performance at the edge-of-cell and in the sector nulls; you're going to need multiple sites regardless if you want acceptable coverage for everyone.   I don't think it is ridiculous when you consider the planning required for a small city especially, if you have to do Greenfield deployments. But whatever I agree with your net conclusion T-Mobile is screwed. Sprint not so much.


In a healthy society automation should be welcomed.  Because ideally everything should be automated except leisure.  But in our society we cannot share.  We are greedy.  In our society automation instead of the joy that it should be, causes grief.  The proceeds of automation should go to every human equally and not exclusively to the owners of the machines.  It's because only the owners benefit that there is so much strife right now.  In the end, we don't need that many machines and there will be very very few owners of the few machines.  What about the rest?  Should they just lay down and die?  If that's the attitude of the machine owners toward the population, then there is no reason to be peaceful and to just die peacefully.


According to https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchandise, If you didn't order the merchandise, then you don't have to pay for it. I would talk to your doctor about this order and clear it up. I would only suggest paying for the product if you feel it will hurt your relationship with your doctor if you don't pay for it.


I have done something similar to this myself.  What you are suggesting is a sound theory and it works.  The issues are (which is why it's the reason not everyone does it) : The initial cost is great, many people in their 20s or 30s cannot afford their own home, let alone buy second properties.  The time to build up a portfolio is very long term and is best for a pension investment.  it's often not best for diversification - you've heard not putting all your eggs in one basket? With property deposits, you need to put a lot of eggs in to make it work and this can leave you vulnerable. there can be lots of work involved. Renovating is a huge pain and cost and you've already mentioned tennants not paying!  unlike a bank account or bonds/shares etc.  You cannot get to your savings/investments quickly if you need to (or find an opportunity)  But after considering these and deciding the plunge is worth it, I would say go for it, be a good landlord, with good quality property and you'll have a great nest egg.  If you try just one and see how it goes, with population increase, in a safe (respectable) location, the value of the investment should continue to rise (which it doesn't in a bank) and you can expect a 5%+ rental return (very hard to find in cash account!)  Hope it goes well!


No.  If you have to ignore a price spike, obviously its value is not constant.  Gold is a commodity, just like every other commodity.


At the other end of the spectrum is the VICEX fund.  it invests in industries such as tobacco, gaming, defense/weapons, liquor and other companies whose products or services are widely considered not to be socially responsible


I have no problem with what ford is doing. I have a problem with the attitude in the comment  > Those companies that are locked into doing so by huge numbers of _legacy employees_ and retirees to whom they still have legal obligations (the automakers, some airlines, etc.) need to figure out how to dump these liabilities ASAP. Chinese, Brazilian, European and other global competitors...  It seems to forget that skilled workers are what generate the profits. The company is not its own entity. The company doesn't use workers like disposable fuel where any warm body will do.


"Be careful when you say ""insurance"" -- these things are service plans. They provide you with specific services and discounts in exchange for a pre-determined fee. So you pay $299/year and get a will, telephone advice and similar services. Insurance, like liability insurance, guarantees compensation for specific losses.  You can sometimes pay attorneys a retainer and get some discounts on services. This is only cost effective if you have enough work. These plans might make sense, depending on what you need."


"The mix how how you present this feels contradictory. You would pull a 'major' portion from the emergency fund (EF), but at the same time, you'll replace it in a month.  The first bit scares me, this is not the purpose of that fund, and the issue is the aspect of money that's psychological. Money is a habit, if you justify this use of the EF now, it gets progressively easier for this purchase or that, and the fund loses its intended purpose. If the second half is accurate, that your income would replace that money in a month, i'd say the fund wasn't fully funded to its proper level, 6-9 months of all expenses to get you though issues as bad as a job loss.  The great thing I see in your question is what's missing. You're not looking to buy a car with a loan. That puts you in a good situation, and should push those answering to cut you some slack on the one month ""bridge loan"" from your own savings.  Edit - OP add 2 key points, His EF is 3 years expenses (wow, kudos to him!), but he's living like a student (i.e. with parents, which keeps his costs low). If this latter observation seems judgmental, I'll re-edit. The finances of everyone would be far better off if we adopted multigenerational living. The young could save as Fahad is doing, and when parents retire, they can know they are cared for. In the US, I'd say ""when you move out, your expenses will go up drastically,"" but in this case, that may not happen, or not soon. This is my observation the world is a big place and our answers need to fit the OP's situation, not assume our own standards apply to all.  Buy the better car. You saved. You earned it."


And cab companies are better? if you like working 20 hours per day to make a halfway reasonable living maybe.   Have to say I prefer an uber driver who doesn't smell like BO from sleeping in his car and dicking me around on the miles to fleece me out of more money.


allegedly.   Also, that's a pretty loose definition - there's a business in everything.   |/r/business is not the place for stories about the government's economic policies or corporate corruption.  I'm more concerned with the quality of the article, almost zero actual citation and tons of embellished speculation. This is at best, /r/corruption, /r/politics, /r/sensationalism, but in truth, is a low quality piece of propaganda that you continue to spam reddit with. Then again, judging by your post count, I'm pissing in the wind here.


Why is one person more succesfull than another?  At the end of the day I think it simply comes down to personal choices, some people will choose to invest their time in profitable indevours and some will not.   This of course assumes people have a reasonable access to a mean of improvement (free education, vocational training, etc.)


Ok opinion but too bad it's not supported by data in the article. The opinion is backed by a survey of opinions, not actual inflation and employment figures. If prices are rising generally (and not just in individual commodities), why isn't that being reflected in inflation and employment numbers? Wouldn't we expect to see gross employment numbers trending downwards and inflation trending upwards since the beginning of the year?


You actually don't need an accountant. They'll be expensive and at this early a stage unnecessary - what you need is a good bookkeeper who can keep track of what comes in and what goes out. You'll need that to know if you're making money or not and to show the government at the end of the year. Get a copy of QuickBooks and pick up Bookkeeping for Dummies to at least get a sense for what's going on.  Have you registered as a sole proprietorship? Make sure you have a vendor's permit so you can legally sell your services in Ontario. You may need to collect HST, in which case you'll need to register for an HST # and submit it on a quarterly basis.   Whatever you do, don't fuck with the government - they can freeze your bank accounts to get money they're owed. You need to keep money on hand to pay for any taxes you might owe on the business, ESPECIALLY if it's a sole proprietorship where you'll be tempted to treat profit as income. You don't want to end up with nothing in the bank at the end of the year and $40k owing to the CRA.  Get a separate bank account - don't mix personal and business, it's messy.  Expense everything you reasonably can.


I would definitely recommend contributing to an IRA. You don't know for sure you'll get hired full-time and be eligible for the 401(k) with match, so you should save for retirement on your own. I would recommend Roth over Traditional IRA in your situation, because let's say you do get hired full-time. Since the company offers a retirement plan, your 2015 Traditional IRA contribution would no longer be deductible at your income level (assuming you're single), and non-deductible Traditional IRAs aren't a very good deal (see here and here). If there's a decent chance you would get hired, this factor would override the pre-tax versus post-tax debate for me. At your income level you could go either way on that anyway. A Solo 401(k) would be worth looking into if you wanted to increase your contribution limit beyond what IRAs offer, but given that it sounds like you're just starting out saving for retirement, and you may be eligible for a 401(k) soon, it's probably overkill at this point.


Because union busting and deregulation has been the key to success? Deregulation helped exacerbate the 2008 meltdown. No one was lending to each other because no one knew how much toxic assets anyone carried. Unions are about workers realizing that they ARE the corporation, and demanding a more fair share of end profits earned. They aren't going to run the company into the ground and those that would, you can rightly call idiots. You can call expenses legacy costs, but there are no legacy contracts or legacy people unless you can talk about the legacy profits they generated.


I think with your background you would be well suited to Equity Research in Oil, Biotech, or Pharma.  Not an area I know well but people who have greater understanding of the company's business are valuable in that field when combined with finance knowledge.  By your questions I would definitely advise some more investigation into finance and your motivations for getting into it.  What do you want out of finance?  How does the field match up with your life goals and your personal values?  Read some primers on Wall Street Oasis and some of Mergers and Inquisitions if you haven't already.  Sorry for the unwanted advice rant.  Just see lots of people attracted to money, prestige, or perceived glamour of finance without thinking about whether it's really what they want.


"This type of structured product is called a capital protection product.  It's like an insurance product - where you give up some upside for protection against losses in certain cases.   From the bank's perspective they take your investment, treat it as an ""interest-free loan"" and buy derivatives (like options) that give them an expected return greater then  They make their money: With this product, you are giving up some potential upside in order to protect against losses (other than catastrophic losses if the lower index drops by 50% or more).   What's the catch? There's not really a catch. It's a lot like insurance, you might come out ahead (e.g. if the market goes down less than 50%), but you might also give up some upside.  The bank will sell enough of these in various flavors to reduce their risk overall (losses in your product will be covered by gains in another). Note that this product won't necessarily sell for $1,000. You might have to pay $1,100 (or $1,005, or whatever the bank can get people to buy them for) for each note whenever it's released.  That's where the gain or loss comes into play.  If you pay $1,100 but only get $1,000 back because the index didn't go up (or went down) you'd have a net loss of $100. It's subtle, but it is in the prospectus: The estimated value of the notes is only an estimate determined by reference to several factors.  The original issue price of the notes will    exceed the estimated value of the notes because costs associated with selling, structuring and hedging the notes are included in the original issue price of the notes.  These costs include the selling commissions, the projected profits, if any, that our affiliates expect to realize for assuming risks inherent in hedging our obligations under the notes and the estimated cost of hedging our obligations under the notes."


That makes sense. So yeah it basically sounds like a speculative bubble based on limited supply and high demand, but without any significant change to the market itself.  What's kind of neat is that bitcoin seems to be closer to a commodity than a currency


"Your bank's fund is not an index fund.  From your link: To provide a balanced portfolio of primarily Canadian securities that produce income and capital appreciation by investing primarily in Canadian money market instruments, debt securities and common and preferred shares. This is a very broad actively managed fund.  Compare this to the investment objective listed for Vanguard's VOO: Invests in stocks in the S&P 500 Index, representing 500 of the largest U.S. companies. There are loads of market indices with varying formulas that are supposed to track the performance of a market or market segment that they intend to track.  The Russel 2000, The Wilshire 1000, The S&P 500, the Dow Industrial Average, there is even the SSGA Gender Diversity Index.  Some body comes up with a market index.  An ""Index Fund"" is simply a Mutual Fund or Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) that uses a market index formula to make it's investment decisions enabling an investor to track the performance of the index without having to buy and sell the constituent securities on their own.  These ""index funds"" are able to charge lower fees because they spend $0 on research, and only make investment decisions in order to track the holdings of the index. I think 1.2% is too high, but I'm coming from the US investing world it might not be that high compared to Canadian offerings.  Additionally, comparing this fund's expense ratio to the Vanguard 500 or Total Market index fund is nonsensical. Similarly, comparing the investment returns is nonsensical because one tracks the S&P 500 and one does not, nor does it seek to (as an example the #5 largest holding of the CIBC fund is a Government of Canada 2045 3.5% bond). Everyone should diversify their holdings and adjust their investment allocations as they age.  As you age you should be reallocating away from highly volatile common stock and in to assets classes that are historically more stable/less volatile like national government debt and high grade corporate/local government debt.  This fund is already diversified in to some debt instruments, depending on your age and other asset allocations this might not be the best place to put your money regardless of the fees. Personally, I handle my own asset allocations and I'm split between Large, Mid and Small cap low-fee index funds, and the lowest cost high grade debt funds available to me."


Exactly -- even by fast food standards, McDonalds is shit. At least at Chipotle I can recognize my food.   Edit: Oh yea, and for some reason, last I went to McDonalds I needed to spend $10 ... more than I spend at Chipotle, McDonalds keep shrinking portion sizes too.


It bothers me how your being downvoted in a goddamn business sub. Like I get people like Tesla and think it's going to be a good company but as of right now this company doesn't make money and isn't that the whole point of a business? Sure it might have huge and amazing potential but that's all it is: potential. I like Tesla as much as the next guy. I'm kicking myself for not buying the stock when I first saw it mentioned on Reddit and I considered buying it. That was at like $70.   But there is a simple fact that the company may be overvalued. It's valued like a tech company when it's currently operating like a car company. Sure you can argue they are really a tech company or will be in the future when/if they dominate the battery market but then that means news like this shouldn't even make a dent on their price.   You gave your simple and valid reasons for why you wouldn't buy Tesla. But obviously people don't want to hear it and will downvote it instead of actually making a discussion from it.    Sometimes I think that Elons marketing team has Reddit completely figured out and is just abusing it.


They already deliver almost half of orders in the UK Jeff has said that the issue is when holiday season starts, that's the main logistical problem they have.  Last mile delivery infrastructure already exists, they don't need to build it out. They are just gonna get the postal service to do more and FedEx/US.  Yet the got pantry and fresh, so probably will expand last mile in big cities)


I would go speak to the bank manager. With Wells, you have to make sure it is the bank manager and not a service manager or something you are talking to (I learned that a few months ago).  Tell her/him exactly what happened in detail and that you want the credit card closed and the credit inquiry removed from your credit report. Further, say that once all of that is done, you will decide whether to continue banking with them and whether any legal action is appropriate.  If they give you any kind of push back, I'd get advice from a lawyer. The truth is they did open an account against your expressed wishes and it required them to check your credit so it does constitute fraud unless they can produce a signed document saying you agreed to the card.  Edit: I just saw that this happened about a year ago. It may have been easier if you had done something at the time and may be more difficult if you've used the card in the meantime.


In this era of music, what can Rolling Stone offer that is unique?  Musicians go directly to their fans now, they don't need journalists to be the intermediary.  And investigative journalism has better outlets.  I don't think cultural touchstones like Rolling Stone that offer many things to readers, but don't do any of them extremely well, have a place anymore.


"In general what you will find is that a prepaid debit card will allow you to make any sort of purchase that is not also used as a ""Security"" against possibly open ended charges.  A hotel wants to have a method of payment on file that they can potentially charge for damages to a room for example.  The same goes for a car rental.   Another limitation you will discover is when you are getting close to the amount of money that remains on the card.  A restaurant will typically send through a preauthorization for the bill amount + 25%(for example) to account for a tip.  If you have $60 left on your card and the bill is $50, the preauth may not be approved.   Some prepaid debit cards, particularly those that are non-reloadable, start charging a service fee just for having the card after a certain period of time.  This seems to be after a year, but YMMV. Lastly make sure that the card you get is reloadable.  Some, like gift cards and rebate cards are sold to the buyer with a fixed amount on them  and you cannot add additional money to them."


If you do not need the money in the 401k right away and are interested in avoiding penalties on the amounts accumulated, roll over the 401k monies into a Roth IRA (your contributions and growth thereof) and a Traditional IRA (company match a d growth thereof). You can choose to take out money from the Traditional IRA not as a lump sum (penalties in addition to lots of income tax in the year of taking the distribution) but as series of equal payments over your life expectancy (no penalty but US income tax is still due each year). Be aware that he who rides a tiger cannot dismount: if you opt for this method, you must take a distribution every year whether you need the money or not, and the amount of the distribution must match what the IRS wants you to take exactly; excess withdrawals lead to penalties etc.  Publication 590 says Annuity. You can receive distributions from your traditional IRA that are part of a series of substantially equal payments over your life (or your life expectancy), or over the lives (or the joint life expectancies) of you and your beneficiary, without having to pay the 10% additional tax, even if you receive such distributions before you are age 59.5. You must use an IRS-approved distribution method and you must take at least one distribution annually for this exception to apply. The “required minimum distribution method,” when used for this purpose, results in the exact amount required to be distributed, not the minimum amount. Be aware that, depending on your country of residence/citizenship, you may be required to close all foreign accounts within x months of return, and if so, this stratagem will not work.


"Your graph does no such thing.  1. They're displaying percentages of income spent, so even with the minor decreases in percentage of money spent they're still spending more than low income families. 2. The percentage ""saved for retirement"" increases in higher income percentiles. How exactly does that occur? Do they send their money to magic fairy land where it's tended by nymphs who return a percentage return? No, it's invested in stocks, bonds, ownerships of businesses, venture capital and other forms of INVESTMENT which means that wealth is not sitting in a mattress, it's being used by others to generate more wealth."


I would question whether your stated goal (of strictly controlling your expenses) is really the problem you should be tackling.  In my opinion, unless you're under financial hardship where you can barely make ends meet, you're much better off using a budget as a high-level, descriptive tool rather than a low-level, prescriptive tool. This is what I would do in your situation: After the first few months, you can start to think about high-level changes that you can make to your spending habits to get the most bang for your buck.  I wouldn't worry about the little expenses, unless they're really adding up to a sizable chunk of your total expenses.  Instead, I would look at things like: eating out too often, buying too many movies, too many impulse buys over $100, etc. Identifying patterns like that will help you make lifestyle changes that will allow you to spend less money without having to micromanage every single expense.  I have tried the micromanaged approach in the past, and it simply doesn't work for me.  There's too much overhead, and eventually I start to feel that it's just not worth it.  Think about it - is it really worth the extra time and energy required to worry about where every dollar goes all month long just to save an additional hundred bucks over what you can do with this passive approach?   I think that by focusing on the big picture, you can get within a couple percentage points of the same amount of savings as if you had micro-managed your expenses, but with much less work and mental strain. Let's put some numbers on this and see what the hourly returns are with each approach, always being optimistic about the micromanaged approach and conservative on the passive approach.   Let's assume you earn $50,000/year.  Let's also assume that if you micromanage all of your expenses, you could manage to save $5000/year beyond what you do now.  And let's say that with the passive approach, you can get within 20 percentage points instead of the 2 I stated earlier, for a savings of $4000/year.  Now what will your hourly returns look like?  The following are based on how I would personally use both systems, so your numbers may vary a bit. Micromanaged Budgeting Savings = $5000 per year = $416.67 per month  Time spent = 15-30 minutes per day = 7.5 - 15 hours per month  Hourly return = $27.78 - $55.56  Passive Budgeting Savings = $4000 per year = $333.33 per month  Time spent = 1 - 2 hours per month Hourly return = $166.67 - $333.33 So clearly the passive approach gives a substantially higher hourly return, even though it gives a lower absolute return.  Maybe more importantly though, if passive budgeting opens up an extra 10 hours a month, you could potentially put those hours into your job and make an extra (10 hours * $25/hour) = $250 a month, or $3000 per year, assuming no extra pay for overtime.  So that means that the passive budgeting approach would actually allow you to save ($4000 + $3000 * .75) = $6250 per year, compared to the $5000 you would save by micromanaging. If you're in a situation where you can't put those hours into more work and you really need that extra $83.34 per month to help make ends meet, then by all means micromanage your expenses and try to save as much as possible.  But if either of the previous conditions are not true for you, you're much better off, in my opinion, using a passive budget.


"I have worked with venture capitalists on a few different online based tools.  There is no rule.  I have seen deals go through for as little as 10% and up to 80%. There are a number of factors in place: What it really comes down to in the tech world is ""Is this a side job or your life and can you live while your site isn't generating income... and then can you pay others that you need to pay for your site to exist?"" Venture capitalists are into risky ventures that offer a high return.  They have a portfolio of businesses and one going down will be made up for with a huge return on another.  They will shut you down super quick though if they think your team/idea is a dud.  What they initially take from your business is so negotiable there is no reason for me to give a number.  We might be able to give you a half-assed forecast if you tell us your idea/staff size/current revenue and expenses/projections/amount of investment looking for."


Energy futures are the most direct form of investment. Look at Nordpool for example.   Energy markets are typically fairly efficient and seasonal pricing patterns are already baked into the forward curve. On the outage side, there's data providers who track major unit outages and disseminate that information.   If you think you're smarter than groups with on-staff meteorologists, huge data advantages, and a real understanding of grid topology in those markets than by all means play a position. It's certainly possible to flip the coin and win but you have no edge doing so; you're just gambling.


Money factor is a term coined by leasing companies to make car leasing that much more convoluted. It's basically a decimal value that you multiply by 2400 in order to arrive at your actual annual percentage rate or interest rate. Here's a really good article detailing how you can calculate your interest rate based on other criteria in your leasing contract, because most of the time you won't even be given money factor on your leasing contract


"This is exactly what I feel.  Having doing tech support for offices, friends and family, it dawned on me that they had no one else to call.  If Grandma calls ""Sony"" because she can't find her email, well then they tell her to call Microsoft.  Then she calls Microsoft and it seems it's a hardware issue, they send her back to Sony.  In the end, the customer doesn't fully understand why they are being sent back and forth, they just want it fixed, or a reason.   Apple is almost completely vertically integrated, they can solve most of the problems or at least provide the illusion that the customer is being helped."


The problem is, there often isn't anyone else to go with. Ryanair are Europe's biggest airline. They fly so many routes. A lot of the time it's your only option, unless you want a stop over somewhere. So it is the lesser of two evils, my annoyance is that I can't pay reasonable money to improve the service.   One thing I think they could do, reverse priority boarding. I want to get on the plane last, have my hand luggage have guaranteed space in the plane and be first off the plane. This would have made a significant improvement to my recent flight with them. It's the waiting in uncomfortable places that makes Ryanair so shit.


For those who don't know, credit card checks are blank checks that your credit card company sends you.  When you fill them out and spend them, you are taking a cash advance on your credit card account.  You should be aware that taking a cash advance on your credit card normally has extra fees and finance charges above what you have with regular credit card transactions. That having been said, when you take one of these to your bank and try to deposit them, it is entirely up to bank policy how long they will make you wait to use these funds.  They want to be sure that it is a legitimate check and that it will be honored.  If your teller doesn't know the answer to that question, you'll need to find someone at the bank who does.  If you don't like the answer they give you, you'll need to find another bank. I would think that if the credit card is from Chase, and you are trying to deposit a credit card check into a Chase checking account, they should be able to do that instantly.  However, bank policy doesn't always make sense.


"The major pros tend to be: The major cons tend to be: Being in California, you've got state income tax to worry about as well.  It might be worth using some of that extra cash to hire someone who knows what they're doing to handle your taxes the first year, at least.  I've always maxed mine out, because it's always seemed like a solid way to make a few extra dollars.  If you can live without the money in your regular paycheck, it's always seemed that the rewards outweighed the risks.   I've also always immediately sold the stock, since I usually feel like being employed at the company is enough ""eggs in that basket"" without holding investments in the same company. (NB: I've participated in several of these ESPP programs at large international US-based software companies, so this is from my personal experience.  You should carefully review the terms of your ESPP before signing up, and I'm a software engineer and not a financial advisor.)"


"That's what stood out to me.  The headlines make it sound like we're all financially stupid for not going with solar. The question is what is the *retail* price of solar vs other sources.  Don't get me wrong; the idea of it going down quickly is itself great. But the title says ""cheapest electricity ‘ever, anywhere, by any technology’"". Show me the retail bills for solar as being cheaper than other sources and we've got a winner. That phenomenon is the real inflection point of interest."


From personal experience, stick with the IRS. As @littleadv pointed out I found the APR to be significantly lower (and for me it stayed the same through out the years I was on the plan - the penalty amount shown on the statement increases as it accumulates, but the APR stays the same) and, unlike credit cards, the debt does not show on your credit report. So unless you tell the bank about it, they won't know (not speaking to to ethical side of not telling them, that'd be up to you).


I didn't say I expect it, but it's not a waste.  A degree has morphed from a competitive edge to a mere qualifier. A college undergrad degree is the new High School diploma.   Few would hire a Taxi driver or Greeter without a diploma, and it's getting to the point where a degree is required for those jobs as well.


My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.


The hospital likely has a contract with your insurance company which makes them obligated to bill the insurance before billing you! I had a similar occurrence that was thrown out when my insurance company provided a copy of a contract with the hospital to the judge. So if there is an agreement they must file with the insurance in timely manner.


"The government is so ""all in"" on Tesla with all the tax credits and incentives, how could the SEC conduct an investigation that could make the government look bad? It seems Musk has created a perfect castle in the sky with a government mote. For his next magic trick we will find out if he is Houdini."


Seems this would help prevent the Martin Shkreli’s of this world from gouging Americans.  No company had bothered to produce a generic.  Martin bought out a drug with a private brand name on it and increased the price from $13.5 to $750 per pill.   If a reliable crowd was producing a generic, people would have bought that instead.


I have a hard time believing 28% of the planet uses any one thing.  You have to have electricity, money, Internet access, a culture that want it, etc. to even get to that point.  China probably doesn't use Facebook.  India I'd think barely.  You're talking about large chunks of the world that don't have much exposure.  Much of this is probably not real people.  Heck, even the revenue they represent on the graph only highlights that the U.S. and Canada have the most profits and we represent, what, 5% of the world population?  That's a far stretch.  Even their Wikipedia page shows one statistic that they get 20billion visitors a month in 2015.  That's 3 times the world's population.  I just can't take any of it seriously unless they gave me access to their databases and let me figure out how to identify a unique user.


"The short answer is that banking is complicated, but the bank really doesn't need your money because it can get it from the Fed almost free, it can only use 90% of the money you give the bank, it can only make money on that 90% from very low-risk and thus low-return investments, and as it has to show a profit to its shareholders it will take whatever cut it needs to off the top of the returns. All of these things combine to make savings account interest roughly .05% in the US right now. The longer answer: All FDIC-insured banks (which the US requires all ""depositor"" banks to be) are subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve. The very first rule that all banks must comply with is that depositor money cannot be invested in things the Fed terms ""risky"". This limits banks from investing your money in things that have high returns, like stocks, commodities and hedges, because along with the high possible returns come high risk. Banks typically can only invest your savings in T-debt and in certain Fed-approved AAA bonds, which have very low risk and so very little return. The investment of bank assets into risky market funds was a major contributor to the financial crisis; with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, banks had been allowed to integrate their FDIC-insured depositor business with their ""investment banking"" business (not FDIC insured). While still not allowed to bet on ""risky"" investments with deposits, banks were using their own money (retained profits, corporate equity/bond money) to bet heavily in the markets, and were investing depositor funds in faulty AAA-rated investment objects like CDOs. When the housing market crashed, banks had to pull out of the investment market and cash in hedges like credit-default swaps to cover the depositor losses, which sent a tidal wave through the rest of the market. Banks really can't even loan your money out to people who walk in, like you'd think they would and which they traditionally used to do; that's how the savings and loan crisis happened, when speculators took out huge loans to invest, lost the cash, declared bankruptcy and left the S&Ls (and ultimately the FDIC) on the hook for depositors' money.  So, the upshot of all this is that the bank simply won't give you more on your money than it is allowed to make on it.  In addition, there are several tools that the Fed has to regulate economic activity, and three big ones play a part. First is the ""Federal Funds Rate""; this is the interest rate that the Fed charges on loans made to other banks (which is a primary source of day-to-day liquidity for these banks). Money paid as interest to the Fed is effectively removed from the economy and is a way to reduce the money supply. Right now the FFR is .25% (that's one quarter of one percent) which is effectively zero; borrow a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) from the Fed for one month and you'll pay them a scant $208,333. Banks lend to other banks at a rate based on the FFR, called the Interbank Rate (usually adding some fraction of a percent so the lending bank makes money on the loan). This means that the banks can get money from the Fed and from other banks very cheaply, which means they don't have to offer high interest rates on savings to entice individual depositors to save their money with the bank. Second is ""quantitative easing"", which just means the Fed buys government bonds and pays for them with ""new"" money. This happens all the time; remember those interest charges on bank loans? To keep the money supply stable, the Fed must buy T-debt at least in the amount of the interest being charged, otherwise the money leaves the economy and is not available to circulate. The Fed usually buys a little more than it collects in order to gradually increase the money supply, which allows the economy to grow while controlling inflation (having ""too much money"" and so making money worth less than what it can buy).  What's new is that the Fed is increasing the money supply by a very large amount, by buying bonds far in excess of the (low) rates it's charging, and at fixed prices determined by the yield the Fed wants to induce in the markets. In the first place, with the Fed buying so many, there are fewer for institutions and other investors to buy. This increases the demand, driving down yields as investors besides the Fed are willing to pay a similar price, and remember that T-debt is one of the main things banks are allowed to invest your deposits in. Inflation isn't a concern right now despite the large amount of new money being injected, because the current economy is so lackluster right now that the new cash is just being sat upon by corporations and being used by consumers to pay down debt, instead of what the Fed and Government want us to do (hire, update equipment, buy houses and American cars, etc). In addition, the ""spot market price"" for a T-bond, or any investment security, is generally what the last guy paid. By buying Treasury debt gradually at a fixed price, the Fed can smooth out ""jitters"" in the spot price that speculators may try to induce by making low ""buy offers"" on T-debt to increase yields. Lastly, the Fed can tell banks that they must keep a certain amount of their deposits in ""reserve"", basically by keeping them in a combination of cash in the vault, and in accounts with the Fed itself. This has a dual purpose; higher reserve rates allow a bank to weather a ""run"" (more people than usual wanting their money) and thus reduces risk of failure. An increased reserves amount also reduces the amount of money circulating in the economy, because obviously if the banks have to keep a percentage of assets in cash, they can't invest that cash. Banks are currently required to keep 10% of ""deposited assets"" (the sum of all checking and savings accounts, but not CDs) in cash. This compounds the other problems with banks' investing; not only are they not getting a great return on your savings, they can only use 90% of your savings to get it."


So my idea is to open small hummus place with open island kitchen. You can eat inside or take away. I also now places were i could deliver my product like a cafe/pubs. Really simple idea but i am little bit scared of telling details. you can eat different types of hummus with fresh bread and vegetables. Also in the morning i am planing to making tortillas with hummus, fresh salad and meat inside for take away. But my problem is a money for start.


"When the pie is being hoarded, this is what happens.  It happened in the 20's, it happened in the 1850-90's.  Great depressions don't cause poverty, they unveil the economic conditions that already exist and remove the safety nets that keep the problems from appearing catastrophic when in fact, they already are.  The current P/E of most of the stocks that under-gird our economy are so far out of whack that markets don't even consider them anymore, but the reality is that they are unsustainable.  To return to sustainable levels would require, in some cases, a 90% ""adjustment"" in values.  While the Dow Jones is not the economy, what do you think the economic effects of even a 50% drop would be on the 78% of the population that lives paycheck to paycheck?  Consider the knock-on effects?"