Guard Dog

Zach, a little inside advice here, getting the better of LoF on this subject is like eating jello with chopsticks; yes it can be done but the hassle far outweighs any satisfaction you might get.

Think not? The Kelo case it was litigated for five years before the court awarded the property to the city. During the time the city was injoined from developing the property, the houses still stood, the people still lived in them. After the decision the City evicted the people, bulldozed the houses and then sued to homeowners for five years of back rent. Not only did they lose everything, they founf themselves tens of thousands of dallars in debt, to say nothing of swamped in legal bills from the fight. Some mercy huh. You ever had to deal with the IRS Hurlie? You are utterly at their mercy and you would find their mercy lacking. Right now out in Wyoming and Colorado the US Government is using Emminent Domain to seize privately owned ranchlands and add to a federal WMA. I am watching that one very closely because my home borders the Anderson Tully WMA on the entire southern property line. If they try to seize my home they had best be prepared to kill me for it. Because, by God in heaven, I will fight to keep it.

Jesus Christ Wals, I don't know how it is in England but in the US one private entity cannot... CAN NOT... seize the private property of another private entity. Only governments can seize your property against your will and give you nothing in return. I really don't understand why I'm having so much difficulty getting you to see this!

That is the most idiotic thing I have read in ages. How, exactly, do business help you by making money? If you owned stock in that company, if their stock is in your retirement fund, if you are a customer, if you are an employee, if you are on welfare (succesfull businesses pay more taxes, and their employees get paid more and pay more taxes), etc. Any questions? Ever heard the expression "A rising tide lifts all boats?" Profit comes from somewhere. Your benefit is almost always at the expense of someone else. A blanket statement such as "I make money when business make money, therefore I'd rather trust business" is pure idiocy - I'm very sure there are businesses that make money at your expense, as well, even if you don't realize it. That is called Zero Sum Economics. It does not exist in open free market economies. So you are either uninformed or from Cuba.

That is the most idiotic thing I have read in ages. How, exactly, do business help you by making money? If you owned stock in that company, if their stock is in your retirement fund, if you are a customer, if you are an employee, if you are on welfare (succesfull businesses pay more taxes, and their employees get paid more and pay more taxes), etc. Any questions? Ever heard the expression "A rising tide lifts all boats?"

Ummm, thats not really correct. It would at least be fair to say that the collapse of the Wiemar economy led to the election of Hitler and everything that followed, but no economics were not really the cause of WW2.

If you can get to TN I have a spare bedroom, so long as you are ok with dogs, guns, coyotes, and women of less than stellar virtue. Just bring beer.

Wals that doesn't even make sense! If I robbed you and gave the money to Krezack, who is most culpable in the crime? Krezack got the benefit but I did the deed. How much less culpable is Krezack if he was in no way capable of robbing you? It's not logical. Companies cannot hurt you, or kill you, or take anything from you that you do not offer them. I have heard all of the innane rambling here how they can but I can't think of a single incident in the US at least that did not recieve a judicial remedy. I read somewhere the the US Government either wins of achieves favorable settlements in over 94% of non criminal litigation. Pretty long odds if you find yourself on the recieving end of thie ill intent. I'd like you guys to consider one thing, especially those of you who thing your government is some kind of benevolent champion, have you ever had to fight them over anything? If not you simply do not comprehend how little you can do to stop them.

Where then do you turn when government is the cause of the shenanigans? Or the agent the business uses to cause trouble? Take a look at the whole Kelo v New London debacle here in the US. Pfizer wanted to build a biochem research facility on some beach land that had houses on it. Regular working people homes. Some of those houses had been owned byt the families in them for generations. Pfizer wnated them, the homeowners would not sell. So Pfizer goes to the town and the town seizes the homes, evicts the people and gives the land to Pfizer. Hows that for the government looking out for the people? This was perfectly legal due to a gross misapplication of the Eminent Domain provision that allows governments to seize land for public use. Howerver this was not used for the public, it was given to a major, profit seeking comapany (oooh the evil). Who is to blame here? The damned government was because had it not been empowered to seize private property Pfizer could not have compelled even one of those people to move no matter how much it wanted them to. This whole notion that profit is evil and governments are benevolent is so unbelivably naieve and ignorant that it is just staggering. Is it because you fear monoplies? You all do realize there are dozens of laws in the US and Europe preventing that already right? In the US alone we have the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, FTC act, Hart-Scott-Rodino, Robinson Act, Sarbanes-Oxley Act all of which regulate anticompetitve business without going in and seizing companies as the current US government is wont to do. If a company violates law there is redress in criminal court. If they breach a contract or harm you in some way there is redress in civil court. If the government decides to screw you, you are just screwed. Your only defense, and you had better believe it is your ONLY defense if to have the law limit the power of government right from the get go so that it cannot screw you without violating the law. Empowering the govenment is like living with a lion and hoping he eats you last. *Edit* Please excuse my spelling and grammar, I'm typing this on a Blackberry

Oh my God that is so wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!

Currency investing is only worthwhile if you are using large amounts. A few thousand AUD is not worth the time and risk. If you want to buy into a high growth investment with a small stake I'd reccomend chasing a few small cap stocks either on NASDAQ in the US, HK in China, or NNI in Japan. Go for something that is low price and a little volitile. You want a stock that has varied in price up and down over a predicatble base line over the past year or so. Then buy in at a low point and immediately put in a sell order at about 80% if its recent high point. Once the sale triggers you do it again, and again, and again. You only make a little bit on each sale but you do it over and over and over. I built up enough of a nest egg to put a down payment on my house doing this over five years. It's a strategy called "rolling" but it is not for the risk adverse either. If the stock price stabilizes you are screwed. Try it yourself, pick a few low cap stocks and watch them.

Why does everyone assume I'm talking about anarchy? Why is there an assumption in a society where the govenrment does the minimum there is no law or criminal prosecution? I did not feel the need to qualify that because I thought it went withourt saying there is law enforcement under ANY government. True I'd pefer the limits to be light and restrained, a silken rope rather than iron chains. I guess the heart of the matter is you guys are cynical in the extreme about human behaviour, and think it needs to be controlled even at the expense of your own freedom. It makes no sense to me. Now to address what Wals said. There is the absurd notion on this board that coporations are terrible evil things that want to enslave people and destroy the world. Further, most of you seem to think govenrment is this great altruistic champion of the down trodden and only wants whats best for everyone. That makes no sense to me at all. Microsoft cannot take a thing away from you. They cannot take you money, your home, your freedom or your life. They can only take what you freely give them by buying their products. And if you wish you can not but their products and give them nothing at all. Your government can take everything from you. Your home, your money, your freedom and your very life. In the US you do have due process protections on the last two (if you can afford it) but on the first two, the odds are very much against you. If you don't believe me, just ask the citizens of New London CT, Klamath Falls OR, Rivera Beach FL, Covington TN, (I could go on all day) what the government can take away from you and give you nothing in return. Who should you really be afraid of here? This whole notion of giving governments more and more power over individuals is self destructive to the point of insanity to me. I will NEVER understand it.

We had a discussion about this a little while back, I remember. I believe the name on the degree matters only when you first graduate and are bucking for that first job. I graduated from a small state U with no real reputation but landed a job I wanted not because of where my degree was from but because I interviewed well (plus I had some work history in the field). While there I was promoted over a Georgia Tech grad (it's like Princeton for Engineers with MIT & Cal Tech being Harvard & Yale) because I was just better than he was. Once you have your first few years of experience behind you your degree only matters in as much as you have one. Your work history and referneces are everything. In that vein it is smart to take Enochs advice and get to know the faculty, not only do they open doors but they make invaluable references. A man once told me, "That piece of paper (your degree) only means you were taught something. It does not mean you actually know anything."

Interesting question, but I don't think you're as interested in a response from me given the disparities in our economies. And the fact that I'm still in the process of saving enough for it to be worth investing. Actually, you are 20 and a student at a University. Investing is probably the farthest thing from your mind right now. Five years from now that will be a different story. When I was your age a good investment is when I could get a case of cheap beer for the price of a 12 pack of premium beer. Ok, I'll admit it... it still is

Really? I'm constantly seeing electronic engineering jobs going over here. English kids don't like engineering because it involves maths. Wankers. There are jobs, but schools like DeVery and ITT (unaccredited diploma mills) are churning out legions of barely qualified "engineers" and the labor pool is larger than the demand.

Nevermind everyone. It is not a trap, just a question to establish where everyone was coming from, where their values were. Forget it. Like I said having that kind of discussion here is a waste of everyones time and will just devolve into a flame out sooner than later.

My portfoolio is very risk-minimized. Agriculture, non-investment banks and alike . Through 11 years time, it has grown by 500%! (my original deposit was not that high ) I have been following the rise of the Gold lately, quite interesting. Why a steady rise the last 18 months? Mainly due to fear over the dollar and the US economy in general. Not just the dollar actually, many countries are dealing with devaluation of currency which compels investors to seek "real" assets. I've been wondering if it has hit the ceiling. I was thinking of divesting some of it actually. I started buying Canadian Maple Leafs in 2007 and have bought as many as I could afford every year. But the price has fallen off 11% in the last few weeks so I stopped in January. I've been watching it drop slowly but steadily and I think we might be at the ceiling. I started buying at $720 per in 07 and it's just below $1200 per as of Friday. I started buying Silver in 2008, not the actual coins but PMCP shares. It's value hasn't changed that much. I got in around $12 and it's been hovering around $17 for a little while.

When I was in the military I went through the eight week NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical) Warfare School. Nukes are lousy tactical weapons and the whole concept of artillery borne tactical nuclear weapons was abandoned by the Soviets and the US during the 80's. The idea of tactical weapons is to clear obstacles for infantry/armor movement. Nuclear weapons do a poor job of that because of a) Fallout obviously renders the point of attack uninhabitable b) low yield weapons are nearly impossible to accurately model, it may do what you need, it may not. The only real value to them as weapons is strategic. Would Iran attack Israel? I don't know. No one does but it is unwise to assume the leadership of Iran will act in a way we would consider logical or rational. They do have an apocolyptic bent with their 13th Imam prophecies and all. If Iran were a military dictatorship I think we would all sleep easier because dictators tend to act in their own self interest. If Iran were to use a nuke, or give one to Al Qeada (that is their delivery system if the target is in Europe or the US) then they would be eradicated but it would be after they had done an inestimatable amount of damage. A proactive strike might make sense if it could be assured you would get 100% of their nuclear facilities (you can't), but you cannot, must not, will not, use nukes agains them. You cannot be sure you will achive your goal (halting their nuclear program) plus you have now justified whatever they do with a bomb once they have one. There are three ways solve the Iran problem: 1) Containment and isolation which is probably the wisest way to go but least effective since Russia and China will not play ball. 2) Encourage and enable the pro-democracy crowd to take over. This is unlikely because they are disorganized, unarmed and are not soldiers at any rate. 3) The most certain way is to find one of their generals who commands a large percentage of their military and "encourage" him to take over by funneling him the money and arms he needs. This is probsbly the most effective way to go because military dictatorships are easy to create and behave in a predictable way but it is a god awful thing to do. There is the three choices, they all stink. Glad you're not the Presidient?

Sounds like Sand in his medicinal bucket. I'm not sure which to choose. Neither sounds like it would suit me. On the one hand I rely on others a lot to fulfil key requirements like giving me medicines for all my failing body parts, and in turn work quite hard to help others. On the other hand I hate taking orders from anyone I don't both know and respect. On the other hand I ... Look do I have to really choose between anarchy and maternal despotism? For the purposes of this discussion, yes. We are not planning a government here, just having a philisophical discussion. Isn't the question of degree of government control at the heart of all political questions? In the US it is. Which is better, a regimented society where everyone is equal, all needs are met, but at the expense of liberty, happiness, self awarement and enrichment, or a society where the government provides the barest minimum of service (border security and foreign relations only) and free market economics and personal responsibility are paramount?

I'd prefer a maximum amount of freedom. It's my responsibility to take care of myself.

Sand that was not an option. Assume the two are mutually exclusive (as in you cannot have a balance, you can have one or the other).

Which is more desireable to you guys, a society where citizens are afforded the maximum amout of freedom or the maximum amount of care if the two are mutually exclusive? I know in the real world it is much more complex than that but for discussions sake least accept the premise. Which do you prefer?

Just curious (and to make this thread more intersting) where are you guys investing these days? Those who do, what are you buying and why? For me about 40% of my portfolio is tied up in gold and silver. 20% is in a few carefully chosen small cap stocks (sort of like gambling money), about 30% is split up over a few mutuals and 10% is in CDs. I got out of the NYSE all together so far as as owning individual securities. Ditto for buying currencies, too doggone unstable right now. I think I'm pretty well positioned/diversified. My 401k is mainly large cap stocks and it has just been devastated over the past two years. This year I think I'm getting rid of all the mutuals and CDs and start buying real estate. I think it's finally found the bottom. Believe it of not my best single stock is a hamburger chain.

Hence the reason why I said earlier I would not by US bonds right now is they took dried dog poop as payment. I have a feeling Obama plan to get out of debt is to cause the currency to crash. Unfortnuately he is not a student of history. That plan did not work out real well for the Weimar Republic.

Krookie, if you are considering Electronics Engineering you might want to reconsider. The money really isn't all that great and opportunities seem to be fewer than just ten years ago. Odd isn't it? You'd think it would be the other way around.