4 ms·

No, this is just atrociously wrong. It pains me to see because the post you're responding to about getting everyone to chip in a small amount to investments eve

No, this is just atrociously wrong. It pains me to see because the post you're responding to about getting everyone to chip in a small amount to investments every month is one of my pet goals that I've helped many friends with. Everything you've said is wrong. I don't know what you mean by "getting in after all the really wealthy get in"... VCs, IPOs? That's not even close to necessary. Investing in simple index fund ETFs is fine. And "all the investments with minimums in the thousands"? Well... don't buy those! Again, buy simple index fund ETFs. Most brokerages don't even charge a commission on that, so you can easily add small amounts each month. People just don't seem to know that investing in the stock market is easily done, and so extremely worthwhile. Income inequality being what it is, the wealthy will probably own more of the stock market for a long time (or always), but that 84% could easily come way down if people just knew what to do! But I feel like your comment is counter-productive fear mongering that will turn off people on the margin, thinking everything is stacked against them, the "good" investment opportunities aren't available, and so they just shouldn't even try.

Supermancho 6y ago
>> less money always has fewer opportunities. That's a fact of the US system. > I don't know what you mean by "getting in after all the really wealthy get in"... VCs, IPOs? That's not even close to necessary. That's a strawman. What's necessary, isn't the subject. > And "all the investments with minimums in the thousands"? Well... don't buy those! The wealthy have more opportunity, got it. Pointing to some other instrument, saying "it's also good" is not a correction. > Everything you've said is wrong. If you find yourself saying this, you're probably about to say something stupid. It's trite nonsense.
Glyptodon 6y ago
I'm not saying it's necessary, I'm just saying the previous poster can't seriously expect that the 84% (86%?) number will decrease much from everyone investing if that percentage's owners are able to always outperform - even if the top 10% (or even 1%) only have a 2% advantage because of better or earlier access it's just going to compound non-linearly compared to everyone else's returns over time. And it being non-linear means for that 80-something% number to go down the $100/month folks have to continually increase in population at a rate greater than the difference between their rate of return and the rate of return of the top 10% or top 1%.

Supermancho 6y ago

>> less money always has fewer opportunities. That's a fact of the US system. > I don't know what you mean by "getting in after all the really wealthy get in"... VCs, IPOs? That's not even close to necessary. That's a strawman. What's necessary, isn't the subject. > And "all the investments with minimums in the thousands"? Well... don't buy those! The wealthy have more opportunity, got it. Pointing to some other instrument, saying "it's also good" is not a correction. > Everything you've said is wrong. If you find yourself saying this, you're probably about to say something stupid. It's trite nonsense.

Glyptodon 6y ago

I'm not saying it's necessary, I'm just saying the previous poster can't seriously expect that the 84% (86%?) number will decrease much from everyone investing if that percentage's owners are able to always outperform - even if the top 10% (or even 1%) only have a 2% advantage because of better or earlier access it's just going to compound non-linearly compared to everyone else's returns over time. And it being non-linear means for that 80-something% number to go down the $100/month folks have to continually increase in population at a rate greater than the difference between their rate of return and the rate of return of the top 10% or top 1%.