4 ms·

>If you have money, you need to allocate it in some way Why do you "need" to allocate it? This is my whole point. Everyone acts like "oh my god, I must have

>If you have money, you need to allocate it in some way Why do you "need" to allocate it? This is my whole point. Everyone acts like "oh my god, I must have my money making more money!" What the hell do you think 80% of the country who has no substantial assets do? They can't do anything. The whole concept of getting rich off your own money is honestly sickening to me. >how are you allocating yours in a way that isn't investing I'm literally not. Even my house, for example.. I don't consider an "investment". Will it probably 'make money' over the long term? I guess (and well, it has substantially over the last few years, but again I had nothing to do with that- simple luck, just like it would be bad luck if it went down substantially). But that's not the point of me having a home.. I have a home as a place to live with my family. This mentality of everything being an investment and our whole lives revolve around trying to accumulate assets so those assets can make more money... it's just sad.

imtringued 5y ago
I actually agree. If you asked me 7 years ago I would have wanted to be the winner of the investment treadmill. I.e. I and my children will be living off our investments without having to do any work, while obviously ignoring the fact that other people still have to work and that the money I would earn is obviously only valuable because they are selling their time to me for that money. If everyone started living off investments no work would get done. It's clearly a hierarchical system.
jstx1 5y ago
My point is that not allocating it is not an option. If you have it, it's in something, and that something is an allocation decision that you've made (even if it's cash). You can decide to not participate in the stock market (and that's fine) but then your money will be in cash, in the equity in your house or in anything else you buy with that money. Picking those assets over the stock market is still an investment decision, and that decision comes with its set of risks and potential returns.
- eatsyourtacos 5y ago
  >Picking those assets over the stock market is still an investment decision, and that decision comes with its set of risks and potential returns. I see your point, but I honestly think it's a nuance you say it's an "investment decision" to say keep it in cash instead of the stock market. Am I almost making a decision to keep money in cash instead of beanie babies? Yeah I guess, but that doesn't really change my argument. Even from your viewpoint, you personally probably feel that you "need" to invest yourmoney to keep making money so they have more money in the future. Most people think that you have to. And hey, they aren't really wrong. The system basically forces you to "invest" in the market because that's the only way you will have any money for retirement. But that is where I think the system is completely broken. It SHOULD be a choice, but it's not. And it's my entire point, the system was shifted from company retirement/ss to putting ALL the risk on the individual (to hopefully make money in the market) AND they artificially make the market keep going up which benefits wealthy people even more. And I'll reverse the problem here- I don't think you are "choosing" to invest in the stock market. You are investing in the stock market because by design it's basically the only choice. That is the issue.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    The only real solution to this problem is to actually let the real interest rate on certificates of deposits to be 0% and have a small demurrage fee on liquid demand deposits. The point isn't to be evil and make people lose their money, it's to make the market actually work. The positive range of interest rates tells people to save more and since people have a natural tendency to save (e.g. hoarding instincts) regardless of market conditions, politicians have tried to keep the interest rate positive through inflation targeting and fiscal stimulus (government borrowing raises interest rates). This basically means debt keeps growing endlessly since savers are guaranteed profits through loans that shouldn't exist. The negative range of interest rates essentially says that the economy has enough savings and that they should be allocated away from those who have too much (meaning they will be allocated to those who have too little savings, primarily those who are in debt which then reduces total savings and the money supply).
bern4444 5y ago
> Why do you "need" to allocate it? You don't "need" to allocate it. If you don't allocate it though, the buying power of your saved cash will decrease every year from inflation. You can argue whether low inflation should be a policy goal of the FED in the first place - I believe it should personally, it incentivizes economic growth - but regardless, you have to take the situation as it is. Inflation exists and no amount of wishing will make it go away. In the face of inflation, what can you do to at the very least preserve the buying power of your cash. If you do nothing, you can watch it wither away. Currently, there are few viable options that will help you preserve cash; interest rates on savings accounts are 0, CDs are extremely low, bonds are low but starting to move up, etc. The only remaining option is equities (stocks, bonds etc). > The whole concept of getting rich off your own money is honestly sickening to me. What do you find sickening about it? > Even my house, for example.. I don't consider an "investment". I agree with this mindset. While you can take out a loan with your house as collateral, it's a bad idea to consider your home as an investment IMO. As you say, you ned a home to live in. But housing that you own that don't live in can absolutely be considered an investment (as an alternative to equities) and this can be far more liquid since you don't need it to live in. Not everything has to be thought of as an investment though. That's up to you as an individual to decide.

imtringued 5y ago

I actually agree. If you asked me 7 years ago I would have wanted to be the winner of the investment treadmill. I.e. I and my children will be living off our investments without having to do any work, while obviously ignoring the fact that other people still have to work and that the money I would earn is obviously only valuable because they are selling their time to me for that money. If everyone started living off investments no work would get done. It's clearly a hierarchical system.

jstx1 5y ago

My point is that not allocating it is not an option. If you have it, it's in something, and that something is an allocation decision that you've made (even if it's cash). You can decide to not participate in the stock market (and that's fine) but then your money will be in cash, in the equity in your house or in anything else you buy with that money. Picking those assets over the stock market is still an investment decision, and that decision comes with its set of risks and potential returns.

eatsyourtacos 5y ago
>Picking those assets over the stock market is still an investment decision, and that decision comes with its set of risks and potential returns. I see your point, but I honestly think it's a nuance you say it's an "investment decision" to say keep it in cash instead of the stock market. Am I almost making a decision to keep money in cash instead of beanie babies? Yeah I guess, but that doesn't really change my argument. Even from your viewpoint, you personally probably feel that you "need" to invest yourmoney to keep making money so they have more money in the future. Most people think that you have to. And hey, they aren't really wrong. The system basically forces you to "invest" in the market because that's the only way you will have any money for retirement. But that is where I think the system is completely broken. It SHOULD be a choice, but it's not. And it's my entire point, the system was shifted from company retirement/ss to putting ALL the risk on the individual (to hopefully make money in the market) AND they artificially make the market keep going up which benefits wealthy people even more. And I'll reverse the problem here- I don't think you are "choosing" to invest in the stock market. You are investing in the stock market because by design it's basically the only choice. That is the issue.
- imtringued 5y ago
  The only real solution to this problem is to actually let the real interest rate on certificates of deposits to be 0% and have a small demurrage fee on liquid demand deposits. The point isn't to be evil and make people lose their money, it's to make the market actually work. The positive range of interest rates tells people to save more and since people have a natural tendency to save (e.g. hoarding instincts) regardless of market conditions, politicians have tried to keep the interest rate positive through inflation targeting and fiscal stimulus (government borrowing raises interest rates). This basically means debt keeps growing endlessly since savers are guaranteed profits through loans that shouldn't exist. The negative range of interest rates essentially says that the economy has enough savings and that they should be allocated away from those who have too much (meaning they will be allocated to those who have too little savings, primarily those who are in debt which then reduces total savings and the money supply).

bern4444 5y ago

> Why do you "need" to allocate it? You don't "need" to allocate it. If you don't allocate it though, the buying power of your saved cash will decrease every year from inflation. You can argue whether low inflation should be a policy goal of the FED in the first place - I believe it should personally, it incentivizes economic growth - but regardless, you have to take the situation as it is. Inflation exists and no amount of wishing will make it go away. In the face of inflation, what can you do to at the very least preserve the buying power of your cash. If you do nothing, you can watch it wither away. Currently, there are few viable options that will help you preserve cash; interest rates on savings accounts are 0, CDs are extremely low, bonds are low but starting to move up, etc. The only remaining option is equities (stocks, bonds etc). > The whole concept of getting rich off your own money is honestly sickening to me. What do you find sickening about it? > Even my house, for example.. I don't consider an "investment". I agree with this mindset. While you can take out a loan with your house as collateral, it's a bad idea to consider your home as an investment IMO. As you say, you ned a home to live in. But housing that you own that don't live in can absolutely be considered an investment (as an alternative to equities) and this can be far more liquid since you don't need it to live in. Not everything has to be thought of as an investment though. That's up to you as an individual to decide.