3 ms·

> I never said I "think [I am] entitled to returns just because Exactly! Why did you think I said anything about not taking risks. I didn't say that either. I

by srean 5y ago

> I never said I "think [I am] entitled to returns just because Exactly! Why did you think I said anything about not taking risks. I didn't say that either. I was misinterpreting on purpose to show yours. > "if my goals change, I don't want to lose money" I did not say that either. I vehemently agree with everything else that you said.

refurb 5y ago
Ok, then I misunderstood and am very confused. You said "This a very popular idea but I don't fully accept it. Goals and desires are not static. They are path dependent and adaptive. I want a funding scheme that's able to fund that." Which I interpret as "I reject the idea of setting some financial goal decades into the future. I want a scheme that is flexible and can accommodate changes to how I want to use my money." How is that different than "If my goals change, I don't want to lose money."?
- srean 5y ago
  The best sort of discussions are those where each is happy with the other's rewording of their position. I certainly do not reject setting financial goals decades into the future. I do not like ('like' and 'reject' aren't synonyms) investment discipline that are strictly fixated on some goal I had in the past. I would rather have an adaptive trade off of risk to return depending on where I am right now financially. Some goal I had ten years ago may not be as relevant in my current state. I wouldn't want to let go of a favorable opportunity by pulling out the money, just because a goal that I had set in the past has been met. > How is that different than "If my goals change, I don't want to lose money."? … and I don't see at all how they are equivalent. I might be willing accept the possibility of losing some money if there is a notable increase in the possibility of meeting my updated goal. I doubt that we have any fundamental disagreement. You have a good day.
  - refurb 5y ago
    I'm still confused as hell.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    The core problem here is that nobody understood your original comment or the follow ups. It isn't clear what you are criticizing or what alternative you want.

by srean 5y ago

refurb 5y ago

Ok, then I misunderstood and am very confused. You said "This a very popular idea but I don't fully accept it. Goals and desires are not static. They are path dependent and adaptive. I want a funding scheme that's able to fund that." Which I interpret as "I reject the idea of setting some financial goal decades into the future. I want a scheme that is flexible and can accommodate changes to how I want to use my money." How is that different than "If my goals change, I don't want to lose money."?

srean 5y ago
The best sort of discussions are those where each is happy with the other's rewording of their position. I certainly do not reject setting financial goals decades into the future. I do not like ('like' and 'reject' aren't synonyms) investment discipline that are strictly fixated on some goal I had in the past. I would rather have an adaptive trade off of risk to return depending on where I am right now financially. Some goal I had ten years ago may not be as relevant in my current state. I wouldn't want to let go of a favorable opportunity by pulling out the money, just because a goal that I had set in the past has been met. > How is that different than "If my goals change, I don't want to lose money."? … and I don't see at all how they are equivalent. I might be willing accept the possibility of losing some money if there is a notable increase in the possibility of meeting my updated goal. I doubt that we have any fundamental disagreement. You have a good day.
- refurb 5y ago
  I'm still confused as hell.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  The core problem here is that nobody understood your original comment or the follow ups. It isn't clear what you are criticizing or what alternative you want.