real estate, stocks, anything?
the recession dealt quite a bit of damage to me. so i chickened out and mostly missed the boat.
i guess i will catch up with ya on the next downswing
I buy and hold index funds, so my performance has been almost exactly the same as the market. But I started a new, higher paying job in September 2008, so I had a lot of free cash flow and put every red cent I had into stocks (through index funds) when they were cheap. I timed the market in that respect. I don't own any real estate, bonds or bond funds, individual stocks, precious metals, or anything else. The simple reason is that they are either more expensive, more work or have weaker performance than stocks, or all three (for example, in the case of real estate). But of you bought a house you could live in it while waiting for it to turn profit. A house holds value a lot better than stocks. And even if the value goes down to a worthless level, you can still make use (and profit) of it unlike stocks .The key question is, when did you start investing A residence is a nonperforming asset. It does not generate any profit. And the rate of return on residential real estate is vastly inferior to stocks--about half in real numbers, even lower in real return. That's not to mention the lack of liquidity in residential real estate and all of the taxes, upkeep, insurance, etc. It is also, as many learned in the past 6 years, among the least diversified and most risky ways to hold capital. 1992, but in a more serious way in 1996. Residential real estate does provide a rental yield (profit), which can be attributed to a homeowner's returns. But real estate investors have a lot of delusion about the superiority of their (inferior) assets. Public equity does outperform residential real estate, and especially on a risk-adjusted basis, given the lack of scope for diversification in real estate investments. The psyche of the average investor is a strange thing. Everyone knows that you should buy low and sell high and, as Buffett is always quoted, be greedy when everyone is scared and scared when everyone is greedy. But in practice people tend to do the exact opposite. They tend to be willing to take on more risk and buy more stock when prices are high, when they should be eating up risk in bear markets instead. The one good thing is it creates opportunities for bear market buyers. I agree 100%. I've had to strongly encourage investors to not panic and sell during bear market conditions ("But what if it goes even lower?!"). It can be painful to watch someone lose a good chunk of the returns on their savings because of said panic. Then again, I am younger and can afford the perceived risk more. |
|
|
|
I have to run for today...I look forward to continuing the discussion between the pragmatist(me) and the ideologue(you).
The above isn't pragmatic. It ignores the very real impacts that dialogue has in framing the issue. Your comments that US attitudes won't change is also statistically incorrect, they have been changing over the years it just isn't close to a tipping point yet, as has the international response to such incursions. I find your "pragmatism" to be a little lopsided because it recognizes the power of Israeli PR and propaganda but completely ignores the concept of PR and propaganda from Palestinian factions and completely ignores international pressures, not only on Israel, but on the US as well. I'd also argue that it is in no way pragmatic to lump all Palestinian factions together or to ignore the evolution of insurgency and the threat of a third intifada as the Abbas administration gets further undermined by violence in Gaza. That's just an excuse to avoid talking about issues that you might not be as well versed in. finally your final line rather ignores the entire history of modern conflict resolution. That's not the way it works so leaning on that isn't very "pragmatic". You're suggesting my joke wasn't pragmatic? I see. The rest, however, was. The Palestinian PR machine has been in high gear for several years now. It really hasn't gone anywhere important. Israel has kept it's PR machine at the lobbying level. They certainly have the capacity to ratchet it up whenever they desire for the American public. And let's face it, they can easily use examples like the idiot Hamas spokesperson and the Hamas charter to blow all the concepts out of proportion. This is why the Palestinians and their vitriolic language will fail. They need to decide whether to use PR or force. They are unable to use both at once because of the nature of how they drum up supporters to blow themselves up. 1.) Polling data in the US over time would indicate otherwise. 2.) I agree that Hamas hurts the Palestinian PR effort greatly. 3.) Education isn't as easy to push and it takes longer / more involvement, but it can also be used to defeat propaganda. The Israeli PR machine rather depends on a largely ignorant US public. This one in particular is important. It should have caused a dramatic shift, and it would have except for groups like Hamas and people like Arafat. This is why it will also continue to fail. For the first part of the sentence: I don't think so, it has been a slow shift and hasn't reached that tipping point yet. Operation Protective Edge helps though. For the last part: It will only fail in the absence of educational levels of the conflict. like I said, the Hamas / Arafat angles only really work as propaganda against those unfamiliar with the details of the conflict. So in that area, time is not an ally of Israel. |
|
|
|
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/08...human-shields/Israel says Hamas manual explains usage of human shields Israel’s military says it has found a Hamas manual explaining how the militant group uses human shields to their advantage amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The “Urban Warfare” manual, belonging to Hamas' armed wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades, says that the group knows that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is trying to limit civilian casualties. “The soldiers and commanders (of the IDF) must limit their use of weapons and tactics that lead to the harm and unnecessary loss of people and [destruction of] civilian facilities,” the manual says, according to a blog post on the IDF’s website. “It is difficult for them to get the most use out of their firearms, especially of supporting fire [e.g. artillery].” Israel has repeatedly accused Hamas of launching rockets at Israel out of schools, homes and religious sites. The locations puts Gazans in danger as Israel tries to destroy the rocket launchers. The manual adds that “presence of civilians are pockets of resistance” for Israeli troops, as they will have difficulty opening fire in their vicinity, as well as controlling them during operations and supplying medical care to civilians in need. Hamas also states that homes and Gaza civilian facilities destroyed by Israeli airstrikes are beneficial to the group, according to the IDF. “The destruction of civilian homes: This increases the hatred of the citizens toward the attackers [the IDF] and increases their gathering [support] around the city defenders (resistance forces [i.e. Hamas]).” And of course anything the IDF claims must be true |
|
|
|
I honestly believe I could get an agreement worked out if I were representing the Palestinians. This is really intriguing. How would you go about doing that (keeping all of the political pressures in mind)? Not something perfect, but something that would be a start in the right direction. People need to start listening to the solid business leaders in Palestine, not the politicians. Some of those guys have the right advice. Well that was tried under the Road Map to Peace Plan under Bush. Israel didn't play ball and refused to even halt settlement expansion let alone with moving forward to discuss a comprehensive deal. There isn't really any incentive for Israel to engage in any sort of peace plan that discusses borders, and every incentive for Israeli governments not to. If we're being realists here. Israel simply isn't and isn't likely to be a partner for peace given the make-up of their polity. |
|
|
|
You may not like what I'm saying, but I believe I'm correct, and if you ignore emotions on both sides...most particularly the fact that the Palestinians are forced to live in deplorable conditions, I think you would agree. I honestly believe I could get an agreement worked out if I were representing the Palestinians. Not something perfect, but something that would be a start in the right direction. People need to start listening to the solid business leaders in Palestine, not the politicians. Some of those guys have the right advice.
I think that you are correct in the sense that Hamas hurts the Palestinians in PR terms (after a certain point, it was violence afterall that first made the world aware of the Israeli-Palestinian issue). I don't think that Hamas particularly cares though. That's not what they are worried about. They are acting fairly pragmatically as far as their own interests are concerned (survival). What I disagree with you here is 1.) some of the realities on the ground in terms of the details of the conflict 2.) The usefulness of bringing them to light and openly discussing them. |
|
|
|
I have to run for today...I look forward to continuing the discussion between the pragmatist(me) and the ideologue(you).
The above isn't pragmatic. It ignores the very real impacts that dialogue has in framing the issue. Your comments that US attitudes won't change is also statistically incorrect, they have been changing over the years it just isn't close to a tipping point yet, as has the international response to such incursions. I find your "pragmatism" to be a little lopsided because it recognizes the power of Israeli PR and propaganda but completely ignores the concept of PR and propaganda from Palestinian factions and completely ignores international pressures, not only on Israel, but on the US as well. I'd also argue that it is in no way pragmatic to lump all Palestinian factions together or to ignore the evolution of insurgency and the threat of a third intifada as the Abbas administration gets further undermined by violence in Gaza. That's just an excuse to avoid talking about issues that you might not be as well versed in. finally your final line rather ignores the entire history of modern conflict resolution. That's not the way it works so leaning on that isn't very "pragmatic". You're suggesting my joke wasn't pragmatic? I see. The rest, however, was. The Palestinian PR machine has been in high gear for several years now. It really hasn't gone anywhere important. Israel has kept it's PR machine at the lobbying level. They certainly have the capacity to ratchet it up whenever they desire for the American public. And let's face it, they can easily use examples like the idiot Hamas spokesperson and the Hamas charter to blow all the concepts out of proportion. This is why the Palestinians and their vitriolic language will fail. They need to decide whether to use PR or force. They are unable to use both at once because of the nature of how they drum up supporters to blow themselves up. 1.) Polling data in the US over time would indicate otherwise. 2.) I agree that Hamas hurts the Palestinian PR effort greatly. 3.) Education isn't as easy to push and it takes longer / more involvement, but it can also be used to defeat propaganda. The Israeli PR machine rather depends on a largely ignorant US public. |
|
|
|
I have to run for today...I look forward to continuing the discussion between the pragmatist(me) and the ideologue(you).
The above isn't pragmatic. It ignores the very real impacts that dialogue has in framing the issue. Your comments that US attitudes won't change is also statistically incorrect, they have been changing over the years it just isn't close to a tipping point yet, as has the international response to such incursions. I find your "pragmatism" to be a little lopsided because it recognizes the power of Israeli PR and propaganda but completely ignores the concept of PR and propaganda from Palestinian factions and completely ignores international pressures, not only on Israel, but on the US as well. I'd also argue that it is in no way pragmatic to lump all Palestinian factions together or to ignore the evolution of insurgency and the threat of a third intifada as the Abbas administration gets further undermined by violence in Gaza. That's just an excuse to avoid talking about issues that you might not be as well versed in. finally your final line rather ignores the entire history of modern conflict resolution. That's not the way it works so leaning on that isn't very "pragmatic". |
|
|
|
This isn't a question of right and wrong, it's a question of what is possible. Right, what is possible won't change until attitudes in the US and Israel change which is exactly why it is so important to speak out about the abuses that are going on, the failings that are taking place, and yes, what is fair. Without that dialogue there would be nothing to push public opinion change. It is of vital importance to keep reiterating what SHOULD happen (with a healthy dash of pragmatism) in the hopes of one day coming close to it. |
|
|
|
|
Invested in companies targeted by the bailouts while they were still being debated (so before the bailouts happened). Junk bond status to stable in little time. I also do more blue chip companies like GE that I see growing in overseas markets.
|
|
|
|
If you want that to change, then Palestinian tactics have to change Once again, I don't find anything to support this idea that things would change if rocket attacks stopped. I am against them and think they should stop, but statistically speaking the notion that Israel is a larger partner for peace in the absence of rocket fire is mathematically false and carries no supporting evidence. |
|
|
|
You seem to be looking for me to defend Israel. Let me make this easy. I don't defend Israel. What they're doing isn't "fair". But the sad truth is that life isn't fair. I'm not asking for fair. I'm asking for the provision of basic human rights and compliance with basic international laws. Fair would be a one state solution with Palestinians having full citizenship rights. That's not what I am seeking. |
|
|
|
But I would like to browse through some examples if possible of the sort of blatant disregard for ceasefires such as the recent Hamas disaster. There are hundreds of them, what specifically would you like an example of? This is just rhetoric. I suspect Israel would be willing to engage in peace talks with anyone that agrees that Israel actually exists. Abbas has always recognized Israel's right to exist, that was granted by the Palestinian Authority before he even came into power, and it certainly hasn't made Israel any more willing to halt settlement expansion as per their past peace plan promises. As long as Palestinians elect Hamas, it's kind of pointless to expect Israel to negotiate with people only negotiating in bad faith. This is just rhetoric I think I answered this in the body of this post. I'm not arguing that Israel is not culpable. I'm saying there is no moving forward when there are rockets falling on Israel, and when Hamas...whether you like them or not...refuse to acknowledge Israel exists. In truth, Israel's choices are pretty limited when you consider the geography of the area, and the weaponry available to Hamas. I find this to be a bit of a scapegoat excuse in the face of the fact that Israel does have a partner for peace with which to work in Abbas and has refused to do so for the past 8 years regardless of how calm or volatile things are over in Gaza. You claim that Israel would be a partner for peace if there were no rockets? Then why hasn't Israel lived up to any of its West Bank specific peace plan promises to the PA despite years of peace in the West Bank? Why haven't we seen any follow through on peace plan promises even when things are also quiet in Gaza? A good part of the answer to this is that Israel does not believe Abbas has the gravitas to get the job done. Linking up with Hamas did not help that at all. You seem to be looking for me to defend Israel. Let me make this easy. I don't defend Israel. What they're doing isn't "fair". But the sad truth is that life isn't fair. When I think of Israel, I look at them as a democracy in name only, and only going that far in order to keep the goodwill of the US. Israel is the bully on the block because they have by far the most and best firepower. And as long as they do have that...which they do, and as long as they are willing to use it...which they are, and as long as they keep pointing to rockets firing on Israel...they will continue to kill large numbers of people. 1.) Abbas has been able to very effectively increase Palestinian security in the West Bank so unless you can get more specific then I can't really concede to your point. 2.) a unity government used to be a per-requsite by Israel and the lack of it an excuse not to engage and now it's existence is an excuse not to engage? Which is it? 3.) The unity government is a very new issue and doesn't account for Israel's lack of engagement over the last 8 years. |
|
|
|
I find the irony in you saying Israel doesn't recognize a state entity great, considering the position of Hamas. And you wonder why I say both sides are at fault equally? And yet you don't seem to want to acknowledge anything that Israel is at fault for while i've already said that I strongly dislike Hamas and want to see it marginalized and dismantled while simultaneously not denying any of the human rights abuses that they have engaged in. I'm not the one with the seeming double standards here in my stances. I'm not going to deal the prior stuff because it's not really what I was trying to discuss. I can easily acknowledge Israel's fault in many things. The most obvious being that if you try to use force to keep people in poverty and oppression, they will ALWAYS be willing to die to try and lift the yoke. That's human nature, and a serious problem with ISrael. What I see no point in is discussing breaches by either side, and I accidentally let myself get drawn into it. I'm only interested in pragmatic solutions. And as long as Israel has the trump hand, which it will for longer than I will be alive, the way to negotiate is not to throw rockets at them. Tempting as it may be out of anger, or frustration, or whatever. That is the reality on the ground. How can one hope to make pragmatic solutions without understanding the details of ceasefire efforts, the structure of Hamas, or the grievances of the Palestinians? You can't ignore the above if you are interested in pragmatic or sustainable solutions. |
|
|
|
But I would like to browse through some examples if possible of the sort of blatant disregard for ceasefires such as the recent Hamas disaster. There are hundreds of them, what specifically would you like an example of? This is just rhetoric. I suspect Israel would be willing to engage in peace talks with anyone that agrees that Israel actually exists. Abbas has always recognized Israel's right to exist, that was granted by the Palestinian Authority before he even came into power, and it certainly hasn't made Israel any more willing to halt settlement expansion as per their past peace plan promises. As long as Palestinians elect Hamas, it's kind of pointless to expect Israel to negotiate with people only negotiating in bad faith. This is just rhetoric I think I answered this in the body of this post. I'm not arguing that Israel is not culpable. I'm saying there is no moving forward when there are rockets falling on Israel, and when Hamas...whether you like them or not...refuse to acknowledge Israel exists. In truth, Israel's choices are pretty limited when you consider the geography of the area, and the weaponry available to Hamas. I find this to be a bit of a scapegoat excuse in the face of the fact that Israel does have a partner for peace with which to work in Abbas and has refused to do so for the past 8 years regardless of how calm or volatile things are over in Gaza. You claim that Israel would be a partner for peace if there were no rockets? Then why hasn't Israel lived up to any of its West Bank specific peace plan promises to the PA despite years of peace in the West Bank? Why haven't we seen any follow through on peace plan promises even when things are also quiet in Gaza? |
|
|
|
I find the irony in you saying Israel doesn't recognize a state entity great, considering the position of Hamas. And you wonder why I say both sides are at fault equally? And yet you don't seem to want to acknowledge anything that Israel is at fault for while i've already said that I strongly dislike Hamas and want to see it marginalized and dismantled while simultaneously not denying any of the human rights abuses that they have engaged in. I'm not the one with the seeming double standards here in my stances. |
|
|
|
But I would like to browse through some examples if possible of the sort of blatant disregard for ceasefires such as the recent Hamas disaster. There are hundreds of them, what specifically would you like an example of? This is just rhetoric. I suspect Israel would be willing to engage in peace talks with anyone that agrees that Israel actually exists. Abbas has always recognized Israel's right to exist, that was granted by the Palestinian Authority before he even came into power, and it certainly hasn't made Israel any more willing to halt settlement expansion as per their past peace plan promises. As long as Palestinians elect Hamas, it's kind of pointless to expect Israel to negotiate with people only negotiating in bad faith. This is just rhetoric I think I answered this in the body of this post. I'm not arguing that Israel is not culpable. I'm saying there is no moving forward when there are rockets falling on Israel, and when Hamas...whether you like them or not...refuse to acknowledge Israel exists. In truth, Israel's choices are pretty limited when you consider the geography of the area, and the weaponry available to Hamas. You should know that I have better standards than that. Why you are so adverse to believing a very well documented issue (so much so that it is covered by the US State Department's own terrorism reportings) is beyond me. Or rather more concerning: why you would be so ready to dismiss such a widespread phenomenon as mere rhetoric. The West Bank settler pricetag campaign hasn't been very secretive. http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/21/i...ttler-violencehttp://www.ochaopt.org/documents/och...11_english.pdfhttp://bigstory.ap.org/article/un-sa...attacks-4-fold |
|
|
|
They can't be trusted, any more than if Israel said they would go along with the ceasefire, and some faction within Israel decided to attack Palestinians. That literally happens during every single ceasefire that has ever existed and lasted any significant amount of time since Hamas' takeover of Gaza. Also, according to these standards, the Abbas government should be in a permanent state of war with Israel. You seem to want to delve into the reasons both sides hate each other. That's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the ability of Hamas to live up to it's promises, when the political arm of it and the military arm seem to never know what the other is doing. And then Hamas has people like this for their spokesman: http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ham.../04/id/586835/These people are literally insane, and can't really be negotiated with, with any degree of confidence. What you seem to want is for Hamas to be a more highly centralized dictatorial governance structure than it actually is and is capable of being and all of this despite the huge destruction of the Strip's infrastructure. It is unrealistic to expect things to be able to be 100% controlled right away. That's impossible, and such impossibilities are not limited to this conflict, it is a pretty standard characteristic of conflicts in general. And if you want me to start on the broader "living up to ceasefire promises" issue, then Israel performs just as badly in that department via historical ceasefires; only they do so under the venue of actually having strong control over its factions which makes the violations official state policy rather than an inability to control some fringe elements. Can you give some examples of Israel not living up to ceasefire agreements where the parties involved weren't tried in a transparent court of law? I can give several, both blatant violations, violations by third parties, and violations of what I would call the spirit of the ceasefire. 1.) Blatant violations largely surround the issue of border closure policies and the blockade. Every day that Israel closed the borders on humanitarian aid and civilian commercial flow, every day that it prevented Palestinians from fishing is a day that past ceasefires have been violated. That applies especially to Operation Cast Lead and is exactly the reason why Hamas didn't renew the ceasefire which led to the violence. 2.) Pricetag attacks are pretty common in the West Bank and have been on the rise. That represents third parties under Israeli jurisdiction engaging in acts of terrorism against Palestinians while ceasefires were in effect (the pricetag attacks are fairly regular). 3.) In terms of the spirit of the law. Israel routinely targets Hamas members (and members of other Gazan factions) in the West Bank during ceasefires with Hamas. When Hamas has complained in the past Israel's response has been "Our ceasefire only applies to Gaza." When you kill or arbitrarily arrest members of say the Palestinian Islamic Jihad's familial structure in the West Bank you shouldn't be surprised when Hamas' ability to coerce said organization into refraining from retaliating is somewhat compromised. I don't see any examples there. Also, 1) is not a ceasefire violation. 2) would be subject to what I described earlier with transparent trials and 3) is pretty straightforward. If a country agrees to a ceasefire with one party under specific terms, it doesn't affect other countries or other groups unless it's specifically part of the ceasefire. But I would like to browse through some examples if possible of the sort of blatant disregard for ceasefires such as the recent Hamas disaster. It absolutely is as the terms of many of the past ceasefires stipulate conditionals regarding the blockade. Saying it isn't a breach of past ceasefires seems to indicate a lack of familiarity of what all the past ceasefires entailed. It may be if that was specified, but you have yet to show any example of that. See, here I am asking you for examples, and you're telling me I don't know of examples. I gave you an example, the ceasefire that lasted until the start of Operation Cast Lead. In fact, the specific reason why the ceasefire ended (or rather wasn't renewed) wasn't over attacks at all, it was called off because Hamas demanded that Israel allow EU monitors to be stationed in Egypt, not Israel so that Israel couldn't prevent the opening of the Rafah crossing by preventing the movement of said monitors to Rafah. Even the last Egyptian ceasefire (of 2012) had a stipulation pertaining to the blockade, and that provision has always been key to Hamas which is why it rejected Egypt's original ceasefire option this time that made no mention of the blockade. An example from 2012: note section 1C: http://live.reuters.com/Event/Confli...Strip/57460762 |
|
|
|
But I would like to browse through some examples if possible of the sort of blatant disregard for ceasefires such as the recent Hamas disaster. There are hundreds of them, what specifically would you like an example of? This is just rhetoric. I suspect Israel would be willing to engage in peace talks with anyone that agrees that Israel actually exists. Abbas has always recognized Israel's right to exist, that was granted by the Palestinian Authority before he even came into power, and it certainly hasn't made Israel any more willing to halt settlement expansion as per their past peace plan promises. As long as Palestinians elect Hamas, it's kind of pointless to expect Israel to negotiate with people only negotiating in bad faith. This is just rhetoric |
|
|
|
3) is pretty straightforward. If a country agrees to a ceasefire with one party under specific terms, it doesn't affect other countries or other groups unless it's specifically part of the ceasefire. Hamas has operatives in both locations as do most major Gazan factions. The ceasefire isn't with any sort of political state entity (it would be hard to argue that since Israel doesn't recognize one as existing) it is with the organizations in question. |
|
|
|
2) would be subject to what I described earlier with transparent trials and There are no transparent trials. There is largely just impunity, Israel doesn't even legally classify it as acts of terrorism which allows most who are even arrested to avoid any sort of criminal trial. The lack of trials doesn't mean that there aren't third parties under Israeli jurisdiction engaging in violent acts against Palestinians during ceasefire periods. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
