|
Dystram posted:I'm personally just curious as to whether or not to bother with investing for retirement or to just smoke'em while I got'em basically, as opposed to wondering if I can get in early on gold or condoms or bottlecaps or whatevs. Balance both.
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
Dystram posted:I'm personally just curious as to whether or not to bother with investing for retirement or to just smoke'em while I got'em basically, as opposed to wondering if I can get in early on gold or condoms or bottlecaps or whatevs. There is no upside to betting on the apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Dystram posted:I'm personally just curious as to whether or not to bother with investing for retirement or to just smoke'em while I got'em basically, as opposed to wondering if I can get in early on gold or condoms or bottlecaps or whatevs. Developing skills that are useful to people in lots of different contexts is probably a better use of your time than stockpiling gold or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There is no upside to betting on the apocalypse. The question is whether or not to save for a future that may not exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Developing skills that are useful to people in lots of different contexts is probably a better use of your time than stockpiling gold or whatever. Working on that first part already, and, as I said, my question is whether or not to bother saving for retirement, since I have a job and all, and I should probably make semi-informed decisions on what to do with my money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There is no upside to betting on the apocalypse. Then what is Arkane's motivation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Working on that first part already, and, as I said, my question is whether or not to bother saving for retirement, since I have a job and all, and I should probably make semi-informed decisions on what to do with my money. That's good. I think if your assessment is that you're liquid and diversified enough that a particular investment becoming less useful or defunct will impoverish you, you're probably ok. I'm not banking on anything that involves a deferred state promise (RRSPs etc) myself, but I don't think there's anything about climate change that makes socking away a surplus less useful in and of itself. If you're saving at the expense of pursuing projects you're considering that would make your life or your community more resilient, that might be a different story- I'd rather be spending on a passive solar heating system or something like that than have a bunch of money in bonds or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:That's good. I think if your assessment is that you're liquid and diversified enough that a particular investment becoming less useful or defunct will impoverish you, you're probably ok. I'm not banking on anything that involves a deferred state promise (RRSPs etc) myself, but I don't think there's anything about climate change that makes socking away a surplus less useful in and of itself. If you're saving at the expense of pursuing projects you're considering that would make your life or your community more resilient, that might be a different story- I'd rather be spending on a passive solar heating system or something like that than have a bunch of money in bonds or whatever. Right. I'm not saving at the expense of anything else. I've posted this video before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SODaBMEJ2xQ He make the point that investing in the market at this point is fairly pointless because by the time someone my age (31) would want to sell, no one will be buying since the economy for us regular folks will be fairly hosed. Just curious if that's right and true and accurate. My gut tells me it is but who knows. I'd rather have sock any extra cash away in a savings account if it's thought by you fine people that the market will be far too volatile in the near future to be worth investing in, not that savings accounts in such an apocalyptic future would be great anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Right. I'm not saving at the expense of anything else. Savings accounts interest rates are far below inflation, their only benefit is to have a liquid source of money available that's not hard cash. If you really want to prepare for a future where investing money doesn't matter then buy a piece of land in Idaho and build a cabin, otherwise you will screw yourself over in the long run if the apocalypse actually doesn't come.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Dystram posted:He make the point that investing in the market at this point is fairly pointless because by the time someone my age (31) would want to sell, no one will be buying since the economy for us regular folks will be fairly hosed. Just curious if that's right and true and accurate. My gut tells me it is but who knows. What market is he talking about, stocks?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Savings accounts interest rates are far below inflation, their only benefit is to have a liquid source of money available that's not hard cash. Let me rephrase my question. Given what we know about the climate, the current state of capitalism, and all the other horrible things, do you feel that the current, commonly given advice regarding retirement savings - invest in your 401k up to the company match, max out your Roth IRA, etc. - is still sound advice or is it better to simply invest all your available capital in skills and tangible assets that will help you survive the coming storm and/or enjoy what time we have left before it becomes more difficult to enjoy anything? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:What market is he talking about, stocks? Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Let me rephrase my question. Yes, that is still sound advice because in the event of an apocalypse it will most likely not effect the developed world. If you blow all of your money on gold or hookers & blow and it turns out the world doesn't end, you're probably going to end up killing yourself anyway. Learning practical skills however is probably a good idea regardless of what happens, but you don't need to empty your investment accounts to do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
I'm sitting in a Metro station to go home from today's Reject and Protect rally in DC. I left feeling fairly sad about the whole affair. Even if the KXL pipeline isn't approved, aren't we fairly screwed anyhow? I haven't seen a shred of good news about climate change... ever, it seems. My train is here. even if these are only drops in the bucket, I'ma keep doing this sort of thing in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Yeah. I think it probably depends on what timeframe you're thinking. A buy-and-hold fundamentals valuation strategy intended to provide retirement income decades in the future does seem a little optimistic to me, but then I'm one of those crazies who thinks that the majority of money being made on stocks comes from asymmetric informational advantages afforded to insiders and big financial institutions and that stock valuations have more to do with political connections and media hype than anything fundamental about the business itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:I think it probably depends on what timeframe you're thinking. A buy-and-hold fundamentals valuation strategy intended to provide retirement income decades in the future does seem a little optimistic to me, but then I'm one of those crazies who thinks that the majority of money being made on stocks comes from asymmetric informational advantages afforded to insiders and big financial institutions and that stock valuations have more to do with political connections and media hype than anything fundamental about the business itself. If it is any consolation, the leaders of financial economics are right there with you, at least in the sense that stock valuations are driven primarily by risk premia as opposed to new information about future cash flows/fundamental information about the company in question. As to how much of this is actually insider information, it becomes difficult but increasingly unlikely given the size and number of participants in the market. I would not expect it to fundamentally change over our lifetime, and if it does start to change keeping your eye on it will already put you above a large majority of people. As for me I guess I will continue to have (probably misplaced) faith in the ability of humanity as a group to innovate/evolve/invent our way out of problems. Whatever happened to all of those carbon-fixing ideas that happened up thread? And those new nuke reactors that you can't get weapons grade material from.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 19:28
|
|
computer parts posted:Yes, that is still sound advice because in the event of an apocalypse it will most likely not effect the developed world.  Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how the economy as we know it functions?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:
I, too, find it hard to believe the developed world will remain untouched.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
I feel like we may not be making a clear distinction between adaptation and mitigation. With mitigation there are lots of things to do that allow you to keep your basic model of the world in tact for a time, even having accepted anthropic change. You could still be working to minimize effect in a way that allowed you to keep living as a beneficiary of the system. All the various forms of cynicism and upset are basically about that relationship. You could also be working on mitigation having already gone through that, or never having been a beneficiary. Effective adaptation involves altering our ways of living having already accepted what is occurring to whatever extent possible for you. You might be working to invest in and conserve certain aspects of the legacy system, but not because they maintain your status as a beneficiary. Climate change is a symptom. Even if it were meaningfully possible, dealing with it as a symptom is not only insufficient, but likely leads to amplifications of effect. To really deal with it in one's own life involves a pretty radical shift of world view. This is not political, like changing parties or political ideology or something. Such a shift in world view is not like changing your mind about something. All of the reflections on the psychological and emotional nature of even considering that are accurate. If you cannot locate this on your own a way you can verify it for yourself is to find actual human beings who have gone through such a process and ask them about it. There is a lot of theory (some of which I have referenced ITT), but it really does not matter if you cannot correlate it with and verify it in your own life. Without such real correlation it will just be an interesting argument in which at least one of the disputants can be understood to actually be in the process itself. In order to understand the magnitude of such a shift, if you were so moved, it might be useful to consider the legacy model clearly. This can be done by encountering what you take to be self evident truth. Typically that cannot be encountered directly. It occurs as simply true, not some sort of socially constructed model in which you are participating. This is the first thing to consider. Often the only way to encounter such closely held models is through conflict. In order to do that it is necessary to create some capacity in yourself and with others to effectively encounter conflict. To do that you must learn to suspend your own point of view. This means though that in the presence of conflict you must also be willing to at least briefly consider the remote possibility that your position in the conflict is actively produced by your active participation in a point of view. One way to express the late stage industrial era version of the legacy model is something like: - a world of self existing, separate objects (this includes a separately existing self and fungibility of subject) - a use orientation of applying control for the sake of predictably manipulating the assumed to be separate objects - a primary form of manipulation based upon breaking apart the pre-existing connections in the system to release energy (predominantly fire) - the use of that energy to reform material (currently consumerism) - a use orientation during that forming that is designed to maximize and consolidate profit (the notions of: efficiency, growth, well-being, happiness and freedom all become contextualized by this use orientation) - very particular models of causality and individual are required for and cooked in to this This model is not "wrong". It is not a matter of refutation and argument. Some form of the above model (that can be expressed in many different ways) has been incredibly useful as a survival advantage, given assumptions about the nature of survival and the world, e.g. the world is a hostile place that will kill us if we do not control it. You could consider the success of the model to be increasing that effect. This model has a few additional qualities. It contains within it the assertion that it is not a socially constructed model. Of course this happens for us as human beings, but this model itself contains this as a premise. It also contains within it the assertion of natural selection as a variable, rather than a constant. As such it also asserts competition, linearity and scarcity as base conditions of growth and development. This means that from within the model alternative models are viewed as a competitive threat. Of course it also makes sense to both maximize and consolidate the end goal of the model, which is profit. Institutions and individuals holding or participating in the model may have some end that they imagine such dynamics serving, but if the profit aspect is missing the entire model ceases to function. Of course from within the model itself this is self evident, meaning that encountering alternatives is impossible. The model asserts a quality of necessity that eliminates the encounter with alternatives. From within all this it is quite literally impossible to see alternative models, including alternative understandings of agency and such. Therefore it looks like I can do nothing. Sometimes I experience that as a simple abdication of responsibility for what we are doing. If you are in any way persuaded of anthropic effect, then it makes no sense at all to me to also imagine that nothing can be done. To do that you would also have to imagine that your actions now are doing nothing, including contributing to the planetary anthropic effect. There are alternative models. The ones that seem meaningful to me do not "refute" the legacy model. That would essentially be a version of the legacy model. They look to see what we can conserve from that model, but they also radically recontextualize it. What is particularly difficult is that though we can see that the legacy model is producing these planetary effects and doing so at a scale considered as the produced shift of geological era, we don't know what assumptions are the right one's for the emerging era. Part of this is because some form of the above model constitutes our way of knowing itself. Until we encounter something about the legacy model as a model in our own lives alternatives are actively deleted and distorted to keep the legacy model in tact. We have seen cartoon versions of that ITT. They are easy to see. It is harder to see in ourselves. Actually dealing with this is not some walk in the park (though that is recommended as part of such a process). It is not just changing your mind. It means coming into contact with a re-constitution of yourself and the world. It is upsetting. Historically people have collectively rioted, been beheaded, overthrown institutions and social contracts in the process. Some understanding of your own relationship to impermanence and mortality are involved. Some version of identity death, abandoned or betrayed futures and thus grieving processes are involved. One of the obvious things to do is to come to terms with something about this for yourself and your community. Promoting the encounter with this crisis is a sucky process. It is far more benevolent and compassionate than waiting for planetary feedback loops to do the job, which may happen in any case. Perhaps any efforts are in vain? That can always be said about literally any life viewed individually. poo poo. You have no assurance whatsoever that some you will exist tomorrow, or even in the next moment. None. Yet, you continue to act in ways that seem meaningful to you, even if that meaning is your despair about meaninglessness. If you actually encountered meaninglessness you would be very free to act, rather than constrained by considerations about meaning, making a difference or such ideologies. You might experience some ability to choose. One of the first choices involved is to choose things exactly as they are, in so far as that is possible for you. That does not look or feel like, submission, resignation, rationalization, cynicism, etc. Sogol fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Apr 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Thanks, that's a great example of anger. down with slavery posted:What makes you think I'm depressed or nihilistic? Comments like this: down with slavery posted:What's the point in caring about something an individual can do nothing about. You elaborated your position later, but that sounds pretty depressed and nihilistic. Dystram posted:Working on that first part already, and, as I said, my question is whether or not to bother saving for retirement, since I have a job and all, and I should probably make semi-informed decisions on what to do with my money. What Paper Mac said, with the added provision that building resilience in your local community is investing in your retirement. Of course, it's still worth saving for retirement, if for no other reason than that it puts you in a financial mindset to save rather than splurge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Would it be worth it to start another thread about strengthening local communities to better endure climate change - real suggestions and action steps we could personally and locally take?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
It might be. I don't know where it would go, though. DIY+Hobbies? Ask/Tell? I have a thread I'm maintaining already, but if you feel up to it, go ahead and post the link here. There are a few useful threads on the forums already: The Bike Commuting Megathread (shameless plug) The Veggie and Herb Gardening thread The Sustainable Agriculture thread (that's pretty new, and I just found that now that I looked) The Tools Thread be able to fix your own stuff and/or your neighbours' stuff once it gets to be too expensive to replace it with cheap sweatshop-made crap from the other side of the world For that matter, all of DIY and Hobbies for a lot of the same reasons The Business, Finance, Careers subforum -- not for the investment/what to do when you're rich threads; more for the "how to make a budget" threads and the ones where goons post about their dire financial straights and get taught financial restraint. Outside of the forums, there's tons of stuff you can get involved with. Tool libraries, Transition Town initiatives, bike collectives, etc. E: There are also some good books to read. One I can think of right now (which is also on the topic of investing for retiremtn) is Local Dollars, Local Sense, which talks about investing locally. Lead out in cuffs fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:It might be. I don't know where it would go, though. DIY+Hobbies? Ask/Tell? I have a thread I'm maintaining already, but if you feel up to it, go ahead and post the link here. I will check out some of those. I was thinking something more along the lings of a strategies for community cooperation kind of thing, more strategies for spreading your knowledge of self or community reliance rather than for picking up that knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Elotana posted:France did it in 15 years. Small footnote regarding France's energy mix, we've just finished testing a "hydrolienne"(Google translate failed me) prototype. Right now, we're very close to grid connection. 3 others will be added to this first one, delivering electricity to more than 2000 houses. As we've got 4800km of coastlines, and currents are quite predictable, this could have a nice future here. In fact, as 50% of the world population lives at a distance inferior to 100km to the coastlines, this could have a nice future in a lot of places. http://reunion.orange.fr/loisirs/videos-reunion/actu-et-politique/paimpol-test-concluant-pour-l-hydrolienne.html http://energie.edf.com/fichiers/fckeditor/Commun/En_Direct_Centrales/energies_marines/paimpol/documents/2011-08-31_DP_Hydroliennes.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Picardy Beet posted:"hydrolienne"(Google translate failed me) Water turbine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
So tidal electric generators?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:So tidal electric generators? I think they're referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_current_power
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
upsciLLion posted:I think they're referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_current_power From a couple of years ago: http://researchers.edf.com/research-activities/marine-current-turbines-44219.html http://businesses.edf.com/generation/hydropower-and-renewable-energy/marine-energies/our-strategy-43776.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Right. I'm not saving at the expense of anything else. Investing is basically a secular Pascal's Wager - if you're betting that the world doesn't end, equities are a drastically better investment than cash in pretty much every scenario, and if you're betting that it does end the cash you saved isn't really going to measurably improve your lifestyle. Even in a world with limited growth prospects and reduced demand for equities, there will likely be successful companies paying dividends unless the notion of profitability goes away entirely, in which case you're back to the "world ending" scenario anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
It's not a question of stocks vs cash, it's a question of living a better life now (travel, cars, drugs) versus deferring money for a future that may not be worth living through. I can absolutely say that if I were to actually need to rely on my subsistence farming skills to survive, that's not a world I'd want to bother with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Radbot posted:It's not a question of stocks vs cash, it's a question of living a better life now (travel, cars, drugs) versus deferring money for a future that may not be worth living through. No, the question is "will my investments be worth anything in 40 years", not "will the future be worth living in".
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
I'd seriously be more worried about the bee collapse than global warming in terms of investing, right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
I'm dumb. My guess is planting a ton of trees won't do much to prevent global warming right? I'm only asking because I've seen people suggest that or say "C02 isn't a harmful gas! Trees use it!" and I can't help but wonder how trees will get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:I'm dumb. My guess is planting a ton of trees won't do much to prevent global warming right? I'm only asking because I've seen people suggest that or say "C02 isn't a harmful gas! Trees use it!" and I can't help but wonder how trees will get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Changing use patterns, switching to renewables, and hopefully perfecting the plastic carbon-sequestering tree technology will stop some of the damage. Some damage at this point is basically a known unknown at this point, like ocean acidification, or the bee colony collapse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:I'd seriously be more worried about the bee collapse than global warming in terms of investing, right now. I think this is a bit overblown, overwintering survival is down relative to historical rates but it's not really getting much worse, it's geographically restricted (the States is worse than Canada for instance), and it seems to be more likely related to Varroa mites and nutrient deficiencies in particular locales (California) than anything else. That said, my hives did have some trouble with the early warming the past couple years. I'm not keeping any this year but I suspect they'll be ok this year in Canada, at least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, the question is "will my investments be worth anything in 40 years", not "will the future be worth living in". If a diversified portfolio isn't going to be worth anything in 40 years, your future will be pretty loving lovely from the viewpoint of a person in a developed economy. Just minor things, like literally no one, including people that saved, ever being able to retire, companies will not be able to issue debt, etc. IMO a financial apocalypse (like the one you lay out in your post) would be "bad".
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:I think this is a bit overblown, overwintering survival is down relative to historical rates but it's not really getting much worse, it's geographically restricted (the States is worse than Canada for instance), and it seems to be more likely related to Varroa mites and nutrient deficiencies in particular locales (California) than anything else. That said, my hives did have some trouble with the early warming the past couple years. I'm not keeping any this year but I suspect they'll be ok this year in Canada, at least. And neonicotinoids. But in terms of investing, there's plenty to worry about besides bees and the changing climate. Fishery collapses, eutrophication and soil losses due to poor agricultural practices, heavy metal accumulation in food chains, energy and minerals getting harder to extract and ore expensive, and the likely halting of economic growth due to hitting planetary limits are a few. That said, this: Dr.Zeppelin posted:Even in a world with limited growth prospects and reduced demand for equities, there will likely be successful companies paying dividends unless the notion of profitability goes away entirely, in which case you're back to the "world ending" scenario anyway. Radbot posted:It's not a question of stocks vs cash, it's a question of living a better life now (travel, cars, drugs) versus deferring money for a future that may not be worth living through. This is the kind of thinking which (coupled with some astoundingly poor decisions on the part of both governments and banks) brought us the 2008 financial crisis. It's the kind of thinking fuelling the Canadian housing bubble right now. It's the kind of thinking dominating the minds of (many of) the baby boomer generation, and it will make the future shittier than it would be otherwise. Radbot posted:I can absolutely say that if I were to actually need to rely on my subsistence farming skills to survive, that's not a world I'd want to bother with. However, of all the possible futures out there, one in which you personally will have to survive by subsistence farming within your lifetime, is pretty unlikely. I'd worry more about the future in which you're living under a bridge in a tar paper shack, relying on soup kitchens and whatever's left of the social welfare system just for your food. Partying like there's no tomorrow greatly increases the likelihood of this happening to you personally in whatever future does come.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:And neonicotinoids. Ehh, the evidence for neonicotinoid involvement in CCD is much more equivocal than for eg Varroa mites. It seems to increase mortality but chronic exposures haven't really been looked at in much detail and I don't think anyone's demonstrated CCD from neonicotinoid exposure. It's probably not helping, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
The question of investment is not simply a matter of what return I will see. It also constitutes an active investment in something in a way that has real time effects, rather than simply a matter of future return. That doesn't categorically say "don't do it". It might imply being awake to what you are doing beyond some notion of personal return and risk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
Sogol posted:The question of investment is not simply a matter of what return I will see. It also constitutes an active investment in something in a way that has real time effects, rather than simply a matter of future return. That doesn't categorically say "don't do it". It might imply being awake to what you are doing beyond some notion of personal return and risk. I put around $40-50 a week into my 401k even though my net monthly income is $1,500ish. I could definitely use the extra money on a week to week basis, and I've tried to think long and hard about what it is I'm doing. I turn 65 in 2054. What will the world look like in 2054? Will I ever see my money again? I have no faith in the stability of the future. I wouldn't even say with any degree of certainty that the United States will exist in 2054. I have come very close to cutting my contributions completely. The only thing that has stopped me is that I'm not yet willing to accept that level of resignation. The implications of ending my contributions weighs heavy on me psychologically. Are you saying I should simply be more aware of where exactly my money is going and where I'm investing? I'm not sure how much better that would make me feel. Anything you would suggest specifically?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:24
|
|
