73 Reds

I respectfully disagree. We already tax large generational wealth transfers well beyond any reasonable proportionality. Just check the lowest estate tax rates. Why would we choose to punish those who have generated/created/earned the most wealth, who have also paid (by far) the most taxes during their lifetimes and who also disproportionately support charities and other public interest causes? What is the ultimate goal? Simply raising more revenues is a weak argument in light of the relatively tiny revenues raised from gift and estate taxes. If the goal is to encourage more consumption, statistics reflect that fortunes are often completely spent by the 2nd and 3rd generations so that too doesn't support higher taxes on wealth transfer. The flip side is if folks know that they can't build a legacy that can be passed down as they wish, how many legacies will ever get built?

Its somewhat ironic that politics also plays a part; conservatives tend to be more optimistic and liberals more downtrodden. Not sure I can rationally explain that. But you are so right about hard work, saving, discipline, etc.. Life has to be about a proper balance. Some are raised with it; others have to adopt it. There is genuine satisfaction in a life lived responsibly, well beyond financial rewards.

Of course. Do you think that what you tend to see day to day is a product of expectations? As other posters have pointed out, older generations had to work harder/longer for less and we've gone from a survivalist mentality to a rather comfortable experience-oriented mentality in a very short period of time. I just can't see how today's youth doesn't have an advantage when it comes to education and opportunity.

I think the chart can be explained in at least two ways: (1) older people have had more time to accumulate wealth in stocks and stocks have done very well since 1990; and (2) There are many more opportunities to create and hold wealth today - particularly for young people - than merely owning stocks. A traditional brokerage account in 1990 offered opportunities to buy stocks (or mutual funds) and hold cash. Today even traditional brokerage accounts have far more investment alternatives and the gig economy offers so many more ways to make money so (for some young people's mindsets) why even bother with stocks at all? There is also the notion that today's young people (at least in the US) seem to be all about the "experience" and less so concerned with material wealth.

But younger generations are always less wealthy than their predecessor generations until they grow older because older generations have had more time to generate wealth. And even so, they are still better off than much older generations at the same juncture. Besides, how exactly does one measure wealth? JP Morgan and John Rockefeller were hugely wealthy in their times but who would want to trade places today with them?

Making money is about so much more than investing. Yeah, I know we are on an "investment board". But figuring out professionally what you are good at (or even adept) is something that most young people today have an opportunity to do that some of us older folks did not, at least at the beginning. Life was not always this convenient where folks could sit around all day (or whenever) and talk about different ways to make money while at the same time doing something productive to actually make money. And there are no set working hours - working hours are whenever one chooses to work in many areas.

LOL, the chart tells me that you want to be a long term homeowner and you don't want to settle for the "median". But if all you truly want to be is "average" there has never been a better time in history. You could win the Mr./Mrs. Mediocrity Award and live a pretty nice life in the US.

Perhaps but young people have more opportunities today than ever. Again, I'd trade places with any broke young person in a heart beat.

Wow, so many fatalist attitudes on this board. I would gladly give up everything I own to be young again with the same knowledge I have now.

To your point, there is nothing wrong with cash when your intent is to deploy the cash into an actionable investment and you don't look for too many excuses along the way. Age and investment objectives have a lot to do with this as well. When you no longer need any more to maintain your lifestyle indefinitely, why risk what you've got? At least retain as much as you will ever need in reliably safe assets (reliability and safety will vary with every one of us). Personally, I shun debt because losing money is bad enough but when you wind up paying to lose money, well....

I'm not Parsad but a 401 plan is also a dollar cost average plan. In such case when you are investing for times that are often well into the future, today's prices are immaterial to long term results.

Wow, didn't know markets were shut down today. Scary to think what they might do when Biden passes. Of course if it happens under Trump, maybe he declares a day of 24-hour trading.

There will always be "crashes" of one sort or another because there will always continue to be unexpected events that influence consensus behavior. That said it is silly to try to plan for such events, precisely because they are unexpected and their timing is unknown. Best strategy is to take advantage of any such events rather than be afraid of them. Buffett speaks often about this issue citing Depressions, World Wars and other huge disruptions including politics that did not destroy capitalism or our economy. Likewise there will always be frenzies of one form or another. I have yet to hear of any frenzy that ended well.

Blake, you're young and lucky. I'm old and lucky. Wanna trade places? I was lucky to have discovered Berkshire Hathaway when interest rates were at all time highs and the US economy was in the dumps - circa 1980. Took me a while to get comfortable with it too. Not long thereafter I discovered MO. Two entirely different companies, both hugely successful for shareholders. I sold MO on moral grounds (couldn't trust management after the MSA) but the lesson is that there is always something to buy in any economic environment. As an aside I stopped caring at all about macro issues and instead simply buy and hold stocks (pieces of businesses) I believe will prosper no matter what.

I'd rely on someone with knowledge - i.e., a coin dealer. But don't necessarily trust the 1st one; recently a family friend passed away and his wife discovered that he had a large collection of US and worldwide coins; some very old that was evidently passed down from his father. The first dealer she went to made an offer for the entire collection that sounded good to her. I suggested that she go to another dealer just for the sake of comparison and the second dealer offered more for one (vintage) coin than the first dealer had offered for the whole collection.

If you want to know what they are worth take them to one or more reputable coin dealers. Otherwise I don't have expertise but have collected coins and currencies as a hobby and enjoy having them as keepsakes.

LOL, the irony is when a landlord leases to tenants who can't afford the rent, the landlord is only creating problems for himself. But to the very issue involving Clayton Homes, there is no telling what the buyer might have represented in its financing application or even verbally (i.e., "I'm getting a big raise starting next week"). Home owners who default on their mortgages have many more legal options than defaulting tenants, who can often be summarily removed even if they have a valid defense to an eviction but no money to cover the rent.

Agreed; in its present iteration there is no price worth buying BTC. Would much rather own artwork, a fine piece of jewelry, or any number of items that don't generate anything other than enjoyment for its owners.

Hmm, what's next - is the government going to start suing landlords who rent to tenants who can't afford the rent?

Yes. Lead me to anyone who has become wealthy and retained such wealth by investing in a monetary asset.

Sounds like a lot of gobble-d-gook for "there are no known metrics for valuation so I'll just make something up". Otherwise phone companies, social media companies and internet companies all generate cash flow and revenues/profits. Ironically proponents can't even agree on what exactly BTC is, let alone a rational way to value it. The only way to realistically value a "monetary asset" is relative to other monetary assets. Even so, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Gold, for example has unique historical, cultural and social characteristics developed over thousands of years and can be used for something other than as a monetary asset. Yet even gold has been a lousy investment, poor hedge against inflation and awful store of value as compared to other alternative investments that generate real returns.

And how, exactly does any of that translate into a current price? BTC is unique; it is perhaps the only "asset" whereas if the price were to fall by 99%, I'd be no more inclined to buy it than I would now.

But its not just "value investing", not even sure what that means, exactly. Appealing equity investments have elements of both value and growth. The proportion of these elements in any given stock may change over time but the real challenge is not believing that any such change is a bad thing. Pretty much everything I've learned about investing came from Buffett/Munger: The goal of buying stocks that ideally never have to be sold; avoiding too much decision-making; the leverage of deferred capital gains and avoidance of unnecessary capital gains taxes; the value of a moat and the importance of dominance of your competitors; thinking about stocks as real businesses and not pieces of paper; and yes, the importance of intrinsic value. These principles are timeless. I apply them to my own businesses and private investment holdings. They don't require greater fools for success because when you begin with an intended "forever" time horizon, the price at any time thereafter is irrelevant. All that matters are desirable operational results and distributions from those holdings which pay them.

@James, that's just completely wrong. I am never early to invest in anything (at least that I didn't create). First share of BRK was 1983. First share of MSFT 1989. Early 1990s for HD. AAPL and WMT long after these were household names. Even Fairfax was 2021. I'm no investment genius. Just requires discipline and patience.

No, folks who appreciate a car for more than a vehicle buy Ferraris. They are willing to pay up. (Doesn't mean I'd buy a Ferrari unless I appreciated the uniqueness.) Same with anything else that can be uniquely appreciated. BTC possesses no unique quality other than a substitute for what already exists and there is nothing there for most people to appreciate other than a frenzy that will eventually die out just like every other frenzy. The fact that Wall Street is marketing BTC says more about Wall Street than it does about BTC.