rkbabang

Too much regulation or absolutely zero regulation both cause problems. As with just about everything, moderation is best. Standards exist to ensure safety. Snake-oil salesmen exist in all forms, education is no different. What makes you think removing all regulation will have a positive effect? Because education is a very individual and life long process. It can't be designed or forced from the outside. No two people need or want the same thing. No two people have the same abilities and interests, and those even change for each individual throughout life, and even from day to day. There is a massive demand for education. The number of parents who do not want their children to be educated is tiny indeed. And the number of children who are not naturally inquisitive and want to learn is tiny as well (at least until the state gets a hold of them, segregates them by age, bores them to death, and sucks the motivation to learn right out of them). You may say "but what about those few irresponsible parents or uninterested children?" But lets face it, the children of those parents are the ones who are not only not getting a good education under the state system today, but are impeding the other children in their school who are forced to be in the same classroom from getting an education as well. We live in a world where most of the information on earth is at your fingertips instantly, a 19th century Prussian education model is more than a little outdated.

Sorry. I sometimes forget that the government can solve all problems. Please continue. Nobody said that. But apparently some people believe that any government involvement is evil. Ignore him. Thankfully he has a nice bright icon that makes it easy to do so. The moment I see that icon I know the libertarian "evil thieving taxing incompetent government" crap will be in the post so I don't bother to read it. It would also be nice if people didn't quote him since that makes it more difficult to ignore. Good to know I can talk about you and you will never see it. It is always a good idea in general to never read anything that might challenge your delusions. I will let you all continue your plans to design a top down education system that will be such a perfect fit for every individual child on earth that it should be forced upon them by law and their parents should be forced to pay for it. The hubris of statists is delightfully amusing.

You're smarter than they are. ;) Are you proposing an IQ test be needed for borrowing money?

Sorry. I sometimes forget that the government can solve all problems. Please continue. Nobody said that. But apparently some people believe that any government involvement is evil. Yes. It is like a cancer. "Just a little" involvement grows year by year until it overwhelms everything else. People like to say, we should reduce the cancer over here and have a little more cancer over there, or we need a different type of cancer, and proclaim that they are for small-cancer. I like to just come out and call it what it is and advocate cutting it out completely, saturating it with chemo or radiation, then watching closely to make sure it never comes back.

Sorry. I sometimes forget that the government can solve all problems. Please continue.

You can't "design" an "education system". That is like going to North Korea in 2005 and asking "how can we design a smartphone and an app ecosystem?". A top down design isn't possible, especially in education, which is something that is different for every single individual on Earth. I know how we can end this horribly top-down designed system we now have, a lot of what I has been written above is a good start. No one knows how to design an education system and if they tell you they do they are delusional. That is like "designing an economy". To un-design our horrible system. You need to: End compulsory schooling. Close all public schools of all types. Reduce or eliminate all taxes of all types, at all levels of government, by the exact amount that previously went to any aspect of "education". Get rid of all rules, regulations, and laws at every level of government, in every agency, that has anything to do with education. Get rid of every government agency that has anything to do with education at every level of government from the local city/town to the federal government. Fire everyone and shut it down. That would be a good start.

Rand Paul is out

+1 My list would also be Amazon, Google, and Apple. Apple is the only one where the price is right, so I'm buying.

I've used H&R Block every year since 1996 (It was called Taxcut back then). I've never tried anything else, before that I did my taxes by hand on paper forms.

There would definitely be a large downside to wining such a newsworthy jackpot (at least at first). I would not want my name to be published as the person who won that jackpot. Not only carrying everywhere I went and escorting my children everywhere they go, I'd be sleeping fully clothed with my Glock in its holster on my belt for the next 6 months. People get crazy. CROWDS GATHER AT WINNING POWERBALL 7-ELEVEN IN CHINO HILLS, CALIFORNIA "The California store and its surrounding strip mall immediately became a popular gathering spot in the usually quiet suburb of 75,000 people. Hundreds of people, from news crews to gawkers, crowded the store and spilled into its parking lot."

With me it was definitely: . utility/cost of dreams/fun for $2 vs disutility of loss of $2 (as I've already described above) . fear of missing/losing out I understand the odds so I would not have any fear that I was losing anything if I didn't play. After all there are $multi-million jackpots every week, any of which would change my life, yet I never play. . shame of looking foolish (if colleagues and friends win the pool) Again the odds are just as much against your friend or colleagues winning as they are against you winning. And even if your friend did win, not playing wouldn't make you look foolish, because even if you had played your friend still would have won not you. . peer pressure to participate (the social animal) I'm more embarrassed that I played than proud, I doubt this had anything to do with it. . rationalizing it despite low odds Maybe this one a little bit. $2 isn't a lot to worry about. If I lost $2 out of my wallet it wouldn't ruin my day.

I bought a ticket. $2 for a (very slim) chance to have a large influx in investment capital and spending a few minutes planning on what I would do with it, why not? It was worth it for the entertainment value alone. I spend more than that on things that give me less value. I didn't win, btw, in case you were wondering. :)

My understanding about the 529 is that there is no age limit and you can change the beneficiary at any time to anyone. So if your child doesn't use the money you can change the beneficiary to your grandchild or your niece/nephew, second cousin's kid, your neighbor's grandchild's friend's brother's kid, etc. I could be wrong, but that is how I think it works.

+1, Would you rather the GDP grow only in the shale states or have low energy prices and have GDP grow everywhere else instead?

Hands down this is the best way to go. Have a UTMA for the oldest, need to set up accounts for the other two. You just put money in there and it builds up. My plan is to encourage my oldest to save with a matching type system. You earn $5, save $2.50 and I'll give him another $5 on the match, or something even more generous. But the key is the match and savings go to the UTMA. They can get at it at 18, and that's fine with me. I think in some ways it's a good check on parenting. Does the thought of your kid getting money they saved at 18 frighten you? If so then why? And that's an opportunity to teach them or get involved. We've encouraged our kids to have the mentality that work = pay. We have expectations around the house, but jobs above and beyond can be done for a price. Help me bag the billions of leaves in the front yard? That's a few extra bucks. Help straighten up the garage? Same thing, more cash. That is my thought exactly. I mentioned it as a downside, because that was the most common caution I received when I was asking for advise before setting up the accounts and the most common criticism people gave me afterward when I would talk about it. My thought is that it is their money they should have it. I didn't do the matching thing you mentioned. I saved for them in 529 plans, and I plan on helping them buy their first cars and pay for college. Their UTMA accounts were entirely theirs right from the start.

My answer from 2009: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/how-do-you-teach-your-family-about-finance-or-business/msg7270/#msg7270 My kids are 15 & 16 now and they have more than $10K each in their UTMA accounts just from small allowances, doing odd jobs for others, birthday/christmas money, and capital gains of course. The down side is that it is their money to do what they want with on their 18th birthday's, but it is their money, so that is how it should be.

Of course, but my point was that there is nothing "intrinsic" about the value of oil. It is valuable because we currently have a high demand use for it. When it is no longer as useful it will no longer be as valuable. There is no inherent property in anything that makes it "intrinsically" valuable. The same is for companies. What people call the "intrinsic" value of Nike is really only derived from the market value of its products and assets. If the market value of those things were ever to decline there is nothing intrinsic in the Nike corporation which would maintain its value regardless. Nothing has an intrinsic value. The same with gold. Maybe over the long term algorithm/blockchain backed currencies like bitcoin will reduce the market value of gold permanently.

I would distinguish between oil and gold. Oil is a resource that people need for the functioning of the economy; gold is, based on tradition, generally a currency hedge. Gold does have functional usages for jewelry and such, but it could be replaced by silver in a way that oil, at least as of now, can not. There's various interviews with Buffet where he puts gold on one side and productive assets (farms, exxon mobil) on the other side that I think express this point very nicely http://www.gurufocus.com/news/239678/gold-vs-farmland-vs-exxon-mobil--buffett-makes-ense-of-it-all Sure I'll be happy to trade you an ounce of oil for an ounce of gold, as many times as you wish to. The fact is, oil is in demand now because of its usefulness for energy. If we all had fusion reactors in our basement, oil would be worth much much less. We'd still use it to make plastics and other substances, but after molecular nanotech is perfected we will likely not even need it for that.

I have a different view. There is no such thing as "intrinsic value". It isn't like you can take an object, look at it under a microscope and see the value particles. There is only market value and only one way to determine it: try to sell it. For a unique item, such as a specific piece of real estate, you can try to estimate the value, but you don't really know what the value is until you find a buyer. Maybe the value to you is larger than its value to anyone else and thus it won't sell. For a commodity, such as gold or oil, it is easy to determine a value, because identical items are being traded constantly and you can see what they are trading for. The theory that oil or gold doesn't have any "intrinsic" value is true, because nothing does. They certainly have market value though.

An ereader is probably the best example of such a purchase. I can't think of anything I spent <$250 on in the last year that made an impact on my life worth mentioning,but I bought my ereader in 2013 and I still use it everyday. It is without a doubt the smallest purchase in the last 5 years that has made the largest impact on my life. I have a Kobo Aura HD with a 6.8" screen (256dpi).

I agree with that. If there is a balance between supply and demand and the price is lower it is a good thing (even if some companies/countries/people suffer). The problem with oil is that it isn't a free market. You have an industry where some of the largest players are governments, there is always all kinds of manipulation going on. I'd argue that manipulation can't overcome the market in the long run. Of course not, but in the short term manipulation can cause all kinds of havoc. The best way to think of the market is that it is analogous to a TCP/IP network like the internet and government interference is analogous to damage to the network. It might slow things down a bit, but the network is able to route around the damage.

Yes this is the way to think about it. I would think that with cars being totaled in accidents there would be a skew towards older vehicles (or at least cheaper ones), because newer vehicles (and more expensive vehicles) will tend to have better accident avoidance features. And maybe more important older/cheaper vehicles need considerably less damage to consider them totaled. For instance if a vehicle is only worth $1500 it wouldn't take much of an accident to make it not worth fixing, where if it is worth $35K it would be fixed after all but the worst accidents.

I agree with that. If there is a balance between supply and demand and the price is lower it is a good thing (even if some companies/countries/people suffer). The problem with oil is that it isn't a free market. You have an industry where some of the largest players are governments, there is always all kinds of manipulation going on.

Interesting chart. Average price since 1946 is $41.70, since 1980 is $53.24, and since 2000 is $64.52. If you are expecting reversion to the mean, regardless of when your starting point is the price should go up from here...eventually. If you were waiting for a reversion to the mean in 1986 you would have waited a long time. Seems like a decent margin of safety. @rkbabang did you buy or are you thinking of buying any of those ETFs you pointed me to above? No. I've never invested in oil directly and am afraid it is way out of my circle of competence. Commodity trading in general is something I've never done, but with oil you also have international politics factored in there as well effecting things in ways that are difficult to predict. If it continues to drop I might change my mind though, it does seem like it is getting crazy cheap and the ETF route seems to me the best way to invest.

Interesting chart. Average price since 1946 is $41.70, since 1980 is $53.24, and since 2000 is $64.52. If you are expecting reversion to the mean, regardless of when your starting point is the price should go up from here...eventually. If you were waiting for a reversion to the mean in 1986 you would have waited a long time. http://inflationdata.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart2.jpg