Yes, I now own parts of 347 companies, including Turner Entertainment (TBS, CNN, etc), British Petroleum, Bayer, etc., etc.

Three-hundred and forty-seven.

How?

Investments.

Mutual funds, not direct stocks.

Stocks are too risky. I can't even afford one share of Starbucks stock.

So I went the less risky route and invested in various companies.

Eleven-percent interest.

This stuff is so easy. This is capitalism at its core.

Bad economy? BUY BUY BUY!

Economies always get better, so, when times are tough, buy low, sell high.

www.primerica.com

www.vankampen.com

List of some of the big companies I partly own: www.xanga.com/joeydauben

quote:

Originally posted by FreeMarketLover:
Were talking warren here. Just makin sure you know. (new avatar joke)

Hey they're cousins y'know.

quote:

For the purposes of a human investor that will only live for 85 years, I think long term means about 40 years in this case. You can't find a forty year period in which our nations gdp didn't rise. You can't find a ten year period. You can't even find a five. For as long term as any living human can be affected by, our economy will have continued growth. For the purposes of investing, the market will always go up in the long term.

Ok yes for the purposes o finvesting, I can agree to that.

quote:

Buffett himself has admitted it's getting harder to get good returns.

Were talking warren here. Just makin sure you know. (new avatar joke)

quote:

No long term we cannot be assured of anything. Not even in the US market.

For the purposes of a human investor that will only live for 85 years, I think long term means about 40 years in this case. You can't find a forty year period in which our nations gdp didn't rise. You can't find a ten year period. You can't even find a five. For as long term as any living human can be affected by, our economy will have continued growth. For the purposes of investing, the market will always go up in the long term.

quote:

Originally posted by FreeMarketLover:

quote:

You cannot have any evidence whatsoever to show that because it is in the future.

I said it was probable. Every mathematical probability deals with an unknown. Most deal with the future(and economics). It is probable that over a long period we will continue to see economic growth. If you don't think probabilities can be found because they deal with the future than you should have an in depth discussion with your math professor and tell him why he is wrong too.

True but 700 years? Even the UN population estimates stop at 250 because anything further and any probabilities become to small to be useful. Anything could happen within those 700 years to either get rid of america or to reduce its status significantly. 700 years is too long in the scheme of things to predict basically anything.

quote:

You cannot have any evidence whatsoever to show that because it is in the future.

I said it was probable. Every mathematical probability deals with an unknown. Most deal with the future(and economics). It is probable that over a long period we will continue to see economic growth. If you don't think probabilities can be found because they deal with the future than you should have an in depth discussion with your math professor and tell him why he is wrong too.

quote:

Originally posted by FreeMarketLover:

quote:

I am saying that the market will not go up long term forever. It is impossible.

Forever. Till the end of time. Of course not. For 700 years. It isn't absolute but it's probable. It is as probable as any economic prediction that can be made. I have moe evidence to show that it will than you do to prove it won't.

Now we are arguing about 700 years? If so I'd say none of us know the answer to that. You cannot have any evidence whatsoever to show that because it is in the future.

quote:

I am saying that the market will not go up long term forever. It is impossible.

Forever. Till the end of time. Of course not. For 700 years. It isn't absolute but it's probable. It is as probable as any economic prediction that can be made. I have moe evidence to show that it will than you do to prove it won't.

quote:

Originally posted by FreeMarketLover:

quote:

You didn't say forever.

In a million years I don't think we will be here. Stop letting semantics cloud your ability to reason.

I am saying that the market will not go up long term forever. It is impossible.

quote:

You didn't say forever.

In a million years I don't think we will be here. Stop letting semantics cloud your ability to reason.

quote:

Originally posted by DJR:
Hmm...Kinda like Prince when he changed his name to just a sign and was referred to as the "artist" formerly known as Prince.

So, why do you think these companies (BP, CVS) reduce their name to simply initials...is it an attempt at aninimity? a statement? the whole concept of brand marketing is name identification so you have to wonder why they then try to distance themselves from it...

Well with BP it just didn't make sense anymore for them. They were a global company. 'British Petroleum' made them sound smaller than they were. So now the 'name identification' is just BP.

quote:

Originally posted by FreeMarketLover:

quote:

Perhaps, but he had said the market will always go up. That is not true. You've just acknowledged that

No, I didn't. I said our market will continue to grow in the long term.

You said that the british empire would be around for a long time. You didn't say forever. He said the market will always go up long term. Assuming we are talking about the US market that is impossible as the US will fall eventually. You've acknowledged that.

quote:

Perhaps, but he had said the market will always go up. That is not true. You've just acknowledged that

No, I didn't. I said our market will continue to grow in the long term.

Hmm...Kinda like Prince when he changed his name to just a sign and was referred to as the "artist" formerly known as Prince.

So, why do you think these companies (BP, CVS) reduce their name to simply initials...is it an attempt at aninimity? a statement? the whole concept of brand marketing is name identification so you have to wonder why they then try to distance themselves from it...

According to http://www.cvs.com:

CVS stands for Consumer Value Stores.

quote:

Originally posted by benje309:
Do you know what CVS stands for?

No what?

quote:

Originally posted by benje309:

quote:

Sort of like the 'SAT's don't stand for anything either.

True, but they used to stand for something.

Yes they did. So did BP. I'm saying now they both don't stand for anything.

Do you know what CVS stands for?

quote:

Sort of like the 'SAT's don't stand for anything either.

True, but they used to stand for something.

quote:

Originally posted by benje309:

quote:

It's a little known fact.

Please explain

Well most people think that 'BP' stands for British Petroleum. It originally did. But sometime around 1999 they changed it to just mean BP. It doesn't stand for anything. Go to bp.com and read the press releases. It won't say 'British Petroleum' on there anywhere. Sort of like the 'SAT's don't stand for anything either.

quote:

It's a little known fact.

Please explain