Jonathan Clements Article today......

Hey, I enjoyed this a lot. More commentary to follow
shortly. It's cocktail hour here, so I can't do my best work at the moment.

John Galt
 
KB,

Thanks for the link.

Read the article...it felt real good to be able to relate to everything he listed.

omni
 
"1. Shopping is no longer your favorite hobby."

That's me :D

Jane
 
He should add one more:

42. Instead of subscribing to the WSJ, you read this article on a syndicated web site :)
 
Great list :D

I feel very under control, but I did bomb out on 2 of them.

28. I can't help buying a $5 lottery ticket now and then. It's cheap entertainment.


29. You realize remodeling the bathroom is a money loser. - Well, yeahn but so is rotted subfloor, a door that won't latch, and not having enough room to turn around.

I figure remodeling the bathroom is less of a looser than upgrading to a new house, right:confused:
 
29. You realize remodeling the bathroom is a money loser. - Well, yeahn but so is rotted subfloor, a door that won't latch, and not having enough room to turn around.
Click to expand...

That's not a re-model that's a repair! - I think the re-model that is mentioned falls more into the fashion idea.
 
Yeah Sheryl, I had the same reaction. I have no
problem with the lottery tickets. I have not bought
lately but used to be a regular. As to the bathroom,
I couldn't stand ours any more and had it redone.
I went pretty cheap but it was a big improvement.
I don't care if I get the money back on sale as I felt
compelled to do it and have already gotten my money's
worth.

John Galt
 
Jonathan Clements is the man! :D

I subscribe to the WSJ and read it every day, but I agree it is overpriced and I hate that I am subsidizing it's editorial page, which is full of poorly reasoned reactionary polemics.

Years ago there was plenty of merit to the slam "knee jerk" liberal. Unfortunately the WSJ editorial writers are knee jerk conservatives, which IMO is just as bad. They have never met a Republican they didn't agree with (except of course John McCain) and they have never encountered a business regulation or a progressive idea that they could endorse.

Re. Lottery tickets. I think there should be a little room in any "investment portfolio" for some high risk ventures. ;) The higher the risk of course, the smaller the allocation. My Lottery allocation is less than .005% of my portfolio and the strategy is to wait to buy Lotto tickets only when the probable winnings equal or exceed the price of the ticket.

e.g. The "probable winnings" equal the prize divided by the odds. So if the Lotto odds are 1:15,000,000 then the prize would have to rise to $15M for the probable winnings to equal the price of the $1.00 ticket. However, for this logic to be valid the nomimal prize amount has to be adjusted to the present value or lump sum payout and this adjusted for taxes. So to achieve "real" probable winnings of $1.00 with the odds in the example the nominal prize would have to be over $40M.

Of course all this is just a rationalization to allow me to enjoy the "fun" of LOTTO, but only occasionally. This drastically limits the risk exposure, because there are only handful of times during a year that the prize is high enough, and then I limit my ticket purchase to only $5.00. :)
 
Hey Pennhaven! Your LOTTO system is too complicated
for me. I used to buy 2 tickets for every draw playing the same set of numbers each time. Did this for 3 years.
It was cheap entertainment, and every so often I'd win a couple of bucks. Anyway, I no longer participate.
Not sure why I stopped.

John Galt
 
That's not a re-model that's a repair!  - I think the re-model that is mentioned falls more into the fashion idea.
Click to expand...

Yeah, true, but I did have to put a little "fashion" into it while I was at it ya know.
 
The higher the risk of course, the smaller the allocation.  My Lottery allocation is less than .005% of my portfolio and the strategy is to wait to buy Lotto tickets only when the probable winnings equal or exceed the price of the ticket.

e.g. The "probable winnings" equal the prize divided by the odds. So if the Lotto odds are 1:15,000,000 then the prize would have to rise to $15M for the probable winnings to equal the price of the $1.00 ticket.  However, for this logic to be valid the nomimal prize amount has to be adjusted to the present value or lump sum payout and this adjusted for taxes. So to achieve "real" probable winnings of $1.00 with the odds in the example the nominal prize would have to be over $40M.

Of course all this is just a rationalization to allow me to enjoy the "fun" of LOTTO, but only occasionally. This drastically limits the risk exposure, because there are only handful of times during a year that the prize is high enough, and then I limit my ticket purchase to only $5.00. :)
Click to expand...
I have NO idea what you just said but I think we are on the same page. Here's my rationalization: Movie tickets $16 - 2 hours of living in a fantasy world.

Lotto Tickets $5 - 3 days of living in a fantasy world. The entertainment value from thinking about what I'd do with $210 million is much greater than what I get from most of Hollywood's latest productions!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chuckanut
Jonathan Clements
Replies
8
Views
2K
RetMD21
R
T
All Your Worth (Book Review)
Replies
5
Views
673
walkinwood
walkinwood
jollystomper
Financial Advice Columnist falls for $50K scam
4 5 6
Replies
134
Views
10K
Koolau
Koolau
T
Single and about to sign lots of "end of life" directives - and I hate it
Replies
5
Views
811
GrayHare
G
S
Reconciling micro observations with macro trends? (is the economy really doing well?)
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Koolau
Koolau

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom