Posts by Jamie Newman40

Maria Harris said:Look, I know they’re great people. Honestly. BUT, not once did any of them ever think to ask if it bothered me, or heaven forbid, respect my space in my own home—or even their own.

That’s exactly what I’m getting at. It’s about tolerance and showing one another some basic respect.

I really believe we should focus on educating people about how harmful certain things are to their health, and then just leave the choice to them. People should be able to decide for themselves rather than being forced to give up something they enjoy.

Lisa Morales4 said:The laws in the USA aren't actually designed to look out for the people; instead, they seem built to manipulate, suppress, and straight-up discriminate against them 😈 😈 😈. That said, you have to separate the federal government from the actual American folks 🙂
.

What are you basing that on?

I'd love to hear some specific examples.

Lisa Morales4 said:I have to disagree! Sure, education helps, but we need regulations too because, look, a bar or a restaurant isn't really your private domain even if you own the business! It’s essentially public space. You can't just decide to discriminate and say, "Only smokers allowed in this bar—everyone else, get out!"

Now, I don't run a restaurant or a bar myself, but let's play out the scenario... If I did, my restaurant would be mine. I am the owner, and that makes it my private property. Not public. Unless, of course, we were talking about the systems used in China or Mexico.

"Public property is property which is owned by a government, as opposed to private property, which is owned by non-government parties such as individuals or corporations. In many republican democracies, "public property" is said to be owned by the people as a commons. (In other types of state, such property is said to be owned by the "state" or the "crown".)" - Wikipedia.

Under our system of ownership, owners exercise rights that may be subject to legal limits and usage rules. But being an owner means I am the one in charge, not the government. The government simply sets the framework within which I operate that space.

When a smoking ban is introduced, who exactly is doing the discriminating? I've mentioned before that I value freedom of choice. If I choose to allow smoking in my establishment, what business does the government have with that? People who don't want to be around smoke can simply find another spot where it isn't allowed. No one is stopping them from walking into my place, provided they don't dictate how I manage it.

If you allow yourself to smoke in your own home—which is private property where you set the rules—what should the government care about? Those who dislike smoking in your house will simply stop coming over. According to your logic, they should involve the government to pass laws banning smoking in your home just so their guests feel more comfortable.

And honestly, that is exactly where this leads. Once people successfully push for smoking bans in restaurants and bars, just wait—they'll eventually come knocking on your front door. It might not be about smoking, especially if you aren't a smoker, but it will be about something else entirely. That's when you'll truly understand my point.

Lisa Morales4 said:Of course we should go after the rule-breakers. If the law says no smoking, then ignoring it is a crime that deserves prosecution, plain and simple.

But who actually came up with these laws in the first place? Non-smokers?

Personally, I’m much more in favor of freedom of choice. Sure, I get it—no smoking in public spaces.

But if a restaurant or a bar isn't considered a "public space" but rather private property, then the owner should be the one to decide whether they want to allow smoking or not. It seems to me that if someone doesn't want to smoke, they can find a different spot that allows it, and if an owner chooses to allow it, then non-smokers can simply seek out a venue that better suits their preferences.

All these endless regulations just feel like the government trying to micromanage our lives, telling us what we can or can't do in our own homes or even our own bedrooms.

Smoking shouldn't be managed through heavy-handed decrees; it should be handled through education.

todaytonight said:Try thinking about this next time you light up—you aren't just burning tobacco, you're burning dollar bills!

So, here we are... am I sensing a certain level of stinginess in the air, or is it just me? Cigarettes are pricey, they wreck your health, and why even bother with a checkup at the Mayo Clinic or a trip to the dentist... it all feels like throwing money down the drain.

By that logic, if cigarettes were free, would you be lighting up too? Just a curious thought.🙄

And honestly, who cares if dollars are going up in smoke... it's my money coming out of my own pocket.

Lisa Morales4 said:We really ought to establish some sort of task force, just to have them patrol the streets and penalize anyone caught holding a cigarette. 😎

"Ought to"????

Or would you actually go through with it?

Just mark "everyone who isn't like me" with a big red star.

Who’s next on the list? The overweight or the thin? People with disabilities? Or maybe those with an IQ below average...

Of course you pay for it. Especially when you actually know how to turn that expertise into real value... 🙂

The Win update is running smoothly without any issues.

Personally, I think overdraft protection is pretty unnecessary. If you’re constantly dipping into your overdraft, then you clearly have the ability to manage your balance to stay at zero or even in the black. Sure, having that cushion can be handy during an unexpected emergency, but living in the red all the time just doesn't make sense. Some people seem to prefer staying in the negative just to avoid paying interest, choosing instead to lean on credit cards and deal with those payments later.

Western banks—and American banks definitely follow this too—offer overdraft facilities that you essentially earn through a solid credit history. However, having that option doesn't mean you have a free pass to stay broke indefinitely. Some institutions actually charge for the privilege; they might hit you with a $20 or $30 fee for every single transaction that pushes you into the negative. It’s there if you want it, but it's a steep price to pay. Honestly, it feels like a matter of time before domestic banks start adopting similar routines.

jadehound53 (to Jeremy Turner3) said:Please stop acting like you're some kind of genius just because you live in the USA. You've seen a tiny slice of the world and now you think you can lecture everyone back home. You're all theory and no action—have you actually tried doing anything real in America? Like starting a private business or something?

Jamie Newman40 said:Even though this isn't directed at me, I don't think there's any point in having a discussion when it's handled this way.

jadehound53 said:I see you've become Donald's lawyer. It looks like that's just another one of your many career paths.

If you read all three quotes above, you'll see my comment was actually reacting to yours, which was primarily focused on labeling one of the participants. I wasn't stepping in as anyone's advocate; I was responding because that kind of behavior simply isn't polite. Would you have phrased it the same way if Donald were posting from America?

Jamie Newman40 said:It's wrong to assume that all of us living abroad are only here for the money, which seems to be exactly what most of you back home try to imply. Why is that?

jadehound53 said:By the way, most of you moved abroad mainly for the money (though unfortunately, some had to leave because of war).

While I did say that not everyone leaves solely for financial reasons, you're insisting on the opposite. Look, I don't fall into the category of people who left for money, nor am I among those who left due to war. So why don't you take a guess at my actual motivation?

jadehound53 said:Come on, try to remember what was on your mind when you were packing your bags for such a long journey.

What was on my mind? Primarily, I was thinking about how I wouldn't have to deal with small-minded, foolish, or sycophantic people dictating my future anymore. I felt a sense of relief knowing I was heading somewhere where I wouldn't lose friends over political disagreements, and even more relieved to go somewhere where politics wouldn't be an inescapable part of daily life... anything else you want to know?

jadehound53 said:Maybe you were thinking about leading your children toward a better path.

I thought about that too, both while I was transitioning and before I even had children. And I hate to disappoint you, but I was right to make the move.

And where exactly would I find the USA as a suitable destination for that? You can't even send them to the grocery store without worrying some creep might snatch them up.

The USA was definitely one of the options on my radar. I was actually considering Canada, Australia, or maybe England. But the USA was the quickest to align with what I had in mind.

You mentioned that I don't have a clue when it comes to economics. Perhaps you're right; I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert. However, what I do understand is practical for everyday life because, first of all, it makes sense and, secondly, I know it works because I've put it into practice and seen it firsthand. I won't get bogged down in debating how much you actually know. Whatever it is you know—or think you know—just lay it out here, and then we can have a proper discussion.
Also, based on your comment about predators, it’s pretty obvious how little you actually know about the USA... or at least the people living there. But hey, it doesn't matter. Feel free to vent your frustrations on those of us who have actually traveled a bit and now have something to say. Are you feeling better now?

jadehound53 said:And just so you know, I absolutely love slapping labels on things. I'm a North American just like the rest of you.

See, I am North American, but I have never been, nor will I ever be, "North American" in that sense. 👍

jadehound53 said:The whole point of this thread isn't to run a side-by-side comparison of living standards between the USA and America.

I agree that shouldn't be the focus, but it’s often easiest to illustrate how bad things are by comparing them to something good. Maybe an Uber service in the States isn't the perfect example, but it’s likely one of the few things Donald can actually speak to, given he lives in the USA. If he were living somewhere else—say, Bangladesh—he probably wouldn't be talking about the taxi situation in JAR. 😁

jadehound53 said:And please, stop trying to act like you're so much smarter just because you live in the USA. You've seen a tiny slice of the world and now you think you can lecture those of us back home. You're quite the theorist, aren't you? Have you ever actually tried doing anything concrete in America? Running a private business, for instance?

Even though this wasn't aimed at me, I don't think there's any sense in having a discussion this way. I also live in the USA, and before I moved here, I had seen a pretty significant part of the world myself (which, by the way, isn't limited to Europe). It’s funny how the label of "selling wisdom" seems to come from us "North American" types, who arguably have the highest brain drain percentage in the world. I'm honestly not sure why you think anyone is trying to sell you anything. Discussions have moments where we won't necessarily agree, but that isn't a reason to resort to name-calling.

jadehound53 said:To you, the standard there is what it is simply because you rarely deal with monopolies, but competition forces you guys to actually perform. Your biggest expense is probably your mortgage (I still don't know which city you live in). That's the only point where I agree—your cost of living is higher. In America, everything revolves around real estate (it's usually your biggest life investment), and everything else feels like a bit of a shell game. Not to mention the healthcare situation is a disaster, but I won't go there right now; we'd need a whole new thread for that.

I'd like to offer a slight correction there. I actually consider the greatest expense to be truly living life—you know, "having fun." I own my house, though I didn't have to buy it. But even if I had, would real estate really be the single biggest cost? A far greater investment is raising children to be decent people, which is as much an intellectual challenge as a material one.
It's a mistake to assume that everyone living abroad is only here for the money, which seems to be exactly what many of you staying home try to imply. Why is that?

jadehound53 said:Once again, the topic here is strictly about monopolies—specifically the taxi situation in America—not comparing American and American standards of living.

I have nothing against that, but for a productive discussion, one must mention the systems that "actually make sense." Otherwise, the people signing petitions might not even understand why they're signing them. 😁

To prevent us from cluttering this thread with our ongoing discussions about stocks and online banking, I’m going to spin up a brand-new topic dedicated solely to those subjects. Moderator, if you think it makes sense, please feel free to move any posts that don't quite fit here over to the new thread.

Jamie Newman40 (😁),

Aside from all the reports coming out of the "official" news outlets, I tend to rely on what I know about Ford firsthand, given that my line of work is tied quite closely to them—specifically within the "Big Three."

When I piece all these factors together, I get a gut feeling that Ford will see growth of roughly 1-2% weekly through the end of October, before perhaps taking a slight dip.

Here is my reasoning. First off, Ford is celebrating its 100th anniversary and is rolling out some special offers to mark the occasion. Secondly, following the July shutdown, production kicks off for the new series of the F-150 across three renovated plants (Dearborn, Norfolk, and Kentucky). Since that truck is their absolute bestseller, we should see strong sales throughout at least the first three months.

Of course, Ford releases its quarterly earnings on the last day of October, and I don't expect those numbers to be bad. If the stock maintains this current momentum, I think it could easily reach the $14-$15 range by then, which seems like a realistic target based on their performance so far this year.

Because of that, I have to disagree with your final sentence:

Moreover, if a second-half economic recovery is unable to materialize, these shares are likely to retest the lows set earlier this year.

In my view, Ford isn't going to drop to that $6.58 "52-week low" this year. They might approach it early next year, but I honestly doubt it. Regardless, it won't affect me personally, as I likely won't even be holding them by that point. 😁

By the way, seeing Ford climb 3% today (up about $0.33) really put a smile on my face. 👍

Joe (😁), it looks like we’re cut from the same cloth... or at least we've walked similar paths... 😁

When it comes to my long-term plays, I've really leaned into Ford, and I've got a pretty significant amount riding on them (well, significant by my standards). For the day trades and short-term stuff, though, I tend to float around the $10k to $20k range, depending on how much "play money" I have sitting around. Occasionally, when things get really intense, I'll take a quick dive into deep margin, and so far, thank goodness, I haven't run into any major trouble.

P.S. If you caught those tickers I sent over yesterday, Akamai Technologies saw a massive jump of over 10% this morning, which was a great little win for me. And Ford isn't looking too shabby either... 👍

Joe (honestly, how am I supposed to phrase this?) 😁,

I used to be much more of a long-term investor. There were several times when I felt forced to hold onto my shares simply because selling at a loss didn't make any sense—I figured I might as well just sit tight. After all, you haven't truly lost anything until you actually hit that sell button. 😁

Eventually, I decided to shift my strategy a bit. Since I have a few colleagues who take this quite seriously, and since I’m certainly not just playing games here, we tend to keep an eye on various different sectors. In the biotech and medical space, Merck used to be my favorite (MRK), though I don't hold them anymore. It just doesn't make financial sense for me to tie up massive amounts of capital by holding hundreds of shares for the long haul.

When it comes to telecommunications, I really enjoyed JCOM; I made a mountain of money on them. I don't own them currently either, but that doesn't mean I won't jump back in if they dip below $30.

Lately, I've been focusing on smaller stocks priced between $3 and $10. I typically move in with positions ranging from $2,000 to $10,000, and even small price jumps—even just a few cents—are enough to make sure the day isn't a total wash. Some days I walk away with a couple hundred, other days it's a few thousand, and sometimes I take a hit, but overall, everything is under control.

I’m leaning toward Fidelity. I’ve been working with E*TRADE (formerly HarrisDirect, which used to be Merrill Lynch and Citigroup) for about five years now. Their research through their Bloomberg Terminal is top-notch, and they charge a flat $20 for all market, limit, and stop orders. My only gripe is that once you cross the 1,000-share threshold, they hit you with an extra 2 cents per share, which just makes it not worth my while. That’s actually why I opened an account over at Charles Schwab—their market, limit, and stop orders stay at $10.99 for anything up to 5,000 shares. Still, I keep the E*TRADE account active mainly because that research platform is so solid.

Starting this year, the government rolled out some new regulations where you can't touch your funds until the original purchase actually settles. It slowed my momentum down quite a bit until I finally decided to just open a margin account.

I’m pretty happy with the speed at Charles Schwab, though I really wish they offered all the specific features I have over at E*TRADE; if they did, I’d consolidate everything into one place, but hey, life happens. To be fair, Charles Schwab does have its own Java-based platform, but there's no way I'm installing that on my work computer—it would be way too obvious. 😁 Because of that, when I need real-time data, I rely heavily on the Morningstar Research website. I pay $25 a month for it, but the value is incredible, especially since I can set target prices and get notified exactly where my positions stand. It’s a total game-changer.

Anyway, besides my usual holdings in Ford (F), I’ve been playing around with a few "hot" tickers lately—or maybe I should call them "wild" tickers—so feel free to take a look: Charter Communications (CHTR) and Akamai Technologies (AKAM)...

Joe 😁,

It might be a good idea for you to register so people can actually send you a private message, you know... just being neighborly... 😁

That’s not quite what I meant... I already have accounts open with brokers (Charles Schwab and E*TRADE), but I don't really use them for my day-to-day transactions. My reasoning is pretty simple: I want to keep this specific account and my primary source of income separate from everything else.

I use a major international bank—not exactly "local," but you get my point—for all my standard banking needs, whether that's online transfers, checks, or card swipes. They do offer brokerage services too, but they aren't set up for day traders like me, since most of their clients handle daily volume through other specialized brokers...

Of course, I've linked all my accounts together so I can move funds back and forth seamlessly every day... though, mind you, the cash doesn't actually hit until the following day.

BTW, does anyone know what the commission is on Fidelity for stop and limit orders?

Stole some tires off a wrecked police Ford Crown Victoria. My first paycheck was fifty bucks, and my second was a serious beating from my old man.

Man, slycrane94... you're being really difficult here. This is the third time I’ve pointed out that logs exist. Whether there’s actually a virus involved or someone just snagged your login credentials isn't the core issue; what matters is exactly where that money went. Money doesn't just evaporate from a bank account; it has to go somewhere. If a theft actually occurs and you report it, banks can easily comb through every single transaction within a specific timeframe to track exactly where those funds were transferred. Is it really that hard to grasp that we aren't talking about someone picking your pocket and walking off with physical cash that leaves no trail? We are talking about digital transactions that leave a paper trail.

Even if you lose your debit card or a security token, or if they get stolen, the finder—or the thief—has a window of time before you even realize anything is missing. That could be a few minutes, or it could be several days...

Think about it: what would you do if I handed you my login and my PIN? Do you honestly think you could just wire money to one of your own accounts without leaving a trace? Or that you could just stroll into a Chase branch and withdraw cash unnoticed? I don't think so...

P.S. You still haven't answered my question over in that thread about the dollar crashing.

slycrane94 said:If you grab the PIN and other static data, there's basically nothing left to prove it wasn't you. If the logs show you logged in using your own PIN, then that’s the end of the story.

True, but that logic only holds up if we can actually prove it was me logging in rather than an impostor. That’s really the whole point of having audit logs—to provide evidence of whether any irregularities or illegal activities took place. If something went wrong, your funds should still be protected under federal regulations. Beyond that, those logs serve a second purpose: they track exactly where the money moved after the fact.

I mean, what are the actual odds that someone besides me happens to know my account number, my login credentials, AND my PIN all at once? Is that statistical probability really any higher than the chance of someone physically stealing my debit card or my security token? When you look at it from a standpoint of protecting your assets, both scenarios are equally risky; one just happens to be a lot more expensive for the bank to deal with.