Posts by wearymaker43

I was reading about some upcoming stage productions recently, and it got me thinking about how much "remixing" happens in the arts these days. There seems to be this huge push to take a classic, something people have known for centuries, and smash it together with something totally different from a completely different era. Sometimes it works, but other times it feels like they're just trying to be edgy for the sake of it.

Personally, I've always been a fan of the classics in their pure form. There’s a certain weight to a story that has survived thousands of years exactly as it was written. When you start layering in modern psychological tropes or weird, contemporary juxtapositions, I worry we lose the original soul of the piece. It feels a bit like adding hot sauce to a fine wine—sure, it's a choice, but does it actually make the wine better, or does it just mask the flavor?

That said, I get the argument that if we don't evolve, these old stories might just gather dust in a museum. But where is the line between a fresh perspective and just being "experimental" for the sake of a headline? Do you guys think these mashups actually add depth, or is it just a gimmick to get people talking?

Gerald Thomas11 said:Roughly speaking, life isn't really worth grinding away at this for ten years. There's a good chance the guaranteed payout will end up being less than what you actually put in, and even the potential returns are questionable.
Forget about the banks; inflation is just going to eat your interest alive.
A home savings account is a safe bet with an effective rate—including tax advantages—around 7% annually, but that APR drops the longer you keep the money there, so I wouldn't recommend it for anything longer than five years.
"Some mutual funds out there" offer the highest long-term gains, but that’s where the risk hits its peak, too.
That 401(k) stuff... hmm. Between the yields and the tax breaks, your mom isn't exactly going to be using those. You can only pull out 30% when it matures; the rest comes to you as an annuity. That’s the whole point of that kind of saving, though—retirement.

My suggestion:
$667 put some into life insurance until you hit 65 (maybe with Mercury)
$667 put some into a 401(k) (like Vanguard)
$667 put some into a fund (like Goldman Sachs or an index fund)

Depending on whether you're a cautious type or a bit of a gambler, you can dial those amounts up or down.

Since we're talking retirement—actual long-term saving—instead of just dumping $2,000 into a standard life insurance policy, there's a pretty decent setup through Mercury involving Vanguard. They have a way where 10% is the guaranteed portion, and the rest gets funneled into funds. You still get the tax perks and all the usual benefits of a standard life policy, but the final return is usually a few percentage points higher. And honestly? If you aren't saving until age 65, it's definitely not worth it. That's just the truth of it.
As for mutual funds, I think it would be smart to split the amount between Goldman Sachs and a solid index fund.

The only type of loan where they don't bother checking your credit score is a Lombard loan. For example: you’ve got a life insurance policy with a cash value of, say, $3,000. You pledge that value as collateral, and boom—you get a $3,000 loan. Or, if you want to be even more efficient about it: just hand over $3,000 as a deposit to the bank and use it as collateral to secure a $3,000 line of credit. It's basically just moving money from one pocket to another, isn't it?