Sunscreen is still here 😁 and Cifrek keeps reciting that Latin oath along with that video about the university's history. It was a truly unique experience for me; I had never actually attended a graduation ceremony before, mostly due to the massive crowds at other schools
loneowl39 said:It is blindingly obvious that you’ve never actually sat through an exam like that; if you had, you wouldn't be peddling such nonsensical nonsense. The justice system isn't broken because of a lack of knowledge among judges and attorneys; it's broken because of corruption.
My friend... during my graduation ceremony a few months ago, Vedran Mornar stated: "We taught you very little information at this university, and that is our success and our pride..."
If that sentence doesn't make things clear to you, then I understand why you are right and why you defend him. In that case, I will say nothing more.😉
P.S. This is merely an addition to your thousand pages; nothing personal.😉
loneowl39 As specified by: To claim that a university course is fundamentally flawed simply because the syllabus spans over a thousand pages of material is absurd. Is volume truly an indicator of quality? One must wonder if we are measuring intellectual depth or merely the capacity to endure endless paperwork.🙄👎
You could have a million pages of exam notes and still come up empty. Does it actually matter? I would have to agree with you; unfortunately, most universities here structure their entire curriculum around this exact issue.
Let’s be realistic for a moment. Just look at how many lawyers and economists graduate from universities here every single year. Then, take a hard look at the actual state of our legal and economic systems. The connection should be obvious, shouldn't it?
Every single levy they pile onto the economy acts as a direct stranglehold on productivity. If you impose a 4% burden on businesses, you are effectively stifling economic activity by 4%. A 1% hike in sales tax translates directly to a 1% suppression of consumer spending.
I am certain the Federal Government cannot afford to allow this under current conditions. The issue isn't capability; it is simply a lack of awareness.
That is true, but there is another side to this. If you offer inhumane terms—specifically, salaries that aren't competitive—people will simply jump ship to the private sector. Why stay in government service if the pay makes it unprofitable?
In my view, one person living off subsidies costs the country more than a single government employee ever would.
When people have nothing to do, they find themselves with far too much idle time. That is when strange ideas start to take root, leading to protests and other nonsense. When a large group of people has excessive free time, that issue can quickly turn into a wildfire. Therefore, I don't believe forcing out every single civil servant—even the ones who are useless—is the best solution. We need to find a balance. We should phase them out gradually, starting with the youngest employees since they can find new jobs most easily. In the meantime, we ought to slash their salaries aggressively. That would force them to look for work elsewhere.
People wouldn't be living off the taxpayer's dime if their situation wasn't actually quite comfortable. To be blunt, it’s often better than working in the private sector.
I believe those earning $1667 in federal positions would much prefer a $3,000 raise over any other concession. If the unions decide to make things difficult, we should simply offer them pay cuts instead. Can you imagine? We could have 30,000 people out on the streets within a month.
Actually, I am still quite young and reckless enough. To me, ten years isn't a lifetime. Even if this fund ends up yielding a measly $300,000 after a decade (pessimistic view), I will take it.
Heh, so now he’s young, reckless, and perpetually in debt 😁
wiredotter16 said:I want to introduce you to a specific type of Lombard loan; I noticed nobody here has mentioned this option yet, so it might pique your interest.
Let’s run a scenario. Suppose you don't have $60,000 sitting around in cash, so instead, you take out a home equity loan for that amount. You set aside $10,000 to cover old debts and miscellaneous stuff, then dump the remaining $50,000 into an investment fund. Based on that $50,000 stake, the bank grants you a Lombard loan of $25,000, which also gets funneled straight back into the fund. Essentially, the capital isn't "available" for spending. Some funds have been pulling 50% annual returns or even exceeding 100% over the last few years, but let's be realistic—let's assume you aren't that lucky and they return a modest 30%. Of course, that 30% is working on a total principal of $75,000.
With that $10,000 cushion you kept on the side, you cover your monthly mortgage payments, and for the bank providing the Lombard loan, you simply pay the interest. That $10,000 is enough to service both the mortgage installments and the interest for the next five years. You can run the math on the rest yourselves.
Here is the setup: $75,000 in the fund 30% annual return Compound interest calculation
After five years, the fund sits at $214,000. You pay the bank back its $25,000 credit, leaving you with roughly $190,000—all while having paid off your mortgage installments.
And look, you aren't forced to withdraw the money from the fund after those five years. In that case, you could potentially qualify for a new Lombard loan worth 50% of the fund's value, bringing your total managed capital to about $300,000. After another five years, you’d have upwards of a million dollars in the fund. You pay back the initial $25,000, then the subsequent $100,000, and ten years in, you're looking at a million-dollar balance plus whatever you've cleared on the mortgage.
And all of this started with nothing more than a mortgage on a house or an apartment.
I should clarify: this isn't for everyone. Most people either can't or won't wrap their heads around this strategy because they're too afraid, or for whatever other reason.
But I'm young and reckless enough to see that ten years isn't a lifetime. Even if the fund ends up yielding a measly $300,000 at the end of a decade—which is my pessimistic estimate—I won't make that kind of money in ten years unless I start smuggling cocaine from Colombia.
I'm eager to hear what you all think. If you want to test the theory, try running these numbers with a 15% annual return. Even then, you'll be wealthy by our standards... and you'll be completely financially independent within ten years.
I am simply curious: have you actually attempted this? And if you have, where are you living now?
Or perhaps there is no internet access where you reside?😁
I struggled with my own profit margins for quite some time. However, seeing the sheer absurdity of these suggestions makes me want to laugh instead.😁
hiddensailor60 said:Look, what you’re saying only makes sense if you aren't capable of disciplining yourself to save. This way, the bank essentially forces you into "forced savings"—though I question whether we can even call it saving; in my view, you’re just losing money.
I said that if you have the cash for a car—and let me add that I also have some monthly surplus that could be set aside—personally, I find it unprofitable to shell out all that cash upfront for a vehicle:
Based on that cash, you secure a loan from the bank under terms you negotiate to suit your own taste, specifically regarding the loan term and the monthly payment amount.
You receive funds from the bank and use them to buy the car; here are my specific reasons why I believe this logic holds up: 1. Once the loan is paid off, your initial cash is returned to you. This means you effectively owned the car and were saving money simultaneously... without the loan, you would still be saving, just a smaller amount.
If I had the cash for a car—let's say $25,000—I would put it into a stock mutual fund, take out a margin loan against 70% of the value of those shares, and buy the car over a three-year period. I would only pay the interest; I'd leave the principal until the very end. Let's assume that the fund yields a 20-30% annual return; after three years, the holdings would be worth $40,000. I pay off the $17,500 margin loan (70% of the $25,000), and at the end of three years, I have the car and $22,500 in cash. (Granted, I was paying interest for three years, but that's a negligible amount in this context).
Doesn't my math look better? 😁 Of course, I emphasized the word "assume"—funds can lose money, too—but I am quite confident that over the next three or four years, one doesn't need to worry about "serious" US equity funds.
And for the strategy you were describing, you'd also need to be in a position to afford the monthly payments $667 for the car, which is no small feat.
But then again, everyone does what works for them and what they perceive to be most profitable, right? 🙂
Heh, days of pride and glory. 😁Without a care in the world; right around that same time, I jumped into a margin trade and lost most of my money. 😁
Precisely. In that scenario, the debt stays with the LLC, and if the company folds, the liability vanishes. It's a clean break. But here? You're looking at personal liability. A private individual can't just declare bankruptcy and walk away from everything. They can be pursued for the rest of their life. It’s relentless. Is there truly no limit to how much they can claw back? Even after death, assets can be liquidated to cover costs.
I would love to see the introduction of personal bankruptcy laws that actually work. Wouldn't that encourage banks to finally start trusting and lending to entrepreneurs again?
Well, this is unfortunate... what good is a merchant being a predator if they’re still calling you "sir" while they're swindling you? We aren't even discussing the same thing here.
He claims he offered a full refund, but the customer just wanted to be toxic. He didn't want the money back. He didn't want a fresh batch of bread. He didn't even want a replacement. He simply wanted someone to lash out at. I would personally kick a person like that out of the company. If my livelihood depended on them and they paid their bills regularly, I would have to endure it. Suppose we are talking about a major client worth $10 million a year to the firm. But if some petty individual comes to me once a year for a service costing $333, where my travel expenses actually exceed the fee, and starts lecturing me on my billing practices? I would tell him never to call again. As for the money he owes me, he can use it to pay for his wife's haircut at 😉
A customer is only as right as the money they spend. For those measly $2.25, he would have been kicked out of the store long ago.
He is simply frustrated and looking for someone to pick a fight with for no reason. If he had actually paid full price for that bread, $3333 maybe they would have apologized or compensated him. As it stands, they would just throw him out onto the street and ban him from ever returning.
Yes, that is simply the reality of the situation. If you have spent the money, you are obligated to pay it back. That is how the system works. Suppose you were fighting against interest rate hikes, or perhaps protesting the storage of radioactive waste near national parks; then I might understand your position. But advocating for cash payouts just to avoid settling your debts? That is wrong. Truly wrong.
When you launch a business, you face two distinct categories of expenses: general operating costs and your own salary as an employee.
The nuance lies in the fact that since you serve as both the owner and the sole staff member, your salary isn't a true external expense. Is it really money leaving the business? Not quite. You are simply transferring funds from the company account into your own pocket.