爛公司是好股票

在FB上看到國中同學工作

抱怨（或高興）說上班終於開冷氣

現在想想這個就是所謂的爛公司是好股票

無良的台資企業在資委會照應下奴役員工

這種公司就是要投資當股東而不是當員工

搞笑諾貝爾獎 Marc Abrahams

由每個得獎故事所構成的書

叫缺乏主體概念

就先略去不看了

別睡，這裡有蛇！ Daniel Everett

現在沒甚麼心情看這種不是整體理論

沒有參考科學文獻

而一直是敘事的書

股海勝經 綠角

介紹國外、台灣ETF

最後教怎麼開Firstrade戶

Atheists and the Stock Market 醫藥與宗教

兩分鐘開始

醫藥殺的人比救的人多

特別是在19世紀末的時候

Why ?  Illusion of control

你去看醫生

就是想做點甚麼（被醫治）

結果你傷害了自己

如果你是（虔誠教徒）去教堂、佛堂、甚至神壇等

這樣子你就不會去看醫生

對你反而有好處

I Have No Choice but to Own Stocks: ‘Black Swan’ Author

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46718912/I_Have_No_Choice_but_to_Own_Stocks_Black_Swan_Author

By: Margo D. Beller
Special to CNBC.com

The U.S. economic situation is so bad, the author of “The Black Swan” said he has “no choice but to own stocks” to “preserve my financial situation.”

 

 

Jonathan Fickles | Bloomberg | Getty Images Nassim Taleb, New York University professor and author of ‘The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable.’

“I own stocks,” Nassim Taleb told CNBC Tuesday. “I don’t trust Treasury bonds. I’d rather have a dividend than a coupon. I am afraid of hyperinflation. So I have no choice but to own stock and some real estate to preserve my financial situation.”

He also has “some euros,” because despite the bad press, “they know the problems in Europe” but the U.S. does not.

Taleb, who is in the process of updating his 2007 book, considers a “black swan” event to be something undirected and unpredicted. But he said the current U.S. economic problems have been years in the making, causing him to distrust the Obama administration, the Republicans in Congress and all the Republican presidential challengers — except Texas congressmanRon Paul.

“Only one candidate, Ron Paul, is saying the right things for the issues we are facing,” Taleb said. “I’m a risk-based person. From my vantage point there’s only one candidate representing the right policies.”

Taleb said he believes in an America that is resilient. “You don’t achieve that through bailouts,” he said. “You need the economy to stay vital. You need a rate of failure. What is fragile should break early.”

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46719252

 

He said Paul’s plans, including making drastic cuts in government, ending corporate bailouts and abolishing the Federal Reserve can “cure the fundamental issues. He’s against the issue of novocaine. If you have a severe problem, you do root canal. That’s the only choice you have. You have to start with a government budget that is in control. You don’t gamble with future generations’ money.”

Can America live with austerity? “We are doing it to the Greeks,” he said. “We should do it to ourselves. We want jobs, we want a healthy economy. I want to live in a country that has the energy to rebuild things. This is gone. We have a metastatic government…You need to do something drastic.”

The whole system “is rotten,” he added. “The advisers around [President] Obama who were part of the problem were friends with the bankers. I don’t trust the Republicans with deficits. Look at what we had under the Republican administrations including George [W.] Bush. I want the main problems to be addressed and I want a major cleanup.

“I don’t care about [Ron Paul's] chances. I support him. We have no other solutions. It is my duty as a citizen and as a taxpayer who doesn’t want to be hoodwinked in the long term by bureaucrats.”

幾位失學或是拒絕學校教育者 學歷有用無用 Survivor Bias

就統計上

接受高等教育

有較高的文憑

已經跟薪資待遇、人生的成就成為正相關

而許多人也因為自己的教育或是學歷而自卑

如同我之前碰到的阿姨

還有我看伊利亞德翻譯者講他哥失學的遺憾

這邊我要寫幾個我所知道以不接受教育體制而成功且自豪的人

並且表明學校教育的危害弊處

所以王永慶、郭台銘、Bill Gates、Steve Jobs、Mark Zuckerberg自然不在此列

李敖

李敖可能不太能算進去

因為他是台灣大學歷史系畢業且是研究所肄業

曾表示過如果他少浪費時間在學校裡

他的成就會更高

但其也引用旬子的

有之不必然,無之必不然

表明學歷的用處

蔡衍明

在台灣對於學歷無用論的支持且付諸實行

蔡衍明是最代表的人物

很多人口口聲聲這樣講

但是卻心口不一

還是想辦法讓小孩去念台大、花錢送到美國讀名校

但是蔡衍明的兒子蔡紹中高中肄業托福考了高分

原本計畫要到澳洲或美國讀大學

被蔡衍明阻止

高中肄業就到了集團上班

許許多多他對於學歷無用的言論可以在網路上找

就不寫了

岩間和夫

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B2%A9%E9%96%93%E5%92%8C%E5%A4%AB

我以前看大前研一所寫的書

介紹到他是讀到小學畢業（但是剛查wiki上寫是東京大學畢業，大前寫錯）

是SONY創辦者盛田昭夫的妹婿

他一直覺得他因為讀到小學畢業

使得他永遠比不上只讀到小學二年級就不讀的盛田昭夫

在僵化的小學教育多讀四年書讓他的腦細胞死亡

讓他後來再怎麼努力也趕不上盛田昭夫

閱讀注意事項

重新讀一次這文章開頭

請記住這都是少數例子

小心 Survivor Bias

產生疑問 問題 思考求解求答案

現在覺得自己對財經、經濟、心理慢慢有了入門

而產生的疑問越來越不容易解開

一般在網路發問的問題

越是簡單淺顯

越多人回應

例如其中一個就是上一篇的投資ETF疑問

然後我提出的問題都是沒人回……

 

猶記得以前黃瑞豐老師講的他曾經有一個問題不懂

經過十年之後他才懂

Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR) 投資ETF小型股的疑問

投資小型股價值股是從過往資料所見最好的投資

而市面上目前看到最佳的選擇可能是這支

Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR)

http://ppt.cc/-OGi

除了Expenses 有 0.21%之外

不喜歡的是他的周轉率

Turnover rate 30.2%

覺得太高了

比較不懂的是為甚麼他的有的內部開銷成本

比起MSCI US Small Cap Value Index卻還贏過幾次
因為在書上看有因為成分股的變化

比從頭到尾不變的持有投資報酬率差
（在大型股的或SP500的情形）

所以這樣是不是自己分散投資在小型價值股而不買Small Cap Value ETF比較好

 
–
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 111.81.190.198
※ 編輯: flied 來自: 111.81.190.198 (05/07 00:37)
推 jackeyjut:小型股高周率基本上無解，投資小型股就是著眼於未來的成 05/07 09:45
→ jackeyjut:長，但等小型股成長變中型股，就得賣出並購入新加入市場 05/07 09:46
→ jackeyjut:的小型股，之後一直照此迴轉下去，以上個人理解若有誤還 05/07 09:47
→ jackeyjut:望版友指正 05/07 09:47
→ jackeyjut:基本上小型股的溢酬是因為投資人承擔較高風險、交易成本 05/07 09:49
→ jackeyjut:及高周轉率換來的，是否投資及配置多少小型股還是反應個 05/07 09:51
→ jackeyjut:人的投資偏好 05/07 09:51

Why I Support Legal Marijuana Soros 索羅斯 為何我支持大麻合法化

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303467004575574450703567656.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Our marijuana laws are clearly doing more harm than good. The criminalization of marijuana did not prevent marijuana from becoming the most widely used illegal substance in the United States and many other countries. But it did result in extensive costs and negative consequences.

我們有關大麻的法律很明顯弊多於利

在美國跟世界上其他國家，

把大麻列為非法並沒有阻止大麻成為最廣泛使用的毒品

但是卻造成廣泛的支出和負面的結果。

Law enforcement agencies today spend many billions of taxpayer dollars annually trying to enforce this unenforceable prohibition. The roughly 750,000 arrests they make each year for possession of small amounts of marijuana represent more than 40% of all drug arrests.

Regulating and taxing marijuana would simultaneously save taxpayers billions of dollars in enforcement and incarceration costs, while providing many billions of dollars in revenue annually. It also would reduce the crime, violence and corruption associated with drug markets, and the violations of civil liberties and human rights that occur when large numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens are subject to arrest. Police could focus on serious crime instead.

The racial inequities that are part and parcel of marijuana enforcement policies cannot be ignored. African-Americans are no more likely than other Americans to use marijuana but they are three, five or even 10 times more likely—depending on the city—to be arrested for possessing marijuana. I agree with Alice Huffman, president of the California NAACP, when she says that being caught up in the criminal justice system does more harm to young people than marijuana itself. Giving millions of young Americans a permanent drug arrest record that may follow them for life serves no one’s interests.

Enlarge Image

Associated Press

Racial prejudice also helps explain the origins of marijuana prohibition. When California and other U.S. states first decided (between 1915 and 1933) to criminalize marijuana, the principal motivations were not grounded in science or public health but rather in prejudice and discrimination against immigrants from Mexico who reputedly smoked the “killer weed.”

Who most benefits from keeping marijuana illegal? The greatest beneficiaries are the major criminal organizations in Mexico and elsewhere that earn billions of dollars annually from this illicit trade—and who would rapidly lose their competitive advantage if marijuana were a legal commodity. Some claim that they would only move into other illicit enterprises, but they are more likely to be weakened by being deprived of the easy profits they can earn with marijuana.

This was just one reason the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy—chaired by three distinguished former presidents, Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, César Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico—included marijuana decriminalization among their recommendations for reforming drug policies in the Americas.

Like many parents and grandparents, I am worried about young people getting into trouble with marijuana and other drugs. The best solution, however, is honest and effective drug education. One survey after another indicates that teenagers have better access than most adults to marijuana—and often other drugs as well—and find it easier to buy marijuana than alcohol. Legalizing marijuana may make it easier for adults to buy marijuana, but it can hardly make it any more accessible to young people. I’d much rather invest in effective education than ineffective arrest and incarceration.

California’s Proposition 19, which would legalize the recreational use and small-scale cultivation of marijuana, wouldn’t solve all the problems connected with the drug. But it would represent a major step forward, and its deficiencies can be corrected on the basis of experience. Just as the process of repealing national alcohol prohibition began with individual states repealing their own prohibition laws, so individual states must now take the initiative with respect to repealing marijuana prohibition laws. And just as California provided national leadership in 1996 by becoming the first state to legalize the medical use of marijuana, so it has an opportunity once again to lead the nation.

In many respects, of course, Proposition 19 already is a winner no matter what happens on Election Day. The mere fact of its being on the ballot has elevated and legitimized public discourse about marijuana and marijuana policy in ways I could not have imagined a year ago.

These are the reasons I have decided to support Proposition 19 and invite others to do so.

Mr. Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management and founder of the Open Society Foundations.