/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>11772076

Why would one pose for a pic like that?

>>2965244

He's the one who dumped her, according to the article.

>>2011696

You should always have an official wallet ready sweet fuck use your brain morans

>>1806253

This.

>>1806356

Precisely. Any book with the adjective "rich" in its title is likely to be snake oil.

Most clear evidence of this is that the author himself spent most of his life being broke. Eventually his wife even left him because she grew tired of being broke. And he died alone and poor.

Would you take advice on dental hygiene from a toothless man?

>>1365406

Your conclusions are correct, but those 2 aren't the only options.

My point wasn't that you had to start your own business. Just don't do what lots of other people are doing. It's a bad idea. Take for instance CS - we've all heard the "we need more programmers" meme. But the truth is fresh grads outside of the major tech hubs are forced to take shitty webdev/helpdesk work because there are hardly any entry-level positions available.

Can you think of a single degree that doesn't have this problem? I can't, and that's why I would argue that there are no 'in-demand' fields and thus no easy path to a stable boring job.

>>1346353

yeah but then you'd be investing in a bubble

Thing is, if you're reckless, you can get lucky once in a while.

But if you consistently make bad decisions like investing in a bubbles, eventually you'll lose big. And the one key characteristic of good investors is that they don't lose.

Google was made by experts on search. The page rank algorithm was anything but obvious.

Facebook had no original idea. It was literally just another social network at a time when myspace and friendster already had market dominance. Their success came from simply amazing execution.

The success of Steam was only possible due to CS being the most popular online game at the time. You couldn't have made steam without having an extremely popular game. The real question here is why Blizzard and EA took so long to see that.

>>1157713

Plenty of successful companies started that way actually. PayPal and Broadcast.com spring to mind.

>>1016572

Trading is a zero-sum game.

No value is ever added.

In fact every transaction diminishes the value of whatever is being traded because of fees.

With that in mind, do you really want to undertake an engagement where more than half of all participants lose money, and in which you have no training, education or experience?

>>987879

>Yeah what fucking real estate for under $10k? A piece of a board and an old toilet?

You can partner up with someone and use that 10k as a down payment for a 100k house, then rent it out.

That being said, it's much more time-demanding doing RE than paper securities, and thus not as economically efficient, unless you are getting a proportionally larger return for the extra time spent.