Fwiw, if they had invested in the market in 2009 and left the money in, and continued to invest, they would have made a lot of money. Most of the people who lost money when it went down were those who pulled their money out.
it's interesting to see different perspectives on rich vs not, and I mean that honestly. In another thread there was a brief discussion on if $400k a year makes someone rich. I think so, though not rich in the way that they have no cares about money at all.
Did the guy you're referring to have a family? It can be hard to save large amounts of money with a family.
No he didn't have a family, which is why I say the choices one makes in life can make one rich. I would rather have the family.
While I don't think of myself as rich, if things continue as they have, I could be to the point that I consider myself rich in 8-10 years assuming that I live that long. My definition of rich would be having my house paid for, being mostly debt free, and having half a million or so in various investments. That is probably not the definition of rich that most people have though.
I'm sure it was a mistake. My issue with Russia's involvement isn't about placing blame for deliberately shooting the airliner down.. The issue is more the recklessness of giving such firepower to a group of rebels embroiled in a civil war
Sent from my VS890 4G using CarolinaHuddle mobile app
Lots of people complained about us giving stingers to the Mujahedeen, but a stinger can't really take down an airliner except at takeoff if the shooter is in the right position. As they showed, these things can take down an airliner with ease.
I think that to be happy and wealthy requires that the wealthy person ensure they do something meaningful with their lives. Whether they do so by working hard in the family business, or in a charity or some other way of keeping focus doesn't really matter, but just sitting back and doing nothing of value all day would be depressing.
Our nuclear subs strategically spread throughout the world is our biggest advantage
Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle
That and our logistical capability, as well as our 100 plus years of experience at operating at sea for long periods of time. The Chinese occasionally practice refueling and resupplying at sea. We do it on a daily basis as part of normal operations. Our Pacific fleet has greater logistical capability than the entire Chinese and Russian fleets combined. If you send a fleet on a longterm deployment, you have to feed the crew, fuel and refuel, keep fresh ammunition supplies etc. We have the logistical ships and network of bases to do this. Neither the Chinese nor the Russians do. The Chinese could eventually become a conventional threat to the US, but right now, they are not.
And quite honestly, becoming a global superpower and being a conventional threat to the United States is not really a goal of the Chinese at this point, at least in terms of their Navy. They want to be a regional Naval power, and be able to defeat the US Navy in the South China sea and perhaps eventually a little further out in an area such as the Spratley Islands. This is not something they could do right now, but its certainly an attainable goal if they continue to modernize while the US fleet continues to shrink.
Geez, every year someone in the tinderbox predicts world war III is right around the doorstep, and every year they are wrong. Same is true this year. We aren't close to World War III. We were far closer in the 50's and 60's than we are today. The Chinese and Russians aren't going to ally anytime soon.
They may not like us, but they aren't fond of each other either.
China is not a conventional threat to the US. They don't have a tenth of the logistical infrastructure they would need to threaten the United States. Their Navy wouldn't last more than a few months against ours, and they know this. Our subs would have a field day against their surface fleet if they tried to move it out of the South China Sea.
Imo, letting these insurgents have something like an SA11 is an insane act by the Russian government. Unless these are just Russian soldiers pretending to be insurgents. Its hard enough to keep terrorist from stealing these weapons from military organizations. Give them to an irregular force, and who knows who the weapons might be sold to. They could be used against us, or even against Russia if they fall into hands of Chechens or Georgians.
It would be akin to us giving Patriot Missiles to the rebels in Syria.
Sorry if its already been said, but I am fairly certain that the biggest threat to our constitution and our nation in our history was the Civil War. Anything else is just hyperbole.
That being said, some of the things Obama does are a little unsettling, but then so is the complete lack of willingness to compromise that the other side is showing. I am beginning to think we might have been better off with a parliamentary system such as the Brits have.
You would think the company would be smarter and so far only one plane shot down. Evidently others are aware of the situation. Right now the hot zone is Ukraine and like you said there are others but a warning for months should never be taken lightly.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using CarolinaHuddle mobile app
And Chechnya, and Syria, and Iraq, and Afghanistan. Those are the ones off the top of my head that are hot zones right now and lay along a potential route to Malaysia. There probably aren't to many weapons in Afghanistan right now that could take down an airliner at altitude, but its not completely outside the realm of possibility.