Will the next generation be able to buy their own house?

Cakeguts

Herzlos wrote: »

True, I don't think anyone loses with long term appreciation. I guess if everyone does it, then wealth remains relative.


If only the well-off have financial education, then only the well off will be able to take advantage of it and the poor will never have any opportunity to catch up. Naturally, that suits the well off.

It might suit the well off but why does it suit the education authorities and the people who decide what should be taught in schools? I can't see what they gain from it apart from getting new gullible parents to send their children there because they can't see the lack of financial gain from having a degree in nothing and the school is advertising how many of its students go to university to study nothing?



I can remember a lesson on compound and simple interest rates at school. Don't they do that anymore? It seems they don't because otherwise the young would not take out so many loans for things they don't need like new cars.

Green_Bear

Cakeguts wrote: »

It might suit the well off but why does it suit the education authorities and the people who decide what should be taught in schools? I can't see what they gain from it apart from getting new gullible parents to send their children there because they can't see the lack of financial gain from having a degree in nothing and the school is advertising how many of its students go to university to study nothing?

I can remember a lesson on compound and simple interest rates at school. Don't they do that anymore? It seems they don't because otherwise the young would not take out so many loans for things they don't need like new cars.

The wealthy control the politicians and government functionaries who set education policy.
That's why state education is filled with lots of PC nonsense that private schools are exempt from.

Green_Bear

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

This is not correct. That would only apply to gambling.

Overall, shares in well run companies will rise over time.

I think Bogle meant it was a zero sum game between active fund managers stock picking at the same time. ie starting today, not all active fund managers can out perform the market over the next 20 years. Because some will have to win for others to lose.

phillw

Green_Bear wrote: »

But a lot of people I know have wasted money over the years, on TVs, football shirts, season tickets, alcohol, branded clothing etc.

Yeah, they try to teach everyone to be a good consumer. It works better on some than others.

phillw

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

This is not correct. That would only apply to gambling.

Overall, shares in well run companies will rise over time.

Shares basically are gambling, the 1929 stock market crash was caused because everyone was buying into the market. Demand pushed the prices up, but eventually it collapsed.

I don't think you can teach people enough about the stock market so that everyone is successful all the time.

qwert_yuiop

phillw wrote: »

Shares basically are gambling, the 1929 stock market crash was caused because everyone was buying into the market. Demand pushed the prices up, but eventually it collapsed.

I don't think you can teach people enough about the stock market so that everyone is successful all the time.

Still not correct. A share appreciating is not the same as a bet going right or wrong. Either you or Ladbrokes will win on a bet. A share value rises and falls with the company’s fortunes and dividend payments. No one has to lose for you to win.

Green_Bear

phillw wrote: »

Shares basically are gambling, the 1929 stock market crash was caused because everyone was buying into the market. Demand pushed the prices up, but eventually it collapsed.

I don't think you can teach people enough about the stock market so that everyone is successful all the time.

No, shares or not gambling.
Individual shares are more risky than funds, obviously. But buying shares in BP or GSK and holding them for 10 years, is not the same as betting on a horse.

The 1929 crash was largely caused by leverage. The public were borrowing money to buy shares.

Sailtheworld

Green_Bear wrote: »

No, shares or not gambling.
Individual shares are more risky than funds, obviously. But buying shares in BP or GSK and holding them for 10 years, is not the same as betting on a horse.

The 1929 crash was largely caused by leverage. The public were borrowing money to buy shares.

I wouldn't get hung up on the exact definitions. I could bet on a horse or buy a share in GSK - both examples of risking money today in return for more money tomorrow.

Over the long term stock markets reflect company returns but short term they can be very casino like. The 1929 crash is an excellent example - borrowing money to buy shares looks more like a straight gamble.

Green_Bear

Sailtheworld wrote: »

I wouldn't get hung up on the exact definitions. I could bet on a horse or buy a share in GSK - both examples of risking money today in return for more money tomorrow.

Over the long term stock markets reflect company returns but short term they can be very casino like. The 1929 crash is an excellent example - borrowing money to buy shares looks more like a straight gamble.

It depends on the interest rate, but yes it increases risk.
I own a few ITs and they have debt.
Companies themselves have debt too.

In the end it comes down to debtors v creditors.
This is a centuries old cycle and I think debtors will win and creditors will lose this particular cycle.

Creditors are bank deposit holders and bond holders.

tablefulfads

Yes, they can buy their own houses. It all depends on their planning and savings. If they save enough that is not a big deal.