Is there any doubt that people are poor (in the west) because they're stupid?
I just saw this video ( youtube.com
Where is the huge group of people making intelligent financial decisions and still ending up poor? Nowhere.
Anyone who thinks the rich should have their pockets pilfered for the poor should be a) pistol-whipped for being in favour of stealing and b) shot for thinking poor people are not to blame for their own failures.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
archive.is
archive.is
washingtonpost.com
eu.usatoday.com
twitter.com
Coach handbags are more stylish.
I don't know the difference - I just know women are retarded for thinking handbags in any way make them more attractive. Same breed of retards who spend loads on socks.
You want to know how to be more attractive? Take care of your skin, physique, hair and overall health.
Source?
You sound like a poorfag. Just get a job?
I make smart decisions with my money. I won't ever be poor.
It's from Tushy Lickers. Good times growing up watching porn from them in the 2000s.
You're right about the poor decisions. And this applies to almost everyone, from niggers to whites. When I did mobile sales, niggers were always trying to get the latest iphone, despite being poor as fuck with shit jobs (or no job). The shoe store next to us would have niggers lined up for miles whenever there was a shoe sale for Jordans or some shit.
Similarly other races take out loans for school, cars, and houses despite it being a big percentage of their yearly income or even more in the case of a mortgage.
People don't live within their means. If you can barely pay rent on time, and have no money for emergencies, then a designer bag or latest iphone are out of your means
The problem with people is that they think nothing out of the ordinary will happen to their lives. Nobody saves shit for later. Western abundance has made it possible to live paycheck-to-paycheck and have food for a couple days in your fridge without ever thinking of saving or preserving some money/food for later, when something unexpected hits.
Unless I was specifically told to spend it, it would go straight in to my investment accounts.
And what's worse is that whole "constant inflation is good for the economy" bullshit actively disincentives saving money since anything that's just sitting in a bank account is constantly losing value.
Precisely.
To be fair, the stipulation was that it had to be spent within the time frame allotted, or the balance would be returned. But to be in harmony with your result, just buy something that would retain its value, liquidate, and then invest accordingly. Instead of buying a fucking Rufus vutton bag like a simpleton.
/video7551584/
>buy something that would retain its value
>Instead of buying a fucking Rufus vutton bag
I'll be right over here if you want to show me a case of a bag being sold within 90% of its value after a few years.
Not to mention I could've just said "instead of buying something that would help your money grow", but you won't get around even the easier challenge.
>to be spent within the time frame allotted
>after a few years
Take a decision.
There is no contradiction. I can find something to buy within the next hour that will retain its value after a few years. A handbag would be a retard's choice.
Anything else?
You can buy a purse in the next hour and sell it in the next * 1.1 hours. Hence, a purse is a good choice.
Why not just buy a fuckload of gold bars?
This thread is about people making stupid decisions with money.
The people depicted in the video I specifically referenced were not buying them for resale purposes, and even if they wanted to, they'd have a tough time reselling a bag for equal or higher price, hence it's still a stupid decision and I haven't contradicted myself whatsoever.
Any other straws you want to grasp at?
They're heavy.
I don't think you'd be able to get the sale approved and the money out of the account (and therefore 'spent') within an hour unless you happened to know someone beforehand.
>they'd have a tough time reselling a bag for equal or higher price
Arbitrary statement.
If they wouldn't have a tough time reselling it, then it would be a smart financial decision.
There's a certain statement you conveniently didn't respond to: The people depicted in the video I specifically referenced were not buying them for resale purposes.
Anything else? Admit defeat.
Pff, I can spend $100,000 in 5 minutes, high yield vanguard funds and options.
>The people depicted in the video I specifically referenced were not buying them for resale purposes.
>Admit defeat
Ok, so what? What I'm arguing against is
>buy something that would retain its value instead of buying a Louis Vuitton
A Louis Vuitton can hold its value long enough to fulfill the stipulation
Reminder that these savages don't even hide their intentions and even then the american public is still fooled.
>John Bolton admits to lying and deceiving the public
youtube.com
>Israel Lobbyist calls for false flag to start Iran war
youtube.com
>That Time John Bolton Said It’s Good To Lie About War
archive.is
archive.is
>It should also be noted that Bolton is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization whose members have influenced the state of geopolitics for the last few generations. Bolton was also a member of the neo-conservative, warhawk think tank, “Project for the New American Century,” which was enthusiastically promoting the lie about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction.
>The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Trump has grown frustrated with national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as their hawkish posture risks spiraling out of control.
washingtonpost.com
>We need to guard against another mistake in the Middle East. Here’s how the march to war has begun.
>Break with Europe, Russia and China and withdraw from a nuclear deal that had completely stopped Iran’s work to build a nuclear bomb? Check. Unilaterally reimpose sanctions designed to cripple Iran’s economy, without buy-in from our allies? Check. Take the unprecedented step of designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, a move consistently opposed by U.S. military leaders? Check. Move the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group and a bombing wing into Iran’s backyard? Check.
>Ok, so what? What I'm arguing against is
The ability to read involves grasping something called context. Repeatedly I have contextualized purchases under the umbrella of smart financial decisions, including my very first post.
If you're going to be a retard who wants to ignore context, stop pretending you want an honest argument. If you want an honest argument, tell me why someone is making a smart decision by buying something that, through use (as it was intended for), will not retain its value.
>muh context
You simply wrote the wrong thing, admit it.
You were talking about the time costraint, and describing the buy-liquidate-profit loophole as impracticable via a LV bag.
>You simply wrote the wrong thing, admit it.
You're too brain-dead to remember what the thread is about.
Is buying a bag for use, that will not retain its value, a smart financial decision or not, you retard?
Poverty is generally a self induced issue. Spend time with poor people, it will make you regret ever feeling sorry for them.
t. Midwest
"Mrbeast" is hardly an example of the average westerner, he has extremely high budgets for his videos because of brand deals and people keep watching them, this is just him scraping the bottom of the barrel for new ways to do the same concept he's already done.
That and it's appealing to his audience, if they all went out and invested in portfolios or bitcoin or real estate, the video wouldn't be as interesting
>Is buying a bag for use, that will not retain its value, a smart financial decision or not, you retard?
Nope.
But still, that's not what you were criticizing with that sentence. Had she bought a car with the intent of using it, would you have wrote "buy something that would retain its value, not a car!"?
I don't think so. The thread parachute doesn't help you with that quite explicit statement.
>Nope.
Correct. Thanks for not being retarded.
>But still, that's not what you were criticizing with that sentence
>The thread parachute doesn't help you with that quite explicit statement
See pic related - you still can't read. If I wanted to do some sort of catch-all unfairly, I wouldn't have been honest about the caveat you brought up before. If it's in service of a smart financial decision, I specifically said it was fine.
Learn how to read. It will help. You absolute retard.
To be fair, if you buy an older used car at a low price you can fix it up and make a profit. There are also cars you can buy and sell to collectors. But your point is definitely true for new or cars bought at sticker price
>after you reminded me a bag can serve that purpose, I said it can, so I was not wrong when I previously wrote it can't.
O-kay.
Being poor in the 1st world is self induced, but becoming a wealthy 1st worlder does take a combination of luck, investment, and skills. Being comfortable just takes a little bit of effort, you won't be rich but you'll be content with what you have.
You still can't read. See the pic in here Once you learn the importance of context, you will further know how to read. This thread is about making smart financial decisions. In the post depicted here I once again mentioned they were not buying them for reselling purposes.
When it comes to real people making real decisions, which forms the basis of context (which an illiterate retard like you wouldn't value), it's only you who would need reminders.
Spend at least 5 years reading before posting on the Internet again.
>thinking handbags in any way make them more attractive.
they want to appear "rich" and celeb like. Showing that they own a handbag of a luxury branding. Like a man who buys a Breitling watch.
>Muh context parachute
Had she bought a car with the intent of using it, would you have wrote "buy something that would retain its value, not a car!"? Please be honest. You can call me a retard all day, but you're coming off as dishonest. Not a better position. Redeem yourself, admit you underestimated the power of a bag in the mind of a woman.