Never said they didn't. I'm saying that it's about how you THINK about money that really matters in most cases... Drop a boat load of money on somebody and how they think about money determines where they will be in 10 years, not how much you dumped on them in the first place. So, if you are wrong headed about money, it doesn't matter if you make a bunch of it, you will still be poor. If you are wrong headed, you won't manage your money the correct way, you will just spend it. So hiring somebody to manage your assets is really an example of the mindset you need to stay rich, and it is the mindset is what keeps you that way.

I'm not necessarily a avid supporter of "Think and Grow Rich" but the guy pushing all that stuff is right about one of the major differences between the "rich" and the "not so rich" is mind set.

How many stories have you heard about people who won large sums of money but ended up bankrupt a few short years later? How does this happen? It's how you think about money, and how you choose to live. Change the way you think and manage your money instead of letting your money manage you.

Haven't you seen the news stories of the guy that dies and leaves millions to charity but nobody suspected he had money? One story is about a guy who worked as a janitor all his life, invested wisely and lived modestly and retired with nearly 10 million. How can this guy do this? Was he just lucky? I don't think so, I think the difference was his attitude about money.

I knew an older gentleman in my pre-teen years. He was rich, literally worth tens of millions in today's dollars but you'd never would have known. He drove an old pickup, lived in a log cabin with two bare electric lights and a small wood stove for heat. He spent his days working his ranch, moving cows, cutting and bailing hay and the like. He died about 15 years after I knew him, worth millions, but he lived happy. His secret? Don't let money define you, don't make it the measure of your success, manage it instead of letting it manage you.

Perhaps not, but addiction treatment for users and prison for producers/distributors seems like a good thing to try, even if we don't seem to have an epidemic of long term thinking going on in the country. I believe in giving multiple chances and upping the anti each time.

How do you stop people from making sour dough? Yeast is literally everywhere...

Oh for Pete's sake... GEORGE LUCAS has had more significance than our founding fathers to the current generation?!?

What kind of history are they (not) teaching in public schools these days? If what you say is true, this is sad. It means we are abandoning our founding principles and putting principles in place from fictional stories, and between Star Wars, The Hunger Games and the like we get our ideas of government? Lord help us.

I dare say that MOST of us are way more impacted by our founders than by Star Wars, what's lacking is understanding of what that impact actually is because we haven't learned our history.

And the alternative is?

Nobody out there claims capitalism is perfect, surely there are problems with it. However, I dare you to look though history and find any better examples of an economic system that works long term.

All the "solutions" to the above problems (perceived or real) don't work out so well. They kill economies, kill governments, and kill lots of people in the process. Give me capitalism, even with the wide gap between the rich and poor, because in that system the poor are better off and there is at least the chance of working one's way above their current station.

Capitalism is the best system we have, even with it's warts..

On the fall of democracy... I think this has been WAY overstated. Politics is not always just about money, though it may seem so at times. There are ways though to "fix" this and I think term limits at the federal level is the best place to start. Say we put a 12 year limit on congress in both houses combined and you are out after that. It won't fix everything, but it will surely make the money going to incumbents get spread around eventually once the member's time is up.

Oh come on...

The difference here is NOT being rich or not. The difference is in managing your investments and your risks. You can make a LOT of money in stocks, but you have to take huge risks if you want to get rich quick. Huge risks mean failure is likely, so if you don't want to be poor you have to manage your risks.

Rich people generally know how to manage their risks, or they don't stay rich very long. The trick to making money is not being lucky, but being smart.

Stop approaching wall street like a giant casino where you place your bets and spin the wheel. LEARN about investing, understand the investments you make and learn about ways to limit your risks. Because until you learn what you are doing, you may win some, but you WILL loose more.

It's like learning card counting and playing blackjack. FIRST you need to learn the rules and play the odds to even the risks, then you can learn to count cards to get better odds. But it takes time to learn each new step. Investing is the same kind of thing...

Don't have time to learn all this? Then stick with letting the pros manage your money for you and stay in those mutual funds, preferably those with low expenses and good rates of return.

Not much, of course chicken little is always talking about the sky falling and that little boy keeps crying wolf. Usually they are both wrong... Usually...

Look, a stopped watch is right twice a day and the stock market will go up, and it WILL go down so the bulls and bears have their share of days they are right. The issue here is if you know how to manage things so you don't loose too much when the markets don't do what you expect. The average casual investor doesn't manage their risks well and are usually the ones who get stuck.

My advice to investors is that you KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING, or only use money you can loose. Of course this applies to ANY investment, not just stocks.

No it's not..

Where "book value" is an important component of a company's stock value, so is Price to Earnings. "How much money are they making?" is a more important question. You can have nearly zero book value, but if you are raking in the cash with a low cost of sales your company is worth a lot, even if it has no real assets.

That's not to say P/E ratios are not at pretty high levels too, but some academic's statistics isn't proof of anything.

Yea, "Profit" and "Earnings" have NOTHING to do with this....

How on earth did this get enough votes to make it into the Slashdot pool... Our founding fathers and George Lucas being compared?

Where it's not very deep, Even Slashdot isn't usually this shallow.... Or is it?

When the election rolls around? Uh, I think it's hear now and we have nearly 2 years of campaigning in our future... Heaven help us... Hillary won't be materially harmed by this, by the time she actually starts campaigning it will be old news but thinking the republicans will be harmed by this somehow is nuts... Unless of course they over play the card... But that's a self inflected "unforced error" kind of thing and if the democrats are hoping for that, it's going to go badly for them and they know it.

But, none of these pose an immediate danger to others by unvaccinated kids. You cannot be sure of a mutation and you cannot say with certainty that this religious exception from vaccinations will cause anybody else to get sick in each specific case. The problem with your argument is that not vaccinating poses no immediate danger to anyone else PLUS it eliminates a possible danger from the side effects of vaccinations (not that I would recommend skipping vaccinations, but you have to agree that there is SOME risk with them).

No we need to have the religious exception here.

The question was "Which religions prohibit vaccinations?" I'm pointing out that there ARE some that do, and with your admission at least ONE does. So the question about if this new law is a encroachment on religious freedom must be "Yes, Yes it is!"

Now shall we proceed to the question about if this encroachment is a valid one or not or do you wish to keep arguing that this has nothing to do with freedom of religion?

As you rightly point out, there are limits to religious freedoms (as there are to other rights), and failing to obtain immediate lifesaving medical treatment for your children is an example of such a limit. However, the question here is about vaccinations, which are NOT immediate medial care, nor is the child going to die if they don't get them. So the question is different from the blood transfusion or cancer treatments.

Two that I am aware of. Christian Science prohibits many common medical procedures and I believe that some Amish eschew all technology beyond horse and buggies. They are long standing established religions. But how long a religion has existed has nothing to do with this question. Remember that this CLEARLY is infringing on religious freedom, the question is about if this infringement is allowed by the constitution or not.

Religious freedom has limits, like freedom of speech has limits, so nobody is claiming that just because your religion says you can, you get to break the law. However, the question is about what can be made into a law, especially a law that clearly infringes on somebody's religious freedoms. Unless the government has a compelling reason it should not (and constitutionally cannot) infringe on any of the freedoms protected by the constitution. I don't believe that they have a compelling reason in this case.