<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reflecting on the Stock Market &#8211; Guest Post</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.livingalmostlarge.com/2008/05/02/reflecting-on-the-stock-market-guest-post/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.livingalmostlarge.com/2008/05/02/reflecting-on-the-stock-market-guest-post/</link>
	<description>Trying to live large ...one step at a time</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:14:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: cinzea</title>
		<link>http://www.livingalmostlarge.com/2008/05/02/reflecting-on-the-stock-market-guest-post/comment-page-1/#comment-1576</link>
		<dc:creator>cinzea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 20:34:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.livingalmostlarge.com/2008/05/02/reflecting-on-the-stock-market-guest-post/#comment-1576</guid>
		<description>Having lived through the dot com disaster, I find this information to be somewhat naive and erroneous.  The dot com bubble was based on the premise that a new form of commerce could be transacted across the internet.  The idea was that brick and mortar stores (which I owned) were going to be wiped off the face of the earth.  I know, I know, preposterous, right?  But Wall Street and all those young, punk kids (yes!  that&#039;s what they were) poured billions and billions of venture capitalist (stock) money into these new dot coms that touted riches beyond your wildest expectations.  The dot com basis was that if you sold items over the internet for less than retail, (tax free) you would thereby swoon customer loyalty and retire rich and immensely happy. I used to have people come into my computer store, I would demonstrate and show them all the latest gadgets and then these buyers would go off and buy these same gadgets, off the internet, and for less than retail.  In fact, they bought the stuff LESS than wholesale.  What happens to a dot com &#039;owner&#039; when it sells its wares LESS than wholesale?  You most assuredly do not get customer loyalty (since they are only shopping price anyway and will look somewhere else for a better price) nor do you stay in business for long.  When an &#039;owner&#039; buys high and sells low........he/she goes out of business regardless if it is on the internet or not.
So, the dot coms came crashing down because they never followed the old, tried and true business measures that have been in practice since Cain sold his first carved bone to his brother Able. The dot coms went out of business and most brick and mortar stores (include me in this part) had to shutter our doors because NO ONE was buying our inventory.

Just like the modern day housing mess of today, man, in his infamous wisdom, thinks there is a sure get-rich-quick scheme to make him/her self a millionaire.  When you buy a house, you have to put 10-20% down, be able to afford the mortgage, 15-30 year conventional, fixed rate mortgage.  In other words, buying a home also has an historical tried and true way of making the purchase.  Buck the system?  Well, it&#039;s taking ALL of us down with them.  This is a bigger problem than the dot com.  People today used their homes like a revolving cash machine rather than a place to just live, raise a family and just plain enjoy their lives.

So, not only did I suffer financial hardship from the dot com disaster, I have to suffer again, at the hands of Wall Street maniacs and other get-rich-schemers again. This time, however, I learned my lesson.  Not having debt of any kind is helping me skate through this housing mess.  I own my own home, car and do not have debt of any kind. I don&#039;t live in fear of losing my job, because I don&#039;t need one anymore.

Perhaps a new generation will learn the lessons of the housing mess.

Who knows?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having lived through the dot com disaster, I find this information to be somewhat naive and erroneous.  The dot com bubble was based on the premise that a new form of commerce could be transacted across the internet.  The idea was that brick and mortar stores (which I owned) were going to be wiped off the face of the earth.  I know, I know, preposterous, right?  But Wall Street and all those young, punk kids (yes!  that&#8217;s what they were) poured billions and billions of venture capitalist (stock) money into these new dot coms that touted riches beyond your wildest expectations.  The dot com basis was that if you sold items over the internet for less than retail, (tax free) you would thereby swoon customer loyalty and retire rich and immensely happy. I used to have people come into my computer store, I would demonstrate and show them all the latest gadgets and then these buyers would go off and buy these same gadgets, off the internet, and for less than retail.  In fact, they bought the stuff LESS than wholesale.  What happens to a dot com &#8216;owner&#8217; when it sells its wares LESS than wholesale?  You most assuredly do not get customer loyalty (since they are only shopping price anyway and will look somewhere else for a better price) nor do you stay in business for long.  When an &#8216;owner&#8217; buys high and sells low&#8230;&#8230;..he/she goes out of business regardless if it is on the internet or not.<br />
So, the dot coms came crashing down because they never followed the old, tried and true business measures that have been in practice since Cain sold his first carved bone to his brother Able. The dot coms went out of business and most brick and mortar stores (include me in this part) had to shutter our doors because NO ONE was buying our inventory.</p>
<p>Just like the modern day housing mess of today, man, in his infamous wisdom, thinks there is a sure get-rich-quick scheme to make him/her self a millionaire.  When you buy a house, you have to put 10-20% down, be able to afford the mortgage, 15-30 year conventional, fixed rate mortgage.  In other words, buying a home also has an historical tried and true way of making the purchase.  Buck the system?  Well, it&#8217;s taking ALL of us down with them.  This is a bigger problem than the dot com.  People today used their homes like a revolving cash machine rather than a place to just live, raise a family and just plain enjoy their lives.</p>
<p>So, not only did I suffer financial hardship from the dot com disaster, I have to suffer again, at the hands of Wall Street maniacs and other get-rich-schemers again. This time, however, I learned my lesson.  Not having debt of any kind is helping me skate through this housing mess.  I own my own home, car and do not have debt of any kind. I don&#8217;t live in fear of losing my job, because I don&#8217;t need one anymore.</p>
<p>Perhaps a new generation will learn the lessons of the housing mess.</p>
<p>Who knows?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim ~ mydebtblog.com</title>
		<link>http://www.livingalmostlarge.com/2008/05/02/reflecting-on-the-stock-market-guest-post/comment-page-1/#comment-1574</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim ~ mydebtblog.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 May 2008 15:32:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.livingalmostlarge.com/2008/05/02/reflecting-on-the-stock-market-guest-post/#comment-1574</guid>
		<description>For the most part you are correct in that many of the DOT COM millionaires were only because they had their money tied up in the market, not cash on hand. They are probably no different than other people with high net worth, unless they cashed out stock to buy real estate. You never know what the market is going to do. A lot of these people got greedy, went after the luxuries and such, until the BOMB crashed their party. I remember having Yahoo! stock and it got up to the point it was worth over $100 a share, then split 2 for 1. I was only 18 then and after it tanked I sold it off for maybe $70 bucks total. My days of single stock are over and much prefer mutual funds with long term growth. The best rule when it comes to investing is never put all your eggs in one basket.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the most part you are correct in that many of the DOT COM millionaires were only because they had their money tied up in the market, not cash on hand. They are probably no different than other people with high net worth, unless they cashed out stock to buy real estate. You never know what the market is going to do. A lot of these people got greedy, went after the luxuries and such, until the BOMB crashed their party. I remember having Yahoo! stock and it got up to the point it was worth over $100 a share, then split 2 for 1. I was only 18 then and after it tanked I sold it off for maybe $70 bucks total. My days of single stock are over and much prefer mutual funds with long term growth. The best rule when it comes to investing is never put all your eggs in one basket.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: When Are Your Investments Worth Anything? at Living Almost Large</title>
		<link>http://www.livingalmostlarge.com/2008/05/02/reflecting-on-the-stock-market-guest-post/comment-page-1/#comment-1575</link>
		<dc:creator>When Are Your Investments Worth Anything? at Living Almost Large</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 May 2008 13:25:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.livingalmostlarge.com/2008/05/02/reflecting-on-the-stock-market-guest-post/#comment-1575</guid>
		<description>[...] got a guest post out today at Living Almost Large. It&#8217;s about investments and when they can really be counted as wealth. I&#8217;ve been [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] got a guest post out today at Living Almost Large. It&#8217;s about investments and when they can really be counted as wealth. I&#8217;ve been [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
