Comments by "" (@Green__one) on "Ben Felix" channel.

I tried day trading for a while. After fees, I made a fair amount of money, and I was able to consistently beat my financial advisor who was managing my RRSP/TFSA accounts. As a result I was pretty pleased with myself. Then I learned that I was only barely matching the aggregate market returns for the same time period, but with a lot more effort. That finding was enough for me to move to passive ETF investing, and fire my financial advisor.
386
@hatter1290 I was making money when the market was going down too. But long term I was only matching the aggregate market returns, and with a lot of effort on my part. Passive etf investing is so much easier, and for the same returns.
48
The idea that the money supply and inflation are not related is patently absurd. Unfortunately it sounds like Ben actually believes that garbage. If the two were not related that also means that supply and demand are not a thing, nor are market based economies. Unfortunately it's that same idiotic viewpoint that has caused a large portion of our current inflation. You can't add that much money to the economy and not expect inflation, but unfortunately politicians, and Central bankers, and apparently Ben, all believe in that fairy tale where the amount of money in circulation means nothing. In that fantasy world you might as well give each household a trillion dollars, everyone will be fabulously wealthy, and will be able to buy anything they want. We know that's not actually the case, but it's an expansion of exactly that mindset that money supply and inflation are not related. Of course that's also the premise of UBI, what proponents of all these ridiculous ideas completely fail to grasp, is it goods and services are still limited, and that money itself has no actual value, money is only a medium of exchange, it's a method of exchanging one person's goods or services for another person's goods or services, having more of it is only relevant if it's in relation to other people's money, if everyone has more money the money itself just simply buys less. The important part is the underlying goods and services, not the money. I am really sad that even economics courses no longer teach basic economics. It does not bode well for the future
47
While it's obviously true that inflation has multiple factors affecting it, and is quite complicated, stating that money supply is not related to inflation is patently false. You would have been far better off stating that there are additional factors at play, or that it's far more complicated than that, but dismissing money supply completely is exactly the mistake that got us into a high inflation period in the first place.
8
@BenFelixCSI that's because they no longer teach economics in modern economics, the statement they are not related is completely 100% false. And even my 6-year-old can explain why. Money itself has no real value, its only value is in its ability for one person to exchange their goods and services for another person's goods and services. Adding more money to the system does not change the amount of underlying goods and services. Unfortunately politicians, Central bankers, and obviously yourself, have bought into this fantasy world, and have caused the exact situation we are in today with skyrocketing inflation. You, politicians, and Central bankers are in the process of getting a massive wake-up call. The massive inflation that is already started, and has actually been with us for quite a while in the housing sector, should open your eyes. If it doesn't, then that shows that you are not interested in evidence at all, and are solely based on ideological principles, rather than facts. It's really too bad that we have tried to take economics out of education, it has led to very predictable results
7
@victorgbs you can't explain it, because it doesn't make any sense. And because it's 100% false. The amount of money on bank balance sheets does 100% directly impact the real economy. It causes inflation. For hundreds of years this has been true, and somehow in the last decade economists have chosen to ignore this fact, this isn't based on any science, or any evidence, but purely based on ideology. This ideological view is causing massive devastation right now in the real world. But when you decide to have your monetary policy based on ideology, instead of facts, that's 100% predictable. Inflation right now is not unexpected as ben talks about in this video, every person I've talked to saw it coming, the only people who didn't were Central bankers, politicians, and Ben. When the bank first saw the inflation, they ignored it, then they called it transitory, now they see that it's systemic, but they still don't understand what caused it. Which is precisely why it happened. My 6-year-old knows what caused it, and so do i. The fact that economists can't figure it out just shows the state of our current ideology driven education
5
I know Ben isn't a fan of the 4% rule, and I'll admit he does make a few good points. The one point I don't like is the argument that we can't expect the same returns in the futre as in the past. This is basically a "this time is different" argument, which Ben has previously argued against in other cases (does "this time is different" only apply if predicting negative things instead of positive?) My question though is what Ben thinks about things like firecalc (firecalc.com) The premise is to put in your numbers (in quite a bit of detail if you would like to) and it will compare against every period in history to which we have data. Does the same "This time is different" argument apply? or would Ben be comfortable saying that if your numbers plot to a high probability of success in all historical periods, that you'd also be ok going forward? On a side note, I just watched Ben's video about when the best time to invest is (his answer is always "now"), and know that generally to be the case. I just got a large lump sum to add to my investments, and I must say, looking at the current markets it is taking a lot of willpower to follow that advice!
5
@CC-jy4gr The problem with that approach is that whole market funds are based on market cap, so you end up most heavily invested in large cap growth. There's a strong argument to be made for putting extra funds into small cap and value to counter the natural bias of the market towards the companies that have already been successful previously (and hence are less likely to outperform going forward). I "tilt" about 8% of my portfolio to small cap value, and another 8% towards large cap value.
4
The one thing that's missing here about GICs is that it is extremely hard to find a GIC these days that outperforms a high interest savings account, and those are completely liquid. It's for that reason that I've never used GICs in my portfolio. Instead I use a combination of a bond fund (ZAG) and an HISA (currently returning 2.25 percent, but was over 3% until COVID) the HISA misses out on the guaranteed rate, but it's fully liquid, and beats pretty much any GIC I can find as far as rates go. Is there a good reason to use GICs rather than HISAs? I've never seen one.
4
@patrickeriksson7973 money that is printed doesn't just sit in a vault somewhere unused. The whole reason it gets printed is to put it in the economy. Sure in your hypothetical scenario it wouldn't affect inflation, but that scenario is also not in any way related to reality.
4
Unfortunately I can't afford Ben's services, and there are very few professionals that are more than just stock/mutual fund sales people. I'm pretty happy with my diy setup, I'm not opposed to financial advice, but finding affordable advice that I trust is not exactly simple.
3
@dhess34 and I found the person who has absolutely no clue about economics at all. Doesn't know what a market economy is, has never heard of supply and demand, and thinks money grows on trees. Kindergarteners know more about money than you do
3
@sekching8197 accounting changes which put more money in the system and drive up inflation.
3
Basically this video days that only stupid people are landlords as they all lose money. I find this hard to believe as many people make their entire living that way quite successfully. That said, even if the finances are as bad as he says (which I highly doubt), I can unequivocally state that I am much much happier as a home owner for the past 20 years than I ever was as a renter. He lists control as one of the things that makes you happy. Without ownership you have no control of the single largest influence in your life, your living arrangements. Yes I spend more time working on my house, but I also spend less time arguing with a landlord, and can modify my living space to match my needs and desires. There are other considerations as well, in my area, the vast majority of rentals are 1-2 bedroom apartments, the vast majority of single family homes are owned. A 2 bedroom apartment doesn't cause much happiness once you have a family with kids, assuming your building even allows kids.
2
@oliverj9256 Not sure what "experience" you're looking for. If you want to know what his returns have been, know that any returns measured over such a short time period are completely meaningless. Long term, this should produce positive returns in excess of the aggregate market returns. Short term is impossible to predict. Beyond that, the "experience" is that it's slightly more complicated to setup and manage, especially being that the listed ETFs are in USD and therefore conversion must be accounted for. I have recently moved my own portfolio to more closely resemble the model portfolio. I've already moved my registered accounts in this direction, but I'm still slightly light on these factors, as my taxable account has not yet been adjusted. To avoid paying taxes to re-balance the taxable account, I plan to do most of the shift through new contributions over time, rather than selling and re-buying and therefore incurring capital gains.
2
@BenFelixCSI The concept of money having any value is "deep right wing"? Wow! You've gone off the deep end!
2
@BenFelixCSI You may have completely forgotten, but money is occasionally used to exchange for goods and services. But that view may be too "right wing" for you. I'm sorry, I used to have a lot of respect for you, but your complete lack of any concept of how money or inflation actually works is causing me to unsubscribe now. Goodbye.
2
@739jep and yet again you have been proven completely wrong. As has happened every time in history when money supply has drastically increased, inflation skyrocketing can't be far behind. The two are related every time. Economics professors have tried to come out with this new theory about monetary policy, and central banks have adopted it and drove because it makes them feel good, the only problem is it has failed the only test that matters: reality. You can teach whatever you want in class, but what happens in the real world still happens Anyway, I've unsubscribed from this channel. I just can't take seriously any financial advisor who doesn't have the most basic concept of how money works. His statement that inflation is not related to money supply directly translates to him saying that money does not have any value. There's no way you can reliably accumulate wealth with a mindset like that.
2
13:58 "the money supply and inflation are not related"
1
@739jep You just keep believing in your fantasy land. It's people like you who vote in the idiots who cause this mess. I understand how inflation works very well. It's you who don't seem to grasp the basics. Unfortunately you're not alone, most central bank governors are equally as misguided. Hence the current, mess, which was predicted by many, many people, unfortunately, not the ones who were making the decisions.
1
@Loomx5 While the GBP could potentially plunge further, I feel like a lot of that risk is already priced in to the market at this point. Brexit has been coming for a while, and especially since the election it's been pretty obvious which way it's going. Remember that stock and currency markets work on anticipating the future, not on the current state of things, so by expecting a further plunge you're really saying that you believe that the overall market (and by extension the traders working with it) have underestimated the damage Brexit will cause. I feel that with the amount of prep time so far, that's unlikely. That said, I suspect there's still going to be a bunch of volatility, but unlikely another drastic drop. (In fact the risks may even be over priced such that there's a bit of a rebound once the dust settles)
1