On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 8:52:53 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
> On 10/20/2021 4:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Why explain to me? I'm still trying to figure out how the market could drop by 800%. Too many trick questions.
> Already explained. The market dropped 80%, ten times. But only for Tom.

Kind of an interesting interpretation of math for someone who has an " intuitive grasp of concepts of differential and integral calculus ", dontchathink?

> Everyone else did well. He obviously was the victim of fraud by his broker.

I can hear the conversation now:
"Sorry Tom, everyone has lost money in this obama economic crash, all your investments have vaoprized. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go sign the papers for my new cabin cruiser"

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 6:28:23 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 04:46:54 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 5:32:04 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 1:22:13 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 1:48:09 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> > > On 10/19/2021 12:04 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> > > > I was sent a job offer directly from a company is San Jose...
> >> > >
> >> > > Is that what you "remember"?
> >> > >
> >> > > Tom, I think any pretend job offers come from someone messing with your
> >> > > mind. But if it's a real job offer, PLEASE take it so you have something
> >> > > to do.
> >> > >
> >> > > Something beyond spewing delusional right-wing nonsense unrelated to
> >> > > bicycles, that is.
> >> > >
> >> > > Do let us know when you've got the job.
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > - Frank Krygowski
> >> > If someone offered me a $300,000 dollar job that required me to move across the country, I'd do it. For that money I could rent this place:
> >> >
> >> > https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/10130-Bon-Vista-Ct-Cta_San-Jose_CA_95127_M91350-69188
> >> >
> >> > And still have plenty left over to commute back and forth to Massachusetts on the weekends.
> >> >
> >> > Tommy isn't willing to drive 40 miles for $300,000? what kind of loser says no to that?
> >> >
> >> > (we know, the kind that's lying about it)
> >>
> >> The loser himself has to show his disbelief.
> >
> >I'm still employed, and making more money than you ever did in your career (no, we know you were never making $250K. Not one of the jobs listed in your resume carries a 250K salary, event for top-level talent)
> >
> >> I got an email from the company itself but I can't find it. Perhaps I deleted it.
> >
> >Sure, sparky gets a "hard offer" directly from a company willing to pay him at least $300K at a job only 40 miles away, and he deletes it without investigating the opportunity. It's no wonder why you lost money during the obama administration.
> >
> >> But here is the same add from a recruiter that was in my SPAM folder:
> >>
> >> ""C++ Embedded OS Opening - $300k-$400k+ - San Jose, CA
> >> Hi Tom,
> >>
> >> Looking around? My name is Mark Dinan and I am a recruiter based in Silicon Valley based. I have an older version of your resume of yours on file, and wanted to see if you are exploring job opportunities. I am working with a consumer technology company to fill a position for an Embedded Operating System Software Engineering role. This is a full-time role with a public technology company and has competitive compensation with excellent benefits. The product you will be working on has hundreds of millions of users, and this position is with a R&D team building "next generation" products."
> >
> >Embedded OS engineers don't make $300K, sparky. There's a reason that was spam.
> >
> >> Losers like you simply cannot believe what real losers you are. So you have to deny that the world around you doesn't want you.
> >
> >Except for the fact that I've survived two rounds of lay-offs where I am now. In my previous positions I survived multiple rounds of layoffs, twice being one of the last employees before the companies closed their doors. Of course, in tommyworld, holding onto a job means you're useless, but only lasting a year means you were their most valuable employee.
> Does anyone notice the anomalies in Tommy's posts? A $250,000 salary
> is mentioned and in another post he bemoans the cost of groceries. A
> claim of vast investments in one post and other posts bemoan the
> attempts to make a living buying used junk through the Internet and
> reselling it.
> --

Those aren't anomalies. An anomaly is demonstrated by something deviating from the norm. This is normal tommy behaviour. I think it's just his inability to keep his lies straight.

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:59:45 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/20/2021 4:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Why explain to me? I'm still trying to figure out how the market could
> >> drop by 800%. Too many trick questions.
> >
> > Already explained. The market dropped 80%, ten times. But only for Tom.
> > Everyone else did well. He obviously was the victim of fraud by his broker.
> >
> Or the market dropped by 1% 800 times, interspersed by a similar number of
> 1.0x% rises.
The problem that the "crew" here fail to recognize is that during that time no money was being made by the average investor. That eventually the markets returned to their normal levels and began riding from there merely meant that Obama despite his best efforts couldn't defeat American ingenuity. Let's say that you lose 50% of your 1,000 investment. You lose 50% of that and what do you have? $500. Now you get a 50% gain and what do you have? $750. This is the sheer ignorance of the so-called accountant that he doesn't even know simple arithmetic. If you have a 50% loss, you need a 100% gain just to get back to ground zero. Some accountant huh?

On 10/21/2021 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:59:45 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2021 4:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Why explain to me? I'm still trying to figure out how the market could
>>>> drop by 800%. Too many trick questions.
>>>
>>> Already explained. The market dropped 80%, ten times. But only for Tom.
>>> Everyone else did well. He obviously was the victim of fraud by his broker.
>>>
>> Or the market dropped by 1% 800 times, interspersed by a similar number of
>> 1.0x% rises.

Instead of owning up to his math incompetence, Tom deflected:

> The problem that the "crew" here fail to recognize is that during that time no money was being made by the average investor.

Well then, I was better than average!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 8:59:35 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:59:45 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
> >> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 10/20/2021 4:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> Why explain to me? I'm still trying to figure out how the market could
> >>>> drop by 800%. Too many trick questions.
> >>>
> >>> Already explained. The market dropped 80%, ten times. But only for Tom.
> >>> Everyone else did well. He obviously was the victim of fraud by his broker.
> >>>
> >> Or the market dropped by 1% 800 times, interspersed by a similar number of
> >> 1.0x% rises.
> Instead of owning up to his math incompetence, Tom deflected:
> > The problem that the "crew" here fail to recognize is that during that time no money was being made by the average investor.
> Well then, I was better than average!

I'm "deflecting" whereas you're telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So again explain, If you have 1,000 dollars and you have a 50% gain what amount of money do you have? If you then have another 50% gain what do you have?

Now Dr. Math. If you have an 80% loss, how long does it take to make up for that at market rates?

On 10/21/2021 12:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 8:59:35 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 10/21/2021 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:59:45 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
>>>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2021 4:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why explain to me? I'm still trying to figure out how the market could
>>>>>> drop by 800%. Too many trick questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Already explained. The market dropped 80%, ten times. But only for Tom.
>>>>> Everyone else did well. He obviously was the victim of fraud by his broker.
>>>>>
>>>> Or the market dropped by 1% 800 times, interspersed by a similar number of
>>>> 1.0x% rises.
>> Instead of owning up to his math incompetence, Tom deflected:
>>> The problem that the "crew" here fail to recognize is that during that time no money was being made by the average investor.
>> Well then, I was better than average!
>
> I'm "deflecting" whereas you're telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Correct. Congratulations!

> So again explain, If you have 1,000 dollars and you have a 50% gain what amount of money do you have? If you then have another 50% gain what do you have?

$1500 after the first, then assuming you're talking about compounding,
$2250. But that has nothing to do with the fact that investment markets
surged during Obama's presidency, and that any halfway competent
investor should have made money.

> Now Dr. Math. If you have an 80% loss, how long does it take to make up for that at market rates?

It depends on what "market rates" are. The market surge during Obama's
presidency meant anyone who lost money on stock investments was
incompetent. See
https://www.macrotrends.net/2482/sp500-performance-by-president

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 12:09:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 12:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 8:59:35 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 10/21/2021 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:59:45 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
> >>>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/20/2021 4:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Why explain to me? I'm still trying to figure out how the market could
> >>>>>> drop by 800%. Too many trick questions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Already explained. The market dropped 80%, ten times. But only for Tom.
> >>>>> Everyone else did well. He obviously was the victim of fraud by his broker.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Or the market dropped by 1% 800 times, interspersed by a similar number of
> >>>> 1.0x% rises.
> >> Instead of owning up to his math incompetence, Tom deflected:
> >>> The problem that the "crew" here fail to recognize is that during that time no money was being made by the average investor.
> >> Well then, I was better than average!
> >
> > I'm "deflecting" whereas you're telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
> Correct. Congratulations!
> > So again explain, If you have 1,000 dollars and you have a 50% gain what amount of money do you have? If you then have another 50% gain what do you have?
> $1500 after the first, then assuming you're talking about compounding,
> $2250. But that has nothing to do with the fact that investment markets
> surged during Obama's presidency, and that any halfway competent
> investor should have made money.
> > Now Dr. Math. If you have an 80% loss, how long does it take to make up for that at market rates?
> It depends on what "market rates" are. The market surge during Obama's
> presidency meant anyone who lost money on stock investments was
> incompetent. See
> https://www.macrotrends.net/2482/sp500-performance-by-president

So your intention is to avoid the question. Obama's Great Recession cut the average investors portfolio by 54%. It was the longest recession since WW II. It took 5 years to return to normal. That was a growth of 5% per year. With a loss of 53% that means that your $10,000 investment became 5300 at the bottom. Then after 5 years it had recovered to 67% 0f your initial investment. After that there was only a growth of 66% so your initial investment became a growth of 11%. This is what the sickos here refer to as 'making money'. During Trump's 4 years your initial investment of $10,000 would become $16,776 and that would have grown exponentially in another 4 years. Now I have mostly recovered from the Obama loses so i couldn't care less what happens to your investments since I'm now in protected investments and I am sure that your pension funds are not. Besides, I have enough in the way of capital to live the rest of my life comfortably while John is telling us that he never has drawn any military retirement pay.

On 10/21/2021 4:04 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 12:09:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 10/21/2021 12:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 8:59:35 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2021 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:59:45 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
>>>>>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2021 4:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why explain to me? I'm still trying to figure out how the market could
>>>>>>>> drop by 800%. Too many trick questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Already explained. The market dropped 80%, ten times. But only for Tom.
>>>>>>> Everyone else did well. He obviously was the victim of fraud by his broker.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or the market dropped by 1% 800 times, interspersed by a similar number of
>>>>>> 1.0x% rises.
>>>> Instead of owning up to his math incompetence, Tom deflected:
>>>>> The problem that the "crew" here fail to recognize is that during that time no money was being made by the average investor.
>>>> Well then, I was better than average!
>>>
>>> I'm "deflecting" whereas you're telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>> Correct. Congratulations!
>>> So again explain, If you have 1,000 dollars and you have a 50% gain what amount of money do you have? If you then have another 50% gain what do you have?
>> $1500 after the first, then assuming you're talking about compounding,
>> $2250. But that has nothing to do with the fact that investment markets
>> surged during Obama's presidency, and that any halfway competent
>> investor should have made money.
>>> Now Dr. Math. If you have an 80% loss, how long does it take to make up for that at market rates?
>> It depends on what "market rates" are. The market surge during Obama's
>> presidency meant anyone who lost money on stock investments was
>> incompetent. See
>> https://www.macrotrends.net/2482/sp500-performance-by-president
>
> So your intention is to avoid the question.

My intention is to stop trying to explain reading a graph to someone who
is so obviously innumerate and unwilling to learn.

You're a sad case, Tom.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:04:16 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

> It was the longest recession since WW II. It took 5 years to return to normal.
Idiot.

"The Great Recession, one of the worst economic declines in US history, officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009."
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-caused-the-great-recession

> That was a growth of 5% per year. With a loss of 53% that means that your $10,000 investment became 5300 at the bottom.
>Then after 5 years it had recovered to 67% 0f your initial investment. After that there was only a growth of 66% so your initial
> investment became a growth of 11%. This is what the sickos here refer to as 'making money'. During Trump's 4 years your
> initial investment of $10,000 would become $16,776 and that would have grown exponentially in another 4 years.
And this, Ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why Tommy lost money during the obama years while the rest of us prospered.

> Now I have mostly recovered from the Obama loses

No one had obama losses but you. The crash happened during bush II. Obama was handed an economy already in freefall. Tell us mr. " intuitive grasp of concepts of differential and integral calculus ". If the crash was all obamas fault, why was TARP signed by bush II before the election in 2008 ?

> so i couldn't care less what happens to your investments since I'm now in protected investments

you think you are, probably the guy who told you that is the same one that told you the recession was all obamas fault, right?

> Besides, I have enough in the way of capital to live the rest of my life comfortably

then why do you complain about the cost of groceries?

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 2:11:41 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:04:16 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > It was the longest recession since WW II. It took 5 years to return to normal.
> Idiot.
>
> "The Great Recession, one of the worst economic declines in US history, officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009."
> https://www.businessinsider.com/what-caused-the-great-recession
> > That was a growth of 5% per year. With a loss of 53% that means that your $10,000 investment became 5300 at the bottom.
> >Then after 5 years it had recovered to 67% 0f your initial investment. After that there was only a growth of 66% so your initial
> > investment became a growth of 11%. This is what the sickos here refer to as 'making money'. During Trump's 4 years your
> > initial investment of $10,000 would become $16,776 and that would have grown exponentially in another 4 years.
> And this, Ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why Tommy lost money during the obama years while the rest of us prospered.
> > Now I have mostly recovered from the Obama loses
> No one had obama losses but you. The crash happened during bush II. Obama was handed an economy already in freefall. Tell us mr. " intuitive grasp of concepts of differential and integral calculus ". If the crash was all obamas fault, why was TARP signed by bush II before the election in 2008 ?
> > so i couldn't care less what happens to your investments since I'm now in protected investments
> you think you are, probably the guy who told you that is the same one that told you the recession was all obamas fault, right?
> > Besides, I have enough in the way of capital to live the rest of my life comfortably
> then why do you complain about the cost of groceries?

"Protected investments" is an oxymoron. And speaking of morons, when Obama took office, the Dow was 7,949. When he left office, the Dow was 19,732. How is a 150% gain a loss? Are we in the Tom Kunich Mystery Spot . . . where up is down, day is night? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORbseYAkzRM&ab_channel=ZEROALFA

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/17/2021 5:17 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip>

> Maybe its just me. But I have a HUGE BIG ENORMOUS problem with Tommy boy the liar using the term "engineer". Electronics Engineer his resume supposedly claims. Although to be honest the correct term is Electrical Engineer. There is no such thing as an Electronics Engineer.

In the U.S. it electrical engineer. A bit confusing since this spans
everything from electrical power distribution to micro-electronics to
embedded systems.

"Electronics engineer" has been used to refer to those without an
engineering degree, but, like Tom, they are technically not engineers.
But in the U.S. there is no requirement that an engineer be licensed and
usually only Civil Engineers bother with taking the Professional
Engineer exams after college.

In my experience there are plenty of non-degreed people that are just as
capable of doing simple design work as those with a degree. Where they
don't do as well as when dealing with some of the more difficult issues
in a design, specifically EMI and thermals.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:09:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 10/21/2021 12:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 8:59:35 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2021 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:59:45 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
>>>>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/20/2021 4:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why explain to me? I'm still trying to figure out how the market could
>>>>>>> drop by 800%. Too many trick questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Already explained. The market dropped 80%, ten times. But only for Tom.
>>>>>> Everyone else did well. He obviously was the victim of fraud by his broker.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Or the market dropped by 1% 800 times, interspersed by a similar number of
>>>>> 1.0x% rises.
>>> Instead of owning up to his math incompetence, Tom deflected:
>>>> The problem that the "crew" here fail to recognize is that during that time no money was being made by the average investor.
>>> Well then, I was better than average!
>>
>> I'm "deflecting" whereas you're telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>
>Correct. Congratulations!
>
>> So again explain, If you have 1,000 dollars and you have a 50% gain what amount of money do you have? If you then have another 50% gain what do you have?
>
>$1500 after the first, then assuming you're talking about compounding,
>$2250. But that has nothing to do with the fact that investment markets
>surged during Obama's presidency, and that any halfway competent
>investor should have made money.
>
>> Now Dr. Math. If you have an 80% loss, how long does it take to make up for that at market rates?
>
>It depends on what "market rates" are. The market surge during Obama's
>presidency meant anyone who lost money on stock investments was
>incompetent. See
>https://www.macrotrends.net/2482/sp500-performance-by-president

If we assume that Tommy is telling the truth and he did lose money
during the Obama administration it would seem that the most likely
cause was that during the two "dips" early in Obama's first term he
panicked and sold his shares which, of course, is quite different from
the usual advice to "buy on the lows and sell on the highs" which,
admittedly is not uncommon with neophyte investors.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:04:14 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 12:09:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 10/21/2021 12:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 8:59:35 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> On 10/21/2021 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:59:45 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
>> >>>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> On 10/20/2021 4:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> <snip>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Why explain to me? I'm still trying to figure out how the market could
>> >>>>>> drop by 800%. Too many trick questions.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Already explained. The market dropped 80%, ten times. But only for Tom.
>> >>>>> Everyone else did well. He obviously was the victim of fraud by his broker.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Or the market dropped by 1% 800 times, interspersed by a similar number of
>> >>>> 1.0x% rises.
>> >> Instead of owning up to his math incompetence, Tom deflected:
>> >>> The problem that the "crew" here fail to recognize is that during that time no money was being made by the average investor.
>> >> Well then, I was better than average!
>> >
>> > I'm "deflecting" whereas you're telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>> Correct. Congratulations!
>> > So again explain, If you have 1,000 dollars and you have a 50% gain what amount of money do you have? If you then have another 50% gain what do you have?
>> $1500 after the first, then assuming you're talking about compounding,
>> $2250. But that has nothing to do with the fact that investment markets
>> surged during Obama's presidency, and that any halfway competent
>> investor should have made money.
>> > Now Dr. Math. If you have an 80% loss, how long does it take to make up for that at market rates?
>> It depends on what "market rates" are. The market surge during Obama's
>> presidency meant anyone who lost money on stock investments was
>> incompetent. See
>> https://www.macrotrends.net/2482/sp500-performance-by-president
>
>So your intention is to avoid the question. Obama's Great Recession cut the average investors portfolio by 54%. It was the longest recession since WW II. It took 5 years to return to normal. That was a growth of 5% per year. With a loss of 53% that means that your $10,000 investment became 5300 at the bottom. Then after 5 years it had recovered to 67% 0f your initial investment. After that there was only a growth of 66% so your initial investment became a growth of 11%. This is what the sickos here refer to as 'making money'. During Trump's 4 years your initial investment of $10,000 would become $16,776 and that would have grown exponentially in another 4 years. Now I have mostly recovered from the Obama loses so i couldn't care less what happens to your investments since I'm now in protected investments and I am sure that your pension funds are not. Besides, I have enough in the way of capital to live the rest of my life comfortably while John is telling us that he never has drawn
>any military retirement pay.

There was no "great recession" under Obama. Had you invested on the
day Obama was inaugurated your investment would have grown 175.9% at
the end of his presidency. Had you invested on the day Trump was
inaugurated it would have grown 63% by the time he left office.
Comparing Obama to Trump, at the end of Obama's first term your
investment would have grown by 81.4% compared with Trump's 63% growth.

And that is reality Tommy.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/21/2021 4:19 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> If we assume that Tommy is telling the truth and he did lose money
> during the Obama administration it would seem that the most likely
> cause was that during the two "dips" early in Obama's first term he
> panicked and sold his shares which, of course, is quite different from
> the usual advice to "buy on the lows and sell on the highs" which,
> admittedly is not uncommon with neophyte investors.

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled
long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no
longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured
us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that
we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost
never get it back.” ― Carl Sagan

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:44:49 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/21/2021 4:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> If we assume that Tommy is telling the truth and he did lose money
>> during the Obama administration it would seem that the most likely
>> cause was that during the two "dips" early in Obama's first term he
>> panicked and sold his shares which, of course, is quite different from
>> the usual advice to "buy on the lows and sell on the highs" which,
>> admittedly is not uncommon with neophyte investors.
>
>“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled
>long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no
>longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured
>us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that
>we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost
>never get it back.” ? Carl Sagan

Or, as Mark Twain said, "The most outrageous lies that can be invented
will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might."
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 11:31:31 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 8:59:35 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 10/21/2021 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:59:45 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
> > >> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On 10/20/2021 4:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> <snip>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Why explain to me? I'm still trying to figure out how the market could
> > >>>> drop by 800%. Too many trick questions.
> > >>>
> > >>> Already explained. The market dropped 80%, ten times. But only for Tom.
> > >>> Everyone else did well. He obviously was the victim of fraud by his broker.
> > >>>
> > >> Or the market dropped by 1% 800 times, interspersed by a similar number of
> > >> 1.0x% rises.
> > Instead of owning up to his math incompetence, Tom deflected:
> > > The problem that the "crew" here fail to recognize is that during that time no money was being made by the average investor.
> > Well then, I was better than average!
> I'm "deflecting" whereas you're telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So again explain, If you have 1,000 dollars and you have a 50% gain what amount of money do you have? If you then have another 50% gain what do you have?
>
> Now Dr. Math. If you have an 80% loss, how long does it take to make up for that at market rates?

Tommy boy. You are confusing REALIZED and UNREALIZED gains and losses. Yes your math is correct. Somehow. Even though you have no education at all.. A mutual fund loses 50% of its value. But you did not sell it and still own it. Then it goes up 100% to get you back even. Zero profit and zero loss because you did not sell anything. You are back to your starting point. But for some reason you think everyone sold at the bottom of the market and realized all their losses. And then need double their percentage to get even again. 99.99% of stock investors do not do that. They hold for the long term or have stocks in an IRA account. Money goes up and down every day but in the long term it goes up and up and up. Everyone but you apparently made a tremendous amount of money during Obama's presidency. And to be kind, everyone made money under Trumpy too. Unless you sold at the end of 2018 when all the markets lost money under Trump. His other year were positive gains. But 2018 was a negative return in the stock market.

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:44:51 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 4:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > If we assume that Tommy is telling the truth and he did lose money
> > during the Obama administration it would seem that the most likely
> > cause was that during the two "dips" early in Obama's first term he
> > panicked and sold his shares which, of course, is quite different from
> > the usual advice to "buy on the lows and sell on the highs" which,
> > admittedly is not uncommon with neophyte investors.
> “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled
> long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no
> longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured
> us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that
> we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost
> never get it back.” ― Carl Sagan
I suggest you read Sagan with the idea of actually understanding him. I showed the loses of Obama over 8 years and you have done nothing.

On 10/22/2021 12:42 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:44:51 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
>> On 10/21/2021 4:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> If we assume that Tommy is telling the truth and he did lose money
>>> during the Obama administration it would seem that the most likely
>>> cause was that during the two "dips" early in Obama's first term he
>>> panicked and sold his shares which, of course, is quite different from
>>> the usual advice to "buy on the lows and sell on the highs" which,
>>> admittedly is not uncommon with neophyte investors.
>> “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled
>> long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no
>> longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured
>> us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that
>> we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost
>> never get it back.” ― Carl Sagan
> I suggest you read Sagan with the idea of actually understanding him. I showed the loses of Obama over 8 years and you have done nothing.
>

Wow! "I have decided to only address bicycle matters" lasted three minutes!

Congratulations, Tom. You did better than I expected. :-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:42:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:44:51 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
>> On 10/21/2021 4:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > If we assume that Tommy is telling the truth and he did lose money
>> > during the Obama administration it would seem that the most likely
>> > cause was that during the two "dips" early in Obama's first term he
>> > panicked and sold his shares which, of course, is quite different from
>> > the usual advice to "buy on the lows and sell on the highs" which,
>> > admittedly is not uncommon with neophyte investors.
>> “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled
>> long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no
>> longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured
>> us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that
>> we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost
>> never get it back.” ? Carl Sagan
>I suggest you read Sagan with the idea of actually understanding him. I showed the loses of Obama over 8 years and you have done nothing.

"I showed the loses of Obama over 8 years"???

When did you do that Tommy? Here I am waiting with bated breath for to
be enlightened and I haven't seen a thing.

Show us Tommy, Show us.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/22/2021 3:52 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> When did you do that Tommy? Here I am waiting with bated breath for to
> be enlightened and I haven't seen a thing.
>
> Show us Tommy, Show us.

If he is indeed telling the truth, which based on his history here is
highly unlikely, he can file a complaint with FINRA against his broker.

Anyone that lost 800% during the Obama administration (notwithstanding
the fact that mathematically it would be impossible to lose more than
100%) has been a victim of fraud.

This is the link he can use to file a complaint:
<https://www.finra.org/investors/need-help/file-a-complaint#>.

If his losses were because of a Nigerian Prince scam, FINRA won't be
able to help.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 11:42:39 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:44:51 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
> > On 10/21/2021 4:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > If we assume that Tommy is telling the truth and he did lose money
> > > during the Obama administration it would seem that the most likely
> > > cause was that during the two "dips" early in Obama's first term he
> > > panicked and sold his shares which, of course, is quite different from
> > > the usual advice to "buy on the lows and sell on the highs" which,
> > > admittedly is not uncommon with neophyte investors.
> > “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled
> > long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no
> > longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured
> > us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that
> > we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost
> > never get it back.” ― Carl Sagan
> I suggest you read Sagan with the idea of actually understanding him. I showed the loses of Obama over 8 years and you have done nothing.

But Tommy, now I know this is stating the very obvious, but what losses under Obama? If you look at the Dow, S&P 500, Nasdaq, Russell 2000, and every other wide dispersion mutual fund, you will see that every single one of them went UP UP UP UP UP during Obama's terms as president. No losses at all under Obama. Now I am not saying no one lost money during Obama's terms. Yes, you can still pick losers when the overall market is going up up up up up. Every single day some stocks go up and some go down. But collectively, they all went up during Obama's terms.

On 10/23/2021 3:03 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 11:42:39 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I suggest you read Sagan with the idea of actually understanding him. I showed the loses of Obama over 8 years and you have done nothing.
>
> But Tommy, now I know this is stating the very obvious, but what losses under Obama?

Tom could settle this by giving us a detailed list of TOM'S investment
losses under Obama.

Everyone else I know made money. It would be fun to see how he went wrong.

--
- Frank Krygowski