SPY is the largest index fund out there.  It owns every company in the S&P 500 and it's expense ratio is a paltry 0.09%
VTI is the 4th largest and attempts to own every investible security available in the US and has an even lower expense ratio of 0.05%

In the US, you could buy them through pretty much any broker, but Fidelity is a highly rated discount broker.

Oh, and most brokers offer the choice to reinvest dividends which would probably be a good idea to keep the snowball growing.

I was just thinking about some of your previous posts and wondering if you are asking because you are considering leaving your employer and have a retirement account with them?  You probably already know this, but on the off chance you don't, make sure to roll over your existing account to your new broker to avoid paying 20% of your account in taxes.

Vanguard and Fidelity both offer low-cost index funds, including S&P 500 funds.  Fidelity offers general brokerage accounts.  I don't have a Vanguard account, so I don't know what they offer.

(2016-01-21, 8:13 am)Aspiring Wrote: One possible change: decrease competition and reigns on trade
Multiple currencies brings about inflation through micro-changes in value and competition in the day-to-day market. A single currency or even two or three would make market activity more smooth and possibly lead to deflation. Reducing barriers to trade would also improve market spread / diversification and decrease market reliance on single currencies or individual countries performing well.

I don't think you should ever decrease competition. I'm very pro-consumer and I believe when markets become pro-consumer they become far more successful. Less competition isn't beneficial to the consumer usually. That said I do believe there are some markets that just obviously make sense to have controlled or at least subsidized by the government to a certain extent. Anything infrastructure related is a good example: water, power, transportation, internet lines/fiber optics. There are also some quality of life industries that have good arguments for being completely controlled or subsidized such as healthcare and maybe the food industry.

For the rest of what you talked about. A singular market or a singular currency will never happen because its fraught with problems. Everything you basically talked about here is already an ongoing 'small scale' experiment. The European Union is an attempt at a singular market and government, on a singular currency. The problems with this setup have become more obvious in recent years though. Not every country has, or can have, the same kind of [successful] industries as others. Greece is in a pit right now because their main industry has always been tourism and that isn't big enough to support an entire country really. A lot of people in the EU also say that Greece has a problem with tax fraud as well, so that might be another factor. All of this just comes together to explain why Greece can't handle its debt.

If Greece wasn't part of the Euro, then they could have inflated their currency by printing more money to help pay off some of the debt. But Greece doesn't own the printing presses of the currency they freaking use; in fact, most countries in the EU don't have the ability to print money. The other option that Greece could have done was also to just default on their obligations, but I think because they are tied to the Euro, they can't easily do that.

The reason we have different currencies is because each country is different. Even if the concept of countries were abolished and every place on Earth became a single country, you would still end up with regions where the population was completely destitute and exploited by the other 'regions' in the country as a result of being destitute. First world countries already do this in my opinion without the need of any singular worldwide country. A lot of East Asia and SE Asia have become the manufacturing workhorses for the first world because the populations can be paid pennies in wages in order to make the things sold in richer countries.

I just don't think you can create successful economies by bureaucratizing every facet of the economy. Capitalism works for the most part because of greed and limitation. Most people want to be successful in life and get paid for that, that's the greed part. Limitations either come from life/problems ("Most people can't afford a car because they are hard to build, maybe I can simplify the process and sell cheaper cars... - Henry Ford") or from limitations put on by the government ("You must produce fewer CO2 emissions when generating power!" "Oh ok, maybe we can look at renewable energy sources."). Your NWO would ultimately try to eliminate greed from the equation, and beyond that never working; it would stunt economic progress. A highly socialist Utopian society will probably never be realized, even if we get sentient AI robots. People are simply not homogeneous and you'll end up with too many Type A personalities that will attempt to game the system or deconstruct anything you try and build that holds them back from becoming the person on top.

I suppose I was hopeful that as civilizations become more advanced they tend to become more benevolent through socioeconomic and scientific advancements.

Since there's a negative correlation between wealth and empathy, it's possible that a perfect, Utopian society would operate on an economic philosophy different from consumerism / capitalism (not that I can imagine it, but perhaps an economic prodigy will arise who establishes their own economic system, similar to how a programmer writes an OS even more revolutionary than Windows 98 -- it's possible).

Capitalism does operate on demand and supply so if this type of economy were to resume one way to enhance the economy would be to perfectly match supply and demand. Programmers / statisticians / accountants / factories could make this possible on the small scale, and it would gradually expand. Our economy is Windows 95, when we reach singularity our economy could become Windows Over 9000.

"[...] Negative correlation between wealth and empathy [...]"
I wonder if we should make some of the animals more equal than others to balance things out...

Maybe, just maybe, rich people are people too? The ones brought up poorly in rich homes likely turn into scum (the ones who aren't turn out fine), and the ones who make a lot of money on their own are likely calculating and/or manipulative (of situations) by nature (which doesn't make them bad, but a lot of people see this as being impersonable or lacking empathy).

There's a study* that actually suggests wealth reduces compassion. Correlation does not mean causation, but there is evidence of the possible connection between the two. Whether or not one believes rich people are scumbags is a different story...

*Multiple studies?

/By negative correlation I meant that as one variable increases another one decreases. But this should be fairly understandable; those who make more money are more likely to use underhanded techniques to reach their objective.

In a supposedly unattainable perfect, Utopian society far less greed (as a factor of the market economy) would be necessary to function as a society and we would not need to account for levels of inequality as the notion of inequality would be wholly nonexistent. I'm in unfamiliar terrain, but presumably if space is infinite and time is merely a concept then such a reality / dimension is statistically possible. I'm hopeful humans are special enough to create a perfect civilization somewhere along its existence, but if we were to reach such a point we would likely not even consider ourselves human (we might have already modified ourselves to deal with changes in our environment) and would have restructured most concepts even that of the 'animal' and its subjective biological value.

A utopian society would have some major growing pains. Even if we achieved technology tomorrow that allowed us to transition into a post scarcity society (PSS) there would be people that grew up in a scarcity society and have a certain mentality that's not conducive in a post scarcity one. The poorer you are, the better you'd adapt to a PSS but the richer you are, the more trouble you would have I think.

The one commodity that would still be traded though in a PSS would be land. Its one of the few things that you just can't easily create out of thin air. Singularity might allow us to never have to work a job again in order to live/survive, but its not going to magically solve every problem overnight. If/When we ever discover Faster Than Light travel, I think that might be when you can say we've achieved the closet thing to a PSS because it opens up the rest of the galaxy for potential living. Unfortunately, this looks grim. Singularity might be achieved before 2100, but who knows if FTL is even possible; the Fermi paradox seems to suggest it isn't.

So basically we need to be in the Star Trek universe for it to work.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, which is why I'm always skeptical of 'utopias' that seem too good to be true. I don't think a PSS is even possible with our species; we naturally desire to protect things that are 'ours', going so far as to assign ownership to things we can't actually own (IP and land, for instance); we only get along now because we all agree on terms of ownership that sound absolutely insane in the context of a PSS 'utopia'.

In any case, utopias can't exist simply because not everyone will see it as being one in the first place. As illogical as it would be in a world without unfulfilled need, I'd still want to own things; owning things goes against the principals of these societies, because people will inevitably stockpile. The only way to prevent it from getting to where it is now is to 'redistribute' ('steal' in the eyes of many, including me) from those stockpiles to ensure that materials continue to circulate.
(Of course, in a world truly without scarcity this wouldn't be possible, but it's also impossible for scarcity to go away completely in the first place.)

It'll only magnify when interplanetary colonization becomes prevalent (be honest, do you really think the international treaties on space exploration will stand when it becomes feasible to develop mining colonies on Mars? Even if they are entirely automated, someone will still own them, and of course, there will be those who simply don't want to live on Earth and have the money to make it happen); rather than poor districts, there'd be poor planets, either because of a natural lack of certain resources or disadvantageous trade agreements.

Anyway, my point is that individuals acting in a community do not make a perfect society, especially when they are possessive and aggressive by nature. Maybe if we were intelligent ants or something, it'd be possible, but even then there's a hierarchy. As such, a perfect society is impossible; if one was forced into existence, the very fact that it's a forcefully maintained existence would prevent it from being a true utopia, and it'd be unethical.

Not really about money anymore...

As for FTL, the biggest hope is controlling the expansion and contraction of space-time; rather than moving really fast, you make the space ahead of you smaller and the space behind you larger, essentially making a small wave with your craft riding along it. Unfortunately, without some killer new technology that allows us to control the more exotic forms of matter (and other 'stuff' that isn't matter) the energy required would be more than we could ever manage to generate.

I think a utopia could become viable after the pre-PSS people die off. Just like major changes in civil rights, I think you could teach new generations about the new world and people would slowly adopt it. The other alternative is to perform gene engineering and remove whatever it is that cause people to fight over ownership. I think gene engineering might actually be a thing that would happen if singularity was reached. Its a pretty logical conclusion that I think a super sentient AI would come to if it was tasked with preserving mankind without destroying them biologically.

Interplanetary colonization would be corporitized at first but I think if you give it enough time humanity would spread out across the galaxy and set up colonies and places not run by corps. I think this is the most likely avenue any how because if singularity results in the above mentioned issue with humans, I think you'd see some radical groups opt to leave Earth and just setup shop somewhere where they are in control.

Warp drives are the only possible FTL that works within our current physics frameworks. Some people suggest the energy requirements might be manageable, but then we arrive back at the issue of the fermi paradox. There's a pretty good chance we aren't the only species out there to stumble upon the same idea and if its possible you'd think we'd have seen someone show up in our neck of the woods. It's possible another species might not even be interested in saying 'Hi', but who knows.

Interesting question for a kanji study site. Even more interesting responses. My 2c:

1. One golden rule of investing is to buy low and sell high. Problem is that timing broad asset market movements is virtually impossible. Regardless, no business endevour can survive long violating this rule so keep it in the back of your mind at all times.

2. In the US, some say there are two broad tax loopholes available for the average person: a) mortgage interest deduction and b) tax-advantaged retirement accounts. The history and rationale behind these loopholes are disappointing but they are what they are. Despite the propaganda, US tax rates are very high, so trying to optimize your future taxes should be a priority. Also note that when a fund churns its portfolio, you may get hit with annual taxes on short- and long-term capital gains that are surprisingly high, even if the fund loses money during the year (this is very confusing but important).

3. And note that financial market fees are not especially transparent (e.g. real cost of mutual funds, retirement funds, fx rates. Real estate 6% brokerage fees, legal fees, bank fees...). Reduce fees by trying to avoid going through the toll gate frequently.

One issue with creating a utopia at the moment is the differences in philosophies and preferences that make up the planet. Creating a universal model that everyone adheres to requires major advances in every field of study, and somehow implementing all that knowledge simultaneously in a way that doesn't cause conflict. With most of the global population getting by on incomes far below the [US] poverty line, let alone receiving adequate schooling, one growing pain would be bringing most of the world out of poverty and teaching them relevant skills or knowledge. And there's the complex issue of school bureaucracy that even the US Department of Education struggles with -- providing everyone with adequate education is as close to Utopian idealism as the world has gotten but it's still an issue we're not even close to overcoming*. To improve quality of life of those in need while still accommodating to the systems in place such as capitalism would require many compromises in terms of the different political and cultural beliefs in place.

Once the political issues are out of the way and everyone reaches a semi-uniform quality of life we'd still face the chance of depleting earth's resources. Then the aforementioned need to reach a PSS.

And each advancement of civilization would come with its own set of issues that would require another innovation. This series would occur ad infinitum. Natural human internal dilemmas, ethical obstacles, resource issues, economic hiccups, and outer space biological conflicts, etc. would arise that break us up or we'd find new discoveries to overcome these problems.

Humanity would continue in this process until one problem unluckily ends the species or we create enough innovations to reach an ultimate point with very few issues popping up. The eventual goal would be uniform implementation in society.

*With that said, information is accumulating faster than society can implement it.

(2016-01-24, 10:09 am)vix86 Wrote: Warp drives are the only possible FTL that works within our current physics frameworks. Some people suggest the energy requirements might be manageable, but then we arrive back at the issue of the fermi paradox. There's a pretty good chance we aren't the only species out there to stumble upon the same idea and if its possible you'd think we'd have seen someone show up in our neck of the woods. It's possible another species might not even be interested in saying 'Hi', but who knows.

Hmm... While it's possible that we would have seen alien life if they possessed warp drive technology, I think it's still up in the air. Our sun is in one of the backwoods neighborhoods of our galaxy and isn't particularly rich in precious metals (specifically gold), so if there was intelligent life traversing space, it's possible we'd be overlooked for the systems with more likelihood of having those metals. Though it would seem they haven't been anywhere near here, since we haven't picked up any communications signals (well, except for maybe the 'Wow! Signal').

Or, there's a huge government conspiracy to cover up the fact that we have been visited, even colonized, by aliens, and human civilization and technology is the result of alien engineering and their decrees. Holy crap! Tell everyone! Gods were actually aliens! They'll come back and kill us all so that they can reap their harvest of minerals! Maybe we'll even be eaten like cattle! Dooms day! The Man knows!

*Deep breath*
... Okay, so assuming we deal with all those interstellar travel problems, I think it'd end up with groups. Let's just say that one of those groups will be the sci-fi staple of an interstellar empire; even within that empire, since there's such distance from the capital (we'll assume that normal communications is not a worthy use of warp drive, but maybe we'll have turned quantum entanglement into a long-distance communications tool), individual members would act mostly independently, with minimal oversight from government officials, who'd likely keep to themselves or become corrupt with time. Being so separated would inevitably give rise to individual cultures, just like now; While it's possible that, at the top level, this utopian government operates 'correctly', further down, there's simply no reason to think it will. Even if the distribution of goods works as planned, you still have the problem of different cultures: immigration or interplanetary cooperation would be strained by these different cultures; again, maybe not at the top level of management, but between workers.

Maybe we could fix that with genetic engineering, but there's still the ethical question of if taking away part of what makes us consider ourselves as individuals is really the 'right' thing to do. Then, of course, there'd be a huge divide between people who thought it best for their children to be altered and those who thought it bad (and thus, possibly struck out to make their own colonies to avoid persecution, like a planet America or something). Then, we'd have one 'utopia' and one 'other'; then we come again to the possibility of conflict between these groups, which would prevent the 'utopia' from truly being one.
And what if 'defective' children are born that don't have the traits the government or society deems necessary for a proper citizen? Are they euthanized? Are they kept under close watch for their whole lives to make sure they don't develop strong material desires? Then the utopia fails completely or there are 'others' (who, as every dystopian novel has taught me, will inevitably try to resist).

Aliens (CONSPIRACY!!!111!1eleventyone), interstellar empires, resistances, dystopias, utopias, FTL... Maybe this needs its own thread...

(2016-01-24, 8:52 pm)sholum Wrote: ... Okay, so assuming we deal with all those interstellar travel problems, I think it'd end up with groups. Let's just say that one of those groups will be the sci-fi staple of an interstellar empire; even within that empire, since there's such distance from the capital (we'll assume that normal communications is not a worthy use of warp drive, but maybe we'll have turned quantum entanglement into a long-distance communications tool), individual members would act mostly independently, with minimal oversight from government officials, who'd likely keep to themselves or become corrupt with time.

Maybe we could fix that with genetic engineering, but there's still the ethical question of if taking away part of what makes us consider ourselves as individuals is really the 'right' thing to do.

I haven't read the books but Iain Bank's Culture series has an interstellar civilization that's spread out and divided. The Culture is one group which could be seen as the group that's in favor of a Utopia. Their civ. is run by super sentient AIs which make decisions on the movement of The Culture and the Culture's agents. The Culture goes out to less advanced groups and tries to bring them "into the fold" in a manner of speaking.

Even an empire thats spread out could still be managed well I imagine. You could control sectors of space using split up AIs which manage their regions and exchange communication among each unit. This still won't solve the issue of some people not wanting it and I think you'd end up with a Firefly-esque world where the people that aren't interested in participating in that kind of society would simply flee towards the unknown sectors of space seeking out planets/areas to live as they please. Eventually they may have to pick up roots and move again if the empire expands, but such is the way things go.

As far as genetic engineering goes. I think a lot of people would say its unethical, especially if its forced on the populace as a whole. But my thought process was along the lines of: if we build super AIs which can see that humanity is driving towards a cliff edge, and the only way to prevent that is to move into a PSS with near 99% acceptance by people, and the only way to make the acceptance acceptable is through gene modification to remove those strong urges of "ownership" and "power over others;" then I think that's the right course. Its probably very self-centered and egotistical as a species, but I think survival of the species should be our top goal. There are some interesting ideas in some books out there that also propose the question of what form that "survival of the species" should look like too; the game SOMA also kind of asks that question as well.

I see... Maybe I should pick up those books one day (I've had quite a backlog, since switching primarily to Japanese).

While I understand what you're saying about AI, my problem with this is that communications between them would move under the speed of light (unless aforementioned quantum entanglement allows for faster than light communications; but that's so far off, it's difficult for me to even imagine how it'd work, or what its limitations would be); with individual star systems separated by several light years, at least, each system would need its own computer and it would have to come to the same conclusions as its counterparts between updates to maintain a cohesive system...
I suppose it's possible, though.

/unlurk

Hey TheVinster, here's a couple of resources that got me started that I really enjoy.

The Stock Series. This guy will tell you what to do, if you believe his advice. : http://jlcollinsnh.com/stock-series/
Mr Money Mustache. More lifestyle than investing, but a fun read: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/2...blog-post/

/lurk

Just thought of mentioning a probable reason we haven't met sophisticated life, aside from popular reasons

We're alone / we're late and it happened a long time ago / we're in a rural area / government hides this information / etc...

Another popular reason is that other lifeforms agree to leave us fairly isolated until we reach a certain level of advancement in terms of space technology. The belief is that the marker that allows full contact between intergalactic species and ours is how well the species can maneuver or communicate through space. Otherwise, until that specific point the area is a no-fly / no-contact zone or they (mostly) camouflage their presence. (Zoo Hypothesis; they leave us alone to evolve naturally, without interference, until we're somewhere near a certain level of sophistication)

Its possible we're late and we somehow missed the "heyday of the universe" by about a billion years, but that seems unlikely. Govt. conspiracy certainly is not an option though; that places way too much credit on bureaucratic entity keeping something secret.

I think the idea that species are waiting for us to get more advanced or waiting to see if we blow ourselves up is a highly probable theory though this is assuming there is FTL capable drives. Because if you think about it, what happens if you show yourself to a less advanced race and are benevolent? You could show up and say "Hi" and then leave and that would probably do a lot to drive a species to reach for the stars more than ever, but what if you want to set up a conversation between you and this less advanced race? You're going to have dump years, potentially millennia of man hours helping this race get up to speed on the math, the science, the engineering, and manufacturing to get them into space on a level with you. That species essentially becomes your charity case. If reaching a post-scarcity society is harder than it sounds and resources still have a finite cost to them; that could prove taxing to this advanced species even if they do have the best intentions. In which case, waiting is probably the best solution.

It'll be interesting if in however many years or even centuries, we find FTL and it turns out that others were waiting for us to reach that point. There probably won't be very many kind words from our side I imagine. There will be a lot of "Why didn't you just say 'hello' and let us know you were out there?" which I can imagine some of the responses to that question easily enough, but I think as a species we'll be pretty sour about finding out others were keeping us in a no-fly zone like some tribe in the Amazonian Rainforest.