When it is easy bull markets, I go heavy on growth stocks. When the market is bear, I go heavy on dividends. Right now though there is a high beta turmoil, so I have a mix of both. My IRA is also set up as more od a “leave this alone” investment. My etrade account has my “fuck around and find out” money. I mention this because it is hard to directly compare the two. So far my dividends have strongly out performed the growth stocks, but only in the last 3 months or so has the gap widened. I credit it to 2 specific ones that are getting me 30%-ish yields with stable prices. They are also new etf’s, so the hedge money is still strong before the stripping gets to its prices. I mentioned in a post lower that that my little under 30k is netting me 800/month. Honestly it is paying a higher yield than renting out my condo is getting me.

It is also called ‘dividend stripping’.

Also yes. The more professional name is ‘dividend capture strategy’. More work, worth the pay off, do all you can to avoid commissions and fees.

Little under 30k in higher risk dividend. Bring in about 800 a month.

I have a mix of large cap, small cap growth stocks, then dividend high risk and low risk. Stock like this (I do not own PETS, I was just using it as an example) would be a high risk due to its price instability. But you mitigate that with stop loss orders.

I have a vanguard/roth for my longs (large cap growths and stable dividends with DRIP) and then use etrade for the small cap or high risk ones. I like their tax documents and easy interface.

People make arguments against dividend stocks, I simply call it a different strategy. Some years it beats out my growths, some years it is about on par. Depends on where I have it at the time and slightly more market dependant.

I have recently gotten into ex-date chasing. While it has increased the returns, it is more work.

Sure. It is still a lower rate than going into dividend stocks.

PETS, sorry, don’t know why my phone cut off the ‘S’.

PETMED EXPRESS INC COM

$10,000 at 4% gives you $400 interest in one year.

Just about any decent dividend stock will outperform that. Look at PET for example. It is sitting at $3.65/share right now and offers a quarterly dividend of $0.30. That puts you at $1.20/share per year. 10k = 2739 shares = $3,286.80 dividend payout in one year.

Banks are the worst place to put investments. Money in bank accounts are only supposed to be there if you need it liquid, like an emergency fund or your checking account.

*PETS

PETMED EXPRESS INC COM

For all the nay sayers downvoting me as if it is impossible to find dividend stocks that outperform their precious SPY or high yield savings rates, here is a great list I found with shit loads. I count 60 different stocks that offer 10% yields or more. 100 in total all offering over 8% -double what some bullshit ‘high yield’ savings offers.

https://www.tradingview.com/markets/stocks-usa/market-movers-high-dividend/

Congenital? No. Acquired? Yes. The area of the brain that processes and interprets sound has to develop. Without sound input as a child, that won’t happen.

Current leading theory of tinnitus is called the ‘central gain’ theory. This is where the brain becomes accustomed to seeing signals from the ear at a certain level, and when that neural level is no longer at that level it will add in its own noise to make up the difference. This noise is then perceived as a tone or sometimes a broadband sound, commonly described as either a ringing or a whooshing sound. Sometimes it can also be described as crickets. Depends on the person and cause. Not all hearing loss comes with tinnitus, but most tinnitus comes with hearing loss. In audiology school we had a whole class on tinnitus and covered many interesting aspects exactly like your shower thought here and went over papers on every angle you could think of. It was fun. But in the end, the brain has to at a minimum know what sound is to even perceive sound.

Not a coincidence. If you look at the flash/recoil compensator it looks like a classic 3 way with the tearing starting on the openings.

I have an honors minor in medical humanities and took several medical policy courses. We looked at this exact graph from previous years as well as several other huge sets of data/graphs/studies and anything else related to insurance you can imagine. Insurance is not a standard market commodity and does not follow the same trend or logic. The only way you can lower premiums in insurance is by reducing the risk in the pool, or increasing the pool size to dilute the risk. This is either increasing the total pool size by increasing premiums, getting more people, or being selective about who joins the risk pool. The third one was what was called “preexisting conditions” and kept high cost people from entering the risk pool and draining the funds. This got banned and increased premiums. By increasing competition you end up splitting up the pools, making everyone’s premiums go up. This happened multiple times post ACA after the GOP started stripping out the funding and safeguards to prevent this. More and more competition opened up with artificially low premiums being subsidized by federal dollars, but then when the subsidies ended the premiums started jumping. Then when the premiums were jumping, new companies opened up to make more competition advertising lower rates, but then further fractured to pool sizes, leading to premiums skyrocketing. If you look back just 10 years ago there was a 3-5 year stretch of premiums increasing almost 30% year after year. It was due to all the competition opening up every year. This is why single payer systems have the lowest rates. If you have even one private company monopoly with a regulated cap on profits you would still end up with lower premiums. Then, if this single paying company was nationalized to take out the profit making middle man, the premiums are that much lower because your risk is spread across a massive pool. More competition in insurance makes the problem worse. I would agree with your stronger regulation though. There is a lot that can be done there.

How much am I responsible for? If I weigh the tires (all 4) when I buy them, then use them for X years, then weigh them when I get rid of them for the next ones- then that is how much I responsible for. And I can divide it by the years I had it for a yearly number too.

And that is how much microplastic I would agree I am responsible for with the tires. There is also the carbon cost of making them, supplying them, and disposal. But we were talking about microplastics…

Both of you sound like clan scum and will answer to my house Steiner scout squad of Atlas’

Technically it would reach an altitude where it would become ‘null’ due to dividing by zero. You would eventually hit the vacuum of space where there is no speed of sound and any speed is faster than it.

https://www.powerengineeringint.com/renewables/lcoe-for-offshore-wind-now-on-par-with-coal-bnef/amp/

https://www.powerengineeringint.com/renewables/lcoe-for-offshore-wind-now-on-par-with-coal-bnef/amp/

Covid actually had almost no impact on the prices and they continued to level off a little lower. The surprising one is the onshore wind remaining on par with solar and continues to drop (albeit slowely).

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

“Today there are about 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 32 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 390 GWe. In 2022 these provided 2545 TWh, about 10% of the world’s electricity.”

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

There have been two major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power – Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Chernobyl involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and Fukushima Daiichi severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity.

Yes- a track record of one plant failing due to Soviet incompetence and political blunders; and the second failing due to checks notes a 9.0 magnitude almost direct earthquake and ensuing 133 ft tsunami.

I can see that critical thinking isn’t your strong suit, but I’m willing to comment it out with you instead of just down voting.

If the price of solar is already the lowest -and still dropping- then how is the most expensive option that takes about a decade to implement a better option for right now? This apparent point of diminishing returns is only beginning to manifest in even lower prices than this 2019 chart. And this diminishing returns point is only in the cost of the panels dropping; they are still getting better in technology and improving efficiency while maintaining low prices. If your argument is “solar can’t continue on this trend forever” -no one expects anything to consistently drop almost 90% every decade. Of course it will level out. And when it does, it will STILL be the cheapest option.

Huge up front costs.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx

“On a levelized (i.e. lifetime) basis, nuclear power is an economic source of electricity generation, combining the advantages of security, reliability and very low greenhouse gas emissions. Existing plants function well with a high degree of predictability. The operating cost of these plants is lower than almost all fossil fuel competitors, with a very low risk of operating cost inflation. Plants are now expected to operate for 60 years and even longer in the future…”

“World Nuclear Association published Nuclear Power Economics and Project Structuring in early 2017. The report notes that the economics of new nuclear plants are heavily influenced by their capital cost, which accounts for at least 60% of their LCOE. Interest charges and the construction period are important variables for determining the overall cost of capital. The escalation of nuclear capital costs in some countries, more apparent than real given the paucity of new reactor construction in OECD countries and the introduction of new designs, has peaked in the opinion of the International Energy Agency (IEA). In countries where continuous development programmes have been maintained, capital costs have been contained and, in the case of South Korea, even reduced. Over the last 15 years global median construction periods have fallen. Once a nuclear plant has been constructed, the production cost of electricity is low and predictably stable.”

TLDR: If you weren’t already on the nuke train when it was going, the upfront costs are too much to make it worth it this late in the game. You are better off just getting solar/wind + battery. If you already invested in nuke, then you are good to keep updating them.