Pinned Tweet
John invests $300/month from age 30 to 67.
Emma invests $300/month from age 20 to 30, then stops—never adds a penny after.
Both earn 11% and never sell.
At age 67:
John will have $1.8M
Emma will have $3.9M
Time > Money.
Replying to @Jeff44mag
From this clip:
1. Leavitt & red head
3. Zackaria
4. Gay black lady (dunno why that's important)
True! All Putin wants is a piece of land with the residents in it. Is that too much to ask? That POS Zelensky has the balls to deny Putin his home
After multiple attempts on Trump's life with her by his side, I would prioritize family too, I don't even have kids.
Karoline leavitt has 2. Can't blame her.
xitter.cf/HistoryBoutique/status… Lady, we loath you, not Elon!
What say you?
Replying to @EndWokeness
White woman told to move to the back of the bus
Doesn’t really go with the story.
Competition brings out the best in us. You don't want US companies to be complacent.
I think this will be a loss to users and innovations.
Information moved very slowly back then, making market inefficient. You could take advantage of it.
Today, market is very efficient because information moves at lighting speed. High frequency traders (HFT) can scan the planet for info and take actions based on it before you can blink.
And ETFs and 401Ks put money blindly into companies. The big ones suck in most of the money automatically regardless of valuations creating a massive market driving force.
Out of the people you mentioned, only Buffet was still active after 2000 (when HFT came into the scene). In the last 20 years his annual return is just over 10%.
One thing that always baffles me.
People (especially Americans) who are not investing, why do you refuse to have your money grow exponentially while you sleep?





















