不歸路也得停、看、聽 wrote:
如果您追求的是CP值的話
說一句我真心
我只能說你有一套,說得很中肯。
不歸路也得停、看、聽 wrote:
我沒有認真存過錢，我只有努力賺錢
讓我的財富更迅速增加
而且目前來說，錢我拿來投資，用做公司資本來營運，
遠比複利還增加的快
然而我之前在寫的時候，便有想到複利的事了，但通膨，其實也是形式上的複利增加的
雖然我查不到資料，但我相信15年前英國的煙，也一定遠比現在便宜的
所以兩相抵消，應該不過份
更別說複利也跟利率多少有關
今時今日英國的存款利率是0.5%
複利個15年，總共也不過是7,8%而已
我相信香煙15年應該不只漲10%了吧
至於愛因斯坦究竟有沒有講過複利什麼的.....
下面是我以前讀過的文....
Did the eminent physicist really ever say such a thing? The claim that he did appears dubious for a couple of significant reasons: • The attribution of this sentiment about compound interest to Einstein doesn't seem to have existed during the scientist's lifetime, first appearing in print only several decades after his death, and always repeated as something he supposedly said in some indefinite time and place. (Albert Einstein died in 1955, but the earliest mention we could find of this item was in a 1983 New York Times blurb.)
• Just what Einstein reportedly said about compound interest varies quite a bit from source to source: That it was "the greatest invention in human history" (or "the greatest invention of mankind," or "the greatest invention of all," or "the most significant invention of the nineteenth century"), that it is "the most powerful force in the universe," or that it is "more complicated than the theory of relativity." (That last variation echoes another sentiment popularly attributed to Einstein which also began to appear only well after his death, to the effect that "preparing a tax return is more complicated than relativity theory" or "the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.")
We suspect that this perspective on the power of compound interest is a fairly modern invention, one which has been retroactively placed into the mouth of a prominent dead person to give it more punch.
有點長，你有興趣的話可以看一看
不過他大致的要表達的是
複利的力量這件事，可以合理猜測是現代人，加諸在一個過世有名的學者身上
好讓這件事更有力量.....
您可以參考看看.....
然而這件事在美國是很重要的，因為大部份的美國人不存錢
所以提倡儲蓄還蠻重要的，我想Albert Einstein應該也不會介意被拿來利用一下
我之所以寫之前那篇文，是不希望台灣人變得像美國人一樣
不知道自已在幹嘛，用自己的人生和青春，去換取一時的爽快
然後兩袖清風，再來怨天怨世
不過我要繼續潛下去，暫且不再回文了，還是要忙忙一些事先......
..(恕刪)
不歸路大好認真，copy下面的網頁的部分內容來證明他以前讀過，大家要多鼓勵他喔！不過copy他人發帖內容還是要標明出處，畢竟那是非公共財的個人意見！不過沒做過學術研究或發表論文的人是不會知道的！！！！！所以幫不歸路大加上他copy的來源網址如下。copy 出處
雖然通膨跟複利在經濟學跟財政學上是獨立的概念，但總是有不懂的人要望文生義再加以穿鑿附會宣稱是相同的形式；另外，會說美國家計部門不儲蓄或儲蓄率低是經濟發展負面因素的人，就很明顯知道完全不懂美國的經濟運作原則與貨幣系統，又是另一個以自身的機驗法則所發表的菜市場言論！美國經濟系統會直接影響到全世界(即美國好世界其他各國不一定跟著好：美國不好，那大多數國家會被影響到所以也跟著不好)，而卻有人認為美國該學台灣的經濟，這已不是無知而是神知了，書是拿來念的不是拿來曬跟猜的！
不歸路只剪貼部分內容太可惜了，大家看以下全文比較完整！這麼用心剪貼資料真的有哈佛大學教授的程度喔，還有人好意思質疑他的英文能力嗎？就像國中英文課本，有人要說課本內容錯了嗎？應該要尊敬的給不歸路大拍拍手！
Origins: Many homeowners who have struggled to meet their
mortgages month after month, only to find after years of making payments that most of their money has gone to cover interest charges, have felt like cursing whoever came up with the concept of compound interest. In that vein, around 1980 (when the neutron bomb and soaring interest rates were prominent news topics) Johnny Carson once quipped during a Tonight Show monologue that "Scientists have developed a powerful new weapon that destroys people but leaves buildings standing — it's called the 17% interest rate." Perhaps that explains why many of us seem to recognize a kindred spirit in the declaration by one of the greatest intellects of our time, Albert Einstein, that compound interest is "the most powerful force in the universe" or "the greatest invention in human history." (Since no context is ever offered for this purported quote, readers might also fairly assume that its intent was to praise compound interest as a wonderful device that allows thrifty savers to realize a significant, low-risk return on their money.)
But did the eminent physicist really ever say such a thing? The claim that he did appears dubious for a couple of significant reasons:
The attribution of this sentiment about compound interest to Einstein doesn't seem to have existed during the scientist's lifetime, first appearing in print only several decades after his death, and always repeated as something he supposedly said in some indefinite time and place. (Albert Einstein died in 1955, but the earliest mention we could find of this item was in a 1983 New York Times blurb.)
Just what Einstein reportedly said about compound interest varies quite a bit from source to source: That it was "the greatest invention in human history" (or "the greatest invention of mankind," or "the greatest invention of all," or "the most significant invention of the nineteenth century"), that it is "the most powerful force in the universe," or that it is "more complicated than the theory of relativity." (That last variation echoes another sentiment popularly attributed to Einstein which also began to appear only well after his death, to the effect that "preparing a tax return is more complicated than relativity theory" or "the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."
We suspect that this perspective on the power of compound interest is a fairly modern invention, one which has been retroactively placed into the mouth of a prominent dead person to give it more punch.
Last updated: 19 April 2011
習慣抄襲卻不引用出處的力量始終無遠弗屆
不歸路也得停、看、聽 wrote:
剛上英國的Yahoo 知識+ 查的
上面寫英國一包煙約為2.5~3.2磅
一天抽3包(說真的，我沒認識任何一天抽三包的人)
一天大概400元，抽15年
15x365x400=219萬
15年 219萬，要買什麼利？？？？
Your example is a crap when it's based on false premise.
My example is based on the reality.
Are you really sure what you were talking about?
I ,at the moment, have 4 cars under my name; I think I have every right to let all ppl know the real truth of having a car when it's more than you should have paid for...(恕刪)
很創新的台式英文，台灣人一定看得懂，美國人也應該向不歸路大學習！太棒了！很不錯的買車臆想文！
真心建議：用中文書寫就好了，用母語完整表達你的意思，也讓你的讀者不會那麼痛苦
F0216 wrote:
很創新的英文，台灣人一定看得懂，美國人也應該學習！太棒了！很不錯的買車臆想文！不歸路也得停、看、聽 wrote:
Your example is a crap when it's based on false premise.
My example is based on the reality.
Are you really sure what you were talking about?
I ,at the moment, have 4 cars under my name; I think I have every right to let all ppl know the real truth of having a car when it's more than you should have paid for.
如前面一些朋友所說的,車子不是個資產,像是個奢侈品只會貶值;若有經濟上的壓力,可能就要考慮買國產車,畢竟後續維修保養的費用會比進口車親民一些.再來就評估一下家裡的成員,用車狀況.若家中人口多,不訪考慮L牌車內空間大,馬力也充足;若要樸實的車就考慮T牌車.就看看你需求,去試個車可以更聚焦喔.不歸路也得停、看、聽 wrote:
........等於你每年的最基本的支出是：6.5萬(折舊)+5萬(稅險)+4.6萬(車位+保養)=16.1萬
一個月的支出等於一萬三千多
這還不包含油錢哦
因為租車還是有油錢，所以我就先不寫
但如果一般用車，一年開兩萬公里
您追求油耗好的算一公升10公里
每公升算35元，一年的油錢就是20000/10*35=70000
每個月又是另外的將近7000的支出
等於一台車的持、用成本，就是每個月2萬
再拿時間來算，一個月2萬，一年是24萬
8年就是192萬
您希望8年之後，身邊有192萬的現金，還是一台殘值15萬的車？
.(恕刪)
不歸婦大在01各版發貼說同時擁有luxgen ceo, suv, u6, bmw, audi, volvo, 重機3~4台，今年又還要買GTR或海神，現在又在發勸世文好有宗教情懷！
先不管不歸路大嘴上同時擁有的10多台車有多高級，就拿他自己說的最低標準每年每台車最基本的支出是16.1萬，10台X16.1萬＝161萬一年，你什麼利買不起？
實在太感動了，這個社會已經夠錯亂了，01版卻出現這麼清新的教育家總是能撥正反亂！
不歸路也得停、看、聽 wrote:
剛上英國的Yahoo 知識+ 查的
上面寫英國一包煙約為2.5~3.2磅
一天抽3包(說真的，我沒認識任何一天抽三包的人)
一天大概400元，抽15年
15x365x400=219萬
15年 219萬，要買什麼利？？？？
Your example is a crap when it's based on false premise.
My example is based on the reality.
Are you really sure what you were talking about?
I ,at the moment, have 4 cars under my name; I think I have every right to let all ppl know the real truth of having a car when it's more than you should have paid for.
.(恕刪)
很有趣的觀點Yahoo知識+可以當成真理？那自己在Yahoo知識上發帖，再用另一個帳號來引述上面的意見，那不就非常有公信力？就算是Yahoo知識上查的，也應該把出處網址列出來以示尊重發帖人呀？否則原發帖人怎麼講大家沒看到，引用的人再加油添醋，然後再不斷的傳播，這樣子對其他版友好嗎？難道copy文章時沒發現有點學術研究概念的人都會引述出處？連諾貝爾得獎者也不敢剽竊呀！
英國的菸價請參考貴國的衛福部國民健康署公布資料，其出處如下網址：
http://www.hpa.gov.tw/Bhpnet/Web/About/About.aspx?class=316_01
文中第八段揭示“....英國為高菸價(10.99美元)國家，但走私菸僅佔1.5％。西班牙（菸價5.99美元）、義大利（6.48美元）菸價雖低於英國，走私菸卻分別佔15％、11.5％...."
不歸路大所說2.5~3.2磅在英國是要買什麼煙？難要用紙卷生煙草來抽？英國一包菸USD10.99每天3包抽15年，吉利總買得到吧，也不用打擾已在天國許久的愛因斯坦出來作證了！不過不歸路大這麼用心去找資料來教育大家，辛苦你了，希望能持續發帖讓大家知道許多新奇陸離的事情，讓 01 luxgen 版更多姿多彩！加油
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X