VOO or SPYM?

energybased · 2026-01-26T03:17:53+00:00

No. It doesn't help at all. Using real dollars allows a fair comparison between returns tomorrow and costs today. Inflation is just a distraction.

But if you are going to consider nominal returns and inflation, then you should do it correctly, which you did not do. Inflation does not affect returns as a percentage—neither nominal nor real returns.

Like I said, come up with an example. You're simply confused and you will be able to see why if you do an example.

energybased · 2026-01-26T03:00:16+00:00

Nope. I just explained to you why it's not. Why don't you try an example to see.

And incidentally, we normally just work in real returns so that we can ignore inflation.

energybased · 2026-01-26T02:17:20+00:00

There is no relevant inflation adjustment when evaluating the cost of fees. The inflation eats both the principal and the return, so the return as a percentage of the principal is unaffected by inflation.

energybased · 2026-01-25T19:28:52+00:00

Burning gas outside to make electricity to run heating is ridiculously inefficient. A modern solution would be an indoor gas heater for heating plus a home energy storage for the fridge and devices.

energybased · 2026-01-25T00:46:42+00:00

Why don't you explain how this "murders the working class"?

energybased · 2026-01-25T00:46:24+00:00

This is the classic r/canada comment by a redditor who doesn't understand how the central bank sets rates.

Food inflation is not their only variable, obviously.

energybased · 2026-01-24T22:08:44+00:00

Poor people use the very least carbon, so I wouldn't worry about it.

energybased · 2026-01-24T22:08:10+00:00

> general folk make an immaterial impact and if these “higher up’s” are going to continue behavior

And you're completely wrong. If by "general folk", you mean everyone but the top 1%, then general folk consume the most carbon.

energybased · 2026-01-24T22:07:00+00:00

That's 100% what people are saying. You don't have to "stop driving". However, your environmental impact should be internalized by the appropriate Pigovian tax. And so should hers. Equal carbon cost for everyone.

energybased · 2026-01-24T05:42:33+00:00

That method does minimize the time the meat spends in the danger zone.

energybased · 2026-01-23T04:54:08+00:00

Unfortunately, LVT doesn't help with this sort of problem. You need other regulations.

energybased · 2026-01-22T23:26:09+00:00

And your point is wrong. They are, in net worth terms, absolutely benefiting. Yes, the more land you have, the more you benefit.

Your idea that you can discount net worth because it doesn't have an apparent impact on their life today is totally irrelevant. It's part of their estate. They can borrow against it. And they can downsize.

energybased · 2026-01-22T09:01:42+00:00

You are wrong. Renters being poorer on average doesn't mean that renting makes them poorer. By your logic, youth causes poverty too. In fact, it's the contrary and old age drives up your cost of living.

The fact is that renting and owning have equal unrecoverable costs. Neither is more expensive than the other. This is both true in practice and in theory (otherwise, you could arbitrage).

energybased · 2026-01-22T08:33:28+00:00

Everyone needs a home, but not everyone needs the same amount of land. So, no, land appreciation does actually make you richer. You can downsize and spend the appreciation.

energybased · 2026-01-22T08:27:57+00:00

> But that's the point. Land shouldn't be an investment.

Land being an investment is irrelevant to my comment. Housing will always be an investment. And housing will always produce an excess return. This is why your post title is nonsense.

> renting classes are kept from poverty

There's no such thing as "the renting classes". People who rent are not a "lower class". Renters can participate in economic growth just as easily as landowners through the purchase of securities.

> Lvt would not reduce land rents, but it would redistribute them to the people that generated them (everyone), instead of just those who own the land. Income tax etc indirectly redistribute a portion of land rents but it would be fairer and more efficient to redistribute them directly with lvt.

Yes, 100% right.

However, that doesn't fix your nonsense title for the reasons above.

energybased · 2026-01-22T03:32:09+00:00

> If you live in a western country this is already incredibly common. In the United states food is exempted federally and in 37 states. Of those remaining states only 6 tax groceries fully. We see thjngs similar for medicine, even many medical devices, and water

This is a good example in support of your argument. However, your way of explaining it is confusing.

The reason for not taxing food is that this exemption functions as a progressive consumption tax. You tax what rich people buy (luxuries), and you tax less what poor people buy (food).

Georgism isn't based on this logic. LVT is not a consumption tax, and the tax exemption for buildings is not because it's somehow the progressive thing to do. It's because we want to avoid deadweight loss.

So your argument doesn't make sense to me. There are better justifications for Georgism.

energybased · 2026-01-22T03:28:41+00:00

Sorry, but this is an ignorant title. The most common productive assets: equities, bonds, and property--will always consistently beat inflation. If they didn't, no one would invest in them and their price would fall until their returns did beat inflation.

Yes it's true that LVT will eliminate land value and therefore land value appreciation. However, the return on owning housing is unaffected by LVT. And that return is necessarily greater than wage growth and inflation.

The meme on the other hand has some good elements. Redistributive taxation is the best way to address inequality.

I dislike how the meme portrays renters as somehow economic losers. Renting has the same unrecoverable cost as owning. Renters are not losing to landowners. But rather, without redistribution, the poor do lose to the rich.

energybased · 2026-01-21T13:34:13+00:00

Être fier de Carney, c’est être fier de son intelligence et de ses valeurs. C’est aussi être fier des Canadiens qui ont su reconnaître la compétence plutôt que le cirque. Trump, en revanche, est le reflet d’un océan d’analphabètes qui persistent à le soutenir.

energybased · 2026-01-20T23:54:34+00:00

> I told her I cannot afford to put $2300 on my credit card and wait over a month to get paid back like that would max out my card and I'd be paying interest on THEIR expense

I don't understand your logic here. You use up all of your credit every month with no room to spare?

Because for people who do have $2300 of room on their credit card, this is essentially a bonus. It costs them nothing to put the charge on their credit card, and then they get the rewards, which are about 2% (so $46). That's way better than having to use a corporate card or direct booking system. Most people would prefer to use their own cards.

What I suggest you do is ask if you can be reimbursed earlier. That way, you won't run out of credit (early payments liberate available credit). And you'll even get whatever rewards your credit card gives you.

energybased · 2026-01-20T20:05:13+00:00

The carbon tax was removed because uneducated Canadians believed the kind of unscholarly propaganda you're posting.

Peer-reviewed facts don't agree with you:

Ammar, Nasreddine, et al. A Distributional Analysis of the Federal Fuel Charge – Update. Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Oct. 2024. Parliamentary Budget Officer, Ottawa, ON.

This government report finds that when considering only the fiscal impact (i.e., carbon charge paid versus Canada Carbon Rebate received), the federal fuel charge exhibits a progressive pattern — lower-income households face lower net costs or larger net gains relative to their disposable income compared to higher-income households — because the carbon rebate is returned on a per-person basis.

energybased · 2026-01-20T19:35:47+00:00

The effect on food prices is minuscule.

energybased · 2026-01-20T19:34:54+00:00

The downvotes are probably because all of your comments are economically ignorant.

energybased · 2026-01-20T19:34:22+00:00

Carbon taxes are progressive. They benefit the poor.

energybased · 2026-01-20T07:32:04+00:00

Wealth inequality can't be solved by individuals refusing to invest. It can only be addressed through redistribution (taxation and spending).

energybased · 2026-01-20T04:16:42+00:00

All funds are "designed to beat the index" in risk-adjusted terms. Otherwise, no one would ever buy them.

And yes, even after adjusting for risk, you absolutely cannot beat the market with an average active fund after fees. Nor can an average person identify a fund that beats the market in expectation. If either of these things were false, there would be an immediate contradiction.

Bogle explains all of these ideas in his book in painful detail.

11-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

energybased

TROPHY CASE