Some Stock Market Myths That Aren’t Myths – A Warning

By Christiaan van Huyssteen (@cvh23)

From 702:

4 beliefs about shares that keep you from growing wealthy

Many people don’t invest in shares, because they believe one or more of the following misconceptions:

  1. Investing in the stock market is tricky
  2. Investing in shares is like gambling
  3. Investing in shares isn’t for those earning a low income
  4. Investing in shares can make you rich, but you need to know a lot and have the time for research

Investing in the stock market over longer terms is nothing like gambling

If you can put aside R300 per month then you can invest in the stock market!

If they’re honest, most employed South Africans will admit that they can afford to save R300 per month, which is all you need to start investing in an index tracker such as Satrix. We’ll discuss index trackers in an upcoming article. For now, just know that it’s a way to own shares in the very best South African companies. And you need only R300 per month.

You don’t need to know anything to invest in shares and you don’t have to do any work. I have a fund manager who makes all my investment decisions. I never check my stocks and spend, maybe, ten minutes a month on my portfolio.

A good portfolio should contain some equities naturally, BUT encouraging people who don’t understand some of the basics of investing to invest a day after the markets hit an all time high is a classic warning sign. When you get to a point where everyone from your hairdresser to your grandmother is giving you a ‘hot tip’, then you should be scared. Don’t invest if you don’t understand the risks, if you don’t respect markets, or if you don’t know what you are investing in. I don’t think it is entirely responsible of 702 to give this kind of advice at a time when the stock market has just hit an all time high.

Are these ‘misconceptions’ really misconceptions?

  1. ‘It is tricky to invest’

It is not technically tricky to invest. If you have money, you can make a phone call and invest money.

Continue reading


Irrational Emotions Get The Better Of UCT

30 Years ago, UCT was the shining light of Liberalism in Africa, and the spearhead of the anti-apartheid movement. Today it has become home to a small group of weak, emotional and shallow people who can’t deal with the one thing you can’t change – history. What kind of weak, and pathetic person gets angry and offended over history, and a statue?

The only creatures known to throw feces are chimpanzees. And now we see university students behaving like this and boasting about it. These protesters are showing a complete lack of understanding about how civilised people sort out grievances. They seem to have no sense of decency, or concept of what constitutes appropriate behaviour. In most other countries, this behaviour would be unimaginable, and have serious consequences.

These ‘activists‘ (vandals?) claim to stand for something. But actually, they only really seek to boost their insecure egos and become more popular in their small circle of equally deluded and immature ‘supporters’.

They believe they have the self righteous moral authority to unilaterally decide what historical monuments should exist, and what parts of history should be revered/discarded based on the narrative they wish to advance.

Are their feelings that fragile?

One of the ‘side effects’ of freedom of speech is that you may at times be offended. In fact, you have no right not to be offended.

But this has very little to do with the statue, in fact, I suspect the majority of South African youths would not have known who Rhodes was if you had asked them 3 weeks ago. This is about transformation.

They catch-phrase of this so-called movement is the fight against what they call ‘institutional racism’. Ask them what they mean by this, or for any examples, and you are likely to be met with an irrational and hostile response for questioning their half baked assumptions. In fact, you will be shouted down and silenced by being told “you don’t know what it feels like, you are still benefitting from the legacy of apartheid” if you are white, or “you have been brainwashed by the oppressor” if you are black. Every time they shut down debate, they are showing their own arrogance and intolerance.

They may, at first be successful at getting things done, but the negativity that flows into what they say and do, and their unconscious need for enemies and conflict ultimately just create more opposition to their cause.

It is likely that in this case however, their sheer closed-mindedness and aggression will get them what they want (the removal of an inanimate object). They see themselves as being at the forefront of some brave new struggle, and they are so utterly certain their actions are righteous and justified. They are completely unwilling to broaden their horizons, or engage with new ideas (what education is actually supposed to be about). But this only serves to make them oblivious to the realities of how the world works. But the satisfaction they get won’t last long. Their deep seated resentment and sense of entitlement will soon compel them to take up another cause, however trivial.

The SRC is caving in, and showing themselves to be spineless when it comes to standing up for anything based on principle. But this is to be expected, since the only requirement for SRC membership is being popular. And the Ivory Tower of (pseudo?)-Intellectuals known as UCT management are exhibiting cowardly behaviour by facilitating these odious and odorous acts.

The really sad thing about all of this however, is that the majority of other good, level headed UCT students don’t seem to have the balls to stand up to these lot for the fear of being called names. This Campus is supposed to be the intellectual breeding ground of tomorrow’s enlightened leaders. Instead, they bring shame on the institution.

Has UCT become nothing more than a righteous bubble of progressive intolerance?

Disagree with this view? No problem.

*I write what I like

James Blunt Responds To Attention Seeking Politician In Stunning Fashion

By Christiaan van Huyssteen (@cvh23)

James Blunt said people laughed at the idea of him going into the music business

Photograph: Ken McKay/REX

Last week, a British MP launched a tirade against what he perceived to be too much privileged people in the arts.

Chris Bryant – British Labour MP and shadow minister for the arts:

“We can’t just have a culture dominated by Eddie Redmayne and James Blunt and their ilk,”

The ‘You’re Beautiful’ singer James Blunt responded by setting the facts straight. In an open letter:

Continue reading

Top 10 Arguments Statists Make Against Libertarianism

By Christiaan van Huyssteen (@cvh23)

These arguments tend to be clichéd and sometimes immature. The people who make these arguments are not ignorant, but they tend to repeat ideas that sound obvious to them, because it has never occurred to them to question their own arguments.

  1. “Communism is good idea in theory.”

At least they understand that it is a bad idea in practice. However, communism is a very bad idea in theory, for economic and moral reasons. For a start, under a communist system, people are not equal. There is a ruling class, and there is a working class. People in a communist country have no personal liberty. They get assigned jobs, and only have access to the bare basics for survival. To force people to play a certain role in society requires violence, this is why all communist systems tend to be oppressive dictatorships. Ordinary civilians have no rights. Private property gets stolen. This is obviously an immoral system. There is no social mobility. There is no incentive to be productive, as you can never escape your dire circumstances by working hard. Under communism, there is no reward for being creative and innovative. No communist country has ever produced a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs or an Elon Musk. Under collectivised agricultural practices, you can have a large proportion of the population working on farms, but still have a massive undersupply of food. The agrarian system instituted by Mao under the ‘Great Leap Forward’ between 1958 and 1961 resulted in a famine which cost the lives of 30+ million people.

Continue reading

Obama Proposes To Make Community College Free

By Christiaan van Huyssteen (@cvh23)

A few things:

1. “Reform”

‘Tax reform’, ‘healthcare reform’, ‘eduction reform’. If these policies are always so good, so why the constant need to ‘reform’ them?

2. “FREE!!!”

In between occupying multiple foreign countries, killing children living in $10 tents with $16m predator drones, bailing out banks and paying for Obama’s multiple golf vacations, it is uncertain how this ‘reform’ will be funded. Maybe they will just print the money.


From Zerohedge:

Yesterday, to much shock and dismay, Obama revealed his latest “noble” grand vision: provide a free community college education to millions of folks. Apparently now, far too late, even the community organizer-in-chief realized that with $1.2 trillion in student loans the Millennials will never be able to take their rightful place as the dynamo of US economic growth. What is Obama’s solution? Another free lunch. Socialist unicorns and Marxist rainbows aside, what will Obama’s “free” plan cost taxpayers? The answer: $60 billion over 10 years, according to a White House official.

3. “Community college!”

With students who go to real colleges not being able to find jobs, and having over a $1t in student debt already, how would subsidising students who go to inferior community colleges benefit America?

everything free

If you are against this, be prepared to be labelled ‘anti education’ by the loud and obnoxious left.

Follow us: @DiagonalViews