h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In time it may probably be a good move to have a single currency world wide, but it is too early for that, I'm afraid

Until that day comes, the U.S. dollar seems to substitute fairly well. But I don't know what's going to happen with that debt celing dispute.

I remember days when the US dollar was a much stronger currency. I hope it doesn't get any weaker. Nobody would profit from that.

Except Australian tourists. Our dollar's gone from 49 US cents to 108 US cents in recent times.

True. Just a few s ago we could buy very cheap air tickets and visit the US for next to nothing. It still is cheaper than it used to be but not anywhere near as cheap - and even if it is cheap it still takes a lot of money

But I've been to the US once so that's okay. I would still like to go again, though, this time visiting my uncle and cousins and maybe shea, her sister, paulh and a few other hitchhikers

Oh well, there is always the chance of winning the lottery

When you win the lottery, you receive money that other ticket-buyers have paid. It's not even a zero-sum game, though. A healthy percentage of the ticket proceeds goes to the people who sponsored the lottery.

Here in Denmark the healthy percentage you mention is used to sponsor youth organisations, sports clubs and the like. Winners pay 15 percent tax of their winnings.

Vegas; that is the place. Free meals and accommodation. All you got to do is sign the dotted line.

I've never been to Lost Wages and after seeing pictures and live footage from there I wouldn't go there even if they paid me

If I ever went there, I would go for the entertainment.

Winning the jackpot would be very entertaining

I saw a documentary where some people live there, free food 24 hours. Others just lose a years wages and say, 'you win some you lose some'.

Thousands have to lose in order for one person to win. Sorry, that just isn't my idea of a good arrangement. A better one is buying an index fund that owns all the stocks in one of the stock exchanges. There are minimal management fees. Every year, some of the companies distribute dividends which you can spend or buy more shares with.

Here's a statistic that throughly scares me: in the U.S., more money goes into gambling than into retirement accounts.

When I saw it I thought it looked alright. They are not going to beat me up for not gambling.

Then I thought, have they actually met anybody that doesn't gamble.

Don't get me wrong, if it is free and normally cost $1000, I will go up to a hundred or so.

Fair is fare.

"Then I thought, have they actually met anybody that doesn't gamble" [PAL]

I qualify as such a person, *if* you rule out the times I've bought raffle tickets from a co-worker who was sponsoring a raffle to benefit someone with a medical emergency like expensive cancer treatment. That seems like a charitable donation, not a real instance of gambling. In one or two cases, I've bought a gift lottery ticket for a co-worker who was retiring, someone who liked lottery tickets. The point is, I wasn't buying the ticket for myself, and I would have preferred to get her a better gift.

Have I ever gone out of my way to buy a lottery ticket? No.

Have I ever gone to a casino and played the slot mahcines? No.

I'm as clean as they come.

But if you think investing in stocks is like gambling, then I'm guilty there. We all choose our doom, don't we?

Depends done it. I had a friend who bought loads of Euro tunnel stock since he reckoned that must be a winner. Could be in fifty years I suppose.

Individual stocks are riskier than diversified portfolios. Either way, though, you don't want to buy them with money you might need in the next ten years or so.

I think I read somewhere that the premier stock of the 20th century was General Electric. My uncle worked for that company for more than 30 years. He probably has a healthy amount of GE stock.

"Thousands have to lose in order for one person to win. Sorry, that just isn't my idea of a good arrangement."

But the value of shares doesn't come out of blue air either. Hardworking labourers created it. Is that a better arragement? Shouldn't those values rather be distributed between the w*rkers that created them?

In a lottery you pay a small fee. No more than you can spare (unless you are a pathological gambler, in which case you need profesional help). The winner takes it all and while we may him/her a bit we are also glad for the winner, because one day it might be us. Fair deal, if you ask me. for a few you buy the dream of becoming a millionaire.

"Shouldn't those values rather be distributed between the w*rkers that created them?" [Pierce]

To some extent that is what happens, as the workers collect wages and (hopefully) health benefits and pension benefits. If you pay a worker $30,000, the total cost may be north of $50,000 because of the benefits included in reimbursement.

Some companies go a step further by literally offering shares of the company's stock, free of charge, if the employee will keep the shares in his/her retirement account. You or I could argue about whether it is wise to let your own company's stock constitute all or most of your retirement account, but the company's gesture in gibing you those shares seems a genuine one to me.

Now, now Noo. If you buy a trillion biro on its way to menphis on a night train for 1c each; then sell them for 2c a minute later.

Cor, you got so much money.

It is party time.