Thankfully there’s now an easy way to maximize your return/risk ratio: Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs).

Before ETFs you had two options: choose individual stocks and risk choosing wrong, or pay a financial consultant outrageous fees to do it for you.

ETFs allows you to track the market, which over time only goes up, minimizing your risk. They also (usually) charge very low fees, which increases your returns.

If you are interested in US equities, VOO, which tracks the S&P 500, has a gross expense ratio (ie how much you pay them) of .03%. Considering how 20 years ago you might have paid a financial advisor 3%, it’s literally 100th of the cost. QQQM, which tracks the NASDAQ has a GER of .15%, is also good.

As an Italian, you might also be interested in an EWI, which tracks Italian stock performance, and has actually done pretty well the last year. However it has GER of .50%, so you’ll be paying a bit more. I’m not sure if you have access to different products there, so might be something to look in to. European stocks have done pretty well of late, so you may also want to look into ETFs for other countries (DAX for Germany, EWP for Spain, EWQ for France, etc). Finally you may want to consider emerging markets, like EMXC for China.

Again you may have access to different products, I’m not sure how that works, but basically any ETF which tracks a developed or high growth emerging market country would be good to add to your portfolio, and you should prioritize those with low GER to maximize your returns.

Lastly, I would STRONGLY encourage you to not even look into things like options, futures, shorting etc. Your focus as a retail investor should be to maximize your return to risk ratio.

If the market dips 10%, and you’ve put in 10k, it’s sad to see 1k “go away” but if you wait a few more days/weeks/months and just not sell and realize that loss, it has literally always bounces back (unlike an individual company), and you suffer no negative effects.

But futures, options and shorts, while potentially more rewarding, have outcomes where you can get really fucked, have to pay everything you have and more, and be left with nothing. It’s just not worth it IMO.

What if we had to torture and murder you to solve global warming? Would that be ok?

deleted by creator

Removed by mod

Lol, not engaging with any of the specific counterpoints I made because you know your wrong, and instead using a throwaway line to hide your own incompetence?

Yea, that’s about all I expected, because that’s all your good for

In order:

1.No

2. To be a joke it would have to be funny

3. yes because federal agents can operate locally anywhere, which is obvious to anyone but the village idiot

4. As you said, they “have to” cooperate, which kind of goes against your point of them being willing

5. America absolutely has been facist for generations, but more so in republican administrations (gauntenmo and patriot act under bush, Nixon shooting protestors, and now)

6. black sites were Chicago PD operated, Obama had nothing to do with them.

7. Put your dunce cap back on and go sit in the corner

I’m all for sanctioning authoritarian oligarchies, but unfortunately for you, that is the Trump administration.

US cabinet average wealth by far the highest in US history? Oligopoly

Armed masked men are abducting US citizens into unmarked vans? Authoritarian

NYC has neither of those things. Nice try though?

Life was better when people like you were just known as village idiots and we could chuck produce at you whenever you spoke so you knew your opinions were comically stupid

deleted by creator

In referring to my above comments, you’ll note I never said they did do something, only that IF they did do it, they had the capabilities in place to do so without leaving a trace.

My issue is only with the top commenters phrase “bring receipts”.

The article author address this pretty thoroughly in why that’s not possible, referencing publicly available information.

The top commenter seemed to deliberately disregard that point

Condensed quote below.

“ According to Eaton’s own release, Palantir’s role would include… most critically—“secure erasure of digital footprints””

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, that is from their own press release.

So you say “where are the receipts?”. And their press release explicitly says “we are bringing in this company to erase receipts”. To which you respond “where are the receipts”.

To echo your statement, do you see how this might appear as willful misunderstanding to an outside observer?

Did you read the article? Relevant section below:

“Let’s be clear, Palantir wasn’t brought in for customer service. It was brought in to do what it does best: manage, shape, and secure vast streams of data—quietly. According to Eaton’s own release, Palantir’s role would include: AI-driven oversight of connected infrastructures Automated analysis of large datasets And—most critically—“secure erasure of digital footprints”

The Digital Janitor:also known as forensic sanitization, it was now being embedded into Eaton-managed hardware connected directly to voting systems. Palantir didn’t change the votes. It helped ensure you’d never prove it if someone else did.”