WHY SAVING IS FOR LOSERS

The banks will hate me for saying this but it's nothing personal.

No one knows tomorrow, so by all means put some money aside for EMERGENCIES.

However, if your goal is to grow this stash of cash at a decent clip over more than three months, then the worst thing you can do is stash your cash in a bank savings account.

Why?

Because of INFLATION.

Inflation is simply the general rise in the cost of goods and services from one period to another.

When you were thinking of saving you probably didn't even remotely think about inflation right?

Please do so from now on.

You see, when inflation is higher than the interest rate on your savings, what you're essentially doing is lending money to the bank at a cost to you. It costs you because inflation "devalues" your savings.

Think about that for a minute.

It's like you lend someone money (the equivalent of your savings) today at a very cheap rate (the interest rate on your savings). Then by the time they pay back all your money (the savings plus the interest you earned) the whole thing is now worth less than what you originally lent them.

That's how inflation turns savers into losers.

Rather than dump your money in a savings account, which just makes your bank richer at your expense, consider inflation-protected instruments like Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), inflation index-linked Bonds, Money Market accounts and Certificate of Deposits.

So here's the bottom line: ALWAYS CHECK THAT THE INTEREST RATE IS HIGHER THAN INFLATION BEFORE YOU PLUNGE YOUR MONEY INTO A SAVINGS ACCOUNT.

All that said, you should know that nothing beats the stockmarket for growing money, inflation-protected over the long-term. Not even real estate.

The Banks Just Pimped Us

No, seriously.

Six months ago free market capitalism as we know it was about to end, and big bank stocks were trading for less than an ATM access fee.

Analysts were breathing down the necks of bank executives, daring them to declare just how "balanced" their balance sheets were.

To keep hedgies from turning their companies into penny stocks and avoid the wrath of average Joe and Jane, executives begged the government for mercy and got plenty of government funds and government guarantees of their debt. I don't buy the argument that banks were forced to take the money. If they hadn't taken it how many of these banks would be around today?

Now, all of a sudden, they don't need this money anymore?

I smell a rat.

After using taxpayers money to pay executive compensation, raise capital, and avoid a mutiny by investors, could it be that the big banks now want to return the money before government clamps down on executive compensation and credit card interest rates hikes?

Well, well, well. If that's not pimping taxpayers, then i don't know what is.