<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Financial Cost of Not Recycling</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.earnontheside.com/2008/04/the-financial-cost-of-not-recycling/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.earnontheside.com/2008/04/the-financial-cost-of-not-recycling/</link>
	<description>Cash In Your Spare Time</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:54:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Grant</title>
		<link>http://www.earnontheside.com/2008/04/the-financial-cost-of-not-recycling/comment-page-1/#comment-36</link>
		<dc:creator>Grant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 20:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.earnontheside.com/?p=18#comment-36</guid>
		<description>James you are correct that the 9% is the annual return.  I&#039;d love to find a 9% monthly return, but that just doesn&#039;t exist unfortunately.  
There may be some argument that 9% is too high even for an annual return, but if you look at a broad index for the last few decades like the S&amp;P or the Dow, 9% would be about average. 
You would definitely have better and worse years, but over a few decades you would probably end up around 7-9%.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>James you are correct that the 9% is the annual return.  I&#8217;d love to find a 9% monthly return, but that just doesn&#8217;t exist unfortunately.<br />
There may be some argument that 9% is too high even for an annual return, but if you look at a broad index for the last few decades like the S&#038;P or the Dow, 9% would be about average.<br />
You would definitely have better and worse years, but over a few decades you would probably end up around 7-9%.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Wilcox</title>
		<link>http://www.earnontheside.com/2008/04/the-financial-cost-of-not-recycling/comment-page-1/#comment-35</link>
		<dc:creator>James Wilcox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 20:19:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.earnontheside.com/?p=18#comment-35</guid>
		<description>This is a great idea, but the difficult task is in finding the 9% stock market return. I assume you are using an annual 9% and not monthly? I&#039;d love to have a 9% monthly return on my trades!

James Wilcoxs last blog post..&lt;a href=&quot;http://portfolio.wilcox-studios.com/blog/win-a-cool-2gb-usb-pen/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Win A Cool 2GB USB Pen&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a great idea, but the difficult task is in finding the 9% stock market return. I assume you are using an annual 9% and not monthly? I&#8217;d love to have a 9% monthly return on my trades!</p>
<p>James Wilcoxs last blog post..<a href="http://portfolio.wilcox-studios.com/blog/win-a-cool-2gb-usb-pen/" rel="nofollow">Win A Cool 2GB USB Pen</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

