Clearly, you do not understand the Safe Withdrawal Rate problem.......Unfortunately, you (JWR) seem to have a tendency to exhibit a posting behavior I first heard named in another tread topic---"wall of words". This phrase calls up a beautiful picture in my mind. A poster building a brick wall made of words, and like a brick wall it stands there solid and never answers any questions or responds to criticism.What's your point? And why don't you give cogent responses to questions & criticisms? I don't have a dog in this fight, and know nothing about any past history between you (JWR) and AcmeFool. And don't have any reason to side with either you or him.But what I do know is that he (and perhaps others, myself included) have asked reasonable questions.But I haven't heard any response from your (JWR) to these questions.Why are you bothering to do all this research and write these 600+ papers/pages? Is it purely a vanity product and you don't care if anybody thinks your work is good & valid? Or what?What's the point of making claims but then ignoring questions?For example, I asked "...dividend strategy...why do you claim that it will always be the best?" This is a reasonable question, and should merit a valid response. Instead you just said, "It's logical."As if that is any kind of answer. Which it is not.First of all, it is blind to a well-known saying, "The markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."Instead of bothering to give any kind of decent response, you just waved your hands and said, "Because I said so."How is this going to convince me? AcmeFool has asked you several times about your assumptions on inflation. Seems that you have treated it as a constant, but EVERYBODY knows that it is not constant but is sometimes low and sometimes high--and sometimes *very* high, as those of us who were adults during the Carter years knows full well.Yet I have never seen you give him any kind of response at all.Here's how it should go:AF: "Hey, you treated X as Y, but in fact X does not do Y."Possible responses:JWR: "I made a simplfying assumption which is adequate because of XYZ."orJWR: "No, I didn't treat X as Y, see Table #N of my paper titled XYZ."orJWR: "No, in fact X *does* do Y."orJWR: "Hmmm. You're right. I need to rework my figures and see what difference it makes."There's a lot of reasonable responses you could make to his question---but ignoring the question is not one of them.And, of course, there is the matter of your seemingly unique definition of SWR. The standard defintion is that SWR is the rate at which your portfolio will not be depleted before you die.But you evidently say that sometimes you'd have to reduce an annual withdrawal by 20%. Therefore your stated SWR is *not* an SWR.AcmeFool has complained about this many times that I have seen in the past several months. Yet I have not seen to even acknowledge his complaint one single time---you have always simply ignored it.So, what's the deal, JWR? Are you purposely acting in such a way that others see you as a fool?Why do all that work only to have everybody want to ignore it because you won't defend it and answer questions about it?I can see that there may well be some value in your work-----but until you stop treating your own work as a farce, why should I bother?BTW, this is a test. If you don't bother to give me some decent replies to my above questions, then I have no alternative other than to think you are just another internet troll spewing meaningless words.