|
On February 02 2011 06:48 barkles wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 06:31 thebigdonkey wrote:On February 02 2011 06:18 Haemonculus wrote:On February 02 2011 05:59 barkles wrote:
No one in their right mind would voluntarily pay for social security. Why wouldn't you just take that money and put it in an investment portfolio and make a better return than what the govt will give you?
There are also significant concerns about the financial solvency of these programs. I'll preface this by saying that I am not an economist in any way. I have only a basic grasp of how the stock market works. I sort of feel that I understand the general theory of it, but honestly I haven't a goddamn clue what happens on wall street or in any other major stock market. However, to move onto my point, can *everyone* really make an "investment portfolio" that's going to pay off? Can you really guarantee that a bunch of stock is going to stay solid and continue growing until you're ready to retire? If it was as easy as "yeah just go get a pro portfolio u noob", wouldn't more people do that? One of my older cousins is an economist, and works whatever job it is that economists do. He lost a *shitload* of money in the 2000 or so market crash, and he's told me quite plainly that he'll likely never get back all the money he'd put into it. My father tells a similar story. So even the experts can mess up and make mistakes. I find it a bit unrealistic to assume that everyone and their mother can make sound financial decisions and that every investment portfolio is magically guaranteed success over a very long period of time. Secondly, isn't a 401k plan quite similar to social security? Sort of a privatized version of such? Your employer takes a chunk of your paycheck, puts it off into a magical account somewhere, and you get it back when you retire. I know this system really appeals to many Americans, simply because we're so goddamn hard for the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality, and value individual success highly over community success. Lots of Americans hate the idea that their tax dollars go to anyone but themselves. But what about those poor bastards who had 401ks with Enron? People can still get screwed over. A government run 401k type policy is basically what Social Security is trying to accomplish, no? Finally, do you *really* think that if people were given the option to stop paying SS taxes, that they'd all just go and invest it soundly? They wouldn't splurge on a new TV instead? (Or more realistically in the current economy, pay off that late utility bill. ) A lot of people just plain cannot realistically plan for the future. I know I'm guilty of this for sure. But here we are, a bunch of (and I'm going to generalize here), well educated, mostly wealthy or at least middle class, folks with the leisure time available to spend having philosophical and economic debates on TL. There's a *lot* of people out there who never had the same opportunities that you or I did. Excellent excellent post. The idea that we can all get rich together on the stock market with our 401k's is a myth. As often as not, when you make money on the market, someone else is losing money to facillitate that. There is a general perception that everyone lost tons of money when the housing bubble burst. However, there was a small group of shrewd individuals who spotted the trend before everyone else and bet against it and made BILLIONS when the subprime mortgage market went belly up (these people were the ones that AIG owed so much money to). I am not criticizing these people at all, they made brilliant decisions to go against the grain and momentum of the market and they were rewarded appropriately for their risk. Anyway, the moral of the story is, in order to make a buck, someone else is losing a buck. Absolutely and totally incorrect. The economy is NOT a zero-sum game. If this was true, economic growth would never occur. If you have no economic knowledge whatsoever, you should not be making any claims in such forum topics as these.
Surely it's not a zero-sum game only because there are people out there doing *actual* business which is based, ultimately, off some sort of physical product or action.
|
The manipulation of fiat currency makes it a zero sum game.
|
On February 02 2011 07:50 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 05:19 Offhand wrote:
The average adult American is 8 grand in debt. Consider that before making the call as to whether or not they're capable of saving for their future. This isn't a valid point when we have the government running a debt based currency. If people actually started saving overnight, our current economy would fall apart, and would have to be rebuilt. Because it is completely based on sustainability through debt. That is why the dollar is currently ~ -13 trillion. Business that only sell useless luxury items would disappear left and right, jobs would be lost, and entire new and different business would have to be created. We have the government running a debt based currency. We have the government teaching people through high school, why are they teaching people to be financially responsible?? Because it isn't desirable for them, they want the debt. So we continue to let them run the debt scheme, and we continue to let them teach generation after generation. And then we blame individuals because they are "not capable" of saving? There is no rationality behind this. The government has created all these problems, which what government always does. Creates a problem, offers a solution, and becomes a little more powerful when they enact that solution. Then eventually you have a whole population of people who are desperately dependent on the government to survive, and the government has little fear of being usurped. I can't believe so many people don't understand this.
If you studied what is going on you would know that most of the people are getting by from working an increasing number of hours (40 hour work week is a joke), working 2nd jobs, requiring both spouses to work long hours, increasing debt, asset inflation. Now asset inflation is gone as the housing bubble burst. You don't work 2nd jobs to try to "save" money. You work 2nd jobs to try to "just barely" get by.
|
On February 02 2011 06:48 barkles wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 06:31 thebigdonkey wrote:On February 02 2011 06:18 Haemonculus wrote:On February 02 2011 05:59 barkles wrote:
No one in their right mind would voluntarily pay for social security. Why wouldn't you just take that money and put it in an investment portfolio and make a better return than what the govt will give you?
There are also significant concerns about the financial solvency of these programs. I'll preface this by saying that I am not an economist in any way. I have only a basic grasp of how the stock market works. I sort of feel that I understand the general theory of it, but honestly I haven't a goddamn clue what happens on wall street or in any other major stock market. However, to move onto my point, can *everyone* really make an "investment portfolio" that's going to pay off? Can you really guarantee that a bunch of stock is going to stay solid and continue growing until you're ready to retire? If it was as easy as "yeah just go get a pro portfolio u noob", wouldn't more people do that? One of my older cousins is an economist, and works whatever job it is that economists do. He lost a *shitload* of money in the 2000 or so market crash, and he's told me quite plainly that he'll likely never get back all the money he'd put into it. My father tells a similar story. So even the experts can mess up and make mistakes. I find it a bit unrealistic to assume that everyone and their mother can make sound financial decisions and that every investment portfolio is magically guaranteed success over a very long period of time. Secondly, isn't a 401k plan quite similar to social security? Sort of a privatized version of such? Your employer takes a chunk of your paycheck, puts it off into a magical account somewhere, and you get it back when you retire. I know this system really appeals to many Americans, simply because we're so goddamn hard for the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality, and value individual success highly over community success. Lots of Americans hate the idea that their tax dollars go to anyone but themselves. But what about those poor bastards who had 401ks with Enron? People can still get screwed over. A government run 401k type policy is basically what Social Security is trying to accomplish, no? Finally, do you *really* think that if people were given the option to stop paying SS taxes, that they'd all just go and invest it soundly? They wouldn't splurge on a new TV instead? (Or more realistically in the current economy, pay off that late utility bill. ) A lot of people just plain cannot realistically plan for the future. I know I'm guilty of this for sure. But here we are, a bunch of (and I'm going to generalize here), well educated, mostly wealthy or at least middle class, folks with the leisure time available to spend having philosophical and economic debates on TL. There's a *lot* of people out there who never had the same opportunities that you or I did. Excellent excellent post. The idea that we can all get rich together on the stock market with our 401k's is a myth. As often as not, when you make money on the market, someone else is losing money to facillitate that. There is a general perception that everyone lost tons of money when the housing bubble burst. However, there was a small group of shrewd individuals who spotted the trend before everyone else and bet against it and made BILLIONS when the subprime mortgage market went belly up (these people were the ones that AIG owed so much money to). I am not criticizing these people at all, they made brilliant decisions to go against the grain and momentum of the market and they were rewarded appropriately for their risk. Anyway, the moral of the story is, in order to make a buck, someone else is losing a buck. Absolutely and totally incorrect. The economy is NOT a zero-sum game. If this was true, economic growth would never occur. If you have no economic knowledge whatsoever, you should not be making any claims in such forum topics as these.
First of all, I was not speaking of the economy as a whole, I was speaking of investment markets. Second of all, I never said it was zero sum. I said "as often as not". I referred to a very specific example where it WAS zero sum (read The Greatest Trade Ever Made or The Big Short for more details..this is what I was referring to when I said 'the moral of the story is'. If you like I can educate you on how collaterallzied debt obligations and credit default swaps worked in relation to the subprime mortgage market.), but in no way was I insinuating that in every transaction, every dollar gained is a dollar lost for someone else.
Recent history suggests that by following the herd mentality, you can compound your money eventually in the stock market. But you'll never get extraordinarily rich off of a 401k managed by Fidelity (or any similar programs with other institutions) and you will always feel the bumps in the market AND as they like to say in their commercials, past performance is no guarantee of future performance. It's entirely possible that Average Joe with his 401k with Fidelity could lose 80% of his portfolio value but at the same time Ted Hedge Fund Manager could see 200% increases because he shorted everything. The bottom line is, the average person is a bottom feeder in the market, we get the gains last and the losses first.
|
On February 02 2011 07:42 Treemonkeys wrote:
Oh please, SS exists because people in congress voted to approve it, it went through, and then it was deducted from paychecks. It has absolutely zero direct relation anyone's ability or inability to invest or save.
Just a small correction; Social Security does actually have a negative impact on savings, which in turn implies a negative impact on investment.
However, these effects are quite negligible for the US economy, literally a rounding error in difference.
|
On February 02 2011 07:50 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 05:19 Offhand wrote:
The average adult American is 8 grand in debt. Consider that before making the call as to whether or not they're capable of saving for their future. This isn't a valid point when we have the government running a debt based currency. If people actually started saving overnight, our current economy would fall apart, and would have to be rebuilt. Because it is completely based on sustainability through debt. That is why the dollar is currently ~ -13 trillion. Business that only sell useless luxury items would disappear left and right, jobs would be lost, and entire new and different business would have to be created. We have the government running a debt based currency. We have the government teaching people through high school, why are they teaching people to be financially responsible?? Because it isn't desirable for them, they want the debt. So we continue to let them run the debt scheme, and we continue to let them teach generation after generation. And then we blame individuals because they are "not capable" of saving? There is no rationality behind this. The government has created all these problems, which what government always does. Creates a problem, offers a solution, and becomes a little more powerful when they enact that solution. Then eventually you have a whole population of people who are desperately dependent on the government to survive, and the government has little fear of being usurped. I can't believe so many people don't understand this.
Yes, the debt based system is also fucked. I don't know how that invalidates my point.
This thread would be a lot better if people came in with more then their highschool macro/micro econ knowledge and pre-formed opinions on everything.
|
On February 02 2011 07:50 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 05:19 Offhand wrote:
The average adult American is 8 grand in debt. Consider that before making the call as to whether or not they're capable of saving for their future. This isn't a valid point when we have the government running a debt based currency. If people actually started saving overnight, our current economy would fall apart, and would have to be rebuilt. Because it is completely based on sustainability through debt. That is why the dollar is currently ~ -13 trillion. Business that only sell useless luxury items would disappear left and right, jobs would be lost, and entire new and different business would have to be created. We have the government running a debt based currency. We have the government teaching people through high school, why are they teaching people to be financially responsible?? Because it isn't desirable for them, they want the debt. So we continue to let them run the debt scheme, and we continue to let them teach generation after generation. And then we blame individuals because they are "not capable" of saving? There is no rationality behind this. The government has created all these problems, which what government always does. Creates a problem, offers a solution, and becomes a little more powerful when they enact that solution. Then eventually you have a whole population of people who are desperately dependent on the government to survive, and the government has little fear of being usurped. I can't believe so many people don't understand this.
So, its just one big, 300-year old conspiracy of the federal government to create a zombie slave race?
There's a reason there's some pretty big, honking sections of the Constitution that states that everyone has the right to own a gun and that the military cannot be used against american civilians. Any military officer, given the order to kill an American civilian, is under obligation to apprehend the person giving that order, and if they resist, use lethal force.
|
On February 02 2011 08:06 forkleaf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 07:50 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 05:19 Offhand wrote:
The average adult American is 8 grand in debt. Consider that before making the call as to whether or not they're capable of saving for their future. This isn't a valid point when we have the government running a debt based currency. If people actually started saving overnight, our current economy would fall apart, and would have to be rebuilt. Because it is completely based on sustainability through debt. That is why the dollar is currently ~ -13 trillion. Business that only sell useless luxury items would disappear left and right, jobs would be lost, and entire new and different business would have to be created. We have the government running a debt based currency. We have the government teaching people through high school, why are they teaching people to be financially responsible?? Because it isn't desirable for them, they want the debt. So we continue to let them run the debt scheme, and we continue to let them teach generation after generation. And then we blame individuals because they are "not capable" of saving? There is no rationality behind this. The government has created all these problems, which what government always does. Creates a problem, offers a solution, and becomes a little more powerful when they enact that solution. Then eventually you have a whole population of people who are desperately dependent on the government to survive, and the government has little fear of being usurped. I can't believe so many people don't understand this. If you studied what is going on you would know that most of the people are getting by from working an increasing number of hours (40 hour work week is a joke), working 2nd jobs, requiring both spouses to work long hours, increasing debt, asset inflation. Now asset inflation is gone as the housing bubble burst. You don't work 2nd jobs to try to "save" money. You work 2nd jobs to try to "just barely" get by.
Do you have any idea why it is like this? The bank creates money. The bank lends money. The bank is paid back this conjured money, plus interest. The bank uses this money to then buy up more and more assets, and then lending them out. Eventually it reaches the point where nearly everything is owned by the bank, which is why the majority of people can no longer buy a car, buy a house, go to college, or start a business without borrowing it from a bank.
|
On February 02 2011 08:09 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 07:50 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 05:19 Offhand wrote:
The average adult American is 8 grand in debt. Consider that before making the call as to whether or not they're capable of saving for their future. This isn't a valid point when we have the government running a debt based currency. If people actually started saving overnight, our current economy would fall apart, and would have to be rebuilt. Because it is completely based on sustainability through debt. That is why the dollar is currently ~ -13 trillion. Business that only sell useless luxury items would disappear left and right, jobs would be lost, and entire new and different business would have to be created. We have the government running a debt based currency. We have the government teaching people through high school, why are they teaching people to be financially responsible?? Because it isn't desirable for them, they want the debt. So we continue to let them run the debt scheme, and we continue to let them teach generation after generation. And then we blame individuals because they are "not capable" of saving? There is no rationality behind this. The government has created all these problems, which what government always does. Creates a problem, offers a solution, and becomes a little more powerful when they enact that solution. Then eventually you have a whole population of people who are desperately dependent on the government to survive, and the government has little fear of being usurped. I can't believe so many people don't understand this. So, its just one big, 300-year old conspiracy of the federal government to create a zombie slave race? There's a reason there's some pretty big, honking sections of the Constitution that states that everyone has the right to own a gun and that the military cannot be used against american civilians. Any military officer, given the order to kill an American civilian, is under obligation to apprehend the person giving that order, and if they resist, use lethal force.
It goes back to 1913.
|
On February 02 2011 08:09 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 07:50 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 05:19 Offhand wrote:
The average adult American is 8 grand in debt. Consider that before making the call as to whether or not they're capable of saving for their future. This isn't a valid point when we have the government running a debt based currency. If people actually started saving overnight, our current economy would fall apart, and would have to be rebuilt. Because it is completely based on sustainability through debt. That is why the dollar is currently ~ -13 trillion. Business that only sell useless luxury items would disappear left and right, jobs would be lost, and entire new and different business would have to be created. We have the government running a debt based currency. We have the government teaching people through high school, why are they teaching people to be financially responsible?? Because it isn't desirable for them, they want the debt. So we continue to let them run the debt scheme, and we continue to let them teach generation after generation. And then we blame individuals because they are "not capable" of saving? There is no rationality behind this. The government has created all these problems, which what government always does. Creates a problem, offers a solution, and becomes a little more powerful when they enact that solution. Then eventually you have a whole population of people who are desperately dependent on the government to survive, and the government has little fear of being usurped. I can't believe so many people don't understand this. Yes, the debt based system is also fucked. I don't know how that invalidates my point. This thread would be a lot better if people came in with more then their highschool macro/micro econ knowledge and pre-formed opinions on everything.
The majority of people in this thread have no idea how the US dollar is created, that is really all you need to know.
|
On February 02 2011 07:50 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 05:19 Offhand wrote:
The average adult American is 8 grand in debt. Consider that before making the call as to whether or not they're capable of saving for their future. This isn't a valid point when we have the government running a debt based currency. If people actually started saving overnight, our current economy would fall apart, and would have to be rebuilt. Because it is completely based on sustainability through debt. That is why the dollar is currently ~ -13 trillion. Business that only sell useless luxury items would disappear left and right, jobs would be lost, and entire new and different business would have to be created. We have the government running a debt based currency. We have the government teaching people through high school, why are they teaching people to be financially responsible?? Because it isn't desirable for them, they want the debt. So we continue to let them run the debt scheme, and we continue to let them teach generation after generation. And then we blame individuals because they are "not capable" of saving? There is no rationality behind this. The government has created all these problems, which what government always does. Creates a problem, offers a solution, and becomes a little more powerful when they enact that solution. Then eventually you have a whole population of people who are desperately dependent on the government to survive, and the government has little fear of being usurped. I can't believe so many people don't understand this.
Seriously like every single post i have read from you sounds like a troll post.
|
On February 02 2011 08:14 BroodjeBaller wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 07:50 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 05:19 Offhand wrote:
The average adult American is 8 grand in debt. Consider that before making the call as to whether or not they're capable of saving for their future. This isn't a valid point when we have the government running a debt based currency. If people actually started saving overnight, our current economy would fall apart, and would have to be rebuilt. Because it is completely based on sustainability through debt. That is why the dollar is currently ~ -13 trillion. Business that only sell useless luxury items would disappear left and right, jobs would be lost, and entire new and different business would have to be created. We have the government running a debt based currency. We have the government teaching people through high school, why are they teaching people to be financially responsible?? Because it isn't desirable for them, they want the debt. So we continue to let them run the debt scheme, and we continue to let them teach generation after generation. And then we blame individuals because they are "not capable" of saving? There is no rationality behind this. The government has created all these problems, which what government always does. Creates a problem, offers a solution, and becomes a little more powerful when they enact that solution. Then eventually you have a whole population of people who are desperately dependent on the government to survive, and the government has little fear of being usurped. I can't believe so many people don't understand this. Seriously like every single post i have read from you sounds like a troll post.
Yeah I'm a troll like galileo was a troll, it's what happens when you go against the established lies and ignorance.
What do you even know about how money is created?
|
On February 02 2011 05:59 barkles wrote:
No one in their right mind would voluntarily pay for social security. Why wouldn't you just take that money and put it in an investment portfolio and make a better return than what the govt will give you?
There are also significant concerns about the financial solvency of these programs.
Frankly why would I risk the money anywhere on the private market. The point of state-run retirement is that it is safe, not that it is profitable. And even though states can go bankrupt, much less likely than private companies, not even talking about losing part of the investment due to whatever. I think both parts should be present. State should guarantee you reasonable minimal income when you retire, so you can eat and have a roof,..., the rest should be voluntary, and you can choose some state-run fund, private fund, or just spend it.
|
On February 02 2011 08:19 Treemonkeys wrote:
Yeah I'm a troll like galileo was a troll, it's what happens when you go against the established lies and ignorance.
The difference between Galileo and you is the proof, not the conjecture.
|
On February 02 2011 08:24 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 08:19 Treemonkeys wrote:
Yeah I'm a troll like galileo was a troll, it's what happens when you go against the established lies and ignorance. The difference between Galileo and you is the proof, not the conjecture.
Then dispute what I have said. Where do US dollars come from?
|
On February 02 2011 08:25 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 08:24 acker wrote:On February 02 2011 08:19 Treemonkeys wrote:
Yeah I'm a troll like galileo was a troll, it's what happens when you go against the established lies and ignorance. The difference between Galileo and you is the proof, not the conjecture. Then dispute what I have said. Where do US dollars come from?
China
|
On February 02 2011 08:28 Souljah wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 08:25 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 08:24 acker wrote:On February 02 2011 08:19 Treemonkeys wrote:
Yeah I'm a troll like galileo was a troll, it's what happens when you go against the established lies and ignorance. The difference between Galileo and you is the proof, not the conjecture. Then dispute what I have said. Where do US dollars come from? China
No, you were probably joking?
|
On February 02 2011 08:25 Treemonkeys wrote:
Then dispute what I have said.
Why?
We could spend a couple hours arguing and getting angry, but neither of us would convince the other, that much is clear. But if you want to try to convince people other than me, I'd suggest pulling up data. So you don't sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist.
|
On February 02 2011 08:28 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 08:28 Souljah wrote:On February 02 2011 08:25 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 08:24 acker wrote:On February 02 2011 08:19 Treemonkeys wrote:
Yeah I'm a troll like galileo was a troll, it's what happens when you go against the established lies and ignorance. The difference between Galileo and you is the proof, not the conjecture. Then dispute what I have said. Where do US dollars come from? China No, you were probably joking?
Did you not watch the olympics?
|
On February 02 2011 08:28 acker wrote:Why? Neither of us would convince the other, that much is clear. But if you want to try to convince people other than me, I'd suggest pulling up data that doesn't make you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist.
People who cannot look past simple perceptions are not worthwhile, it is a simple question of where US dollars come from, I would like to see if anyone here has a solid answer. Otherwise it's just a bunch of want to be know it alls talking about economics while they are completely ignorant of it's origin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
