2011 Retirement En Masse

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

re hacks: I can't imagine that ANY administration wouldn't have political hacks that might be tempted to bend to their own purposes those sums of money be they liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.

Agreed, except Libertarians aren't organized enough to form a government.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by Fastcars1966

All though you make very strong arguments, the facts are that the funds have been mismanaged,

. . . and your proof of this is what? Because you say so? Because you read it somewhere? Because a voice came to you in a dream in told you it was so? What exactly are the "facts" other than "Glen Beck said it on his show last week"?

The entire point of my post was how people today have no problem drinking any cup of Kool-Aid somebody hands to them no matter how thin the factual support behind the claim. You respond by pointing to the cup and saying "But look, it's Kool-Aid! We're supposed to be drinking it!" What a compelling argument that is.

As I said, I have heard over and over on the internet about how all of the state pensions are about to fall over and knock their heads on the sidewalk. I have yet to see a single piece of believable documentation that says it's so. Every study by government and private think tanks says the opposite. The support for an alternate conclusion is essentially "if this and this happens and it turns out we're wrong about this and that and nobody does anything to stop it until it's too late then the sky might fall." Congratulations on being one of the gullible who bought into that stupendous argument.

. . . and if you take all the money that I have paid to SS and apply a 3% gain and the laws of 72 I would retire a millionaire.

First of all, we're not talking about SS here. That's a different issue. But, in fact, you just happen to provide a perfect demonstration of how powerful a grip the Ministry of Information has over you.

You heard somewhere that you'd be a millionaire if you had a 3% return rate on your SS contributions? Well please do show me the math on that one, will ya?

I didn't do a detailed computation but my quick scratches show that a person who started working in 1965 and who put away the absolute maximum SS benefit each and every year would have retired with something around $300K this year using your 3% return and Rule of 72 example.

Of course, very, very few people actually make more than the maximum wage base over the years so your average worker would end up with far, far less than even $300K. Not exactly the result you claim it is, huh? And that's not including what happened to the value of that money after inflation is taken into account.

So it seems that your buying into this oft-quoted but horribly wrong analysis is just one more example of how powerful the Ministry of Information's Kool-Aid actually is. Just one sip and you're hooked into voting the way they want you to for life.

Tax me and put me in charge of my own retirement.

I've got no problem putting you in charge of your own retirement.

I just don't want somebody like you in charge of my retirement. I prefer to use people who sit down and do the math instead of just trusting whatever the guy on the TV says.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Agreed, except Libertarians aren't organized enough to form a government.

Maybe, but they do a pretty job running a message board!

Thank you JB for forsaking government service to give me and PJ a place to bash on each other in perfect anonymity!

Cheers,
Mazo.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

The other big advantage of private accounts is that they put real money into "productive" investments -- not just more government spending. Long-term productivity gains are what actually provide the equity returns.

But these productivity gains only come about if the investments are placed into service exclusively inside the US. If not, then you're essentially funding the decline of your own economy by financing the competitiveness of foreign companies.

It's pretty obvious that you couldn't possibly restrict a private SS account to purely US financial interests so how exactly do you implement private accounts without making the US even less competitive than it already is? Seems to me that your argument for productivity advances is totally backwards.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by ClairJordan

We know we need to plan to work until age 70! We need to keep our bodies strong and our minds active, be proactive in our health care (Canadians get one massage a month built in to their health care system, if they know how to ask for it; preventive maintanence) and diversify our long term investments.

Or, let your kids take care of you, as they do in Asian societies.
Shoot! I forgot to have some!

Prehaps there is no finish line...

I think that will become the reality & I'm not talking about taking a job as a WalMart greeter. Many of our knowledge workers will work into their 70's, either because they can't afford not to, are afraid they will outlive their savings, or simply because they can and doing so allows them a much better quality of life/standard of living for their family.

It will be interesting to see how corporate America deals with this: that is using valuable older workers that aren't senior executives. Changes in expectations, "career pathing," compensation plans.

Then there is the issue of health. The reality more and more workers will be able to work later in life, but not everyone. Owning your health and taking care of yourself (& just being a little lucky) will certainly enable you to have more options.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

But these productivity gains only come about if the investments are placed into service exclusively inside the US. If not, then you're essentially funding the decline of your own economy by financing the competitiveness of foreign companies.

It's pretty obvious that you couldn't possibly restrict a private SS account to purely US financial interests so how exactly do you implement private accounts without making the US even less competitive than it already is? Seems to me that your argument for productivity advances is totally backwards.

Not necessarily. A well diversified investment account typically has about 10% invested overseas. Its about diversification of risk, efficient frontiers and other modern portfolio theory stuff. Due to differences in the covariance of risk, it produces a higher expected return at lower risk. But if people all over the world are pursuing similar rational investment strategies, its is a wash. they are investing as much in you as you are in them.

Besides, what differences does it make where the money is invested? If you carried that argument to its logical conclusion, people in Texas would only invest in Texas, and people in Dallas Texas would only invest in Dallas, and people in Highland Park Dallas, would only invest in Highland Park, and people on Mockingbird Lane would only invest on Mockingbird Lane. the bottom line is we don't need that many lemonade stands, which is about all you would have to invest in.

But your biggest fallacy is the idea that foreign trade is a zero sum game. Read up on Comparative Advantage

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

[color=black][font=Verdana]
. . . and your proof of this is what? ...

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

BOTH parties have been attributed to the problem... Either the libs are to arrogant to accept partial blame or they are just idiots.

On this date in 2000, the national debt was ~5.7 Trillion. Today, it is ~14 Trillion. In the last 2 years the debt went from 9.2 Trillion to 14 Trillion. Bush and TARP are accountable for .8 Trillion of that, but the rest of it is the tax and spend DEMOCRATIC Congress/Administration.


edit: If the problem was spending from Bush and company, why then didn't the DEMOCRATIC congress of 2006 cut back spending levels?

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

BOTH parties have been attributed to the problem... Either the libs are to arrogant to accept partial blame or they are just idiots.

On this date in 2000, the national debt was ~5.7 Trillion. Today, it is ~14 Trillion. In the last 2 years the debt went from 9.2 Trillion to 14 Trillion. Bush and TARP are accountable for .8 Trillion of that, but the rest of it is the tax and spend DEMOCRATIC Congress/Administration.


edit: If the problem was spending from Bush and company, why then didn't the DEMOCRATIC congress of 2006 cut back spending levels?

If you exclude "war" spending, how does it look then? Surely, the "war" is included in the debt spending.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

edit: If the problem was spending from Bush and company, why then didn't the DEMOCRATIC congress of 2006 cut back spending levels?

Well, they had this thing called a recession to deal with.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Well, they had this thing called a recession to deal with.

Like government spending ever cured a recession.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

If you exclude "war" spending, how does it look then? Surely, the "war" is included in the debt spending.

Let me break it down for you...

1 + 1 = 2

Bush Presidency = 8 years : 9.2 Trillion - 5.7 Trillion = 3.5 Trillion
Obama Presidency = 2 years : 14 Trillion - 9.2 Trillion = 4.8 Trillion

At the present spending levels inflation and maybe hyper-inflation is a given. See Weimar Republic for more information on trying to spend your way out of a recession.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

3. Yes, Bush did the smart TARP -- the part that stopped the bank run. In the aggregate, that money was all paid back with interest..

And as one of my long lost favorite broadcasters used to say, "...and now for the rest of the story!''


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOMYJH_d6tE&feature=re lated


If anyone believes that BS TARP lie, please view this video. If not continue to stick your head in the sand and party on.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Let me break it down for you...

1 + 1 = 2

Bush Presidency = 8 years : 9.2 Trillion - 5.7 Trillion = 3.5 Trillion
Obama Presidency = 2 years : 14 Trillion - 9.2 Trillion = 4.8 Trillion

Cool, you can do arithmetic. Where did you get the numbers?

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by WTF

And as one of my long lost favorite broadcasters used to say, "...and now for the rest of the story!''


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOMYJH_d6tE&feature=re lated


If anyone believes that BS TARP lie, please view this video. If not continue to stick your head in the sand and party on.

Oh boy! WTF is back with his nitwit links.

[Sisyphus]

I've followed along with all the interest I can muster. I'll stay out of the minutia of the debate & simply state...

Do your best to like what you do! I'll do the same. I suspect we'll BOTH be doing it for a VERY long time!