The Second Great Depression?

[PanzerJaeger]

Putting money in a bank =/= money in the stock market.

A smart investor would do both, varying the percentages based on how much risk he wants to take on.

I think the inarguable point is that intelligent investment of the funds we're forced to put into SS would be far more beneficial. Especially considering SS payments will run out soon! You can't really use some idiots who had everything in the markets recently as examples of why we need government sponsored retirement plans. Is the government responsible for idiots?

[Koga No Goshi]

A smart investor would do both, varying the percentages based on how much risk he wants to take on.

I think the inarguable point is that intelligent investment of the funds we're forced to put into SS would be far more beneficial. Especially considering SS payments will run out soon! You can't really use some idiots who had everything in the markets recently as examples of why we need government sponsored retirement plans. Is the government responsible for idiots?

401(k)'s are where "idiots" put money? Since when?

Since the market failed, and we always blame the victims of sudden crises in the U.S.?

[PanzerJaeger]

401(k)'s are where "idiots" put money? Since when?

Since the market failed, and we always blame the victims of sudden crises in the U.S.?

If you have all, or even a majority, of your savings wrapped up in the stock market... well..

[Koga No Goshi]

If you have all, or even a majority, of your savings wrapped up in the stock market... well..

If this is the best defense of sudden crashes in the private savings and investment market I'll stick with government run ones as at least a backup for people who get wiped out after "being responsible" their whole life. Nice commercial though. :)

[PanzerJaeger]

If this is the best defense of sudden crashes in the private savings and investment market I'll stick with government run ones as at least a backup for people who get wiped out after "being responsible" their whole life. Nice commercial though. :)

I don't think you're getting it.

Lets say over the course of your lifetime you're forced to pay $500,000 into SS. You don't think you could do better investing that yourself? Do you have that little faith in yourself? Even putting it all in CDs would generate a higher yield than the paltry SS payouts people are getting now.

[Koga No Goshi]

I don't think you're getting it.

Lets say over the course of your lifetime you're forced to pay $500,000 into SS. You don't think you could do better investing that yourself? Do you have that little faith in yourself? Even putting it all in CDs would generate a higher yield than the paltry SS payouts people are getting now.

That isn't the point. No one is immune to sudden crashes, wipeouts, or whatever. Calling anyone who ever loses money in the private sector "stupid and irresponsible" is a simplistic and unrealistic viewpoint from which to build a platform of how to create a stable society.

That is my problem with the "personal responsibility" argument. It gets applied to the poor, the downtrodden, and people who are down and out on your luck. If you pay on time every month into your insurance and it kicks you when you get cancer, your fault. You should have done more research, take some personal responsibility. You invest your money "wisely" according to all advice at the time, and the market crashes and you lose 25, 40, 50% of your savings, your fault. If you do everything right and you suddenly get laid off and it causes you to lose both your insurance and your house, your fault. Take personal responsibility.

That's a vindictive selfish little anti-compassionate mindset which kicks the idea of the common good, and is unbefitting a value system that would seek to create a progressive, stable society.

People WILL get sick. People WILL wipe out in private investments. (The investment companies will probably get bailed out in some fashion, but the people who put money in won't, same with people losing their pensions after a lifetime of work when a company goes bellyup.) A realistic system needs to take that into account, even if it doesn't maximize the potential for personal, individual gains. A safety net needs to be for everyone, including the people who aren't personal investment portfolio gurus and upper middle class enough to have all kinds of diversified financial support options for the future.

We have had the "personal responsibility" before. It looked like soup kitchens and elderly people dying homeless in the street. But that is okay if Panzer's investments are doing fine.

[Redleg]

That isn't the point. No one is immune to sudden crashes, wipeouts, or whatever. Calling anyone who ever loses money in the private sector "stupid and irresponsible" is a simplistic and unrealistic viewpoint from which to build a platform of how to create a stable society.

Now I beleive PJ was actually saying something else. The placing of one's retirement fund into only one type of market is a poor choice. For instance if the 401K has multiple choices (which most do) one should place part in stocks, part in bonds, and part in cash account (normally earns a very small % on interest.) This would protect the investor regardless of how small his investment is from taking a loss that is to severe, unless of course the whole finicial market crashes completely.

That is my problem with the "personal responsibility" argument. It gets applied to the poor, the downtrodden, and people who are down and out on your luck. If you pay on time every month into your insurance and it kicks you when you get cancer, your fault. You should have done more research, take some personal responsibility. You invest your money "wisely" according to all advice at the time, and the market crashes and you lose 25, 40, 50% of your savings, your fault. If you do everything right and you suddenly get laid off and it causes you to lose both your insurance and your house, your fault. Take personal responsibility.

So people should not take any responsiblity at all for where they invest their money and savings? Now my postion is that people need to take responsibility for what they had control of and could of done something about.

That's a vindictive selfish little anti-compassionate mindset which kicks the idea of the common good, and is unbefitting a value system that would seek to create a progressive, stable society.

So are you advocating that people take no responsiblity for their lives? If so that is an extremely weak positon.

People WILL get sick. People WILL wipe out in private investments. (The investment companies will probably get bailed out in some fashion, but the people who put money in won't, same with people losing their pensions after a lifetime of work when a company goes bellyup.) A realistic system needs to take that into account, even if it doesn't maximize the potential for personal, individual gains. A safety net needs to be for everyone, including the people who aren't personal investment portfolio gurus and upper middle class enough to have all kinds of diversified financial support options for the future.

If you think Social Security is all that - it was once, but as we all know the government has been robbing from this cookie jar.

We have had the "personal responsibility" before. It looked like soup kitchens and elderly people dying homeless in the street. But that is okay if Panzer's investments are doing fine.

And why did this happen? Was it because of a world wide economic collaspe in the 1920's that no country was actually prepared for?

[Koga No Goshi]

Now I beleive PJ was actually saying something else. The placing of one's retirement fund into only one type of market is a poor choice. For instance if the 401K has multiple choices (which most do) one should place part in stocks, part in bonds, and part in cash account (normally earns a very small % on interest.) This would protect the investor regardless of how small his investment is from taking a loss that is to severe, unless of course the whole finicial market crashes completely.

Agreed. But this still doesn't address people who don't invest wisely, or don't have the money to significantly diversify meaningfully, or save up just enough for retirement on their low income job and can't survive a 15 or 20% dip in the market, even if it only hits part of their investment.

So people should not take any responsiblity at all for where they invest their money and savings? Now my postion is that people need to take responsibility for what they had control of and could of done something about.

People who gamble absolutely should take responsibility for what happens to their money. That's what the stock market is, gambling. There is no guaranteed return on your investment. That is why it should not be the system everyone is forced to participate in and take their chances at wiping out or being impoverished at retirement age. And why this is not a good system to propose for everyone on the national level and just hope that all the people on the street "taking personal responsibility" for their mistakes or bad luck doesn't translate into a crime wave, the return of all kinds of squalor condition diseases, or rioting.

So are you advocating that people take no responsiblity for their lives? If so that is an extremely weak positon.

This claim is a complete invention on your part.

If you think Social Security is all that - it was once, but as we all know the government has been robbing from this cookie jar.

So the solution is to force everyone to have no option but to put their money in the private market, where a lot of private interests were robbing and defrauding the cookie jar?

And why did this happen? Was it because of a world wide economic collaspe in the 1920's that no country was actually prepared for?

There were no homeless problems or crime and disease problems from impoverished populations in the U.S. except in the 1920's? All those people should have just taken personal responsibility and died quietly in a gutter somewhere.

[Redleg]

Agreed. But this still doesn't address people who don't invest wisely, or don't have the money to significantly diversify meaningfully, or save up just enough for retirement on their low income job and can't survive a 15 or 20% dip in the market, even if it only hits part of their investment.

those who don't invest what they have wisely - are those who are doomed to failure with their investments. A fine examble is our own government.

Now there are people who by their environment can not hope to make enough money to get beyond survival income. I don't believe they should be thrown out with the morning bathwater, but I also believe that they also have some personal responsiblity to do what they can.

Does that equate to believing that social security does not apply to them - hell no. But then again if that individual expects the government to solve his issues - he is not demonstrating personal responsiblity.

People who gamble absolutely should take responsibility for what happens to their money. That's what the stock market is, gambling. There is no guaranteed return on your investment. That is why it should not be the system everyone is forced to participate in and take their chances at wiping out or being impoverished at retirement age. And why this is not a good system to propose for everyone on the national level and just hope that all the people on the street "taking personal responsibility" for their mistakes or bad luck doesn't translate into a crime wave, the return of all kinds of squalor condition diseases, or rioting.

So an individual can not decide to invest his money in a Certificate of Deposit with a bank that is insured by the government through FDIC? Is this not personal responsiblity also?

Or does investment only mean in the stock market.

This claim is a complete invention on your part.

Actually its not. It is the logical conclusion when one speaks out against personal responsiblity. Hince it was asked as a question to determine what your position truely is. Or did you miss the ? that was at the end of the sentence?

So the solution is to force everyone to have no option but to put their money in the private market, where a lot of private interests were robbing and defrauding the cookie jar?

No the solution is to allow those who wish to invest in the private market to do so if they are willing to take the personal responsiblity that comes with it. But then I also disagree with forcing me to give my funds to the government for a retirement fund also, where the same crooks are also robbing and defrauding the bigger cookie jar.

There were no homeless problems or crime and disease problems from impoverished populations in the U.S. except in the 1920's? All those people should have just taken personal responsibility and died quietly in a gutter somewhere.

Try again - you have confused yourself on what the question is.

[Oleander Ardens]

DJ 8600 - 5 year low. DAX - 3 year low, Nikkei down 10% under 9000 now....

AIG needs another 30 or so billions to finance itself. We are throwing billions around as we would toss dollars.
The USA to NATIONALIZE some banks partly. I raise my toast to comrade Poulsen.
Iceland going under, too much liquidity around that small island.

We are entering now a PANIC period. I get now really interested in stocks.

OA

[Koga No Goshi]

Actually its not. It is the logical conclusion when one speaks out against personal responsiblity. Hince it was asked as a question to determine what your position truely is. Or did you miss the ? that was at the end of the sentence?

No. Saying that I do not believe "take your chances" with the understanding in advance that some will fail or hit hard times or totally wipe out on medical bills and loss of income from illness doesn't mean I believe no one is responsible when they commit a crime, or has an affair, or doesn't sign a pre-nup before marrying a 18 year old Playboy bunny. I do not believe it is in the national interest to foster a vindictive petty system of "only those who were financially savvy deserve not to be homeless and impoverished as elderly people" just for, apparently, the desire of some to see others punished for not being as rich, fiscally savvy, or lucky.

BTW, no, your question did not logically follow anything. It was as grasping for straws as "I don't believe marijuana should be criminalized" and you saying "WHAT, so there should be no laws?"

No the solution is to allow those who wish to invest in the private market to do so if they are willing to take the personal responsiblity that comes with it. But then I also disagree with forcing me to give my funds to the government for a retirement fund also, where the same crooks are also robbing and defrauding the bigger cookie jar.

Those who have lots and do well have to pay some into the system for the benefit of those who struggle and can't put in enough. Otherwise you might as well scrap every single public service including education (which you probably already feel should be the case given your pure constitution ideology) because there is no point if all the wealthy people can opt out and use private everything and only the poor will be taxfarmed for substandard funds for substandard services. But the difference is, I believe in the general welfare and maintaining some minimums of progress for all. Not just for Redleg and Panzer and whoever else believes they are smart or rich and doesn't need any safety net.

You have basically admitted, that under the system you would like to see, some people are going to bomb out. But, they will deserve it. I do not see how that is a good proposal for the nation overall. It is only a good proposal for people of sufficient wealth and means to profit a lot personally by being able to opt out of things like SS and public education (the school voucher crap) and medicare.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Putting money in a bank =/= money in the stock market.

You asked for a secure investment, and its a lot more secure than the long term future of social security.

And what the 30 year trend looks like is utterly irrelevant if you happen to be 68 at the moment when the stock market tumbles precipitously. But, if we privatized everything, then those "casualties" who happened to be beyond working age and the ability to wait out a 10 or 15 year recovery stretch and see their assets fully recover will just be blamed for their "poor choices."

I don't consider that a better system for universal retirement solutions.

No, you miss the point entirely. Even if you are 68 when the market tumbles and you're about to retire, I believe you'd still make more with your money in the stock market for 30 years instead of a social security account. The 30 year trend is of paramount importance because that's how long people invest for, and that time cancels out these drops.

30 years ago the Dow Jones was about 860.

Now, if I did my calcs right, that's an interest rate of over 7.6%, right after one of the biggest falls in history, and still far above what social security will give.

The USA to NATIONALIZE some banks partly.

Bah!

CR

[yesdachi]

CR is right on the Money!

From CR’s article: …Social Security's inflation-adjusted rate of return is only 1.23 percent for an average household…

Anyone could do better than that in their local banks saving account! You could literally have double you’re retirement if individuals were allowed to invest for themselves. OR if the gov would just do a better job of managing our money. If a local bank could do it why the heck cant they?!?

Edit: Old peoples prescription prices and medical bills wouldn’t be as big an issue if they had double their retirement!

Koga, you are a bright guy, why are having such a difficult time understanding this? Whey you are young you invest in aggressive (big win, big loss) funds and as you get older and during a period of prosperity (big win year) you begin switching a percentage of your aggressive investment into more secure funds and as you get closer and closer to retirement you move more and more of your investment into safer, low risk funds, like money market funds which are a transferable 401K option and about as safe as you can get. It is not a difficult process and only requires a phone call or a few clicks every year to keep maintained. There is no excuse for being 68 and having your 401K invested in a high-risk fund that crashes durring your retirement party.

[drone]

CR is right on the Money!



Anyone could do better than that in their local banks saving account! You could literally have double you’re retirement if individuals were allowed to invest for themselves. OR if the gov would just do a better job of managing our money. If a local bank could do it why the heck cant they?!?

Edit: Old peoples prescription prices and medical bills wouldn’t be as big an issue if they had double their retirement!

Koga, you are a bright guy, why are having such a difficult time understanding this? Whey you are young you invest in aggressive (big win, big loss) funds and as you get older and during a period of prosperity (big win year) you begin switching a percentage of your aggressive investment into more secure funds and as you get closer and closer to retirement you move more and more of your investment into safer, low risk funds, like money market funds which are a transferable 401K option and about as safe as you can get. It is not a difficult process and only requires a phone call or a few clicks every year to keep maintained. There is no excuse for being 68 and having your 401K invested in a high-risk fund that crashes durring your retirement party.

And in a FDIC insured bank, your money is safe from politicians looking for cash and votes, unlike SS accounts.

When you start up a 401(k), one of the first things you get from the investment firm is a brochure on investment strategy. As yesdachi says, you start agressive, as you get older you start moving the money into less aggressive funds, bonds, and money market accounts. For those of us with 20+ years to go, now is the time to really start cranking money into the market. The whole "buy low, sell high" thing. If you are selling stocks now you are crazy (unless the company is going under). If you don't sell, you don't lose anything.

[LittleGrizzly]

I thought the problem with SS was the goverment just uses it as spending money for the moment and not future retirement cheques.... or is this 1.?? return after the goverment re-invests the money it spends ?

[Koga No Goshi]

Koga, you are a bright guy, why are having such a difficult time understanding this? Whey you are young you invest in aggressive (big win, big loss) funds and as you get older and during a period of prosperity (big win year) you begin switching a percentage of your aggressive investment into more secure funds and as you get closer and closer to retirement you move more and more of your investment into safer, low risk funds, like money market funds which are a transferable 401K option and about as safe as you can get. It is not a difficult process and only requires a phone call or a few clicks every year to keep maintained. There is no excuse for being 68 and having your 401K invested in a high-risk fund that crashes durring your retirement party.

I get it, but it undermines the whole point of a safety net against unforeseeable catastrophes in the market if you give people total control to absolutely not invest anything in retirement, or invest it unwisely. If the proposal is simply "let people completely opt out of the system altogether", I'm against it because everyone above the line right in the middle of middle class will do so, leaving the system gutted like the public school system. And some of those people will wipe themselves out anyway and wind up on some sort of government roll anyhow.

If, instead, the proposal is FDIC savings accounts in a direct deposit fashion, put in by your employer, which you may not remove or transfer until retirement age, then we are getting somewhere. Although I do not share the blind faith that this system is corruption proof and that if such a great store of money was sitting in private banks that we wouldn't see a lot of temptation to pull some funny business or "creative" accounting of how far the banks holding it are stretching their luck with crazy investments or even mortgages again. And if the banks screwed it up and they were FDIC then the Feds wind up bailing it all out with taxpayer money anyway, so that's a lose-lose if it happens and leaving it in SS will have looked like a good idea by comparison.

But to my knowledge, this is not the sort of thing people are proposing. It always seems to be a proxy issue of "cut my taxes, I don't want to pay in."

[yesdachi]

I would be happy with any change that would allow me a return that was better than 1%.

As a side benefit, think of what an infusion to the market (even the secure market) 25% of the SS dollars would do to the world of finance. Come on big gov, if you aren’t going to be my sugar daddy then let me control at least a little of my investment money!

[Redleg]

No. Saying that I do not believe "take your chances" with the understanding in advance that some will fail or hit hard times or totally wipe out on medical bills and loss of income from illness doesn't mean I believe no one is responsible when they commit a crime, or has an affair, or doesn't sign a pre-nup before marrying a 18 year old Playboy bunny. I do not believe it is in the national interest to foster a vindictive petty system of "only those who were financially savvy deserve not to be homeless and impoverished as elderly people" just for, apparently, the desire of some to see others punished for not being as rich, fiscally savvy, or lucky.

Did I say take your chances, it seems to me that once again you leap to an assumption that was not in evidence. Personal responsibility applies to everything, one must accept responsiblity for their behavior, their lifestyle, and yes even their health. To attempt to claim that "personal responsiblity" is this nubelous "take your chances" stance is an illogical leap.

BTW, no, your question did not logically follow anything. It was as grasping for straws as "I don't believe marijuana should be criminalized" and you saying "WHAT, so there should be no laws?"

Incorrect again. You are claiming that personal responsibility equates to "take your chances" again did I say that or did I say something else. So again, in a slighlty different format, does an individual have a personal responsiblity in regrads to their health care? Does an individual have a personal responsibility to do what they can to save for their own retirement?

Those who have lots and do well have to pay some into the system for the benefit of those who struggle and can't put in enough. Otherwise you might as well scrap every single public service including education (which you probably already feel should be the case given your pure constitution ideology) because there is no point if all the wealthy people can opt out and use private everything and only the poor will be taxfarmed for substandard funds for substandard services. But the difference is, I believe in the general welfare and maintaining some minimums of progress for all. Not just for Redleg and Panzer and whoever else believes they are smart or rich and doesn't need any safety net.

Ah putting words in my mouth once again. Again point out where I said that a safety net wasn't necessary, or that education should be scraped. Or even that taxes should not be paid, to insure the public welfare? I am willing to bet that you can not find any such statement, since part of individual responsility is to indeed pay the required taxes, both income and property.

As before here is the statement. "No the solution is to allow those who wish to invest in the private market to do so if they are willing to take the personal responsiblity that comes with it. But then I also disagree with forcing me to give my funds to the government for a retirement fund also, where the same crooks are also robbing and defrauding the bigger cookie jar."

Kindly point out where that refers to me being smart, rich, or doesn't require a safety net. I find the arguement very weak and false since my statement did not imply such a stance.

You have basically admitted, that under the system you would like to see, some people are going to bomb out. But, they will deserve it. I do not see how that is a good proposal for the nation overall. It is only a good proposal for people of sufficient wealth and means to profit a lot personally by being able to opt out of things like SS and public education (the school voucher crap) and medicare.

Sure people fail all the time, does that mean attempting to solve your own problems and issues is the incorrect thing to do?

As before what is wrong with personal responsiblity in assuming the management of your own retirement funds? Now find where I said someone can opt out of their property tax which funds the public education system for almost every county in the United States? Where did I state to discontinue paying your tax into Medicare? I have stated that I would perfer to invest my own retirement monies into a fund of my own choice, not because I am smarter, richer, or anything else over anyone else in the world, only that I prefer control over my own future and finances.

Your attempting a false arguement once again concerning my position.

[Koga No Goshi]

Did I say take your chances, it seems to me that once again you leap to an assumption that was not in evidence. Personal responsibility applies to everything, one must accept responsiblity for their behavior, their lifestyle, and yes even their health. To attempt to claim that "personal responsiblity" is this nubelous "take your chances" stance is an illogical leap.

Well since every single response basically amounted to "what, people should be responsible for nothing?", I'm not sure what other conclusion I was supposed to leap to.

Incorrect again. You are claiming that personal responsibility equates to "take your chances" again did I say that or did I say something else. So again, in a slighlty different format, does an individual have a personal responsiblity in regrads to their health care? Does an individual have a personal responsibility to do what they can to save for their own retirement?

Let's not play games. Get to the point. There was no need for four paragraphs of "AH AN ASSUMPTION!" State what you mean the first time around instead of posing rhetorical questions about responsibility and then going "nah nah you thought I was asking x when I was saying y."

As before here is the statement. "No the solution is to allow those who wish to invest in the private market to do so if they are willing to take the personal responsiblity that comes with it. But then I also disagree with forcing me to give my funds to the government for a retirement fund also, where the same crooks are also robbing and defrauding the bigger cookie jar."

You think those people are not going to head to the county office when they're 70 and have nothing, if they wipe out?

Kindly point out where that refers to me being smart, rich, or doesn't require a safety net. I find the arguement very weak and false since my statement did not imply such a stance.

That was my own statement. There are only going to be two types of people who opt out, people who are risky gamblers and people who believe they're smarter and will survive whatever the market may throw at them, and profit more regardless. And both types stand the risk of wiping out and are going to come back to the government anyway if they do. And since it does not behoove the state to have a 5 or 8% increased homeless rate and a 10% increase in crime, they will do something about it.

Sure people fail all the time, does that mean attempting to solve your own problems and issues is the incorrect thing to do?

No. But it also has no bearing on whether or not there should be a safety net to prevent a return to tenement housing or 20 million people a year needing gov't and charity funded food services.

As before what is wrong with personal responsiblity in assuming the management of your own retirement funds? Now find where I said someone can opt out of their property tax which funds the public education system for almost every county in the United States? Where did I state to discontinue paying your tax into Medicare? I have stated that I would perfer to invest my own retirement monies into a fund of my own choice, not because I am smarter, richer, or anything else over anyone else in the world, only that I prefer control over my own future and finances.

What's wrong with it is that it won't work, people are still going to fail, and it doesn't benefit anyone but an obsessively vindictive person to say "okay good, they will be on the street and take their lumps." I'm amazed though at your faith in the private sector and the ability on the mass level of people to manage money and savings wisely, in light of recent events. You are much more of an optimist than I am. Or, you just wish to see people crash out and be on the street.

[Redleg]

Well since every single response basically amounted to "what, people should be responsible for nothing?", I'm not sure what other conclusion I was supposed to leap to.

thought is required when discussing anything. Leaping to conclusions will lead you down a false path, which happens to be the path you have elected to go down. I believe you have a false assumption about what personal responsiblity means.

Let's not play games. Get to the point. There was no need for four paragraphs of "AH AN ASSUMPTION!" State what you mean the first time around instead of posing rhetorical questions about responsibility and then going "nah nah you thought I was asking x when I was saying y."

Actually I havent been playing a game, I just dont happen to have a partisan talking point on this in the way you have. So again what level of personal responsibility do people have for their own finances and health care? It seems to me that instead of answering the question its you that is playing games.

You think those people are not going to head to the county office when they're 70 and have nothing, if they wipe out?

Did I say that I wouldn't support them through my tax dollars or my own charity?

That was my own statement. There are only going to be two types of people who opt out, people who are risky gamblers and people who believe they're smarter and will survive whatever the market may throw at them, and profit more regardless. And both types stand the risk of wiping out and are going to come back to the government anyway if they do. And since it does not behoove the state to have a 5 or 8% increased homeless rate and a 10% increase in crime, they will do something about it.

And there is a third that your missing - the investors who will have a diverse investment structure that places their money in savings accounts, bonds, stocks, money markets, and yes even real estate to attempt to maximize their returns. Using your own arguement the government is currently at risk of being wiped out, so all of the current social security funds are at a greater risk then the money I have in my savings and checking accounts. And then again point out where I stated that one should avoid their personal responsiblity to pay their taxes?

No. But it also has no bearing on whether or not there should be a safety net to prevent a return to tenement housing or 20 million people a year needing gov't and charity funded food services.

Again where did I state where people do not pay their taxes? Where did I say that a safety net should not be inplace to help those who need it. The difference is your making an assumption that my desire to control my own finances means that social security will inheriently fail because of that.

What's wrong with it is that it won't work, people are still going to fail, and it doesn't benefit anyone but an obsessively vindictive person to say "okay good, they will be on the street and take their lumps." I'm amazed though at your faith in the private sector and the ability on the mass level of people to manage money and savings wisely, in light of recent events. You are much more of an optimist than I am. Or, you just wish to see people crash out and be on the street.

Who says it wont work? You do realize the safety net your talking about is currently expected to fail because of much of the same type of corruption that is going on in the private sector. The Social Security Trust Fund has been used by the government for other purposes then insuring that people have a safety net to fall back on. Then there is the issue that as the baby boomers age, less money will be going in then what is being paid out. I have more faith in my ability to provide for my future then I have in the government taking care of me when I decide to retire.

But then I know several retired middle income couples who have managed thier finances well enough to have a comfortable retirement, using their investments, pensions, and merger social security payments. By the way social security in itself doesn't provide for a large safety net, only for an existance.

But to answer your question - no I dont want to see people crashing out on the streets, I want to see everyone be successful in the lawful paths that they wish to take.

[Mangudai]

People who think it started and ended with the housing market, or even with deregulation for that matter, are missing the larger picture. I believe Tuff somewhat indirectly hit upon it here. Why was the housing market so inflated? Why was home equity such a "big business" and why were so many people both trying to tie their money up in properties, and also get money out of the equity of properties? Because, IMHO, housing was the last big bulwark holding up our economy and backing up the value of people's worth and credit. And by extension of doing that, it held up the whole economy in general because people could take money out of their houses to buy all sorts of things they didn't have the money for and it was basically "free money" because the jumps in housing values would cover up whatever they took out of their house after awhile. And banks doing refinances, subprime mortgage loans, and everything in between made big money off the commissions and such. So it was happy times all around... for awhile.

The big picture is, we don't produce. We shove debt and paper around. We have magical values assigned to things with no domestic production value or promise of future goods to back it up or stand as collateral. Our economy is service based. What that means is people pushing around stock portfolios, lines of credit, mortgages, equity loans, credit cards and debt to make the economy keep moving just as if we were a producing, surplus-exporting boomer. So the housing market was going to crash, sooner or later. Yes plenty of hands helped it inflate and pop along the way because it was a way to make money. But the fact that people were cannibalizing the roof over their head to maintain economic growth and accumulation of equity and security against retirement (ultimately) was even a point of question because of how badly we have undergutted our economy.

My forty-nine and a half cents.

Oh and, if I am correct, it's not going to bounce back. There is nothing to make it bounce back, unless it's just in the form of a flush of foreign investment coming in and us slinking more and more into debt. Short of completely revamping our economy with new industries and probably a significantly large government hand in helping to incentivize and push such a change along, we are on a downhill incline.

You hit the nail on the head that time. Our economy has been growing only because of debt. That had to end eventually, and now is as good a time as any. It's going to be painful.

We gave away all our technological advantages, and we will have to compete with developing economies in manufacturing. Lower standard of living here we come.

Almost everyone in power has been telling us that consumption drives the economy. Something about that seems fundamentally flawed to me. When we consume (use up) resources we are poorer afterward. I prefer to look at it through the lens of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything will decay, but at different rates. The course of economic growth is one where value is created faster than it naturally decays. For example, stone buildings decay very slowly compared to the human lifespan, so this is a type of asset that represents real economic growth.

[Koga No Goshi]

Actually I havent been playing a game, I just dont happen to have a partisan talking point on this in the way you have. So again what level of personal responsibility do people have for their own finances and health care? It seems to me that instead of answering the question its you that is playing games.

I have already explained my pragmatic view on the matter several times. Re-read it if you feel that you did not yet receive an answer. No matter how much you preach on about personal responsibility, both corporations and individuals run to the government when they get in trouble.

And there is a third that your missing - the investors who will have a diverse investment structure that places their money in savings accounts, bonds, stocks, money markets, and yes even real estate to attempt to maximize their returns. Using your own arguement the government is currently at risk of being wiped out, so all of the current social security funds are at a greater risk then the money I have in my savings and checking accounts. And then again point out where I stated that one should avoid their personal responsiblity to pay their taxes?

If you advocate letting anyone opt out of safety net systems, even though those same people will try to use those systems if they bomb out or invest poorly or the market crashes, then that is what you are proposing. Look at health insurance, if that will illuminate my point. People can opt out and simply not buy insurance and have a job that doesn't offer it. Those people wind up in the emergency room on state tax dollars. Get the point?

Again where did I state where people do not pay their taxes? Where did I say that a safety net should not be inplace to help those who need it. The difference is your making an assumption that my desire to control my own finances means that social security will inheriently fail because of that.

Argh, stop being a broken record. Where did *I* say that you said people shouldn't pay taxes? If you let people opt out of SS and Medicare taxes, though, and invest that money in private investments, that is in effect what you are proposing. If you think there should be some form of safety net but you also think people should be able to opt out of it then what is the point?

Who says it wont work? You do realize the safety net your talking about is currently expected to fail because of much of the same type of corruption that is going on in the private sector.

And a lot of money invested in the private sector crashed out because the private sector went and made a bunch of bad mortgages .... so..... if you are trying to convince me that the private sector will handle it with less corruption and risk of abuse, I'm waiting to hear the argument.

But then I know several retired middle income couples who have managed thier finances well enough to have a comfortable retirement, using their investments, pensions, and merger social security payments. By the way social security in itself doesn't provide for a large safety net, only for an existance.

But to answer your question - no I dont want to see people crashing out on the streets, I want to see everyone be successful in the lawful paths that they wish to take.

I know many such people too. But, they're not everyone. Safety nets aren't supposed to be there just for the people who did very well.

[Redleg]

I have already explained my pragmatic view on the matter several times. Re-read it if you feel that you did not yet receive an answer. No matter how much you preach on about personal responsibility, both corporations and individuals run to the government when they get in trouble.

So because they run to the government you wish to preach that it doesn't work. There are companies that fail all the time that do not get government assistance.

If you advocate letting anyone opt out of safety net systems, even though those same people will try to use those systems if they bomb out or invest poorly or the market crashes, then that is what you are proposing. Look at health insurance, if that will illuminate my point. People can opt out and simply not buy insurance and have a job that doesn't offer it. Those people wind up in the emergency room on state tax dollars. Get the point?

A portion indeed will fail and will have to use government services and funds. The point you continue to miss is that fact that I continue to state that taxes must be paid for the government to fund projects and programs that benefit the general welfare of the people.

So do you see the point yet there?

Argh, stop being a broken record. Where did *I* say that you said people shouldn't pay taxes? If you let people opt out of SS and Medicare taxes, though, and invest that money in private investments, that is in effect what you are proposing. If you think there should be some form of safety net but you also think people should be able to opt out of it then what is the point?

The broken record must continue since I never said anyone should opt out of Medicare taxes, in fact I have stated one must pay their taxes. So here is the point - social security is a different program then medicare. In fact they are two seperate types of taxes currently. The safety net is the programs that the government has alreadly establish to take care fo the general welfare of the people.

And a lot of money invested in the private sector crashed out because the private sector went and made a bunch of bad mortgages .... so..... if you are trying to convince me that the private sector will handle it with less corruption and risk of abuse, I'm waiting to hear the argument.

You have missed the arguement entirely - I said both are equally corrupt in the way they are being handled

I know many such people too. But, they're not everyone. Safety nets aren't supposed to be there just for the people who did very well.

Which is why there are a whole host of programs established for people. Ever heard of the program ran by the department of argiculture?

[Papewaio]

Silver Maybe? um, it might not even have to be a metal, it could simply be a valuable commodity we have in abundance.

Money has to have the following attributes:

Confidence. Probably the most important attribute. Without confidence in the money you might as well go to bartering.
Portability.
Durability.
And a certain amount of rarity. Too much and you kill off the portability component. No one wants to carry a backpack full of money to buy a loaf of bread.
Not valuable in of itself. Money should not have a use outside of money. To be a valuable commodity links its value not only as an arbitrary exchange for goods and services but it then would tie its value to some sort of commercial product line and in a implicit form creates a barter economy for the money.

IMDHO the best form of money is the bits and bytes form.