The Second Great Depression?

[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.