I hate to say it but: I TOLD YOU SO

It's not just a matter of personal choice when the game being played has the stability of a roulette table.

3 years ago I knew absolutely NOTHING about finances, let alone investing.

I read books, I educated myself, I exchanged emails with financial advisors and economists and picked their brains, etc.

Now, I know enough that I could probably earn some kind of return somewhere, if not at least protect my money from inflation/deflation. I learned the market.

If I can do it, anyone can. I wasn't exactly the most ambitious person, either. It wasn't too long ago that I WAS an apathetic robot myself.

I understand your point though. It's a pipe dream to think that all the sudden everyone could collectively become involved and educated in money management. They would have to CARE first. And there are enough people who DON'T care, to cause serious problems for the country down the road when all those idiots are flat fucking broke by the time they retire.

It's a conundrum, and it sucks balls. It's why conservatives rail against the New Deal, though. It can be argued that the New Deal is what kick started the whole dependancy problem in the first place. People went from being productive and willing to do what it took to survive, to holding their hands out for the government cheese. Fast forward to today, and you have a situation where we are so conditioned to depend on the system, that we couldn't possibly go back without braving a collapse and a subsequent change in thought.

It's that subsequent change in thought that I would personally be willing to brave a collapse for, though.
 
Last edited:
see, the thing is that "the market" has just as many losers as it does winners. Sure, for some it's a goldmine waiting to happen. But the market doesnt gain value in a vacuum and it's BECAUSE of lost value that some get to GAIN value. If you buy stock x for 20% below it's long term value then someone else is taking that loss. I just don't think it's a worthwhile option to pretend that some free market pipe dream is the cure for our collective retirement when we see how volatile it is. And, given that people tend to spend money on things they need NOW rather than save for later.. I mean, if your kid needed braces and all you had to use to buy those braces was the retirement money under the mattress are you going to tell your kid tough shit? I don't think you would, pauli. And I don't think that most people would either.
 
see, the thing is that "the market" has just as many losers as it does winners. Sure, for some it's a goldmine waiting to happen. But the market doesnt gain value in a vacuum and it's BECAUSE of lost value that some get to GAIN value. If you buy stock x for 20% below it's long term value then someone else is taking that loss. I just don't think it's a worthwhile option to pretend that some free market pipe dream is the cure for our collective retirement when we see how volatile it is. And, given that people tend to spend money on things they need NOW rather than save for later.. I mean, if your kid needed braces and all you had to use to buy those braces was the retirement money under the mattress are you going to tell your kid tough shit? I don't think you would, pauli. And I don't think that most people would either.

I argue that SS has losers and winners, too. With SS, I lose. Sure, someone else who doesn't understand investing will be receiving a decent check when they turn 65, but I will have lost out on a lot of extra profit from returns I could have generated on my OWN with the money that is taken from me in SS tax.

Fair for someone else, not fair for me.

And this doesn't even begin to delve into the govt. taking money from the SS fund to pay for their escapades, or the fact that there are going to be a lot of retirees who are going to drain that account and stats show that the liabilities far exceed the available funds.

It's a broken system regardless, as far as I'm concerned. There may have been a time way back when, when it was a good idea on paper. But of course, like many things, the government has gone and ruined it for everyone else with their political greed and financial irresponsibility.
 
You're takling about someone from the Cato Institute. What position did you think they would take?

They were also for tax cuts for the wealthy and supported privatization of social security, which, if they had their way, would have screwed everyone of social security age right now.

So I figure they're wrong on pretty much every economic issue. At least they're not disgusting on social issues and privacy rights.

Thanks, though.

Cato Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Had I been able to invest my Social Security contributions in the same stock funds I have privately invested in since I started working in 1980, even after the current crash, I would have been able to retire three years ago with more than enough money. My rate of return INCLUDING THIS latest crash would have been 9.4%!!!!! Has my SS grown at that rate since 1980???

Sometimes you need to actually THINK before you spout your socialist idiocy.
 
Quote:
To avoid such a fate, Mr. Obama needs to stop the next asset bubble from being inflated by imposing a commodity standard on the Fed. A commodity standard (such as a gold standard) imposes discipline on a central bank because it forces it to acquire commodity reserves in order to increase the money supply. Today the government can inflate asset bubbles without paying a cost for it because the currency isn't linked to the price of a commodity.
How is that a bad idea?

I'll ask you to do the math again.

There is a FINITE amount of gold in the universe.

if we go on the gold standard, the amount of money must equal that amount of gold,

With me so far?

Now what happens to the price of STUFF, when there is MORE STUFF made, but the amount of money (backed by gold) remains essantially the same?

Prices must DEFLATE, must they not?

Now, are you going to lend you gold backed money to anyone when you know that the value of your money is increasing in comparison to the value of the stuff it can buy tomorrow?

Are you going to buy something today when you KNOW the price will be less tomorrow?

I cannot understand why people cannot understand this basic problem with the gold standard.

DEFLATION is an even worse problem to a vibrant economy than INFLATION.

Do you not understand that?
 
Last edited:
I'll ask you to do the math again.

There is a FINITE amount of gold in the universe.

if we go on the gold standard, the amount of money must equal that amount of gold,

With me so far?

Now what happens to the price of STUFF, when there is MORE STUFF made, but the amount of money (backed by gold) remains essantially the same?

Prices must DEFLATE, must they not?

Now, are you going to lend you gold backed money to anyone when you know that the value of your money is increasing in comparison to the value of the stuff it can buy tomorrow?

Are you going to buy something today when you KNOW the price will be less tomorrow?

I cannot understand why people cannot understand this basic problem with the gold standard.

DEFLATION is an even worse problem to a vibrant economy than INFLATION.

Do you not understand that?

This assumes that manufacturers would continue to produce goods in excess. Why increase your output of goods beyond that of the increase in available money or demand?

With a gold standard, there would be no $12 trillion national debt and $1 trillion budget deficit.

You like to complain about the value of the dollar decreasing, as do I, but now you are contradicting that by saying we shouldn't tie the Dollar to something of value.

Governments with carte blanche to print money infinitely, WILL. History has shown us that. The Romans did it, and look where it got them. We are doing the EXACT same thing. So did, and do, many other nations.

It will never change. Something must be done to curtail spending, and the only thing that history has proven can accomplish that, is sound currency.
 
The total value of all the money in the world will always be equal to the total value of all the physical items of value in existence at any one time. Having the dollar tied to a single commodity, especially gold, is just plain silly. Gold doesn't have very much real value anymore - it's more psychological than real.

Like gem stone diamonds, it's a hold over from the ancients.

What does have real value is: cars and houses and food and toilet paper and roads and T.V sets and clothes and etc., etc...

It is these physical items that constitute the worlds wealth. Services may have value that can be equated with physical items, but services do not and are not wealth in and of themselves.

The problem with economists is that they view economics from the point of view of 'controling wealth' thru accumulating currency/capital, rather than from a production of wealth thru the creation of physical items.

The Chinese unerstand this which is why they are doing so well economically. Our economist & business people are so focused on controlling currency/capital that they gutted our manufacturing base.

We are seriously screwed!
 

Forum List

Back
Top