Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You know, looks like it is coming around full circle. The smart asses that everyone idolizes for privatizing pensions, starting with Reagan, have succeeded in eliminating and killing off pension as such. It is then only the 19th century Bissmarck, the founding father of all pensions, who was right. He said that pensions must be an annuity that is undersigned by only the single ultimate undersigner of the land. So now, when bank secrecy has been just traded for blind national loan guarantees, this leads us back to the idea of state pension or national pension, as the only viable system. Still tough though, because nations and states don't have the financial base and age statistics any more to restart themselves.
I am not and would not be in favor of a Government Pension system. That's why I won't take any money from SS or Medicare.
By the way, the "pink" pension -> automation/3rdWorld meant that your 401k/IRA must maximize its profit margin. The way profit margins are maximized is to eliminated labor and jobs.
??? Excuse me? Do you realize just how absurd is what you wrote there? Pensions cannot maximize profit by eliminating the jobs of those who contribute to the pension/401k. Were a pension/401k plan (or its existence) to necessarily lead to the elimination of the jobs held by workers who contribute to the pension, the pension itself would cease to exist.
Truly, it's not even clear whether you are talking about the actual 401k plan itself or the various investments in the plan when you refer to profitability and cost minimization/profit maximization.
Yes. It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble.
Yes. It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble.
not my problem if those idiots can't save for retirementhttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/your-money/403-b-retirement-plans-fees-teachers.html?_r=0
Despite the easy-target sniping about teachers, many are not facing the most comfortable retirements.
By the way, the "pink" pension -> automation/3rdWorld meant that your 401k/IRA must maximize its profit margin. The way profit margins are maximized is to eliminated labor and jobs.
??? Excuse me? Do you realize just how absurd is what you wrote there? Pensions cannot maximize profit by eliminating the jobs of those who contribute to the pension/401k. Were a pension/401k plan (or its existence) to necessarily lead to the elimination of the jobs held by workers who contribute to the pension, the pension itself would cease to exist.
Truly, it's not even clear whether you are talking about the actual 401k plan itself or the various investments in the plan when you refer to profitability and cost minimization/profit maximization.
Yes. It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble.
Yes. It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble.
What????
FWIW, I'm a CPA. You can write in very specific details about profit, loss, pension accounting, unfunded liabilities, etc. I will understand exactly what you mean. You don't need to speak in ultra-unspecific terms, but I understand that for many discussions here, most folks aren't of a mind to have particularly precise and clear conversations. With me, however, you can freely use the technical terminology of accounting, business, pensions, and so on. You can even refer to GAAS/GAAP if you'd like.
With that in mind....What the hell are you talking about by saying, "It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble," in the context of our most recent exchanges? To remind you, the central point of my post was:
"Pensions cannot maximize profit by eliminating the jobs of those who contribute to the pension/401k. Were a pension/401k plan (or its existence) to necessarily lead to the elimination of the jobs held by workers who contribute to the pension, the pension itself would cease to exist."That was written in response to your statement shown below:
"your 401k/IRA must maximize its profit margin. The way profit margins are maximized is to eliminated labor and jobs"
I believe that was exactly Karl Marx's position (i.e. it eliminates the jobs and earned income that source them).By the way, the "pink" pension -> automation/3rdWorld meant that your 401k/IRA must maximize its profit margin. The way profit margins are maximized is to eliminated labor and jobs.
??? Excuse me? Do you realize just how absurd is what you wrote there? Pensions cannot maximize profit by eliminating the jobs of those who contribute to the pension/401k. Were a pension/401k plan (or its existence) to necessarily lead to the elimination of the jobs held by workers who contribute to the pension, the pension itself would cease to exist.
Truly, it's not even clear whether you are talking about the actual 401k plan itself or the various investments in the plan when you refer to profitability and cost minimization/profit maximization.
Yes. It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble.
Yes. It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble.
What????
FWIW, I'm a CPA. You can write in very specific details about profit, loss, pension accounting, unfunded liabilities, etc. I will understand exactly what you mean. You don't need to speak in ultra-unspecific terms, but I understand that for many discussions here, most folks aren't of a mind to have particularly precise and clear conversations. With me, however, you can freely use the technical terminology of accounting, business, pensions, and so on. You can even refer to GAAS/GAAP if you'd like.
With that in mind....What the hell are you talking about by saying, "It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble," in the context of our most recent exchanges? To remind you, the central point of my post was:
"Pensions cannot maximize profit by eliminating the jobs of those who contribute to the pension/401k. Were a pension/401k plan (or its existence) to necessarily lead to the elimination of the jobs held by workers who contribute to the pension, the pension itself would cease to exist."That was written in response to your statement shown below:
"your 401k/IRA must maximize its profit margin. The way profit margins are maximized is to eliminated labor and jobs"
I am a maths student, but I am interested in accounting and financial modeling. I wrote my zeroing argument because I agree with your point. I think I should have written in terms of its existence like you did. This comes about, because a part of the system which is the each individual portfolio in the array of portfolios, tries to maximize itself, per its current balance. But the incoming future contributions get minimized by the same reason, because it eliminates the jobs and earned income that source them. The steady state solution of the equation is a constant that can be reinvested all by itself in isolation, but it is required to pay out an annuity, so the time variance of the market prices will eventually dissipate it to zero. This is true statistically, especially in macro scales like a country. By the way, this is the exact same mechanism as nature too dissipates all external energies that are injected into a system.
I love bubbles. Speaking of bubbles the last one to burst is the standard of living bubble which is happening as we speak. Which of course leads us to the topic of predictable surprises. Surprise!This too is changing, however. People are not only living longer, but living longer better.
Al Sharpton (?) wrote a book titled "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot". In that book, there is a chapter called something like "oh the nursing home". It starts by saying, that the life expectancy will soon be around 150 years, out of which your first 50 will be good, second 50 will be not so good, and 3rd 50 will be absolutely horrible.
People will be living longer, but the word better is dubious, because the slower brain function is already putting them at a definite disadvantage compared to their competitors worldwide. Especially considering the huge extra number of ~ 20 year olds in almost every 3rd world country.
I agree that living well and productively is more appealing than is living longer.
The idea of "Obama death panels" is invented by those retirees who don't work at all and live comfortably on their 401k/IRA investments, an option no longer inflatable for the workers of the 21st century.
You realize I'm not going to respond in substance to catchpenny rhetoric like that, right?
I wanted to cover that huge and complicated subject with a one liner. Bottom line is that you need to be employed to collect those employer matched contributions to actually build your pension. But it is the very same pension that demands that your job goes away for automation or 3rd world penny labor. This locks you out and makes you entire strategy useless, a zero sum game. This is an economic and mathematical fact, even if you hate its language. This is always true when a profession is so wide spread that it is a commodity, such as teacher, metal worker, or 401k account holder.
By the way, the 401k/IRA was an invention for only a small class of executives, not for everyone, for this very reason. It is Ronald Reagan with his woodoo economy who broke it and gave it to everyone. So welcome to this zero sum and to all the stupid bubbles that it has already created.
I believe that was exactly Karl Marx's position (i.e. it eliminates the jobs and earned income that source them).By the way, the "pink" pension -> automation/3rdWorld meant that your 401k/IRA must maximize its profit margin. The way profit margins are maximized is to eliminated labor and jobs.
??? Excuse me? Do you realize just how absurd is what you wrote there? Pensions cannot maximize profit by eliminating the jobs of those who contribute to the pension/401k. Were a pension/401k plan (or its existence) to necessarily lead to the elimination of the jobs held by workers who contribute to the pension, the pension itself would cease to exist.
Truly, it's not even clear whether you are talking about the actual 401k plan itself or the various investments in the plan when you refer to profitability and cost minimization/profit maximization.
Yes. It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble.
Yes. It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble.
What????
FWIW, I'm a CPA. You can write in very specific details about profit, loss, pension accounting, unfunded liabilities, etc. I will understand exactly what you mean. You don't need to speak in ultra-unspecific terms, but I understand that for many discussions here, most folks aren't of a mind to have particularly precise and clear conversations. With me, however, you can freely use the technical terminology of accounting, business, pensions, and so on. You can even refer to GAAS/GAAP if you'd like.
With that in mind....What the hell are you talking about by saying, "It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble," in the context of our most recent exchanges? To remind you, the central point of my post was:
"Pensions cannot maximize profit by eliminating the jobs of those who contribute to the pension/401k. Were a pension/401k plan (or its existence) to necessarily lead to the elimination of the jobs held by workers who contribute to the pension, the pension itself would cease to exist."That was written in response to your statement shown below:
"your 401k/IRA must maximize its profit margin. The way profit margins are maximized is to eliminated labor and jobs"
I am a maths student, but I am interested in accounting and financial modeling. I wrote my zeroing argument because I agree with your point. I think I should have written in terms of its existence like you did. This comes about, because a part of the system which is the each individual portfolio in the array of portfolios, tries to maximize itself, per its current balance. But the incoming future contributions get minimized by the same reason, because it eliminates the jobs and earned income that source them. The steady state solution of the equation is a constant that can be reinvested all by itself in isolation, but it is required to pay out an annuity, so the time variance of the market prices will eventually dissipate it to zero. This is true statistically, especially in macro scales like a country. By the way, this is the exact same mechanism as nature too dissipates all external energies that are injected into a system.
I love bubbles. Speaking of bubbles the last one to burst is the standard of living bubble which is happening as we speak. Which of course leads us to the topic of predictable surprises. Surprise!Al Sharpton (?) wrote a book titled "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot". In that book, there is a chapter called something like "oh the nursing home". It starts by saying, that the life expectancy will soon be around 150 years, out of which your first 50 will be good, second 50 will be not so good, and 3rd 50 will be absolutely horrible.
People will be living longer, but the word better is dubious, because the slower brain function is already putting them at a definite disadvantage compared to their competitors worldwide. Especially considering the huge extra number of ~ 20 year olds in almost every 3rd world country.
I agree that living well and productively is more appealing than is living longer.
The idea of "Obama death panels" is invented by those retirees who don't work at all and live comfortably on their 401k/IRA investments, an option no longer inflatable for the workers of the 21st century.
You realize I'm not going to respond in substance to catchpenny rhetoric like that, right?
I wanted to cover that huge and complicated subject with a one liner. Bottom line is that you need to be employed to collect those employer matched contributions to actually build your pension. But it is the very same pension that demands that your job goes away for automation or 3rd world penny labor. This locks you out and makes you entire strategy useless, a zero sum game. This is an economic and mathematical fact, even if you hate its language. This is always true when a profession is so wide spread that it is a commodity, such as teacher, metal worker, or 401k account holder.
By the way, the 401k/IRA was an invention for only a small class of executives, not for everyone, for this very reason. It is Ronald Reagan with his woodoo economy who broke it and gave it to everyone. So welcome to this zero sum and to all the stupid bubbles that it has already created.
No. The bubble can collapse. Pensions may not have been around but your post has a proletariat/bourgeoisie feel to it in your " it eliminates the jobs and earned income that source them" comment.I believe that was exactly Karl Marx's position (i.e. it eliminates the jobs and earned income that source them).??? Excuse me? Do you realize just how absurd is what you wrote there? Pensions cannot maximize profit by eliminating the jobs of those who contribute to the pension/401k. Were a pension/401k plan (or its existence) to necessarily lead to the elimination of the jobs held by workers who contribute to the pension, the pension itself would cease to exist.
Truly, it's not even clear whether you are talking about the actual 401k plan itself or the various investments in the plan when you refer to profitability and cost minimization/profit maximization.
Yes. It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble.
Yes. It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble.
What????
FWIW, I'm a CPA. You can write in very specific details about profit, loss, pension accounting, unfunded liabilities, etc. I will understand exactly what you mean. You don't need to speak in ultra-unspecific terms, but I understand that for many discussions here, most folks aren't of a mind to have particularly precise and clear conversations. With me, however, you can freely use the technical terminology of accounting, business, pensions, and so on. You can even refer to GAAS/GAAP if you'd like.
With that in mind....What the hell are you talking about by saying, "It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble," in the context of our most recent exchanges? To remind you, the central point of my post was:
"Pensions cannot maximize profit by eliminating the jobs of those who contribute to the pension/401k. Were a pension/401k plan (or its existence) to necessarily lead to the elimination of the jobs held by workers who contribute to the pension, the pension itself would cease to exist."That was written in response to your statement shown below:
"your 401k/IRA must maximize its profit margin. The way profit margins are maximized is to eliminated labor and jobs"
I am a maths student, but I am interested in accounting and financial modeling. I wrote my zeroing argument because I agree with your point. I think I should have written in terms of its existence like you did. This comes about, because a part of the system which is the each individual portfolio in the array of portfolios, tries to maximize itself, per its current balance. But the incoming future contributions get minimized by the same reason, because it eliminates the jobs and earned income that source them. The steady state solution of the equation is a constant that can be reinvested all by itself in isolation, but it is required to pay out an annuity, so the time variance of the market prices will eventually dissipate it to zero. This is true statistically, especially in macro scales like a country. By the way, this is the exact same mechanism as nature too dissipates all external energies that are injected into a system.
The concept of pension didn't yet exist in Marx's time. The communist worked out of a non mathematical economic model.
I love bubbles. Speaking of bubbles the last one to burst is the standard of living bubble which is happening as we speak. Which of course leads us to the topic of predictable surprises. Surprise!I agree that living well and productively is more appealing than is living longer.
The idea of "Obama death panels" is invented by those retirees who don't work at all and live comfortably on their 401k/IRA investments, an option no longer inflatable for the workers of the 21st century.
You realize I'm not going to respond in substance to catchpenny rhetoric like that, right?
I wanted to cover that huge and complicated subject with a one liner. Bottom line is that you need to be employed to collect those employer matched contributions to actually build your pension. But it is the very same pension that demands that your job goes away for automation or 3rd world penny labor. This locks you out and makes you entire strategy useless, a zero sum game. This is an economic and mathematical fact, even if you hate its language. This is always true when a profession is so wide spread that it is a commodity, such as teacher, metal worker, or 401k account holder.
By the way, the 401k/IRA was an invention for only a small class of executives, not for everyone, for this very reason. It is Ronald Reagan with his woodoo economy who broke it and gave it to everyone. So welcome to this zero sum and to all the stupid bubbles that it has already created.
The only two ways that bubbles can be resolved is starting a bigger bubble or a world war. Either the next bubble must be bigger to absorb the current losses plus future profits, or the next war must be bigger to clear all current assets and pre leveraged future collaterals.
I love bubbles. Speaking of bubbles the last one to burst is the standard of living bubble which is happening as we speak. Which of course leads us to the topic of predictable surprises. Surprise!Al Sharpton (?) wrote a book titled "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot". In that book, there is a chapter called something like "oh the nursing home". It starts by saying, that the life expectancy will soon be around 150 years, out of which your first 50 will be good, second 50 will be not so good, and 3rd 50 will be absolutely horrible.
People will be living longer, but the word better is dubious, because the slower brain function is already putting them at a definite disadvantage compared to their competitors worldwide. Especially considering the huge extra number of ~ 20 year olds in almost every 3rd world country.
I agree that living well and productively is more appealing than is living longer.
The idea of "Obama death panels" is invented by those retirees who don't work at all and live comfortably on their 401k/IRA investments, an option no longer inflatable for the workers of the 21st century.
You realize I'm not going to respond in substance to catchpenny rhetoric like that, right?
I wanted to cover that huge and complicated subject with a one liner. Bottom line is that you need to be employed to collect those employer matched contributions to actually build your pension. But it is the very same pension that demands that your job goes away for automation or 3rd world penny labor. This locks you out and makes you entire strategy useless, a zero sum game. This is an economic and mathematical fact, even if you hate its language. This is always true when a profession is so wide spread that it is a commodity, such as teacher, metal worker, or 401k account holder.
By the way, the 401k/IRA was an invention for only a small class of executives, not for everyone, for this very reason. It is Ronald Reagan with his woodoo economy who broke it and gave it to everyone. So welcome to this zero sum and to all the stupid bubbles that it has already created.
Sure. And what goes up must come down. The signs are all around us. It is only a matter of time. You really believe it matters who gets elected? Give me a break. That won't affect our day to day lives one bit.I love bubbles. Speaking of bubbles the last one to burst is the standard of living bubble which is happening as we speak. Which of course leads us to the topic of predictable surprises. Surprise!I agree that living well and productively is more appealing than is living longer.
The idea of "Obama death panels" is invented by those retirees who don't work at all and live comfortably on their 401k/IRA investments, an option no longer inflatable for the workers of the 21st century.
You realize I'm not going to respond in substance to catchpenny rhetoric like that, right?
I wanted to cover that huge and complicated subject with a one liner. Bottom line is that you need to be employed to collect those employer matched contributions to actually build your pension. But it is the very same pension that demands that your job goes away for automation or 3rd world penny labor. This locks you out and makes you entire strategy useless, a zero sum game. This is an economic and mathematical fact, even if you hate its language. This is always true when a profession is so wide spread that it is a commodity, such as teacher, metal worker, or 401k account holder.
By the way, the 401k/IRA was an invention for only a small class of executives, not for everyone, for this very reason. It is Ronald Reagan with his woodoo economy who broke it and gave it to everyone. So welcome to this zero sum and to all the stupid bubbles that it has already created.
Red:
Really?
Based on the report linked above and looking at per capita income, if standard of living is what most concerns one, griping about wages seems a specious line of argumentation. The U.S. has the third highest per capita income of the top 20 countries ranked by quality of life, yet its quality of life ranking is 14th.
I've said before that if Trump wins, Luxembourg is one of the two places I'm considering. I suppose one can see why. That neither Russia nor ISIS gives a wet rats ass about Luxembourg is another plus. LOL
No. The bubble can collapse. Pensions may not have been around but your post has a proletariat/bourgeoisie feel to it in your " it eliminates the jobs and earned income that source them" comment.I believe that was exactly Karl Marx's position (i.e. it eliminates the jobs and earned income that source them).Yes. It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble.
Yes. It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble.
What????
FWIW, I'm a CPA. You can write in very specific details about profit, loss, pension accounting, unfunded liabilities, etc. I will understand exactly what you mean. You don't need to speak in ultra-unspecific terms, but I understand that for many discussions here, most folks aren't of a mind to have particularly precise and clear conversations. With me, however, you can freely use the technical terminology of accounting, business, pensions, and so on. You can even refer to GAAS/GAAP if you'd like.
With that in mind....What the hell are you talking about by saying, "It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble," in the context of our most recent exchanges? To remind you, the central point of my post was:
"Pensions cannot maximize profit by eliminating the jobs of those who contribute to the pension/401k. Were a pension/401k plan (or its existence) to necessarily lead to the elimination of the jobs held by workers who contribute to the pension, the pension itself would cease to exist."That was written in response to your statement shown below:
"your 401k/IRA must maximize its profit margin. The way profit margins are maximized is to eliminated labor and jobs"
I am a maths student, but I am interested in accounting and financial modeling. I wrote my zeroing argument because I agree with your point. I think I should have written in terms of its existence like you did. This comes about, because a part of the system which is the each individual portfolio in the array of portfolios, tries to maximize itself, per its current balance. But the incoming future contributions get minimized by the same reason, because it eliminates the jobs and earned income that source them. The steady state solution of the equation is a constant that can be reinvested all by itself in isolation, but it is required to pay out an annuity, so the time variance of the market prices will eventually dissipate it to zero. This is true statistically, especially in macro scales like a country. By the way, this is the exact same mechanism as nature too dissipates all external energies that are injected into a system.
The concept of pension didn't yet exist in Marx's time. The communist worked out of a non mathematical economic model.
I love bubbles. Speaking of bubbles the last one to burst is the standard of living bubble which is happening as we speak. Which of course leads us to the topic of predictable surprises. Surprise!The idea of "Obama death panels" is invented by those retirees who don't work at all and live comfortably on their 401k/IRA investments, an option no longer inflatable for the workers of the 21st century.
You realize I'm not going to respond in substance to catchpenny rhetoric like that, right?
I wanted to cover that huge and complicated subject with a one liner. Bottom line is that you need to be employed to collect those employer matched contributions to actually build your pension. But it is the very same pension that demands that your job goes away for automation or 3rd world penny labor. This locks you out and makes you entire strategy useless, a zero sum game. This is an economic and mathematical fact, even if you hate its language. This is always true when a profession is so wide spread that it is a commodity, such as teacher, metal worker, or 401k account holder.
By the way, the 401k/IRA was an invention for only a small class of executives, not for everyone, for this very reason. It is Ronald Reagan with his woodoo economy who broke it and gave it to everyone. So welcome to this zero sum and to all the stupid bubbles that it has already created.
The only two ways that bubbles can be resolved is starting a bigger bubble or a world war. Either the next bubble must be bigger to absorb the current losses plus future profits, or the next war must be bigger to clear all current assets and pre leveraged future collaterals.
And the last bubble to burst will be the standard of living bubble.No. The bubble can collapse. Pensions may not have been around but your post has a proletariat/bourgeoisie feel to it in your " it eliminates the jobs and earned income that source them" comment.I believe that was exactly Karl Marx's position (i.e. it eliminates the jobs and earned income that source them).What????
FWIW, I'm a CPA. You can write in very specific details about profit, loss, pension accounting, unfunded liabilities, etc. I will understand exactly what you mean. You don't need to speak in ultra-unspecific terms, but I understand that for many discussions here, most folks aren't of a mind to have particularly precise and clear conversations. With me, however, you can freely use the technical terminology of accounting, business, pensions, and so on. You can even refer to GAAS/GAAP if you'd like.
With that in mind....What the hell are you talking about by saying, "It zeros itself. It must, by simple laws of maths. Reagan's life work is a bubble," in the context of our most recent exchanges? To remind you, the central point of my post was:
"Pensions cannot maximize profit by eliminating the jobs of those who contribute to the pension/401k. Were a pension/401k plan (or its existence) to necessarily lead to the elimination of the jobs held by workers who contribute to the pension, the pension itself would cease to exist."That was written in response to your statement shown below:
"your 401k/IRA must maximize its profit margin. The way profit margins are maximized is to eliminated labor and jobs"
I am a maths student, but I am interested in accounting and financial modeling. I wrote my zeroing argument because I agree with your point. I think I should have written in terms of its existence like you did. This comes about, because a part of the system which is the each individual portfolio in the array of portfolios, tries to maximize itself, per its current balance. But the incoming future contributions get minimized by the same reason, because it eliminates the jobs and earned income that source them. The steady state solution of the equation is a constant that can be reinvested all by itself in isolation, but it is required to pay out an annuity, so the time variance of the market prices will eventually dissipate it to zero. This is true statistically, especially in macro scales like a country. By the way, this is the exact same mechanism as nature too dissipates all external energies that are injected into a system.
The concept of pension didn't yet exist in Marx's time. The communist worked out of a non mathematical economic model.
I love bubbles. Speaking of bubbles the last one to burst is the standard of living bubble which is happening as we speak. Which of course leads us to the topic of predictable surprises. Surprise!You realize I'm not going to respond in substance to catchpenny rhetoric like that, right?
I wanted to cover that huge and complicated subject with a one liner. Bottom line is that you need to be employed to collect those employer matched contributions to actually build your pension. But it is the very same pension that demands that your job goes away for automation or 3rd world penny labor. This locks you out and makes you entire strategy useless, a zero sum game. This is an economic and mathematical fact, even if you hate its language. This is always true when a profession is so wide spread that it is a commodity, such as teacher, metal worker, or 401k account holder.
By the way, the 401k/IRA was an invention for only a small class of executives, not for everyone, for this very reason. It is Ronald Reagan with his woodoo economy who broke it and gave it to everyone. So welcome to this zero sum and to all the stupid bubbles that it has already created.
The only two ways that bubbles can be resolved is starting a bigger bubble or a world war. Either the next bubble must be bigger to absorb the current losses plus future profits, or the next war must be bigger to clear all current assets and pre leveraged future collaterals.
Bubbles collapse, because all their underlying financial assets, real or fake, consolidate into a one last holding entity, for example Lehman Brothers. When this last holding entity is unable to sell it on or when it establishes from national individual credit databases that no more collaterals can be generated, then everything gets suddenly short sold.
However, those investors that have legislative privileges, such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America, AIG, and so on, need the privilege to move that money into something new. So, the dot com bubble was followed by the telecom bubble which was followed by the mortgage bubble which was followed by the generic credit bubble, which was followed by the gold/oil bubble, which is now followed by the student loan bubble, which will be followed by the derivative bubble. And since the derivative bubble has already reached the size of six times the world's entire GDP, that one will more likely be followed by a world war than another bubble.
teachers make enough money that they can save for their retirement if they choose not to do so it's their own faultnot my problem if those idiots can't save for retirementhttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/your-money/403-b-retirement-plans-fees-teachers.html?_r=0
Despite the easy-target sniping about teachers, many are not facing the most comfortable retirements.
Don't worry, they can still hike your property taxes to cover their shortfall. Or they will cut kindergarten and extracurricular programs, halving you home's sales price. You don't win this easy, hehe.
you seem to forget that people have 100% control over their billsnot my problem if those idiots can't save for retirementhttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/your-money/403-b-retirement-plans-fees-teachers.html?_r=0
Despite the easy-target sniping about teachers, many are not facing the most comfortable retirements.
If workers have money left after paying their bills.
As I have posted before; From 2008-2014, CEO and ivory tower pay increased 54%, while non-supervisory workers pay increased 0.0%.
That's true. At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices. Blaming others is sign of an external locus of control.teachers make enough money that they can save for their retirement if they choose not to do so it's their own faultnot my problem if those idiots can't save for retirementhttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/your-money/403-b-retirement-plans-fees-teachers.html?_r=0
Despite the easy-target sniping about teachers, many are not facing the most comfortable retirements.
Don't worry, they can still hike your property taxes to cover their shortfall. Or they will cut kindergarten and extracurricular programs, halving you home's sales price. You don't win this easy, hehe.
you seem to forget that people have 100% control over their billsnot my problem if those idiots can't save for retirementhttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/your-money/403-b-retirement-plans-fees-teachers.html?_r=0
Despite the easy-target sniping about teachers, many are not facing the most comfortable retirements.
If workers have money left after paying their bills.
As I have posted before; From 2008-2014, CEO and ivory tower pay increased 54%, while non-supervisory workers pay increased 0.0%.
the thread is about teachers.
That's true. At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices. Blaming others is sign of an external locus of control.teachers make enough money that they can save for their retirement if they choose not to do so it's their own faultnot my problem if those idiots can't save for retirementhttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/your-money/403-b-retirement-plans-fees-teachers.html?_r=0
Despite the easy-target sniping about teachers, many are not facing the most comfortable retirements.
Don't worry, they can still hike your property taxes to cover their shortfall. Or they will cut kindergarten and extracurricular programs, halving you home's sales price. You don't win this easy, hehe.
Everything is a choice. See Rich Dad Poor Dad.That's true. At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices. Blaming others is sign of an external locus of control.teachers make enough money that they can save for their retirement if they choose not to do so it's their own faultnot my problem if those idiots can't save for retirementhttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/your-money/403-b-retirement-plans-fees-teachers.html?_r=0
Despite the easy-target sniping about teachers, many are not facing the most comfortable retirements.
Don't worry, they can still hike your property taxes to cover their shortfall. Or they will cut kindergarten and extracurricular programs, halving you home's sales price. You don't win this easy, hehe.
You've brought personal responsibility to a whole new level. You seem to believe that consumers have a choice.
they have control over whether they buy a product or serviceyou seem to forget that people have 100% control over their billsnot my problem if those idiots can't save for retirementhttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/your-money/403-b-retirement-plans-fees-teachers.html?_r=0
Despite the easy-target sniping about teachers, many are not facing the most comfortable retirements.
If workers have money left after paying their bills.
As I have posted before; From 2008-2014, CEO and ivory tower pay increased 54%, while non-supervisory workers pay increased 0.0%.
the thread is about teachers.
People have control over the cost of a product or service? Sure they do.
The thread is titled 'retirement,' not 'teachers retirement.'
of course they doThat's true. At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices. Blaming others is sign of an external locus of control.teachers make enough money that they can save for their retirement if they choose not to do so it's their own faultnot my problem if those idiots can't save for retirementhttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/your-money/403-b-retirement-plans-fees-teachers.html?_r=0
Despite the easy-target sniping about teachers, many are not facing the most comfortable retirements.
Don't worry, they can still hike your property taxes to cover their shortfall. Or they will cut kindergarten and extracurricular programs, halving you home's sales price. You don't win this easy, hehe.
You've brought personal responsibility to a whole new level. You seem to believe that consumers have a choice.
