There is NO RISK in privatizing SS and investing in stock market!!!

[bripat9643]

yeah, I agree with the first paragraph. Given the holding in the Obamacare challenge, I don't see how the govt could mandate participation in any private life or disability insurance program. I am sure it would be cost prohibitive unless you got workers into term type insurance when they first entered the workforce, with term policies assuming the individuals would retain the same coverage till retirement. There would be some who wanted to opt out, which would screw the actuarial pooch. But, there'd probably be a way around it by calling it a governmental program that was privately administered for a fee.

It wouldn't be designed like Obamacare. It would still be run by the DoL or whatever government agency. But the government would hire private investment companies to invest. That is done for many government agencies, as well as state pension plans. Much of it would replicate broad market indices that would cost a basis point or less.

And that would turn into a giant crony boondoggle.

Better to let individuals keep their own accounts and pick their own investment managers/advisors.

No. Then we have to pay welfare to those who lose in the markets. The only way to work it make it one "giant" pool of money.

Show me any 45 year period where the market has yielded negative returns.

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

No thank you. I don't think it is society's responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. The bit you are missing is that some people will do far better managing their own money, so you are penalizing them in order to bail out idiots.

That is the whole point of liberalism.

 

[healthmyths]

yeah, I agree with the first paragraph. Given the holding in the Obamacare challenge, I don't see how the govt could mandate participation in any private life or disability insurance program. I am sure it would be cost prohibitive unless you got workers into term type insurance when they first entered the workforce, with term policies assuming the individuals would retain the same coverage till retirement. There would be some who wanted to opt out, which would screw the actuarial pooch. But, there'd probably be a way around it by calling it a governmental program that was privately administered for a fee.

It wouldn't be designed like Obamacare. It would still be run by the DoL or whatever government agency. But the government would hire private investment companies to invest. That is done for many government agencies, as well as state pension plans. Much of it would replicate broad market indices that would cost a basis point or less.

And that would turn into a giant crony boondoggle.

Better to let individuals keep their own accounts and pick their own investment managers/advisors.

No. Then we have to pay welfare to those who lose in the markets. The only way to work it make it one "giant" pool of money.

Show me any 45 year period where the market has yielded negative returns.

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

NO YOU wouldn't have EQUAL amount of WINNERS and LOSERS!
That's where YOU are so grossly misinformed!
AGAIN... simple simple rules...
Age 25 to 45 asset accumulation means YOU are in higher risk but greater appreciation and over
time there are twice as many UPs as there are downs! After all think for a second.
If there WERE MORE downs then UPs then there would be NO accumulations!
Age 46 to 60.. diversification means putting a larger portion of accumulation in greater security assets.
Age 60 to retirement most of accumulation in secured assets.
IT is THAT simple!
IF every American had been given the chance to CHOICE where their SS payments would be
accumulated and they were EDUCATED better in schools regarding economics, the market etc., rather
then propagandized by today's liberal teachers who hate businesses hate capitalism.. then
there would be fewer cases of those that would lose.
Those that are winners as families are wont to do would help as it has always been in the past those
that needed help... instead of looking to the government!
NO the problem is with today's person like YOU so against capitalism, so uninformed and basically
so stupid as to think the government CAN TAKE care of you!
Womb to tomb is your principle.

 

[healthmyths]

Yes there is. There is lots of risk.

NO THERE ISN"T if you are NOT a dummy and would put ALL your retirement funds in the "risky stock market" at retirement!

YOU still don't get it do you?? YOU evidently have NO idea of what compound interest is!

EVEN EVEN if the 25 year old puts all his SS payments into a savings account yielding 1% he would have $400,000 accumulated.. at no risk! ALL in totally secured NON RISKY stock market!!!

So, you are saying the stock market if guaranteed?

If it's so guaranteed, then why isn't everyone a millionaire?




You are wrong. There is ALWAYS risk in the stock market.

It is GUARANTEED to go up more then it goes down!
And any one starting at age 25 allowed to put their SS payments into the "RISKY GAMBLING stock market over their first 20 years would have two times as many UP years as down years.
So anyone with half a brain putting away The over $230,000 in 40 years of working in the first
25 years would have a 7% appreciation. IT IS guaranteed by history.
Then age 45 move half from "risky stock market accumulation into more secured assets yielding less.
Finally age 60 moving almost ALL the accumulation into more secured the ordinary worker would have
at end of 40 years working accumulated $583,000.

But more importantly.. IT would be the Worker's accumulation!

 

[Skull Pilot]

yeah, I agree with the first paragraph. Given the holding in the Obamacare challenge, I don't see how the govt could mandate participation in any private life or disability insurance program. I am sure it would be cost prohibitive unless you got workers into term type insurance when they first entered the workforce, with term policies assuming the individuals would retain the same coverage till retirement. There would be some who wanted to opt out, which would screw the actuarial pooch. But, there'd probably be a way around it by calling it a governmental program that was privately administered for a fee.

It wouldn't be designed like Obamacare. It would still be run by the DoL or whatever government agency. But the government would hire private investment companies to invest. That is done for many government agencies, as well as state pension plans. Much of it would replicate broad market indices that would cost a basis point or less.

And that would turn into a giant crony boondoggle.

Better to let individuals keep their own accounts and pick their own investment managers/advisors.

No. Then we have to pay welfare to those who lose in the markets. The only way to work it make it one "giant" pool of money.

Show me any 45 year period where the market has yielded negative returns.

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

No thank you. I don't think it is society's responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. The bit you are missing is that some people will do far better managing their own money, so you are penalizing them in order to bail out idiots.

Some will, some won't. We're not talking theory here. Noble economic prizes have been won on this issue. In fact, exercises in individual behavior in markets and bubbles are standard in economics classes. The result is predicitable and uniform. It boils down to whether we'd let people who lost their money and didn't have enough to eat ... starve, or whether the rest of us would pay taxes for their food.

Now you have to find me examples of people who invested over 45 years using a dollar cost averaging strategy have lost all their money.

At worst they will be no better off than if they were on SS at best they would be truly wealthy and would be able to leave that wealth to future generaions

 

[Toro]

Now you have to find me examples of people who invested over 45 years using a dollar cost averaging strategy have lost all their money.

That's an important point. Even if one takes the worst stock market in history and invested at the top in September 1929 and invested the same amount every month, one had broken even by May 1933.

Better still, if one had continued that strategy and invested $100 a month beginning in September 1929 until today, one would have invested just over $100,000 and be worth $4,500,000.

 

[healthmyths]

yeah, I agree with the first paragraph. Given the holding in the Obamacare challenge, I don't see how the govt could mandate participation in any private life or disability insurance program. I am sure it would be cost prohibitive unless you got workers into term type insurance when they first entered the workforce, with term policies assuming the individuals would retain the same coverage till retirement. There would be some who wanted to opt out, which would screw the actuarial pooch. But, there'd probably be a way around it by calling it a governmental program that was privately administered for a fee.

It wouldn't be designed like Obamacare. It would still be run by the DoL or whatever government agency. But the government would hire private investment companies to invest. That is done for many government agencies, as well as state pension plans. Much of it would replicate broad market indices that would cost a basis point or less.

And that would turn into a giant crony boondoggle.

Better to let individuals keep their own accounts and pick their own investment managers/advisors.

No. Then we have to pay welfare to those who lose in the markets. The only way to work it make it one "giant" pool of money.

Show me any 45 year period where the market has yielded negative returns.

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

No thank you. I don't think it is society's responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. The bit you are missing is that some people will do far better managing their own money, so you are penalizing them in order to bail out idiots.

Some will, some won't. We're not talking theory here. Noble economic prizes have been won on this issue. In fact, exercises in individual behavior in markets and bubbles are standard in economics classes. The result is predicitable and uniform. It boils down to whether we'd let people who lost their money and didn't have enough to eat ... starve, or whether the rest of us would pay taxes for their food.

NO ONE disagrees there will be "some that won't"
BUT why PENALIZE THE MOST that will?
The FACTs are there are MORE years where the DJIA (in case you might be confused.. the average of
30 stocks that are changed over time to adjust for economy..) went up.. 73 years in fact out of 112 years.
Dow Industrial Average Stock Market Index Historical Graph DJIA
Another fact...
If the "risky market" went down more often the up... THERE would be no market.
Why in the hell would anyone be involved in an asset accumulation WITH NO ACCUMULATION.
Do you understand?
Again like most people YOU take the exception.."some won't" and make that the RULE... when the
RULE is more people have accumulated wealth over 112 years by investing in stocks otherwise there wouldn't be a "market"!
Do you understand?
By the way please do a little research as I have and provide exact examples where "Noble economic prizes have been won". I need to understand how economic learned people use the EXCEPTION as the rule!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now you have to find me examples of people who invested over 45 years using a dollar cost averaging strategy have lost all their money.

That's an important point. Even if one takes the worst stock market in history and invested at the top in September 1929 and invested the same amount every month, one had broken even by May 1933.

Better still, if one had continued that strategy and invested $100 a month beginning in September 1929 until today, one would have invested just over $100,000 and be worth $4,500,000.

lol, I accidentally agreed with your post. I take that back!

 

[Andylusion]

Even if the stock market goes down.... that is an unrealized loss.

Meaning... it only exists on paper, not in reality. In fact, when the market goes down, you can in fact earn even more money, than you did when it was up.

If I buy 1000 shares of Optical Cable Corporation (OCC) for $5 a share, that's $5,000 They make the high speed fiber-optic network cables that are the primary backbone of the internet today.

Now as a share owner, I get dividends. Let's say for the sake of simplicity, that the dividend is 25¢. 1,000 shares X 25¢, is $250. That $250 is used to purchase more shares. At $5 a share, I get another 50 shares.

Now let us say that some big huge thing happens, and the stock market takes a massive dive. Let's even say it's a 50% dive. Now my shares are worth only $2,500, for all 1,000, because they are only worth $2.50 a share.

But think.... does that change how profitable OCC is? No. It changes nothing. The company doesn't perform any worse just because the stock price dipped.

So next quarter, I get another dividend of 25¢ per share of my 1,000 shares. That's $250, but now the price of the stock is only $2.50. Instead of getting another 50 shares, I end up getting another 100 shares.

This is why people get all bent, that the rich and wealthy, do better after a economic down turn. While the unwise are pulling their money out of the market after a crash, the wealthy are dumping more of their money in. When the stock market takes a dive, it's like K-mart when the blue light is turned on. The stocks are on sale. You don't sell your stocks when they just went on sale. You BUY the stocks when they are on sale.

I poured every extra penny I had into the stock market after the crash in 2008. And I made huge returns on my investments. Now unfortunately I didn't have massive cash to pour in, but I still made 30% on my investments, in 2 years.

 

[Toro]

Now you have to find me examples of people who invested over 45 years using a dollar cost averaging strategy have lost all their money.

That's an important point. Even if one takes the worst stock market in history and invested at the top in September 1929 and invested the same amount every month, one had broken even by May 1933.

Better still, if one had continued that strategy and invested $100 a month beginning in September 1929 until today, one would have invested just over $100,000 and be worth $4,500,000.

lol, I accidentally agreed with your post. I take that back!

You were right the first time!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even if the stock market goes down.... that is an unrealized loss.

Meaning... it only exists on paper, not in reality. In fact, when the market goes down, you can in fact earn even more money, than you did when it was up.

If I buy 1000 shares of Optical Cable Corporation (OCC) for $5 a share, that's $5,000 They make the high speed fiber-optic network cables that are the primary backbone of the internet today.

Now as a share owner, I get dividends. Let's say for the sake of simplicity, that the dividend is 25¢. 1,000 shares X 25¢, is $250. That $250 is used to purchase more shares. At $5 a share, I get another 50 shares.

Now let us say that some big huge thing happens, and the stock market takes a massive dive. Let's even say it's a 50% dive. Now my shares are worth only $2,500, for all 1,000, because they are only worth $2.50 a share.

But think.... does that change how profitable OCC is? No. It changes nothing. The company doesn't perform any worse just because the stock price dipped.

So next quarter, I get another dividend of 25¢ per share of my 1,000 shares. That's $250, but now the price of the stock is only $2.50. Instead of getting another 50 shares, I end up getting another 100 shares.

This is why people get all bent, that the rich and wealthy, do better after a economic down turn. While the unwise are pulling their money out of the market after a crash, the wealthy are dumping more of their money in. When the stock market takes a dive, it's like K-mart when the blue light is turned on. The stocks are on sale. You don't sell your stocks when they just went on sale. You BUY the stocks when they are on sale.

I poured every extra penny I had into the stock market after the crash in 2008. And I made huge returns on my investments. Now unfortunately I didn't have massive cash to pour in, but I still made 30% on my investments, in 2 years.

When the stock market takes a dive, it's like K-mart when the blue light is turned on.

Don't buy K-Mart. LOL!

 

[Listening]

Hey hey....

A bump;.

 

[bendog]

No. Then we have to pay welfare to those who lose in the markets. The only way to work it make it one "giant" pool of money.

Show me any 45 year period where the market has yielded negative returns.

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

No thank you. I don't think it is society's responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. The bit you are missing is that some people will do far better managing their own money, so you are penalizing them in order to bail out idiots.

Some will, some won't. We're not talking theory here. Noble economic prizes have been won on this issue. In fact, exercises in individual behavior in markets and bubbles are standard in economics classes. The result is predicitable and uniform. It boils down to whether we'd let people who lost their money and didn't have enough to eat ... starve, or whether the rest of us would pay taxes for their food.

NO ONE disagrees there will be "some that won't"
BUT why PENALIZE THE MOST that will?
The FACTs are there are MORE years where the DJIA (in case you might be confused.. the average of
30 stocks that are changed over time to adjust for economy..) went up.. 73 years in fact out of 112 years.
Dow Industrial Average Stock Market Index Historical Graph DJIA
Another fact...
If the "risky market" went down more often the up... THERE would be no market.
Why in the hell would anyone be involved in an asset accumulation WITH NO ACCUMULATION.
Do you understand?
Again like most people YOU take the exception.."some won't" and make that the RULE... when the
RULE is more people have accumulated wealth over 112 years by investing in stocks otherwise there wouldn't be a "market"!
Do you understand?
By the way please do a little research as I have and provide exact examples where "Noble economic prizes have been won". I need to understand how economic learned people use the EXCEPTION as the rule!

There's no exception, and there's no argument that if you average the price of equites they go up. But there's also no argument that if you allow people to use fica dollars to have their entire "nut" in equites when they are aged 60 or older, at SOME POINT IN TIME you'll have a bunch of people aging into retirement who lost most of their nut. That's not an exception: its a fact. However, if everyone's money was in a big fund with investments in many markets, like an annuity, there would be little risk in paying out a defined benefit. And, there's no exception there either.

Your arguments are not based on any actual investment strategy or market analysis, but rather are libertarian clap trap about wanting to be on an Island by yourself. And that would be ok with me, except if you're one of those folks who see a 40% haircut at age 65, you'll be first in line to mooch off of me.

 

[healthmyths]

Show me any 45 year period where the market has yielded negative returns.

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

No thank you. I don't think it is society's responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. The bit you are missing is that some people will do far better managing their own money, so you are penalizing them in order to bail out idiots.

Some will, some won't. We're not talking theory here. Noble economic prizes have been won on this issue. In fact, exercises in individual behavior in markets and bubbles are standard in economics classes. The result is predicitable and uniform. It boils down to whether we'd let people who lost their money and didn't have enough to eat ... starve, or whether the rest of us would pay taxes for their food.

NO ONE disagrees there will be "some that won't"
BUT why PENALIZE THE MOST that will?
The FACTs are there are MORE years where the DJIA (in case you might be confused.. the average of
30 stocks that are changed over time to adjust for economy..) went up.. 73 years in fact out of 112 years.
Dow Industrial Average Stock Market Index Historical Graph DJIA
Another fact...
If the "risky market" went down more often the up... THERE would be no market.
Why in the hell would anyone be involved in an asset accumulation WITH NO ACCUMULATION.
Do you understand?
Again like most people YOU take the exception.."some won't" and make that the RULE... when the
RULE is more people have accumulated wealth over 112 years by investing in stocks otherwise there wouldn't be a "market"!
Do you understand?
By the way please do a little research as I have and provide exact examples where "Noble economic prizes have been won". I need to understand how economic learned people use the EXCEPTION as the rule!

There's no exception, and there's no argument that if you average the price of equites they go up. But there's also no argument that if you allow people to use fica dollars to have their entire "nut" in equites when they are aged 60 or older, at SOME POINT IN TIME you'll have a bunch of people aging into retirement who lost most of their nut. That's not an exception: its a fact. However, if everyone's money was in a big fund with investments in many markets, like an annuity, there would be little risk in paying out a defined benefit. And, there's no exception there either.

Your arguments are not based on any actual investment strategy or market analysis, but rather are libertarian clap trap about wanting to be on an Island by yourself. And that would be ok with me, except if you're one of those folks who see a 40% haircut at age 65, you'll be first in line to mooch off of me.

"bunch"... you are a perfect example of the "exaggerator" crowd... take a few exceptions and make it a "bunch"!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Show me any 45 year period where the market has yielded negative returns.

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

No thank you. I don't think it is society's responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. The bit you are missing is that some people will do far better managing their own money, so you are penalizing them in order to bail out idiots.

Some will, some won't. We're not talking theory here. Noble economic prizes have been won on this issue. In fact, exercises in individual behavior in markets and bubbles are standard in economics classes. The result is predicitable and uniform. It boils down to whether we'd let people who lost their money and didn't have enough to eat ... starve, or whether the rest of us would pay taxes for their food.

NO ONE disagrees there will be "some that won't"
BUT why PENALIZE THE MOST that will?
The FACTs are there are MORE years where the DJIA (in case you might be confused.. the average of
30 stocks that are changed over time to adjust for economy..) went up.. 73 years in fact out of 112 years.
Dow Industrial Average Stock Market Index Historical Graph DJIA
Another fact...
If the "risky market" went down more often the up... THERE would be no market.
Why in the hell would anyone be involved in an asset accumulation WITH NO ACCUMULATION.
Do you understand?
Again like most people YOU take the exception.."some won't" and make that the RULE... when the
RULE is more people have accumulated wealth over 112 years by investing in stocks otherwise there wouldn't be a "market"!
Do you understand?
By the way please do a little research as I have and provide exact examples where "Noble economic prizes have been won". I need to understand how economic learned people use the EXCEPTION as the rule!

There's no exception, and there's no argument that if you average the price of equites they go up. But there's also no argument that if you allow people to use fica dollars to have their entire "nut" in equites when they are aged 60 or older, at SOME POINT IN TIME you'll have a bunch of people aging into retirement who lost most of their nut. That's not an exception: its a fact. However, if everyone's money was in a big fund with investments in many markets, like an annuity, there would be little risk in paying out a defined benefit. And, there's no exception there either.

Your arguments are not based on any actual investment strategy or market analysis, but rather are libertarian clap trap about wanting to be on an Island by yourself. And that would be ok with me, except if you're one of those folks who see a 40% haircut at age 65, you'll be first in line to mooch off of me.

But there's also no argument that if you allow people to use fica dollars to have their entire "nut" in equites when they are aged 60

Having 100% of your "nut" in equities would be Obama level stupid.
That's why a diversified (stocks and bonds) portfolio is the way to go.
Much safer than counting on the idiots in DC for your retirement.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Show me any 45 year period where the market has yielded negative returns.

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

No thank you. I don't think it is society's responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. The bit you are missing is that some people will do far better managing their own money, so you are penalizing them in order to bail out idiots.

Some will, some won't. We're not talking theory here. Noble economic prizes have been won on this issue. In fact, exercises in individual behavior in markets and bubbles are standard in economics classes. The result is predicitable and uniform. It boils down to whether we'd let people who lost their money and didn't have enough to eat ... starve, or whether the rest of us would pay taxes for their food.

NO ONE disagrees there will be "some that won't"
BUT why PENALIZE THE MOST that will?
The FACTs are there are MORE years where the DJIA (in case you might be confused.. the average of
30 stocks that are changed over time to adjust for economy..) went up.. 73 years in fact out of 112 years.
Dow Industrial Average Stock Market Index Historical Graph DJIA
Another fact...
If the "risky market" went down more often the up... THERE would be no market.
Why in the hell would anyone be involved in an asset accumulation WITH NO ACCUMULATION.
Do you understand?
Again like most people YOU take the exception.."some won't" and make that the RULE... when the
RULE is more people have accumulated wealth over 112 years by investing in stocks otherwise there wouldn't be a "market"!
Do you understand?
By the way please do a little research as I have and provide exact examples where "Noble economic prizes have been won". I need to understand how economic learned people use the EXCEPTION as the rule!

There's no exception, and there's no argument that if you average the price of equites they go up. But there's also no argument that if you allow people to use fica dollars to have their entire "nut" in equites when they are aged 60 or older, at SOME POINT IN TIME you'll have a bunch of people aging into retirement who lost most of their nut. That's not an exception: its a fact. However, if everyone's money was in a big fund with investments in many markets, like an annuity, there would be little risk in paying out a defined benefit. And, there's no exception there either.

Your arguments are not based on any actual investment strategy or market analysis, but rather are libertarian clap trap about wanting to be on an Island by yourself. And that would be ok with me, except if you're one of those folks who see a 40% haircut at age 65, you'll be first in line to mooch off of me.

Even the most basic investment strategy entails changing one's portfolio to lower risk investments as one ages.
I guess I was wrong to assume that you people were smart enough to realize that.

 

[Andylusion]

If everyone simply invested their own contributions in individual accounts, then you have winners and losers. Conceptually, using something like a Canadian model that toro suggested, that has universal coverage and defined contributions, with funds being invested in a range of market index funds ... then over time it could work

No thank you. I don't think it is society's responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. The bit you are missing is that some people will do far better managing their own money, so you are penalizing them in order to bail out idiots.

Some will, some won't. We're not talking theory here. Noble economic prizes have been won on this issue. In fact, exercises in individual behavior in markets and bubbles are standard in economics classes. The result is predicitable and uniform. It boils down to whether we'd let people who lost their money and didn't have enough to eat ... starve, or whether the rest of us would pay taxes for their food.

NO ONE disagrees there will be "some that won't"
BUT why PENALIZE THE MOST that will?
The FACTs are there are MORE years where the DJIA (in case you might be confused.. the average of
30 stocks that are changed over time to adjust for economy..) went up.. 73 years in fact out of 112 years.
Dow Industrial Average Stock Market Index Historical Graph DJIA
Another fact...
If the "risky market" went down more often the up... THERE would be no market.
Why in the hell would anyone be involved in an asset accumulation WITH NO ACCUMULATION.
Do you understand?
Again like most people YOU take the exception.."some won't" and make that the RULE... when the
RULE is more people have accumulated wealth over 112 years by investing in stocks otherwise there wouldn't be a "market"!
Do you understand?
By the way please do a little research as I have and provide exact examples where "Noble economic prizes have been won". I need to understand how economic learned people use the EXCEPTION as the rule!

There's no exception, and there's no argument that if you average the price of equites they go up. But there's also no argument that if you allow people to use fica dollars to have their entire "nut" in equites when they are aged 60 or older, at SOME POINT IN TIME you'll have a bunch of people aging into retirement who lost most of their nut. That's not an exception: its a fact. However, if everyone's money was in a big fund with investments in many markets, like an annuity, there would be little risk in paying out a defined benefit. And, there's no exception there either.

Your arguments are not based on any actual investment strategy or market analysis, but rather are libertarian clap trap about wanting to be on an Island by yourself. And that would be ok with me, except if you're one of those folks who see a 40% haircut at age 65, you'll be first in line to mooch off of me.

Even the most basic investment strategy entails changing one's portfolio to lower risk investments as one ages.
I guess I was wrong to assume that you people were smart enough to realize that.

Well, I disagree with that completely.

I actually know guys in their 70s, who pulled money out, and now have Government Bond investments, earning 1%. If they had simply left their money where it was, doing nothing, they would have made another half million.

There is only one reason to move to lower-risk investments. That's if you are mentally not ready to deal with the swings of the market.

But 30% return on my investment in the last 2 years..... or 1%. Um.... 30% or 1%.... hm.... Boy that's a tough choice there. Let me consider that....

 

[bendog]

[QUOTE="Skull Pilot,

Even the most basic investment strategy entails changing one's portfolio to lower risk investments as one ages.
I guess I was wrong to assume that you people were smart enough to realize that.[/QUOTE]

So, everyone will correctly manage their portfolios?

 

[Siete]

LMAO ... the RW's are forecasting DOOM for the market one day, and success the next day GUARANTEED !!!


not a broker in the world will assure you the market isn't without risk ... get cha sum !

morons.

 

[healthmyths]

No thank you. I don't think it is society's responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. The bit you are missing is that some people will do far better managing their own money, so you are penalizing them in order to bail out idiots.

Some will, some won't. We're not talking theory here. Noble economic prizes have been won on this issue. In fact, exercises in individual behavior in markets and bubbles are standard in economics classes. The result is predicitable and uniform. It boils down to whether we'd let people who lost their money and didn't have enough to eat ... starve, or whether the rest of us would pay taxes for their food.

NO ONE disagrees there will be "some that won't"
BUT why PENALIZE THE MOST that will?
The FACTs are there are MORE years where the DJIA (in case you might be confused.. the average of
30 stocks that are changed over time to adjust for economy..) went up.. 73 years in fact out of 112 years.
Dow Industrial Average Stock Market Index Historical Graph DJIA
Another fact...
If the "risky market" went down more often the up... THERE would be no market.
Why in the hell would anyone be involved in an asset accumulation WITH NO ACCUMULATION.
Do you understand?
Again like most people YOU take the exception.."some won't" and make that the RULE... when the
RULE is more people have accumulated wealth over 112 years by investing in stocks otherwise there wouldn't be a "market"!
Do you understand?
By the way please do a little research as I have and provide exact examples where "Noble economic prizes have been won". I need to understand how economic learned people use the EXCEPTION as the rule!

There's no exception, and there's no argument that if you average the price of equites they go up. But there's also no argument that if you allow people to use fica dollars to have their entire "nut" in equites when they are aged 60 or older, at SOME POINT IN TIME you'll have a bunch of people aging into retirement who lost most of their nut. That's not an exception: its a fact. However, if everyone's money was in a big fund with investments in many markets, like an annuity, there would be little risk in paying out a defined benefit. And, there's no exception there either.

Your arguments are not based on any actual investment strategy or market analysis, but rather are libertarian clap trap about wanting to be on an Island by yourself. And that would be ok with me, except if you're one of those folks who see a 40% haircut at age 65, you'll be first in line to mooch off of me.

Even the most basic investment strategy entails changing one's portfolio to lower risk investments as one ages.
I guess I was wrong to assume that you people were smart enough to realize that.

Well, I disagree with that completely.

I actually know guys in their 70s, who pulled money out, and now have Government Bond investments, earning 1%. If they had simply left their money where it was, doing nothing, they would have made another half million.

There is only one reason to move to lower-risk investments. That's if you are mentally not ready to deal with the swings of the market.

But 30% return on my investment in the last 2 years..... or 1%. Um.... 30% or 1%.... hm.... Boy that's a tough choice there. Let me consider that....

AGAIN with these ANECDOTAL situations!
When are guys going to learn that GENERALIZING "I actually know guys in their 70s".... HOW MANY dumb f...K?
The point is the idiots that keep hollering about "risky stock market" for the use of privatized SS make just the same gross exaggerations of the the few situations and NOT THE RULE! Do understand??
This is a perfect example of how people keep using EXCEPTIONAL cases as the RULE!
Stop it and be a little more intelligent then the idiots that say "oh these people will lose it all"!

 

[Andylusion]

So, everyone will correctly manage their portfolios?

So, we should punish and impoverish everyone, because some might not manage their money?