Nice Day on Wall Street

[lucasrd]

Bernanke raises rates...stocks fall...he raises them again stocks soar...looks like he may finally have a handle on inflation and the economy is still growing...will he avoid putting the economy into a recession???it's a high-wire act with no net...glad he's making the decisions and not me....

Also, I'd rather have higher interest rates as opposed to inflation...

thoughts...

[Ima saver]

Yes, the dow was up 217 points today. I agree with you lucas!

[VJW]

Just keep in mind that the DJIA closed yesterday at 11,190.80, down 532.18 from the 11,722.98 six years ago in 2000. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the DJIA would need to be over 13,000 just to get back to where it was in 2000.

#

[sweeps]

I don't know if using a 20-year peak and projecting upward from there is necessarily fair, but VJW's point is well-taken. In fact, I personally think the stock market will continue to flat-line for the next 3 to 5 years.

[VJW]

I wasn’t implying that the market should go straight up, I merely provided the DJIA numbers to provide some context. More importantly was the perspective on the stock market being “UP”, given that most of the stock market indices are down 15% or more from where they were six years ago in 2000.

I don’t see the American markets going anywhere either, until there is a marked reversal away from failed national public policies.

#

[slimcustomer]

Originally Posted by VJW

I don’t see the American markets going anywhere either, until there is a marked reversal away from failed national public policies.

#

My crystal ball is broken, so no market predictions here. However I agree that we should move away from failed national public policies. Eliminating expensive social welfare programs like social security would help motivate people to work harder and save more. Some of that money would find its way into the stock market I'm sure.

[VJW]

A) You falsely assert that Social Security is a failed national public policy, but rather it is one of THE most successful national public policies in America’s entire history.

B) Social Security is self-financed, so there would be no governmental savings from it’s elimination.

C) I’ve not seen any evidence that the elimination of Social Security would “motivate people to work harder”, not to mention such a theory has no basis in fact or history.

D) As to saving more, the evidence is just the opposite. Just look at employer provided pensions versus 401(K) plans. The percentage of people who save by way of their 401(K) plans is pathetically low, even with employer matching.

Therefore, there is no basis to believe there would be any appreciable increase in funds invested in the stock market.

#

[slimcustomer]

Originally Posted by VJW

A) You falsely assert that Social Security is a failed national public policy, but rather it is one of THE most successful national public policies in America’s entire history.

Incorrect. Social Security is a wealth redistribution scheme and it does so at a cost. This cost has no corresponding net benefit to the public overall and as such is a destoyer of wealth and a failed public policy. You certainly can argue that certain groups benefit from social security, but these benefits don't outweigh the costs to those who suffer a reduction in their income as a result.

B) Social Security is self-financed, so there would be no governmental savings from it’s elimination.

There would be a net savings to the people from the reduction in government, which is more important.

C) I’ve not seen any evidence that the elimination of Social Security would “motivate people to work harder”, not to mention such a theory has no basis in fact or history.

Look outside this United States to other countries without a similar social insurance scheme. People either work hard enough to retire on their savings or they continue to work past what is considered to be retirement age in this country, rightly assuming responsibility for their own welfare.

b]D)[/b] As to saving more, the evidence is just the opposite. Just look at employer provided pensions versus 401(K) plans. The percentage of people who save by way of their 401(K) plans is pathetically low, even with employer matching.

Your comparision provides no evidence. A comparision of the savings of those who have a defined contribution in addition to a 401k vs those who only have a 401k would be more instructive. A better test of what the effects of abolising social security would be on savings would be to measure the overall savings and investment of those without a pension vs those with a pension.

[pyotr]

slimcustomer,
don't bother trying to argue with V. V is our resident 13 year-old socialist troll with a penchant for writing ridiculous things here when he gets bored after school.

[slimcustomer]

Originally Posted by pyotr

slimcustomer,
don't bother trying to argue with V. V is our resident 13 year-old socialist troll with a penchant for writing ridiculous things here when he gets bored after school.

Wow. I fell for the bait. After reading some old threads I see what you mean. Thanks for the heads up pyotr. My trolldar is weak this early in the morning .

[sweeps]

A certain amount of wealth redistribution is necessary for a stable society, and frankly because it's the ethical thing to do. Looking at it from that perspective, the costs don't necessary outweigh the benefits.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by pyotr

slimcustomer, don't bother trying to argue with V. V is our resident 13 year-old socialist troll....

Gee, name-calling. What a shocker. What does somebody resort to who cannot corroborate their own unsubstantiated beliefs ? – name-calling.

How predictably juvenile.

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by slimcustomer

Incorrect. Social Security is a wealth redistribution scheme and it does so at a cost. This cost has no corresponding net benefit to the public overall and as such is a destoyer of wealth and a failed public policy.

I’m afraid you are wrong.

It is one of THE most successful federal programs ever enacted. It DRAMATICALLY cut the Poverty Rate of our elderly, even more than was ever anticipated. Prior to Social Security, the Poverty Rate among our elderly was about 50%, since we’ve had Social Security, the Poverty Rate among our elderly has been in single digits.

If Social Security were eliminated, a minimum of 50% of elderly women would fall into poverty, a minimum of 66% of elderly African Americans would fall into poverty, and a minimum of 59% of elderly Hispanic Americans would fall into poverty [U. S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-209]


“No corresponding net benefit to the public” ?

I hope you’re just playing some foolish game, as I don’t even want to imagine that anyone can be THAT ignorant of the facts.

There would be a net savings to the people from the reduction in government, which is more important.

As to a “a net savings to the people”, they would have to replace the Social Security they lost with another form of retirement, which would be MORE costly.

Look outside this United States to other countries without a similar social insurance scheme. People either work hard enough to retire on their savings or they continue to work past what is considered to be retirement age in this country, rightly assuming responsibility for their own welfare.

Let’s see the evidence that they are motivated to "work harder".

Your comparision provides no evidence.

Well, just as ONE example:

INCENTIVES TO SAVE AREN'T WORKING


Then there’s this posting by the forum’s administrator jeffrey:

45% Of Workers Leaving Job Cash Out 401K


You might try informing yourself on an issue before spouting gibberish.

#

[CRFSaver]

I am a fairly free markets based person but I for one would not want to see social security taken away nor would I want to see it replaced by a market based convention (nor do I think it should be overly generous). People are not responsible enough to handle the base level security on their own. To some extent social security is a wealth redistribution system but I would hate to see the amount of crime associated with poverty in the event certain social systems were reduced or distributed.

What I have discovered is that people go to extremes of zero government intervention (aka laissez faire, free market, etc) and those that go for tons of govenment intervention. In reality it is somewhere in the middle where some solutions are government based and some reo market based. Perfect example would be police. Can you imagine the chaos if that was market based? I also am a strong believer in the regulation of utilities that are natural monopolies (and yes phone and internet i would consider utilities).

When ever there is adequate competition (actual not perceived), ease of information exchange and understanding, and the ability to make some money to incent, I am very much a believer of market based conventions.

[slimcustomer]

Originally Posted by VJW

I’m afraid you are wrong.

It is one of THE most successful federal programs ever enacted. It DRAMATICALLY cut the Poverty Rate of our elderly, even more than was ever anticipated. Prior to Social Security, the Poverty Rate among our elderly was about 50%, since we’ve had Social Security, the Poverty Rate among our elderly has been in single digits.

If Social Security were eliminated, a minimum of 50% of elderly women would fall into poverty, a minimum of 66% of elderly African Americans would fall into poverty, and a minimum of 59% of elderly Hispanic Americans would fall into poverty [U. S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-209]


“No corresponding net benefit to the public” ?

I hope you’re just playing some foolish game, as I don’t even want to imagine that anyone can be THAT ignorant of the facts.





As to a “a net savings to the people”, they would have to replace the Social Security they lost with another form of retirement, which would be MORE costly.





Let’s see the evidence that they are motivated to "work harder".





Well, just as ONE example:

INCENTIVES TO SAVE AREN'T WORKING


Then there’s this posting by the forum’s administrator jeffrey:

45% Of Workers Leaving Job Cash Out 401K


You might try informing yourself on an issue before spouting gibberish.

#

While Social Security is an interesting topic to discuss, I won't spend my time doing it with you VJW. Reading through your posts, you seem to have a penchant for bringing out the worst in other forum members here. You may be unmatched in the level of personal invective that you engage in and I'm surprised that anyone would acknowledge you except to warn others about your true nature.

Originally Posted by Sweepsplayer

A certain amount of wealth redistribution is necessary for a stable society, and frankly because it's the ethical thing to do. Looking at it from that perspective, the costs don't necessary outweigh the benefits.

I'm not completely against the redistribution of wealth. I would much rather see more money going toward improving the welfare of children in this country, than to seniors who have had a lifetime to prepare themselves for old age. Improving the lives of children in this country would go along way towards mitigating some of society's ills. I find that much more ethical than the current social security system which has grown far beyond it's orginal scope at an increasing cost to working people(including the poor). Children, of course, can't vote and don't have the political power to demand a spot at the public trough.

Originally Posted by CRFSaver

I am a fairly free markets based person but I for one would not want to see social security taken away nor would I want to see it replaced by a market based convention (nor do I think it should be overly generous). People are not responsible enough to handle the base level security on their own. To some extent social security is a wealth redistribution system but I would hate to see the amount of crime associated with poverty in the event certain social systems were reduced or distributed.

I don't think we would have 70 year old Grandmothers holding up banks en masse if Social Security was abolished, but it does happen - link . Unfortunately, Social Security wasn't set up properly and has only gone from bad to worse. A system that rewarded people equitablely and was funded by each generation and not sloughed off on subsequent generations would have been a much fairer system, although not ideal.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by slimcustomer

While Social Security is an interesting topic to discuss, I won't spend my time doing it with you VJW.

Oh dear. I’m SO crestfallen.

Reading through your posts, you seem to have a penchant for bringing out the worst in other forum members here.

You mean certain “forum members” have a penchant for getting angry when it’s documented that their mere beliefs do not comport with reality. I’m not responsible for their inability to handle the truth. That’s their problem, not mine.

You may be unmatched in the level of personal invective that you engage in...

Nonsense.

A) What is “unmatched” is the “level of personal invective” that is launched at me by those incapable of validating their asserted unsubstantiated beliefs.

B) My only foray into any “personal invective” is in response to personal invective.

and I'm surprised that anyone would acknowledge you except to warn others about your true nature.

Looks like your false perception that you can remotely determine other’s “true nature” is in line with your unsubstantiated belief system (It’s also eerily similar to a certain person’s claim to be able to look into the soul of certain foreign leaders).

...the current social security system which has grown far beyond it's orginal scope at an increasing cost to working people(including the poor).

The administrative “cost” is less than 2%, which is FAR lower than the private sector, where the administrative costs can range from 12% to 25%.

Unfortunately, Social Security wasn't set up properly and has only gone from bad to worse.

Au contraire. Social Security is currently more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 70-year history.

#