RadioBanter - View Single Post

February 11th 05, 01:44 AM

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

bb wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

snippage

Through all this thread, I have noted that there were multiple
choices
of investments. And my comments have ben that many people are
not
capable of resisting the "big bucks" risky investments. I
account for
human nature in my assessments of how people should be treated.

Fact is, an awful lot of people NEED some fiscal restraint.
Otherwise
they make stupid choices and become a drain on society. It is
how it is.
It is why people on welfare buy lottery tickets when they
should be
buying food or paying their rent. It is why people think they
can make
risky investments, and somehow retire to make more money than
when they were working.

There's also the fact that investment information isn't always on the
up and up. Despite all the regulations, we still have messes like
Enron. Even if those responsible for the Enron debacle go to jail for
a
while, it won't bring back the money investors lost.

Enron sucked. So now everyone else sucks, too. Maybe your company
sucks.

A lot of people don't take that approach though. They listen
to
the
investment mantra that "Over the long term, the market always
goes
up".

That's a fact.

It sure is. But it is like saying that the average voltage of
our
household outlet is 0 volts. I'll pass on grabbing bare wires
of that 0
volt average system if ya don't mind.

Sort of. The problem is that unless you buy nothing but index funds,
you're not investing in "the market".

Few index funds are "the market." The SP 500 sure isn't.

And even if you do buy index
funds, you're investing in a particular index.

So your retirement fund that IS invested in the market won't be there
when you retire. Yeh, right.

Y'know what's funny? The same folks who say we don't need restraint
when investing life savings are the same ones who want to restrain
stem
cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol),
contraception, and a bunch of other things.

I've never, ever, ever met anyone who said that you don't need
restraint when investing your life savings. Ever.

So, Jim Miccolis, name those people.

work if the government devalues its currency.

The most conservative investments have an interest rate that
gets
adjusted every so often.

Is that vehicle capable of losing its principle?

No.

Principle or principal? There's a big difference.

The guy in the front office.

He chose to believe that things were going to get better and to
stay

the course. By the time he got wise, it was too late.

Was it really? Why?

He lost his principle. It can happen on that plan.

He lost both his principle (move to lower risk as you get older) and
his principal (original investment)

I knew a guy who quit a good job. He even had benefits and a
retirement plan. You can't make people stay in jobs they don't like
unless you first rename your country to "East Germany."

There are many different time frames on exactly *when* the
system will
run out of steam or money. A lot of this depends on how much
money is
taken out by non-standard usage. (read robbing the till)

Yep. Of course if one administration takes it out and promises
to put it back, and a following administration run by the
other party breaks the promise, who is to blame?

If you put the senate and house of reps in FERS and SS, they just might
behave more responsibly.

You can blame them or not, but if you make them participate in the
programs that they are screwing, you might like the results better.

I don't care WHO took the money out. Be it Democrat or
Republican. One
of the side effects of being in power is that when it is your
group, you
reap the benefits as well as the brickbats.

There's also the concept of responsibility. Which means that
the folks in power, red, blue or purple, cannot simply blame
everything on their predecessors and do nothing to fix the
problems.

Aha!

GW Bush is doing somethig to fix your problems.