RadioBanter - View Single Post

February 11th 05, 03:08 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.

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

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.

Correct. Social engineering and attempts to force their philosophy on
others. Liberals.

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.

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)

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?

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.

Correct. That's a great way to lose power quickly. Unfortunately the
Pubs have a track record of doing just that. Too bad.

If all the Pubs can do is continue to blame the Dems for
every problem
on the face of the planet, then it means that they are
*weak*, because
they can't do anything about the Democrats even when
they are in power.
Funny how things work! 8^)

Exactly! Well said, Mike.

Thanks, Jim.

- Mike KB3EIA -