hey does anyone remember when george bush wanted to privatize social security?

...and have everyone put their money in the stock market?

Contrary to what some believe there are certain things that the govt. does better and with more security to all.


For one to this date the 'New Deal' By FDR is singularly the best thing the govt. has done for most Americans. The regressive right has been at war with it since and has done especially since Reagan's days a lot to kill much of it off. Typical Americans suffer a result.

btw McCain still does want to privatize SS

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:btw McCain still does want to privatize SS

AHAHAHAHAH THE US IS FFFFFFFUCKED.

The fundamentals of the economy are sound! The fundamentals of the economy are sound!

hahahahhaha

we're all dead. i'm applying for visas in every country imaginable. hopefully i can get in to switzerland or denmark, norway, etc.

maybe olds can get me into poland. things are picking up there right now.

Aristotle wrote:hahahahhaha

we're all dead. i'm applying for visas in every country imaginable. hopefully i can get in to switzerland or denmark, norway, etc.

maybe olds can get me into poland. things are picking up there right now.

Easy solution dude. Just come up here and marry a Canadian. Family class sponsorship into Canada, a visa enables you to work, and you're gold.

Apply for full citizenship in a couple of years too.

but i bet you have to learn all the worthless canadian history and shit
fuck that.

big_jesus wrote:but i bet you have to learn all the worthless canadian history and shit
fuck that.

nah dude, I saw the 'exam' you have to pass. Night of studying. At most.

You know, I'm not even joking. If McCain / Palin were to get in, and I was living in the states... i'd seriously start thinking about leaving the country.

i'm moving to vancouver.

Aristotle wrote:i'm moving to vancouver.

Do it man. Or Victoria. Somewhere that's warm but in Canada.

i'm going to show up at miller's parents' house and take his old room.

Aristotle wrote:i'm going to show up at miller's parents' house and take his old room.

Miller gets back from cold lake and he's forced to sleep on the couch.

llllllol

although, now that i think about it, i'll have to replace the mattress.

Aristotle wrote:llllllol

although, now that i think about it, i'll have to replace the mattress.

Definitely a first or second order of business.

Aristotle wrote:hahahahhaha

we're all dead. i'm applying for visas in every country imaginable. hopefully i can get in to switzerland or denmark, norway, etc.

maybe olds can get me into poland. things are picking up there right now.

It's all futile...when old man McCain kicks the bucket and Palin decides to go nuclear deer hunting in Russia because they won't ban abortions, we're all dead no matter where we are.

good point

Aristotle wrote:hahahahhaha

we're all dead. i'm applying for visas in every country imaginable. hopefully i can get in to switzerland or denmark, norway, etc.

maybe olds can get me into poland. things are picking up there right now.

Well don't bother with Australia. Our system is privatised and most of our superannuation funds are invested in the stock market. :jay:


Of course, I think that's a good thing myself. You just go more defensive when you're close to retirement age.

Aristotle wrote:llllllol

although, now that i think about it, i'll have to replace the mattress.

Just flip it over. Good as new.

if they privatized social security here, i'd only invest in bonds. you can get 5% from munis here, and that's fine with me.

That makes about zero sense. No make that less than zero sense. Negative 17 sense would be more like it.

The money you currently need to live off day to day you invest in shares but money you won't need for 30 years you'd invest in bonds for a whopping 5% return?

JaysonAych wrote:

Aristotle wrote:hahahahhaha

we're all dead. i'm applying for visas in every country imaginable. hopefully i can get in to switzerland or denmark, norway, etc.

maybe olds can get me into poland. things are picking up there right now.

It's all futile...when old man McCain kicks the bucket and Palin decides to go nuclear deer hunting in Russia because they won't ban abortions, we're all dead no matter where we are.

+1

dunnas wrote:That makes about zero sense. No make that less than zero sense. Negative 17 sense would be more like it.

The money you currently need to live off day to day you invest in shares but money you won't need for 30 years you'd invest in bonds for a whopping 5% return?

Actually it makes perfect sense, if I'm understanding it correctly. Investing money in higher risk investments when you can afford to lose it - investing money you'd spend anyway in high risk, possibly high reward ways. While the money you're keeping for retirement - the money you can't afford to lose you invest in a lower return investment for a lot longer period of time.

TheWoerus wrote:

dunnas wrote:That makes about zero sense. No make that less than zero sense. Negative 17 sense would be more like it.

The money you currently need to live off day to day you invest in shares but money you won't need for 30 years you'd invest in bonds for a whopping 5% return?

Actually it makes perfect sense, if I'm understanding it correctly. Investing money in higher risk investments when you can afford to lose it - investing money you'd spend anyway in high risk, possibly high reward ways. While the money you're keeping for retirement - the money you can't afford to lose you invest in a lower return investment for a lot longer period of time.

No, that really doesn't make sense at all, even less than negative 17 sense. You invest higher risk long term because higher risk really means a chance of larger fluctations over the short term. In the long term though a higher risk investment (within reason) will almost always outperform lower risk investments. I'm talking more about asset classes here, ie shares vs bonds, not some high risk mining startup company vs bluechip shares. You simply make sure you're highly diversified so that the complete failure of a few companies won't matter much at all in the long run.

This is actually my exact area for once.

Even on just the $26,500 I have in my superannuation fund right now (which should be more like $34K if it wasn't for the last 12 months ) 8% until i'm 65 compared to 5% would end up being worth $493K rather than $169K. I think I know what i'd prefer, even if in todays dollars (assuming 3.5% inflation) those figures are really only worth $133K and $45K.

Settling for such a low return on your retirement money is just plain crazy.

That goes against everything I've ever heard.

At least insofar as you seem to think that low risk - guaranteed investments make no sense. You might have a ton of money to invest, but I'm not convinced that simply diversifying will give you the sort of safety net you need when you're dealing with retirement savings.

Also, it's bad form to talk about how much money you have.

Aristotle wrote:hahahahhaha

we're all dead. i'm applying for visas in every country imaginable. hopefully i can get in to switzerland or denmark, norway, etc.

maybe olds can get me into poland. things are picking up there right now.

Netherlands anyone?

TheWoerus wrote:At least insofar as you seem to think that low risk - guaranteed investments make no sense. You might have a ton of money to invest, but I'm not convinced that simply diversifying will give you the sort of safety net you need when you're dealing with retirement savings.

Also, it's bad form to talk about how much money you have.

Guaranteed low risk investments are fine for money you want to invest short term if you can't risk it being down when you need to use it. Our economy is pretty strong though and I could actually get a safe 8% right now.

You won't find a single qualified financial planner in this country (at least i hope0 that wouldn't recommend growth assets for younger people's retirement money. You just start scaling back the level of risk as you get close to your retirement age.


I'm really not talking about how much money I have though, by the way. That money is completely untouchable by me for another 30-odd years minimum. I just have control about exactly what it gets invested in the mean time.

Everyone knows i'm broke as all hell.

financial planners spew the worst financial advice i've ever heard. taken right from the sales pitch of a mutual fund manager.

no offense.

Aristotle wrote:financial planners spew the worst financial advice i've ever heard. taken right from the sales pitch of a mutual fund manager.

BING BING BING BING BING!!!! YOU GOT IT! They offer minimal advice but more so a sales promo to try to make a buck off of you. Now the sales job may have advice in between the lines but only an idiot will take said advice (selling) VERBATIM. I'm not saying do not work with a financial planner, but do not trust your wealth 100% to them.

financial planners are paid to get people into mutual funds, because mutual funds aren't paid for performance, they're paid a % of asset size. it's in their best interest to get people to invest in their funds, as opposed to govt bonds.

let's use the ceo of my old firm as an example:

guy builds an investment management firm up to a 500 billion dollar behemoth. where did he invest his personal money throughout his career? tax-free municipal bonds. odd, no?

Aristotle wrote:
let's use the ceo of my old firm as an example:

guy builds an investment management firm up to a 500 billion dollar behemoth. where did he invest his personal money throughout his career? tax-free municipal bonds. odd, no?

haha that must of raised a few eyebrows.

not so much, surprisingly. most of the top guys put the majority of their money in bonds and stick play money in hedge funds.

equities are for fun. bonds are for retirement.

also, with tax-free munis, you don't have to bother opening an IRA. they're tax-free, and you can redeem them whenever you want. no penalties; no fees; no hassle; guaranteed by the gov't.

as of right now, my friends with all their retirement in equities have lost 30% of the value this year. essentially making all their investments from the past 2yrs null and void. they'll be lucky to be flat in less than 5 years. meanwhile the bond guys will be way up. the equity guys can 'hope' to catch up via a few really strong years, but the chances are slim and hope is the dumbest investment thesis imaginable.

Aristotle wrote:not so much, surprisingly. most of the top guys put the majority of their money in bonds and stick play money in hedge funds.

equities are for fun. bonds are for retirement.

also, with tax-free munis, you don't have to bother opening an IRA. they're tax-free, and you can redeem them whenever you want. no penalties; no fees; no hassle; guaranteed by the gov't.

as of right now, my friends with all their retirement in equities have lost 30% of the value this year. essentially making all their investments from the past 2yrs null and void. they'll be lucky to be flat in less than 5 years. meanwhile the bond guys will be way up. the equity guys can 'hope' to catch up via a few really strong years, but the chances are slim and hope is the dumbest investment thesis imaginable.

I find hope to be pretty dumb generally.

But yeah. I'll be starting with some saving bonds this year. Even just couple hundred a month.

Aristotle wrote:financial planners spew the worst financial advice i've ever heard. taken right from the sales pitch of a mutual fund manager.

Well I did say this country, meaning Australia.

Things are very highly regulated here with significant educational requirements. It's nothing like the stick up a sign and call yourself a financial planner system in the US.

My degree was in financial planning yet i'm not qualified to be one with that alone.