Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Gary_Yngve

Palin's to-be son-in-law HS dropout

Recommended Posts

Justin, since you admit you don't know the first thing about 401ks, why do you persist in trying to lord over people who actually DO have them?
I already said I didn't know what risk options are provided in most 401Ks, but if you had an one that forced you to buy only stocks, then nothing I am saying has anything to do with you. Clear?

 

Right, and the vast majority of the investment options for a 401K are mutual funds, which are comprised of....stocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have stocks (risky or otherwise), I don't live (too far) above my means, I don't live in a house I can't afford, I didn't vote for Bush or Clinton, but I'll still be in the breadline if I get fired when the economy tanks. Pulling up one's bootstraps and admitting that I'm at fault is a bit tough to swallow. So live in the postmodern la-la-land of relativity that the ideological masters have created for us. I'll keep placing the blame where it deservedly lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can look back and wouldn't/couldn't have done anything differently, well then good for you. If that is really true, then I'm willing to bet that you will fare relatively well. At least you did the best you could, and what you/we know now presumably will help you/us later.

 

If the unrealized wealth wasn't really there in the first place, then that explains where it went. Apparently the "unrealized gains" that we thought we were getting for free were of the easy come, easy go variety.

 

Sounds like it's time to rethink 401Ks, among other things.

 

But hindsight is 20/20 and apparently I'm a callous, clueless, asshole on the internet. Can I go now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like it's time to rethink 401Ks, among other things.

 

And replace them with what exactly? Business crippling defined benefit plans? BWAH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can look back and wouldn't/couldn't have done anything differently, well then good for you. If that is really true, then I'm willing to bet that you will fare relatively well. At least you did the best you could.

 

I've avoided trapping myself in these instruments for exactly the reasons that are now coming to pass and I didn't believe in the bullshit marketing or the lifestyles they promote. I've been branded something of a Luddite as a result. What I wouldn't do is blast ordinary Americans that have been spoonfed this shit from every corner of cultural life (government, business, media and academia) for the last 20 years. Who's going to rip into parents for wanting to own a home for their kids when everyone, most of all the banks who are financing the mortgage, are telling them they can?! Who's the asshole who's going to blame workers for investing their money in retirement funds when the companies they work for have cut them loose and dumbfuck politicians are telling them Social Security isn't going to be around when they retire? Who? You.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, nobody had the option of investing in something besides stocks in their 401Ks? Where that is true, then yes, rethink that, it sounds like an egregious limitation on the freedom, rights and privacy of employees. They most certainly should be given the right to decide how to invest their retirement benefits. (And not just so that I can wag a finger at them.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Business crippling

 

This is perfect example of the kind of unchallenged rubbish packaged in mewling cries of "competitiveness" that got us in this mess. Apparently what's been good for American business has not necessarily been good for America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like it's time to rethink 401Ks, among other things.

 

And replace them with what exactly? Business crippling defined benefit plans? BWAH!

 

There are problems with 401k's, including the fact that many are run by firms sucking huge fees from the participants. The model 401k plan is the Thrift Savings Plan (www.tsp.gov) run by the federal gov't for gov't employees. If I was president, I'd require this be an available option for every employee.

 

Another issue is that less than 80% of employees participate in available plans.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2007-10-22-401k-automatic-enrollment_N.htm

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's going to rip into parents for wanting to own a home for their kids when everyone, most of all the banks who are financing the mortgage, are telling them they can?!

 

For most of this century in Seattle, it's been cheaper to rent a home than to buy. The difference could have been saved for the kids' college, or saved for the parent's retirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously, nobody had the option of investing in something besides stocks in their 401Ks?

 

One might start with the question is "investing" the best way to go about planning for one's retirement at all. Absent guaranteed pensions or Social Security, putting your money in the casino has been the only option and one that was promoted breathlessly from all corners. Do I think people's rights should be infringed as to where they invest their money? No. But the market should only be supplementing something not subject to the great flushing sound we're now hearing. That "something" has been being dismantled for the last 30 years of the conservative pro-business fog machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously, nobody had the option of investing in something besides stocks in their 401Ks?

 

One might start with the question is "investing" the best way to go about planning for one's retirement at all. Absent guaranteed pensions or Social Security, putting your money in the casino has been the only option and one that was promoted breathlessly from all corners.

 

There is no such thing as a guaranteed pension. Companies holding pensions go bankrupt. Insurers holding annuities go bust. There is a huge unfunded pension liability in many cities. SS will be less in the future. Pensions invest in the same casino you are railing about.

 

You're demanding that gov't/business provide you a guaranteed comfortable financial retirement after a few years of work. That's an illusion. There's always risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's going to rip into parents for wanting to own a home for their kids when everyone, most of all the banks who are financing the mortgage, are telling them they can?!

 

For most of this century in Seattle, it's been cheaper to rent a home than to buy. The difference could have been saved for the kids' college, or saved for the parent's retirement.

 

Well apparently more people responded to "financial freedom", "American Dream", "ownership society", "independence", "ever increasing value", etc, etc. Whodathunk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously, nobody had the option of investing in something besides stocks in their 401Ks?

 

One might start with the question is "investing" the best way to go about planning for one's retirement at all. Absent guaranteed pensions or Social Security, putting your money in the casino has been the only option and one that was promoted breathlessly from all corners.

 

There is no such thing as a guaranteed pension. Companies holding pensions go bankrupt. Insurers holding annuities go bust. There is a huge unfunded pension liability in many cities. SS will be less in the future. Pensions invest in the same casino you are railing about.

 

You're demanding that gov't/business provide you a guaranteed comfortable financial retirement after a few years of work. That's an illusion. There's always risk.

 

Yeah well, I think we're seeing a lot of "illusions" and "impossibilities" going down the tubes. $1,000,000,000,000 to bailout banks, cover their asses? Yes, I'm demanding that people who work their entire lives for business and government are guaranteed a livable retirement. It can, has, and will be done. Anything less is barbarism.

 

Let's say it again: The money was there all along.

 

Money to build and generously equip thousands and thousands of new schools, with well-paid, exquisitely trained teachers, small teacher-pupil ratios, a full range of enriching and inspiring programs.

 

Money to revitalize the nation's crumbling inner cities, making them safe and vibrant places for businesses and families and communities to grow.

 

Money to provide decent, affordable and accessible health care to every citizen, to provide dignity and comfort to the elderly, and protection and humane treatment for the mentally ill.

 

Money to provide affordable higher education to everyone who wanted it and could qualify for it. Money to help establish and sustain local businesses and family farms, centered in and on the local community, driven by the needs and knowledge of the people in the area, and not by the dictates of distant corporations.

 

Money to strengthen crumbling infrastructure, to repair bridges, shore up levies, maintain roads and electric grids and sewage systems.

 

Money for affordable, workable public transport systems, for the pursuit of alternative sources of energy, for sustainable, sensible development, for environmental restoration.

 

Money to support free inquiry in science, technology, health and other areas -- research unfettered from the war machine and the drive for corporate profit, and instead devoted to the betterment of human life.

 

Money to support culture, learning, continuing education, libraries, theater, music and the endless manifestations of the human quest to gain more meaning, more understanding, more enlightenment, a deeper, spiritually richer life.

 

The money for all of this -- and much, much more -- was there, all along. When they said we couldn't have these things, they were lying -- or else allowing themselves to be profitably duped by the high priests of the market cult. When they wanted a trillion dollars -- or three trillion dollars -- to wage a war of aggression in Iraq, they found it. Now, when they want trillions of dollars to save the speculators, fraudsters and profiteers of greed in the global market, they suddenly have it.

 

Who then can believe that these governments could not have found the money for good schools, health care, and all the rest, that they could not have enhanced the well-being and livelihood of millions of ordinary citizens, and helped create a more just and equitable and stable world -- if they had wanted to?

 

This is one of the main facts that ordinary citizens around the world should take away from this crisis: the money to maintain, secure and improve the lives of their families and communities was always there -- but their governments, and their political parties, made a deliberate, unforced choice not to use it for the common good. Instead, they subjugated the well-being of the world to the dictates of an extremist cult. A cult of greed and privilege, that preached iron discipline to the poor and the middle-class, but released the rich and powerful from all restrictions, and all responsibility for their actions.--from Chris Floyd, The God That Failed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are problems with 401k's, including the fact that many are run by firms sucking huge fees from the participants. The model 401k plan is the Thrift Savings Plan (www.tsp.gov) run by the federal gov't for gov't employees. If I was president, I'd require this be an available option for every employee.

 

oh, yes, their are problems but nothind needing a drastic rethink. Mutual funds have the same problem with extortionate administrative fees adn participation can be fixed by changing from opt-in to opt-out.

 

now employer matchs and the form they take need a change imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's going to rip into parents for wanting to own a home for their kids when everyone, most of all the banks who are financing the mortgage, are telling them they can?!

 

For most of this century in Seattle, it's been cheaper to rent a home than to buy. The difference could have been saved for the kids' college, or saved for the parent's retirement.

 

Well apparently more people responded to "financial freedom", "American Dream", "ownership society", "independence", "ever increasing value", etc, etc. Whodathunk?

 

No, dumbshit. More people responded to making a PILE more money buying than renting over time. WAY FUCKING MORE MONEY. And then some. And then some more. And yes, current downturn already factored in.

 

The smart folks in Seattle bought when they could, rented out rooms for the first few years, made cost effective improvements to increase value, snagged the deductions/tax breaks, and enjoyed hefty capital appreciation.

 

The dumb one's sat around and moped about the horrors of capitalism to their fellow renter roommates. Before the nightly 'who stole my yogurt' discussion, of course.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

oh, yes, their are problems but nothind needing a drastic rethink. Mutual funds have the same problem with extortionate administrative fees adn participation can be fixed by changing from opt-in to opt-out.

 

Employee contributions are always optional. with any luck, your HR department or union trustees have found a plan with reasonable fees.

 

now employer matchs and the form they take need a change imho.

 

Why? That's all negotiable with the employer, whether it's one person or a group of people in a CBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, dumbshit. More people responded to making a PILE more money buying than renting over time. WAY FUCKING MORE MONEY. And then some. And then some more. And yes, current downturn already factored in.

 

The smart folks in Seattle bought when they could, rented out rooms for the first few years, made cost effective improvements to increase value, snagged the deductions/tax breaks, and enjoyed hefty capital appreciation.

 

The dumb one's sat around and moped about the horrors of capitalism to their fellow renter roommates. Before the nightly 'who stole my yogurt' discussion, of course.

 

 

Give it a try.

 

super-bowel-cleanse.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, dumbshit. More people responded to making a PILE more money buying than renting over time. WAY FUCKING MORE MONEY. And then some. And then some more. And yes, current downturn already factored in.

 

The smart folks in Seattle bought when they could, rented out rooms for the first few years, made cost effective improvements to increase value, snagged the deductions/tax breaks, and enjoyed hefty capital appreciation.

 

The dumb one's sat around and moped about the horrors of capitalism to their fellow renter roommates. Before the nightly 'who stole my yogurt' discussion, of course.

 

 

Give it a try.

 

super-bowel-cleanse.jpg

 

Don't need it, whiny. With all that $$$ I've made in real estate over the years, I can afford to incorporate proper fibre in my diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's going to rip into parents for wanting to own a home for their kids when everyone, most of all the banks who are financing the mortgage, are telling them they can?!

 

For most of this century in Seattle, it's been cheaper to rent a home than to buy. The difference could have been saved for the kids' college, or saved for the parent's retirement.

 

Well apparently more people responded to "financial freedom", "American Dream", "ownership society", "independence", "ever increasing value", etc, etc. Whodathunk?

 

No, dumbshit. More people responded to making a PILE more money buying than renting over time. WAY FUCKING MORE MONEY. And then some. And then some more. And yes, current downturn already factored in.

 

The smart folks in Seattle bought when they could, rented out rooms for the first few years, made cost effective improvements to increase value, snagged the deductions/tax breaks, and enjoyed hefty capital appreciation.

 

The dumb one's sat around and moped about the horrors of capitalism to their fellow renter roommates. Before the nightly 'who stole my yogurt' discussion, of course.

 

 

 

 

You sound like a Republican tvashtarkatena....maybe even a Libertarian.

 

Actually, both E and T have similar points Aston_justin. That is, you have to pick the odds. Go research this: if you had bought stocks at the HIGH, right before the HUGE stock market crash of 1929, and sold at the LOW in 1974. Look at that percentage return and tell me you would have preferred bonds or cash buried in the backyard like dog doo.

 

Similarly, look at housing....as a long term investment. I bought my first house in 1979 for exactly $40,000 during a frenzied bubble. I couldn't sell it for what I owed on it for many years. The house next door, a better one at that, @4 years later, sold for $25,000. People were walking away from homes at record rates. It was a national savings and loan crisis. Many of those s & L went out of business. Research it. I had to rent it out for a small loss every month and lived in a $100 a month apartment downtown, then later moved in with a large group of people. Eventually I sold the house for almost $80,000.

 

Research history Justin...sometimes you just get caught up in it, no matter what you do.

 

I don' know why any of this relates to Palins possible soon to be son in law. They weren't going to get married...maybe the pressure was too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't need it, whiny. With all that $$$ I've made in real estate over the years, I can afford to incorporate proper fibre in my diet.

 

Fuckin' Canucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wealth ,as fame is , are useless.

 

If you were wealthy and famous you probably wouldn't have to pork your sisters in law.

 

OMG!! :lmao: I just squirted coffee out of my nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, maybe I'll piss people off a little less (and maybe even sound like less of a jackass) if I ask questions instead of making statements regarding things about which I don't claim to be an expert. If I'm wrong, I'd prefer to be schooled, than to be meaninglessly insulted.

 

Let's assume that no 401k gives employees the choice of putting their money in something besides the stock market (I suspect that this is not entirely true, but what do I know right). Why were/are employees who were not comfortable with the volatility of the stock market, comfortable with benefit plans offering no other options? Yes investing works, and it also promotes economic growth. But it is volatile, and that makes it risky. Why are people only coming to terms with this now? If they had no other choice, why?

 

A scarier thought, how much of the inflation (er, "appreciation") of stock market prices in the 80's and 90's is directly attributable to the emergence and prevalence of of stock-heavy 401k investment programs? What if the bull market of the 80's and 90's the result not of extraordinary growth in business, but an increased demand and overvaluation due to a huge new body of captive investors? What happens when these people start asking for their money back?

 

According to Schiller, price increases far outpaced earnings growth during that bull market. He called it irrational exuberance (borrowing a phrase from Greenspan I'll add, to save some the trouble of trying to burn me on this detail). Well what if it wasn't really exuberance at all, but as others also say, a pyramid by which Wall Street siphoned off the wealth of the working public by promoting compulsory investment programs that thrived on fundamental misconceptions about the riskiness and value of stock market investments?

 

On the brighter side, the DJIA is still valued at ~8000-9000 right now. Does that really mean that retirees are going to be out on the street begging for change to pay for medical treatment? I don't think so. In fact, doesn't the current market value still represent a handsome return over the past 20-30 years? So isn't the response to this apparently "normal" market behavior a little exaggerated? Furthermore, why should anyone assume that their long-term wealth is equivalent to wildly fluctuating market prices? Everything is smoothed out over time-contributions, gains, losses, withdrawals.

 

ps. of course this has to do with little Levi, he'll have to plan his retirement for the possibility that some psychotic megarichtards will allow the financial system to collapse again and erase a bunch of his unrealized gains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×