Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › European nations begin seizing private pensions
- This topic has 135 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 12, 2011 at 4:41 PM #696171May 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM #694983
CA renter
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
This explains why your perspective is different from many of ours, brian. Since you are childless, you tend not to worry about what happens after you die. For the rest of us, it matters greatly.Just an interesting observation that helps explain why you think all the intervention “saved” us. It didn’t, and perhaps you know that, but you (and/or your children — since you don’t have any) don’t plan on being around to suffer the consequences, apparently.
Better start eating more junk food. ;)[/quote]
I actually was not referring to myself, but to people in their 50s, at the peak earning years. Generally people die in the 70s to early 80s.
They don’t have enough time to recover from a collapse in the value of their assets or from layoffs. Those folks are becoming empty-nesters and need to start downsizing and making plans for retirement. They should be thankful the government saved the economy.
BTW, government action is necessary not just economically but for social harmony as well. Imagine the social unrest if unemployment hits 20% or above.[/quote]
I’ve always favored some type of government action, mostly in the form of WPA-type programs, and increasing funding for R&D in energy, healthcare, and transportation technology. I’ve also suggested that the government fully back the FDIC, SIPC, PBGC, and possibly other pension programs (but only up to the previous limits).
In other words, cover those who were prudent, and who didn’t have anything to do with causing the “financial crisis,” and try to keep unemployment as low as possible during the deleveraging period. Fix the *cause* of the crisis, while trying to mitigate the damage to those who were not directly involved in the mortgage/credit market. Mortgage borrowers and lenders (and those who traded related securities) are NOT in this “protected” group.
What I do not approve of are the bailouts of the very people who got us into this mess. This cannot be stated emphatically enough.
May 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM #695070Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
This explains why your perspective is different from many of ours, brian. Since you are childless, you tend not to worry about what happens after you die. For the rest of us, it matters greatly.Just an interesting observation that helps explain why you think all the intervention “saved” us. It didn’t, and perhaps you know that, but you (and/or your children — since you don’t have any) don’t plan on being around to suffer the consequences, apparently.
Better start eating more junk food. ;)[/quote]
I actually was not referring to myself, but to people in their 50s, at the peak earning years. Generally people die in the 70s to early 80s.
They don’t have enough time to recover from a collapse in the value of their assets or from layoffs. Those folks are becoming empty-nesters and need to start downsizing and making plans for retirement. They should be thankful the government saved the economy.
BTW, government action is necessary not just economically but for social harmony as well. Imagine the social unrest if unemployment hits 20% or above.[/quote]
I’ve always favored some type of government action, mostly in the form of WPA-type programs, and increasing funding for R&D in energy, healthcare, and transportation technology. I’ve also suggested that the government fully back the FDIC, SIPC, PBGC, and possibly other pension programs (but only up to the previous limits).
In other words, cover those who were prudent, and who didn’t have anything to do with causing the “financial crisis,” and try to keep unemployment as low as possible during the deleveraging period. Fix the *cause* of the crisis, while trying to mitigate the damage to those who were not directly involved in the mortgage/credit market. Mortgage borrowers and lenders (and those who traded related securities) are NOT in this “protected” group.
What I do not approve of are the bailouts of the very people who got us into this mess. This cannot be stated emphatically enough.
May 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM #695673Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
This explains why your perspective is different from many of ours, brian. Since you are childless, you tend not to worry about what happens after you die. For the rest of us, it matters greatly.Just an interesting observation that helps explain why you think all the intervention “saved” us. It didn’t, and perhaps you know that, but you (and/or your children — since you don’t have any) don’t plan on being around to suffer the consequences, apparently.
Better start eating more junk food. ;)[/quote]
I actually was not referring to myself, but to people in their 50s, at the peak earning years. Generally people die in the 70s to early 80s.
They don’t have enough time to recover from a collapse in the value of their assets or from layoffs. Those folks are becoming empty-nesters and need to start downsizing and making plans for retirement. They should be thankful the government saved the economy.
BTW, government action is necessary not just economically but for social harmony as well. Imagine the social unrest if unemployment hits 20% or above.[/quote]
I’ve always favored some type of government action, mostly in the form of WPA-type programs, and increasing funding for R&D in energy, healthcare, and transportation technology. I’ve also suggested that the government fully back the FDIC, SIPC, PBGC, and possibly other pension programs (but only up to the previous limits).
In other words, cover those who were prudent, and who didn’t have anything to do with causing the “financial crisis,” and try to keep unemployment as low as possible during the deleveraging period. Fix the *cause* of the crisis, while trying to mitigate the damage to those who were not directly involved in the mortgage/credit market. Mortgage borrowers and lenders (and those who traded related securities) are NOT in this “protected” group.
What I do not approve of are the bailouts of the very people who got us into this mess. This cannot be stated emphatically enough.
May 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM #695822Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
This explains why your perspective is different from many of ours, brian. Since you are childless, you tend not to worry about what happens after you die. For the rest of us, it matters greatly.Just an interesting observation that helps explain why you think all the intervention “saved” us. It didn’t, and perhaps you know that, but you (and/or your children — since you don’t have any) don’t plan on being around to suffer the consequences, apparently.
Better start eating more junk food. ;)[/quote]
I actually was not referring to myself, but to people in their 50s, at the peak earning years. Generally people die in the 70s to early 80s.
They don’t have enough time to recover from a collapse in the value of their assets or from layoffs. Those folks are becoming empty-nesters and need to start downsizing and making plans for retirement. They should be thankful the government saved the economy.
BTW, government action is necessary not just economically but for social harmony as well. Imagine the social unrest if unemployment hits 20% or above.[/quote]
I’ve always favored some type of government action, mostly in the form of WPA-type programs, and increasing funding for R&D in energy, healthcare, and transportation technology. I’ve also suggested that the government fully back the FDIC, SIPC, PBGC, and possibly other pension programs (but only up to the previous limits).
In other words, cover those who were prudent, and who didn’t have anything to do with causing the “financial crisis,” and try to keep unemployment as low as possible during the deleveraging period. Fix the *cause* of the crisis, while trying to mitigate the damage to those who were not directly involved in the mortgage/credit market. Mortgage borrowers and lenders (and those who traded related securities) are NOT in this “protected” group.
What I do not approve of are the bailouts of the very people who got us into this mess. This cannot be stated emphatically enough.
May 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM #696177Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
This explains why your perspective is different from many of ours, brian. Since you are childless, you tend not to worry about what happens after you die. For the rest of us, it matters greatly.Just an interesting observation that helps explain why you think all the intervention “saved” us. It didn’t, and perhaps you know that, but you (and/or your children — since you don’t have any) don’t plan on being around to suffer the consequences, apparently.
Better start eating more junk food. ;)[/quote]
I actually was not referring to myself, but to people in their 50s, at the peak earning years. Generally people die in the 70s to early 80s.
They don’t have enough time to recover from a collapse in the value of their assets or from layoffs. Those folks are becoming empty-nesters and need to start downsizing and making plans for retirement. They should be thankful the government saved the economy.
BTW, government action is necessary not just economically but for social harmony as well. Imagine the social unrest if unemployment hits 20% or above.[/quote]
I’ve always favored some type of government action, mostly in the form of WPA-type programs, and increasing funding for R&D in energy, healthcare, and transportation technology. I’ve also suggested that the government fully back the FDIC, SIPC, PBGC, and possibly other pension programs (but only up to the previous limits).
In other words, cover those who were prudent, and who didn’t have anything to do with causing the “financial crisis,” and try to keep unemployment as low as possible during the deleveraging period. Fix the *cause* of the crisis, while trying to mitigate the damage to those who were not directly involved in the mortgage/credit market. Mortgage borrowers and lenders (and those who traded related securities) are NOT in this “protected” group.
What I do not approve of are the bailouts of the very people who got us into this mess. This cannot be stated emphatically enough.
May 12, 2011 at 6:12 PM #695024jpinpb
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Rich Toscano]That’s not even in the issue, in my opinion. There is no chance that things will be better 20 years from now because people’s 401ks were propped up today. Long-term prosperity is based on productivity growth, and the stuff of this bailout (unsound money, massive debt accrual and deficits, handouts to incompetent and semi-corrupt companies that should have gone bankrupt, etc etc)… that’s not good for productivity growth.[/quote]
Could not agree more.[/quote]
x3
May 12, 2011 at 6:12 PM #695111Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Rich Toscano]That’s not even in the issue, in my opinion. There is no chance that things will be better 20 years from now because people’s 401ks were propped up today. Long-term prosperity is based on productivity growth, and the stuff of this bailout (unsound money, massive debt accrual and deficits, handouts to incompetent and semi-corrupt companies that should have gone bankrupt, etc etc)… that’s not good for productivity growth.[/quote]
Could not agree more.[/quote]
x3
May 12, 2011 at 6:12 PM #695713Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Rich Toscano]That’s not even in the issue, in my opinion. There is no chance that things will be better 20 years from now because people’s 401ks were propped up today. Long-term prosperity is based on productivity growth, and the stuff of this bailout (unsound money, massive debt accrual and deficits, handouts to incompetent and semi-corrupt companies that should have gone bankrupt, etc etc)… that’s not good for productivity growth.[/quote]
Could not agree more.[/quote]
x3
May 12, 2011 at 6:12 PM #695862Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Rich Toscano]That’s not even in the issue, in my opinion. There is no chance that things will be better 20 years from now because people’s 401ks were propped up today. Long-term prosperity is based on productivity growth, and the stuff of this bailout (unsound money, massive debt accrual and deficits, handouts to incompetent and semi-corrupt companies that should have gone bankrupt, etc etc)… that’s not good for productivity growth.[/quote]
Could not agree more.[/quote]
x3
May 12, 2011 at 6:12 PM #696217Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Rich Toscano]That’s not even in the issue, in my opinion. There is no chance that things will be better 20 years from now because people’s 401ks were propped up today. Long-term prosperity is based on productivity growth, and the stuff of this bailout (unsound money, massive debt accrual and deficits, handouts to incompetent and semi-corrupt companies that should have gone bankrupt, etc etc)… that’s not good for productivity growth.[/quote]
Could not agree more.[/quote]
x3
May 12, 2011 at 6:13 PM #695034Participant[quote=CA renter]I’ve always favored some type of government action, mostly in the form of WPA-type programs, and increasing funding for R&D in energy, healthcare, and transportation technology. I’ve also suggested that the government fully back the FDIC, SIPC, PBGC, and possibly other pension programs (but only up to the previous limits).
In other words, cover those who were prudent, and who didn’t have anything to do with causing the “financial crisis,” and try to keep unemployment as low as possible during the deleveraging period. Fix the *cause* of the crisis, while trying to mitigate the damage to those who were not directly involved in the mortgage/credit market. Mortgage borrowers and lenders (and those who traded related securities) are NOT in this “protected” group.
What I do not approve of are the bailouts of the very people who got us into this mess. This cannot be stated emphatically enough.[/quote]
Agreed.
May 12, 2011 at 6:13 PM #695121Participant[quote=CA renter]I’ve always favored some type of government action, mostly in the form of WPA-type programs, and increasing funding for R&D in energy, healthcare, and transportation technology. I’ve also suggested that the government fully back the FDIC, SIPC, PBGC, and possibly other pension programs (but only up to the previous limits).
In other words, cover those who were prudent, and who didn’t have anything to do with causing the “financial crisis,” and try to keep unemployment as low as possible during the deleveraging period. Fix the *cause* of the crisis, while trying to mitigate the damage to those who were not directly involved in the mortgage/credit market. Mortgage borrowers and lenders (and those who traded related securities) are NOT in this “protected” group.
What I do not approve of are the bailouts of the very people who got us into this mess. This cannot be stated emphatically enough.[/quote]
Agreed.
May 12, 2011 at 6:13 PM #695723Participant[quote=CA renter]I’ve always favored some type of government action, mostly in the form of WPA-type programs, and increasing funding for R&D in energy, healthcare, and transportation technology. I’ve also suggested that the government fully back the FDIC, SIPC, PBGC, and possibly other pension programs (but only up to the previous limits).
In other words, cover those who were prudent, and who didn’t have anything to do with causing the “financial crisis,” and try to keep unemployment as low as possible during the deleveraging period. Fix the *cause* of the crisis, while trying to mitigate the damage to those who were not directly involved in the mortgage/credit market. Mortgage borrowers and lenders (and those who traded related securities) are NOT in this “protected” group.
What I do not approve of are the bailouts of the very people who got us into this mess. This cannot be stated emphatically enough.[/quote]
Agreed.
May 12, 2011 at 6:13 PM #695872Participant[quote=CA renter]I’ve always favored some type of government action, mostly in the form of WPA-type programs, and increasing funding for R&D in energy, healthcare, and transportation technology. I’ve also suggested that the government fully back the FDIC, SIPC, PBGC, and possibly other pension programs (but only up to the previous limits).
In other words, cover those who were prudent, and who didn’t have anything to do with causing the “financial crisis,” and try to keep unemployment as low as possible during the deleveraging period. Fix the *cause* of the crisis, while trying to mitigate the damage to those who were not directly involved in the mortgage/credit market. Mortgage borrowers and lenders (and those who traded related securities) are NOT in this “protected” group.
What I do not approve of are the bailouts of the very people who got us into this mess. This cannot be stated emphatically enough.[/quote]
Agreed.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.