European nations begin seizing private pensions

[jpinpb]

[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.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter] 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]

I agree with you…. but that’s the path not taken. What’s done is done.

Letting the financial sector collapse in 2008 would have required the government nationalize all the big banks and socialize the economy. No chance that would happen in America.

Up until the collapse of Lehman, the people in charge though that the market + some government and Fed tweeking could handle it.

I’m not saying that the bailout programs that we got were the best solutions. But bailouts of some sorts were absolutely necessary.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter] 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]

I agree with you…. but that’s the path not taken. What’s done is done.

Letting the financial sector collapse in 2008 would have required the government nationalize all the big banks and socialize the economy. No chance that would happen in America.

Up until the collapse of Lehman, the people in charge though that the market + some government and Fed tweeking could handle it.

I’m not saying that the bailout programs that we got were the best solutions. But bailouts of some sorts were absolutely necessary.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter] 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]

I agree with you…. but that’s the path not taken. What’s done is done.

Letting the financial sector collapse in 2008 would have required the government nationalize all the big banks and socialize the economy. No chance that would happen in America.

Up until the collapse of Lehman, the people in charge though that the market + some government and Fed tweeking could handle it.

I’m not saying that the bailout programs that we got were the best solutions. But bailouts of some sorts were absolutely necessary.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter] 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]

I agree with you…. but that’s the path not taken. What’s done is done.

Letting the financial sector collapse in 2008 would have required the government nationalize all the big banks and socialize the economy. No chance that would happen in America.

Up until the collapse of Lehman, the people in charge though that the market + some government and Fed tweeking could handle it.

I’m not saying that the bailout programs that we got were the best solutions. But bailouts of some sorts were absolutely necessary.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter] 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]

I agree with you…. but that’s the path not taken. What’s done is done.

Letting the financial sector collapse in 2008 would have required the government nationalize all the big banks and socialize the economy. No chance that would happen in America.

Up until the collapse of Lehman, the people in charge though that the market + some government and Fed tweeking could handle it.

I’m not saying that the bailout programs that we got were the best solutions. But bailouts of some sorts were absolutely necessary.

[eavesdropper]

[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]

Rich, I agree completely with your statement. But, in all honesty, can we look forward to productivity growth? Until 30 years go, prosperity resulted from what we manufactured here and sold here and elsewhere in the world. Since then, domestic productivity has been steadily reduced as more corporations moved operations and jobs overseas. The “prosperity” of the 90s and aughts resulted, in large part, from lax monetary policy, widespread speculation, and limitless lending. The employment during this time didn’t come from long-term manufacturing jobs, but from home construction and “service” industries that were the first to fall when the bottom fell out of housing and credit dried up, i.e. the sources of revenue for those industries.

To my rather unsophisticated way of thinking, a return to prosperity as we’ve known it is not possible. I don’t care how low the corporate tax rate goes, corporations are going to continue moving jobs overseas. Americans cannot live on minimum wage, not that it matters since corporations are able to pay much, much less than that to their workers in third-world nations. Manufacturing jobs that provided much of the prosperity of the past are a thing of the past.

To be honest, the loss of manufacturing jobs not only should have been foreseen by the government, but should have been part of a conscious effort to change the labor landscape of our nation in order to meet the challenges of the future. The boomer generation witnessed the enormous amount of postwar technological development, and produced the largest and best-educated labor force ever. We were in a prime position to move from a manufacturing economy to one based on technological development. However, we stood idly by, not only watching other nations surpass us in research and development, but also keeping our children from a place at the table, by neglecting to educate them to a competitive level. With completely straight faces, we continue to claim credit for winning WWII and landing on the moon – feats that were, in fact, accomplished by our parents and grandparents.

I agree completely with your argument. But, without a major course correction (and possibly not even with that), I just don’t see us avoiding a collision with the iceberg. And, yes, Brian, I see a “lost decades” scenario.

[eavesdropper]

[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]

Rich, I agree completely with your statement. But, in all honesty, can we look forward to productivity growth? Until 30 years go, prosperity resulted from what we manufactured here and sold here and elsewhere in the world. Since then, domestic productivity has been steadily reduced as more corporations moved operations and jobs overseas. The “prosperity” of the 90s and aughts resulted, in large part, from lax monetary policy, widespread speculation, and limitless lending. The employment during this time didn’t come from long-term manufacturing jobs, but from home construction and “service” industries that were the first to fall when the bottom fell out of housing and credit dried up, i.e. the sources of revenue for those industries.

To my rather unsophisticated way of thinking, a return to prosperity as we’ve known it is not possible. I don’t care how low the corporate tax rate goes, corporations are going to continue moving jobs overseas. Americans cannot live on minimum wage, not that it matters since corporations are able to pay much, much less than that to their workers in third-world nations. Manufacturing jobs that provided much of the prosperity of the past are a thing of the past.

To be honest, the loss of manufacturing jobs not only should have been foreseen by the government, but should have been part of a conscious effort to change the labor landscape of our nation in order to meet the challenges of the future. The boomer generation witnessed the enormous amount of postwar technological development, and produced the largest and best-educated labor force ever. We were in a prime position to move from a manufacturing economy to one based on technological development. However, we stood idly by, not only watching other nations surpass us in research and development, but also keeping our children from a place at the table, by neglecting to educate them to a competitive level. With completely straight faces, we continue to claim credit for winning WWII and landing on the moon – feats that were, in fact, accomplished by our parents and grandparents.

I agree completely with your argument. But, without a major course correction (and possibly not even with that), I just don’t see us avoiding a collision with the iceberg. And, yes, Brian, I see a “lost decades” scenario.

[eavesdropper]

[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]

Rich, I agree completely with your statement. But, in all honesty, can we look forward to productivity growth? Until 30 years go, prosperity resulted from what we manufactured here and sold here and elsewhere in the world. Since then, domestic productivity has been steadily reduced as more corporations moved operations and jobs overseas. The “prosperity” of the 90s and aughts resulted, in large part, from lax monetary policy, widespread speculation, and limitless lending. The employment during this time didn’t come from long-term manufacturing jobs, but from home construction and “service” industries that were the first to fall when the bottom fell out of housing and credit dried up, i.e. the sources of revenue for those industries.

To my rather unsophisticated way of thinking, a return to prosperity as we’ve known it is not possible. I don’t care how low the corporate tax rate goes, corporations are going to continue moving jobs overseas. Americans cannot live on minimum wage, not that it matters since corporations are able to pay much, much less than that to their workers in third-world nations. Manufacturing jobs that provided much of the prosperity of the past are a thing of the past.

To be honest, the loss of manufacturing jobs not only should have been foreseen by the government, but should have been part of a conscious effort to change the labor landscape of our nation in order to meet the challenges of the future. The boomer generation witnessed the enormous amount of postwar technological development, and produced the largest and best-educated labor force ever. We were in a prime position to move from a manufacturing economy to one based on technological development. However, we stood idly by, not only watching other nations surpass us in research and development, but also keeping our children from a place at the table, by neglecting to educate them to a competitive level. With completely straight faces, we continue to claim credit for winning WWII and landing on the moon – feats that were, in fact, accomplished by our parents and grandparents.

I agree completely with your argument. But, without a major course correction (and possibly not even with that), I just don’t see us avoiding a collision with the iceberg. And, yes, Brian, I see a “lost decades” scenario.

[eavesdropper]

[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]

Rich, I agree completely with your statement. But, in all honesty, can we look forward to productivity growth? Until 30 years go, prosperity resulted from what we manufactured here and sold here and elsewhere in the world. Since then, domestic productivity has been steadily reduced as more corporations moved operations and jobs overseas. The “prosperity” of the 90s and aughts resulted, in large part, from lax monetary policy, widespread speculation, and limitless lending. The employment during this time didn’t come from long-term manufacturing jobs, but from home construction and “service” industries that were the first to fall when the bottom fell out of housing and credit dried up, i.e. the sources of revenue for those industries.

To my rather unsophisticated way of thinking, a return to prosperity as we’ve known it is not possible. I don’t care how low the corporate tax rate goes, corporations are going to continue moving jobs overseas. Americans cannot live on minimum wage, not that it matters since corporations are able to pay much, much less than that to their workers in third-world nations. Manufacturing jobs that provided much of the prosperity of the past are a thing of the past.

To be honest, the loss of manufacturing jobs not only should have been foreseen by the government, but should have been part of a conscious effort to change the labor landscape of our nation in order to meet the challenges of the future. The boomer generation witnessed the enormous amount of postwar technological development, and produced the largest and best-educated labor force ever. We were in a prime position to move from a manufacturing economy to one based on technological development. However, we stood idly by, not only watching other nations surpass us in research and development, but also keeping our children from a place at the table, by neglecting to educate them to a competitive level. With completely straight faces, we continue to claim credit for winning WWII and landing on the moon – feats that were, in fact, accomplished by our parents and grandparents.

I agree completely with your argument. But, without a major course correction (and possibly not even with that), I just don’t see us avoiding a collision with the iceberg. And, yes, Brian, I see a “lost decades” scenario.

[eavesdropper]

[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]

Rich, I agree completely with your statement. But, in all honesty, can we look forward to productivity growth? Until 30 years go, prosperity resulted from what we manufactured here and sold here and elsewhere in the world. Since then, domestic productivity has been steadily reduced as more corporations moved operations and jobs overseas. The “prosperity” of the 90s and aughts resulted, in large part, from lax monetary policy, widespread speculation, and limitless lending. The employment during this time didn’t come from long-term manufacturing jobs, but from home construction and “service” industries that were the first to fall when the bottom fell out of housing and credit dried up, i.e. the sources of revenue for those industries.

To my rather unsophisticated way of thinking, a return to prosperity as we’ve known it is not possible. I don’t care how low the corporate tax rate goes, corporations are going to continue moving jobs overseas. Americans cannot live on minimum wage, not that it matters since corporations are able to pay much, much less than that to their workers in third-world nations. Manufacturing jobs that provided much of the prosperity of the past are a thing of the past.

To be honest, the loss of manufacturing jobs not only should have been foreseen by the government, but should have been part of a conscious effort to change the labor landscape of our nation in order to meet the challenges of the future. The boomer generation witnessed the enormous amount of postwar technological development, and produced the largest and best-educated labor force ever. We were in a prime position to move from a manufacturing economy to one based on technological development. However, we stood idly by, not only watching other nations surpass us in research and development, but also keeping our children from a place at the table, by neglecting to educate them to a competitive level. With completely straight faces, we continue to claim credit for winning WWII and landing on the moon – feats that were, in fact, accomplished by our parents and grandparents.

I agree completely with your argument. But, without a major course correction (and possibly not even with that), I just don’t see us avoiding a collision with the iceberg. And, yes, Brian, I see a “lost decades” scenario.

[sobmaz]

Makes you want to put your savings under the mattress so no one knows how much you saved!!

Oh wait, it might burn in a house fire, better put it in a safe deposit box.

Oh wait, it is illegal to put cash into a safe deposit box.

Well I guess it doesn’t matter either way because its value would inflate away over time, so you MUST keep it on deposit somewhere.

On the other hand, if you save in Gold, no one knows what you have and it retains value.

Oh, but Gold is a dead asset, it pays no interest!

Gold does not need to pay interest as it is not a depreciating asset as a dollar is.

Just keep in mind that in the late sixties 20 ounces of gold was the equivalent of the Dow Jones industrial average.

Today the Dow is worth about 9 ounces of gold. So in 1960s if you had chosen 20 ounces of gold you’d have 28k and if you had chosen the Dow you’d have 13000.

Sounds like Gold was the better deal to me.

Oh wait, don’t forget that over the years the Dow was manipulated. Companies that fell in value were removed and replaced. Xerox was an example as was now defunct AMC motors. If the original Dow 30 was still in place it would be worth only a couple K.

It is true that the Dow stocks pay dividends and that needs to be put into the calculation and at the very most makes the manipulated Dow issue mute in comparison to Gold.

So the choice is to have numbers on a statement that are subject to Government inflation and confiscation or a chunk of Gold “that you can’t eat”.

It is true you can’t eat Gold but you can trade it for a thousand loafs of bread!

.

[sobmaz]

Makes you want to put your savings under the mattress so no one knows how much you saved!!

Oh wait, it might burn in a house fire, better put it in a safe deposit box.

Oh wait, it is illegal to put cash into a safe deposit box.

Well I guess it doesn’t matter either way because its value would inflate away over time, so you MUST keep it on deposit somewhere.

On the other hand, if you save in Gold, no one knows what you have and it retains value.

Oh, but Gold is a dead asset, it pays no interest!

Gold does not need to pay interest as it is not a depreciating asset as a dollar is.

Just keep in mind that in the late sixties 20 ounces of gold was the equivalent of the Dow Jones industrial average.

Today the Dow is worth about 9 ounces of gold. So in 1960s if you had chosen 20 ounces of gold you’d have 28k and if you had chosen the Dow you’d have 13000.

Sounds like Gold was the better deal to me.

Oh wait, don’t forget that over the years the Dow was manipulated. Companies that fell in value were removed and replaced. Xerox was an example as was now defunct AMC motors. If the original Dow 30 was still in place it would be worth only a couple K.

It is true that the Dow stocks pay dividends and that needs to be put into the calculation and at the very most makes the manipulated Dow issue mute in comparison to Gold.

So the choice is to have numbers on a statement that are subject to Government inflation and confiscation or a chunk of Gold “that you can’t eat”.

It is true you can’t eat Gold but you can trade it for a thousand loafs of bread!

.

[sobmaz]

Makes you want to put your savings under the mattress so no one knows how much you saved!!

Oh wait, it might burn in a house fire, better put it in a safe deposit box.

Oh wait, it is illegal to put cash into a safe deposit box.

Well I guess it doesn’t matter either way because its value would inflate away over time, so you MUST keep it on deposit somewhere.

On the other hand, if you save in Gold, no one knows what you have and it retains value.

Oh, but Gold is a dead asset, it pays no interest!

Gold does not need to pay interest as it is not a depreciating asset as a dollar is.

Just keep in mind that in the late sixties 20 ounces of gold was the equivalent of the Dow Jones industrial average.

Today the Dow is worth about 9 ounces of gold. So in 1960s if you had chosen 20 ounces of gold you’d have 28k and if you had chosen the Dow you’d have 13000.

Sounds like Gold was the better deal to me.

Oh wait, don’t forget that over the years the Dow was manipulated. Companies that fell in value were removed and replaced. Xerox was an example as was now defunct AMC motors. If the original Dow 30 was still in place it would be worth only a couple K.

It is true that the Dow stocks pay dividends and that needs to be put into the calculation and at the very most makes the manipulated Dow issue mute in comparison to Gold.

So the choice is to have numbers on a statement that are subject to Government inflation and confiscation or a chunk of Gold “that you can’t eat”.

It is true you can’t eat Gold but you can trade it for a thousand loafs of bread!

.

[sobmaz]

Makes you want to put your savings under the mattress so no one knows how much you saved!!

Oh wait, it might burn in a house fire, better put it in a safe deposit box.

Oh wait, it is illegal to put cash into a safe deposit box.

Well I guess it doesn’t matter either way because its value would inflate away over time, so you MUST keep it on deposit somewhere.

On the other hand, if you save in Gold, no one knows what you have and it retains value.

Oh, but Gold is a dead asset, it pays no interest!

Gold does not need to pay interest as it is not a depreciating asset as a dollar is.

Just keep in mind that in the late sixties 20 ounces of gold was the equivalent of the Dow Jones industrial average.

Today the Dow is worth about 9 ounces of gold. So in 1960s if you had chosen 20 ounces of gold you’d have 28k and if you had chosen the Dow you’d have 13000.

Sounds like Gold was the better deal to me.

Oh wait, don’t forget that over the years the Dow was manipulated. Companies that fell in value were removed and replaced. Xerox was an example as was now defunct AMC motors. If the original Dow 30 was still in place it would be worth only a couple K.

It is true that the Dow stocks pay dividends and that needs to be put into the calculation and at the very most makes the manipulated Dow issue mute in comparison to Gold.

So the choice is to have numbers on a statement that are subject to Government inflation and confiscation or a chunk of Gold “that you can’t eat”.

It is true you can’t eat Gold but you can trade it for a thousand loafs of bread!

.

[Author]

Posts