woodchip wrote:Remember, you are the exception. Most peoples pensions are, by law, in the hands of accredited financial institutions. In the last 20 years and two financial companies, my pension has taken hits twice. I'm on my third "professional" fund handler so my fingers are crossed they can do better.
no, I am not the exception, when one looks at one's peers. And that, precisely, is the idea I'm trying to get across. Sure, when your investing with some pension type fund, managed by some 32 year old MBA, you get what you get. Folks in a certain economic class fare better, every time, under our system for a few basic reasons:
1. We have liquid capital, or loose cash to hit markets at lows. We maintain that pool by selling at prudent highs, and maintain liquidity, something a pension or 401K can never do.
2. We've been raised in a culture chock full of peers with generations of financial acumen. We're raised with the stuff. So, when you look around and there are suddenly WAY too many McMansions bought by
middle class shmoos, and financial types are trying to sell you a lot of mortgage based paper, something ought to smell, and rightly so.
3. We usually have widely diversified portfolios. Mine, for instance is really geared toward capital preservation with a very modest rate of return. It's just that the last 3 years have been unreal-good, which is what happens for older money, conservative, liquid investors after every crash or even minor downturn.
We are the only ones positioned to buy near the bottom.
The resultant riots here would be more frightening than anything prior when the welfare money dries up, and federal workers are laid off in the millions. I've been thru the Detroit riots back in the late 60's and I can tell you, when people have their trigger stroked, it ain't a very pretty picture.
and this is the only reason I come onto boards like this and expound on this crap. My fear is that these policies being proposed, which mainly cut the legs out from under the poor and middle class, will get us to such a place ultimately. It won't likely be the financial effect upon my child and grandchildren but the social costs of living, barricaded from the masses, on some protected estate. That isn't the America we've worked generations for, or I wish to ever think about, but it COULD happen. The wealthy in this country have it extremely well......I've averaged about 14% tax on my gross income for, like forever. Even under Clinton's rates, the giveaways for ag subsidies and other loopholes kept it down. Frankly, I think the Clinton tax rates ought to be the minimum starting point if we aren't going to change the code altogether. Sure politicians can spend money, but the vast bulk of our current budget is for very real benefits for the poor and middle class. Do I care if I get my social security? Really? Are you kidding? Will my family NEED universal healthcare coverage? Not really. Will I ever apply for unemployment compensation? No. But for millions, such things and other social programs are necessary for survival, albeit at a hair thin margin.
Take those core programs, throw in Defense and debt payments, and you have 85% or so of the whole budget. Feel free to mess around with the rest, although, to my mind, much of the rest has long-term benefits for society. Still, we have to start pulling in revenue to pay for what everyone likes and many need.
Avoiding that is either smoke and mirrors or simply intentional cruelty on society's weakest.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"