What the future could hold for your retirement account
derryb
Posts: 36,795 ✭✭✭✭✭
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
0
Comments
Use facts and I might believe
<< <i>socialism, fascist nationalization, yep someone I'm gonna believe
Use facts and I might believe >>
socialism, fascism, nationalization I believe are well documented facts unless of course someone's not paying attention. Do the word's General Motors, bank bailouts, Fannie Mae, or increased welfare ring a bell? Those that warned of these things were referred to as kooks until they were proven correct.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
This is real right now!
"Tax revenues are plunging due to high unemployment and the justification is there to present such legislation, as government spending reaches unbelievable levels. New methods, no matter how unpalatable have to be found to feed this devouring money monster"
Gold and silver being the only salvation, don't think so. Real things will still be real like individual ownership of land, cash, metal in combination with each other but not just metal alone. There seems to be a strong shift in the asset mindset to get people into financial paper and away from real physical assets and it has been going on for a while and be it federal paper or private paper, it's still paper.
roadrunner
<< <i>I don't think he's that far off about the bonds and treasuries in lieu of cash in retirement accounts, may sound kooky to some perhaps. When they can give retirees some paper in an amount equivilent to the national debt, it must be enticing especially when the gov issues the paper and can make any policy they want regarding how that paper gets paid out. It's almost a no brainer and like the author states, it does seem to be just a question of how to get it done. >>
I mentioned awhile ago that the US could just sell debt to its citizens. The Japanese do the very same. Now if we could just get rates up to about 8% or so, the US Treasury would be flooded with buy requests from eager individuals and portfolio managers. If thats called "taking your 401k", then so be it.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I wouldn't be enticed at 8% to buy US bonds. It would take something well into double figures to even consider it. And still I will eventually get paid back in depreciated dollars or nwo currencies that will eat away most of that impressive double digit gain.
roadrunner
I guess I'm the dim one because I don't understand why anyone would be enticed into buying 8% of nothing but debt. You're investing in the possibility that debt would be paid off in some orderly fashion. From where I'm sittin' it doesn't look like anything is getting paid off, they are just buying more. It's the kind of debt that the citizens were enjoying in the 2000's but on federal steroids.
Once they have pissed away the last of the retirement account cash servicing the debt they already have and paying for the increasing array of entitlements all the way from health care to education grants, long list here, and then work through paying for a couple of wars and the veterans returning from those wars, deal with millions of voting boomers that expect to be taken care of, there is no way there's gonna be 8% of anything. At some point, the music will have to stop because someone is going to want a real asset in exchange for their debt instead of a piece of paper, something like cash or some property or some metal.
More than likely, even at double figures you wouldn't really spend much time considering it. Imagine a 10:1 lever on 16 T cash...yeah, dat's what I'm talkin' about...is there even that much money in the world?
Not a political diatribe, jmho.
mhammerman, BP is going to issue some debt in the next week or so. Im just guessing, but I bet it will yield about 6% for 5 yr paper. And it will be gobbled up. Is BP safer than the USA? Just because you--and im not trying to single you out--dont trust the Govt to pay back your investment, doesnt mean there wont be millions who would JUMP at chance to invest in America and get paid 8%. Foreign Govts would probably mortgage the house to get an 8% yield from the USA. And my previous comment addressed the thought of worthless dollars.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Loves me some shiny!
Agreed. But that was back when the dollar was worth something, the sum of all liabilities in our banking system didn't imply complete insolvency, our ability to produce "things" wasn't yet gutted, we weren't the world's biggest debtor nation, and the housing sector was worth something and not yet inflated to infinity and beyond. Back then, OTC derivatives were still only a gleam in the eye of luminaries like Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. The nation also probably still owned every gold ounce of the 8100+ tons listed in inventory.
There were solid fundamental reasons to own the dollar back in the early 1980's one of which included nosebleed interest rates. Today, the only reason to own the dollar is because it's not the Euro. It's like saying I'm investing in Fannie because it's not Freddie, or v.v.
The previously much-maligned 1970's will be soon be looked upon as a relatively tranquil and benign period compared to how the 2010 decade will ultimately pan out. At least back then the majority of citizens were probably not involved in the stock market and only had to worry about "whipping inflation now." If only they knew that inflation was always being whipped up by the FED/Treasury bakery.
roadrunner
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't think he's that far off about the bonds and treasuries in lieu of cash in retirement accounts, may sound kooky to some perhaps. When they can give retirees some paper in an amount equivilent to the national debt, it must be enticing especially when the gov issues the paper and can make any policy they want regarding how that paper gets paid out. It's almost a no brainer and like the author states, it does seem to be just a question of how to get it done. >>
I mentioned awhile ago that the US could just sell debt to its citizens. The Japanese do the very same. Now if we could just get rates up to about 8% or so, the US Treasury would be flooded with buy requests from eager individuals and portfolio managers. If thats called "taking your 401k", then so be it. >>
If people have the option and buy it of their own free will. Great! If I have no choice and it is forced on me that is dictatorship and we will be no better that the old soviet union. So no "so be it"
Fred, Las Vegas, NV
Uh, I guess it must have been about the time that Hank Paulson stood there looking goofy and said, "uh, here is our 1 page request for $787 Billion, and if we don't get it from you right away, the whole world is going to collapse."
Now, if I may be so bold as to suggest that we're being taken for a ride on a swift boat to China by our government with behind the scenes special deals with entities of whom I know nothing, that somehow makes me a kook? Especially when we later found out that a nice chunk of that money went to AIG so that they could have parties, collect big bonuses and pay off Goldman Sachs (where Paulson was Managing Partner no less than 6 months prior)?
yellowkid, start reading the news.
I knew it would happen.
To quote the Dilbert cartoon that I have taped on the window ledge next to my desk, "It feels kinda good".
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>How does he know that it has "been decided behind the scenes," for the most part kooky fringe stuff.
Uh, I guess it must have been about the time that Hank Paulson stood there looking goofy and said, "uh, here is our 1 page request for $787 Billion, and if we don't get it from you right away, the whole world is going to collapse."
Now, if I may be so bold as to suggest that we're being taken for a ride on a swift boat to China by our government with behind the scenes special deals with entities of whom I know nothing, that somehow makes me a kook? Especially when we later found out that a nice chunk of that money went to AIG so that they could have parties, collect big bonuses and pay off Goldman Sachs (where Paulson was Managing Partner no less than 6 months prior)?
yellowkid, start reading the news. >>
Two years ago I was all for the bailout as I really believe(d) it has "saved or created" millions of jobs, LOL. But now, I wish they just let all the banks fail. It would be interesting to see 250 million Americans living as though we were in Ethiopia. The population decline sure would have done wonders for those entitlement programs.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>How does he know that it has "been decided behind the scenes," for the most part kooky fringe stuff.
Uh, I guess it must have been about the time that Hank Paulson stood there looking goofy and said, "uh, here is our 1 page request for $787 Billion, and if we don't get it from you right away, the whole world is going to collapse."
Now, if I may be so bold as to suggest that we're being taken for a ride on a swift boat to China by our government with behind the scenes special deals with entities of whom I know nothing, that somehow makes me a kook? Especially when we later found out that a nice chunk of that money went to AIG so that they could have parties, collect big bonuses and pay off Goldman Sachs (where Paulson was Managing Partner no less than 6 months prior)?
yellowkid, start reading the news. >>
I said where did he hear that, who told him? You cannot begin an argument or present a point by starting your position with unsubstantiated innuendo. I stand by my prior post, you need a lesson in critical thinking.
I don't see where you said that. What you did say was:
How does he know that it has "been decided behind the scenes," for the most part kooky fringe stuff.
My comment was not an unsubstantiated innuendo. Please explain why you think that it was.
Your comment however, was an unsubstantiated remark that the article was "kooky fringe stuff", when you provided no reasoning or documentation to the contrary. A typical ploy that people use in an attempt to shut down the other side in a debate when they have nothing to offer.
I stand by my prior post, you need a lesson in critical thinking.
Please elaborate. My thinking is as concrete as you will find. No intent to start an argument here, but I really don't understand your complacency.
I knew it would happen.
As if a banker would survive, without bonuses and partridge hunts in Scotland. The gall of some people to even suggest it.
<< <i>I said where did he hear that, who told him?
I don't see where you said that. What you did say was:
How does he know that it has "been decided behind the scenes," for the most part kooky fringe stuff.
My comment was not an unsubstantiated innuendo. Please explain why you think that it was.
Your comment however, was an unsubstantiated remark that the article was "kooky fringe stuff", when you provided no reasoning or documentation to the contrary. A typical ploy that people use in an attempt to shut down the other side in a debate when they have nothing to offer.
I stand by my prior post, you need a lesson in critical thinking.
Please elaborate. My thinking is as concrete as you will find. No intent to start an argument here, but I really don't understand your
complacency. >>
By "unsubstaniated innuendo," I was referring to the opening statement in the article, not you. "Thus, it has been decided behind the scenes to eventually confiscate", and so on. I asked where this info came from? A press release, news story, interview with a cabinet head? No citing of sources, do you have to read any more? It appears to be a web site that promotes gold, am I correct? I can find web sites that say aliens are among us, that the earth is 5000 years old, am I supposed to believe them? I am not complacent, I think this country has big financial problems, it is one of the reasons I am here in a PM "chat room," but I am not going to believe something because I read it on some site or blog, and I am not going to blame the current administration for all the problems we face. I remember when Reagan was elected, I didn't vote for him, but I felt that at least we had a guy who had pledged to balance the budget. He then went on to triple the national debt. No one party, be they far left or far right has a lock on the truth.
As for where do I get my info? I have previously listed here the Boston Globe, a liberal newspaper, along with the local paper, a conservative publication. I listen to NPR and CNBC, but I read, and have read since the days of Bill Buckley, the National Review, I also read the New Yorker. I try not to form opinions about things I hear in the media until I have heard several viewpoints. I keep mentioning "critical thinking," because there seems to be a lack of it in 21st century America, and I see evidence of it here. I will always remember a college Prof who told me that if he could teach his students to think, to cut through all the BS that pervades our society, he would consider his academic career a success. Maybe because I am somewhat cynical in nature, (although I hope it is tempered by a good sense of humour, this is, after all a cosmic joke), I think I saw the point of my Professors lectures early, and have tried to apply it to how I make decisions about my life. I can pick up almost any newspaper, or listen to almost any newscast( there is no TV in my house) and start pointing out where a writer or reporter, or man on the street is making decisions based on erroneous data, or bad reporting, or, in this case, listening to, and apparently accepting the arguments of someone who obviously, didn't take my college Prof's course. I saw it everyday in my working career, business and administrational decisions based on the wrong data. You have to start with a valid premise, otherwise the rest of what you say, or do, is, at best, suspect.
No, I don't want to start an argument either, I got "personal" because I felt you had fired the first salvo by telling me I needed to start reading the news.
What we are discussing here is possibilities and the probability ,of those possibilities becoming
fact. Having lived a long life, I have seen much and have come to a number of basic truths:
1. You can never fully trust what the Federal Government says or promises.
2. You can never rely on on the Government taking care of your long term financial security.
3. You can never depend on the Government doing what is best for the Nation ,rather then what
is politically acceptable to the moneyed interests that write the very legislation we live under.
4.the 401K concept was a scam from the beginning ,to kill the old defined benefit pension and replace it
with the defined contribution system. It primarily benefited the corporations, because it was a much cheaper
pension plan and their was no unfunded liability. It was also a boon to the mutual funds and stock brokers
because it truly made their financial future rosy.
5. Our future will be every man and woman for themselves. Your only true security ,will be what you are able
to secure and lock away for yourselves.
6. We must now consider that every organization, from social to governmental to political to religious, has been
corrupted to some extent by money, power or ego.
7. We survive as best we can, by our wits, determination, vision and understanding the possibilities and probabilities.
8. Truth ,has become a most subjective term.
9. Facts can be and are being manipulated.
10. I hope no one here really believes that the big banks are solvent and making money.
11. People are judged by Governments and political parties, to be as dumb as we may look.
However, most of us are smarter then could ever be realized. With all of the negative factors
"WE THE PEOPLE" will survive, in spite of all that can be done to us to deprive us of our rights, hopes,
dreams and financial security. It may be difficult, but it can and it will be done.
Camelot
The article is so full of holes it is laughable. He is basically saying the Federal Reserve as it has existed for nearly 100 years is wrong to sell debt.
<< <i>Of course everyone concerned about the deficit should call their Congressman to have the two Bush Tax cuts repealed. That'll save a cool Trillion!
The article is so full of holes it is laughable. He is basically saying the Federal Reserve as it has existed for nearly 100 years is wrong to sell debt. >>
Pardon me, but what are you saying/implying with this statement? I'm interested in knowing because I feel that too few people actually realize population dynamics and the many implications, beyond merely economic, that it has on everyone's daily life.
This piece, written by Teresa Ghilarducci, sends more than a few chills up my back. "There is a recognition on both the Left and the Right that people simply have to set aside more for retirement. And to make that happen, they have to be required to sock away more." By whom? (The feds). Controlled by whom? (The feds). Anyone who believes that this money goes into a government-controlled lock box has not been paying attention. Perhaps this is a nifty way to ensure that there are buyers for those treasury bonds.
The key to this proposal is pooling individual accounts.
–John Adams, 1826
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>I do not believe that the American People ever have the facts until the deed is long done.
What we are discussing here is possibilities and the probability ,of those possibilities becoming
fact. Having lived a long life, I have seen much and have come to a number of basic truths:
1. You can never fully trust what the Federal Government says or promises.
2. You can never rely on on the Government taking care of your long term financial security.
3. You can never depend on the Government doing what is best for the Nation ,rather then what
is politically acceptable to the moneyed interests that write the very legislation we live under.
4.the 401K concept was a scam from the beginning ,to kill the old defined benefit pension and replace it
with the defined contribution system. It primarily benefited the corporations, because it was a much cheaper
pension plan and their was no unfunded liability. It was also a boon to the mutual funds and stock brokers
because it truly made their financial future rosy.
5. Our future will be every man and woman for themselves. Your only true security ,will be what you are able
to secure and lock away for yourselves.
6. We must now consider that every organization, from social to governmental to political to religious, has been
corrupted to some extent by money, power or ego.
7. We survive as best we can, by our wits, determination, vision and understanding the possibilities and probabilities.
8. Truth ,has become a most subjective term.
9. Facts can be and are being manipulated.
10. I hope no one here really believes that the big banks are solvent and making money.
. >>
It does not really matter who started it, the fact is that neither party has accepted their responsibility to ensure that the Social Security Fund not turn into a massive government-sponsored Ponzi scheme. Both parties share in the problems we are facing today with SS. The proposal by TG can certainly be interpreted (and is by me) as the start of Ponzi II, or at least the continued funding of Ponzi I (Social Security itself).
Hope (but not too much) that I have not offended anyone; or at the very least, that I have offended everyone.
BTW - Social Security amendments of the 1960s. Medicare and Medicaid were added in 1965 by the Social Security Act of 1965, part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" program. Social Security was changed to withdraw funds from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General Fund for additional congressional revenue. The government adopted a unified budget in the Johnson administration in 1968. This change resulted in a single measure of the fiscal status of the government, based on the sum of all government activity. The surplus in Social Security trust funds offsets the total debt, making it appear much smaller than it otherwise would.
–John Adams, 1826
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
I knew it would happen.
Leprechan gold
Pot O Gold at end of the rainbow
Raid Tooth Fairy Bank Accounts
Coat bars of tungsten with AU and tell the world
that we just found one trillion in gold in some
forgotten vaults.
Nationalize the deposits on bottles and cans
Compress the hot air in the Senate to run generators and
sell the power to the National power grid.
Establish a Federal compost heap ,to generate heat and usable gases.
Sell all of the National Parks to China
Outsource our National Defense to Costa Rica. Reduce our military to one piper cub,
10 officers (2) Warrant Officers and 50 listed men.
Oh Yes and make all pension funds and IRAs invest 100% in Federal Treasury notes and bonds.
Camelot
Bad news, Costa Rica has no army.
Camelot
<< <i>When did the gov't. start putting the IOU's in Social Security till? Which party started this? >>
<< <i>It does not really matter who started it, the fact is that neither party has accepted their responsibility to ensure that the Social Security Fund not turn into a massive government-sponsored Ponzi scheme. Both parties share in the problems we are facing today with SS. The proposal by TG can certainly be interpreted (and is by me) as the start of Ponzi II, or at least the continued funding of Ponzi I (Social Security itself).
Hope (but not too much) that I have not offended anyone; or at the very least, that I have offended everyone.
<< <i>
At the end of this statement (rant) is a very serious question.
Ronnie employed Alan Greenspan early in his 1st term to do research and report back to him with recommendations on creating a more financially stable Soc. Sec. system. This research was done early in "R" 1st term but was not to be implemented until his 2nd term for obvious reason.
Al gave these recommendations. Most are well known. Some are not!
A. Change the age for 100% Soc Sec credit from 65 years of age to 67. Be sure and grandfather in people (voters) that will be watching this legislation. Make sure that AARP approves. After all, they will want to make sure they get theirs and that’s a large block of voters.
B. If someone still wants to collect Soc Sec at age 62, give them a smaller percentage of what their eligible for.
C. Increase the percentage of withholding tax on workers income.
D. Increase the Soc Sec tax ceiling on workers income and don't stop increasing it.
E. Embed in this new legislation a separate Soc Sec calculator for Government, State or Local Municipal workers that have a pension from work not covered by Soc Sec. You know, like a "Letter Carrier" or a local "Firefighter" ... All those retires that get those "Fat Pensions". They may be still eligible for some Soc Sec dollars and we can't have that. Give it a fancy name like ... "Windfall Elimination Prevision" or "Government Offset Prevision". If you hide these provisions good enough, no one will find it for years. If your lucky R, you may be dead by the time this thing surfaces.
F. Confiscate all the dollars in the SS system and put them in the U.S general fund to offset the huge dept your running up, and leave behind special IOU's
The question is, the one of a kind IOU's that Ronnie left behind that are on file in the IRS office in Cincinnati, are they on the balance sheet of the U.S. Treasury? Do they pay a dividend or have a interest rate tied to them? I've have not been able to find an answer to these questions.
Does anybody in this forum know the answer?
401k's seem very ripe for the picking.
<< <i>
401k's seem very ripe for the picking. >>
Yes, the donks thru the CBO, not Dubya, first proposed eliminating tax advantages for 401k's in 2008. They have since suggested round about ways of tapping into this vast reserve of wealth in order to destroy it and make people more dependent upon a govt of centralized power.
SS has ALWAYS been a pay-as-you-go system or even advance funded. (
The special bonds pay about 1-2% interest.
The problem with SS funding is that the $ goes into the general fund and is spent in that year with Congress issuing a bond for over collected FICA. The double edge sword here is that you've taken an asset (the FICA $ collected in excess of that year's payout) spent it, and now you must recover those $ in the future with more tax $. Even Ponzi refused to be that corrupt!
Read-up on "Galveston Social Security opt out". How much better off retirees would have been with personally directed funds.
Remove the blinders and forget about defending your preferred party/politician and realize 99% of them are in on the ripoff of our tax dollars. Yes, even the ones you and I put into office. Control of Washington by a particular party is nothing more than a matter of control of the purse strings and who decides what to do with all the stolen money. If we keep removing them and replacing them with someone new they will eventually get the message.
As Peter Townesend once said: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss -- won't get fooled again."
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
will get a huge income for as many years as they live beyond 100.
Modify medicare where the benefit, will be a get well card, signed by who ever
is president at the time.But only if you have been out sick for four months or more.
Reduce taxes so only the good folks earning between 20,000 and 150,000 per year
will be taxed as close to 100% as is humanly possible. Everyone else goes tax free.
Outsource our military security to the Salvation Army.
Tell the whole world, that we are reneging on every last Treasury bond and note in
existence.
Retirement, FORGETABOUTIT!
Reduce all service of the Federal Government to making speeches and running for re election.
Replace all regulatory agencies with CAVEAT EMPTOR
Everyone have a nice day!
Camelot
<< <i>National health care = socialist as it gets
This is real right now!
"Tax revenues are plunging due to high unemployment and the justification is there to present such legislation, as government spending reaches unbelievable levels. New methods, no matter how unpalatable have to be found to feed this devouring money monster" >>
Fred, Las Vegas, NV