Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (42728)	10/4/2000 8:17:34 PM
From: Roger A. Babb	Respond to of 769667

Zeev, you are correct that the Bush plan assumes that the average Joe could achieve a 20% compound growth rate by allowing him to invest part of SS in the stock market. And they have the record of the Clinton economy to prove it is possible. Of course no one has noticed that these kind of returns have occurred only rarely and never under a Republican administration. (Maybe the best economic model is to have a President who is busy chasing skirts instead of monkeying with the economy) I am sure that the good governor does not know that there is a well respected science of "fuzzy math" and "fuzzy logic" which is often used in economic models. Gore may have taken the intended insult as a compliment.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (42728)	10/4/2000 9:12:17 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Have you got your alternate investment strategies ready for a President Gore vs. President Bush business environment? Care to share?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (42728)	10/4/2000 11:18:33 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Did he say at the end of ten years? I don't recall. In any event, for the last several years, the S&P 500 has averaged about 25% per annum, and for the last 20 years, it has averaged about 15% per annum. That, of course, is without monthly compounding. Still, it is pretty good. I thought, in any case, that he was referring to the amount that would be available by retirement,including the money that was not individually invested, but I may have been distracted. I know that he pointed out that even certificates of deposit have a better rate of return than Social Security, and therefore that even such a conservative investment was a better deal. I will look into it, but I do believe that you misunderstood......