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: flatsville who wrote (44956)	10/11/2000 12:03:19 PM
From: Bob	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

I don't have to "pray" anything. I read your previous post. I would bet you cold hard cash that if the govt. would reduce my payment by 50% and cut my benefits 75% and let ME invest the 50%, I would have more money available at my retirement than I would under the current system. Do you think you could do the same? What part of VOLUNTARY 2% do you not understand?????? bopb

To: flatsville who wrote (44956)	10/11/2000 12:10:53 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

As I understand it, the options will be mutual funds, both stocks and bonds, both no- load and managed. Thus, the "survivorship factor" would be mitigated by professional anticipation and/or diversification. Also, it is a reasonable assumption that stabilizing factors in equities trading in the United States have increased to such a degree that a speculative bubble of the magnitude of '29 would not occur. Also, by the way, if one were to have invested just before, or even just as, the '29 run up occurred, it only took several years to get back on track. To have suffered the 20plus timeframe for recouping required investing at the top of the bubble. Most people would therefore still do fine, since they would not invest most of their money at the very top. The risks of not coming out ahead of 2% are actually quite small..........