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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Currencies and the Global Capital Markets -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (3018)	2/16/2001 10:35:06 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3536

Ok.. fine... tell people they must have 50% in bond funds and the rest in something else. They will still generate more capital in this manner than the SS system would. And their's would be a hard asset that could be inherited upon their death. That's genuine wealth creation. But the way the system is working now Zeev.. these guys are just adding the surplus revenues to the government budget and popping 20 year T-bills in the SSTF. They are taking the money being set aside to fund SS in the future and spending it today. So if the economy goes to hell in a hand basket, UNDER BOTH SYSTEMS, people are still going to be facing tough times. The wealthy will be less wealthy as their stocks decline. Those middle class families who thought they had a retirement plan, may not find themselves on govt assistance. After all, during the worst of times, the govt is always the entity that is there to insure people don't go hungry. But the current SS system as it stands may open the US up to massive inflation and a weakening currency should we not be economically strong enough to finance the boomer's retirement. Bottom line.. the system is not safe, or sound, as it currently stands. Building a retirement system on a foundation of governmental obligations (eventually requiring higher taxes) is the wrong path to sustained prosperity. IMO, remaining with the status quo is stupid... Regards, Ron

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (3018)	4/4/2001 9:51:17 AM
From: Robert Douglas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3536

Hi Zeev, I thought about you when I read the following in this morning's WSJ: Overall, U.S. stocks now have lost almost one-third of their value on paper, or some $5.34 trillion, to about $11.62 trillion on March 24, 2000, based on the market value of the companies in the Wilshire 5000 index. That includes the loss yesterday of about $435.59 billion, or 3.61%. The Wilshire 5000 includes about 7,200 companies, or nearly every publicly traded company with headquarters in the U.S. I remember a discussion on this thread, or another, about the relationship between GDP and the value of the market. I remember that you have done some research in this area and I wonder if you can give us some historical perspective.