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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (217251)	2/4/2005 12:30:46 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586208

Ok. It doubled plus a little. Not a great return but still up, and that is probably the worst post WWII period. Even picking 30 year periods that include the great depression I don't think there are any 30 year periods where the the DOW has dropped. Tim

To: combjelly who wrote (217251)	2/4/2005 2:03:40 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 1586208

combjelly, If it hadn't of been for Volcker, the growth during the early '80s would have been much worse. If Carter had chosen a Greenspan to head the Fed, the figures you posted would have looked a lot different. I and my generation suffered a lot more than the Boomers and the X'ers because of Volcker's policies, but they paved the way for recovery. I am not sure if Greenspan would have done things much differently than Volcker, but the assumption would have to be that not many people out there would have the balls that Volcker had. And BTW, still has. He was sent slay a dragon with a sling shot, expected to fail, but the sly dog may yet outsmart those who think they have him on a leash. For something like retirement, a vehicle like the market is stupid. What else is there? Isn't it where traditional pension funds put their money? Is there any alternative? If that occurs at the beginning of when you are trying to build your nut, then you are going to be screwed, big time. Yes, you are right, but what is your basis of comparison? Compared to what? The market may have a hard time competing with someone on the top of the pyramid scheme, but today, we are way past the top of the pyramid, and the time of miraculous, robbery like "returns" of people who put next to nothing in, are already thing that is passing. So private accounts means that a significant number of people are going to run out of money before they die. Are they supposed to suicide or starve to death? I don't think the private account would be anything like IRA or 401K, where you can take everything out on day 1. The private account will just work as an anuity. When you say you want to start drawing money, someone will come up with a table, and base you maximum payments on your life expectancy, with some insurance available for those who guessed wrong. The thing is that in places where these private accounts are being implemented, there is a feedback between your actions over your lifetime and near retirement on what, state of the economy and the markets, life expectency, and the end result you well being in the retirement is the end result. The opposite is true now. The well being of the retirees is the imput value, all the other elements coalesce into one single variable - the force applied on the balls of the taxpayer to make everything allright. I don't think that is the right distribution of risks and rewards. Joe

To: combjelly who wrote (217251)	2/4/2005 2:17:33 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1586208

"If you know the answer, why don't you post it and save the 5 minutes it would take me to look it up?" Ok. It doubled plus a little. 1949 was a little above the peak of 1929. It wasn't the worst 30 year period, but I wanted something that avoided the Depression and WWII. Still, most people experienced increasing income and prosperiety through almost all of that period, but the market was pretty sluggish. Inflation started to be a problem in the early '70s as a result of Vietnam and Stagflation was a problem starting in the late '70s, but most people didn't feel much pain until the latter part of that period. Yet the market basically sucked throughout the whole time. The market topped 1000 around 1972, but never really exceeded it until sometime in the '80s. If it hadn't of been for Volcker, the growth during the early '80s would have been much worse. Some traders believe we are in a similar period now where the markets will be stuck in a trading range for the next twenty years. Its a concept hard for a lot of people to imagine because for the twenty years prior, the market ultimately went up year after year.....from 1980 to 2000. I don't think these people who are actively pushing the markets as an SS investment fully understand how volatile and undependable the markets are. Either that, or they are trying to kill the SS program. ted

To: combjelly who wrote (217251)	2/4/2005 2:20:14 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586208

combjelly, RE: " and my generation suffered a lot more than the Boomers and the X'ers because of Volcker's policies, but they paved the way for recovery...I suspect that you are close to my age(48)" Thought 48 was a boomer? Gen Xers got socked with graduating into a recession started by the boomers boom. I'd say the current generation that's graduating has it the hardest though, wouldn't you? There are smart new grads working retail these days. On a different note, here's my solution to SS and the deficit: just change the work force so the boomers can keep working forever. Most of them want to anyway, right? But most don't because the boomers developed the 24 hour work day. Change it to something normal and keep 'em working. They would be happy, and so would we because the deficit would be better. Regards, Amy J