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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Srini who wrote (101000)	2/6/2009 2:15:56 PM
From: benwood	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

A simple answer to me is that 2/3rd to 3/4th of my net worth is not in my home. So I'd end up losing most of what isn't my home, meaning my net worth would decline about 60-75%. If you had no assets whatsoever, you'd in theory be the winner because you wouldn't suffer a decline in asset value through taxation or otherwise. But as Zimbabwe has shown with it's 80% unemployment rate, there are massive downside risks to the economy. So my property tax would skyrocket, and I'd have a good chance of losing my job. And throw unemployment numbers that high at the Entitlement Generation and you will see bratty teens in the streets (even if they are 20-80 years old still).