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 : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Boca_PETE who wrote (4646)	4/18/1998 8:26:00 PM
From: wooden ships	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Pete: I missed the call in question. However, pursuant to recent discussions on this thread with respect to Social Security, unfunded liabilities, Baby Boomer retirement and the like, it was good hear- ing Brinker address some of these issues today. To recall it, Brinker quoted a report claiming that, were collected Social Security funds being invested in the private sector instead of US Treasuries, the effective Social Security tax need be only 2.9% instead of the cur- rent 12.4%. Brinker also cited a poll affirming the widely held no- tion that a surfeit of Americans have no faith in the future solvency of Social Security. Indeed, Brinker echoed a sentiment expressed in these quarters not a day past when he declared, in ominous terms, "The supporters of the beneficiaries (of government social insurance schemes) may decide the system is not fair and could do something about it." Meanwhile, Generation X yet sleeps the sleep of a fog bound complacency.

To: Boca_PETE who wrote (4646)	4/18/1998 9:56:00 PM
From: Investor2	Respond to of 42834

Re: "Such 100% taxation of social security benefits would be tantamount to a back door reduction in benefits." You are correct. If you were a politician, would you rather reduce benefits through the "back door" or tell people flat-out that you are cutting their benefits? Who says that tax laws are fair? Best wishes, I2

To: Boca_PETE who wrote (4646)	4/19/1998 2:30:00 PM
From: Trebor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

Where I felt Bob B. missed the boat on Saturday's show was when he dismissed the fears of three callers concerned over Year 2000 computer problems and their potential impact on economies and markets. With all due respect to Bob, I don't think he has studied up on this issue. He said Y2K hasn't affected the economy yet, but in fact it has and will continue to do so. Companies are spending hundreds of millions on this problem -- non-producing dollars that could otherwise be invested in R&D or brought to the bottom line in the form of earnings. Bob says the only homage he will pay to Y2K is to not take a plane flight on New Years Day 2000. What will happen to airline stocks if passengers around the world also decide to boycott air travel until and unless airlines and air traffic control towers assure us they are Y2K compliant (which to my knowledge no one has done)? What will happen to automotive stocks when people put off buying a car until the car makers guarantee their products are Y2K compliant -- which again, no manufacturer has done. What will happen to corporate profits when companies find themselves buried in litigation and class action lawsuits when we move into the "search for the guilty, punishment of the innocent" phase of this dilemma. And this isn't even to mention the BIG problem, which isn't in the U.S. but in less developed nations where governments, financial institutions and manufacturers haven't even begun to think about Y2K and can't possibly totally fix the problem at this late date. Bob is right that Y2K won't be the "end of the world." But to dismiss it's implications out of hand is, IMHO, very naive.