Ask help to a trouble maker?

In 1930, the collapsed stock market caused Great Depression. It motivated the government to build up the Social security system. Of course, the Social Security fund avoided the trouble maker - stock market. The fund is invested in national bond which gives a guaranteed income. Not very high but stable. What Bush now is leading people back to that trouble maker - stock market. Is that absurd?

Social Security is a successful program. The expense is low. The administration fee is less than 1% of total investment. It is also a rare clean program. Pension are collected, paid to retired people. Interest group can't touch it with any excuse. In a clear water tank, The quantity of fish is clear, countable.

Now Bush tries to meddle the water, said you can catch more fish in muddy water. But muddy water won't produce more fish. Someone may catch more fish, But their gain will be others' loss. Making high profit in stock market is always the privilege of inside group. Average people, after all, will gain less if not a loss.

Nebraska eliminated the personnel investment plan in employee's 401(k) pension is a good example.

Re: This is a problem that is beginning to be recognized. Since 1964 Nebraska offered state employees the chance to manage their 401(k)-type plan. Extensive employee education and training seminars were given, and everyone expected outstanding investment returns. But when the state audited the program in 2000, the results were incredibly discouraging: employees were making bad investment after bad investment. So in 2003, Nebraska eliminated employee choice from its 401(k) plan.

From: NewCartesian

http://forums.washingtonpost.com/wpf...s?msg=2800.351

__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.

2. Stock is no other than a piece of paper

The value of stock market is supported by continue coming of investment fund. One thing you should know the people who hold the stock is no other then hold a piece of paper. That's a bubble. When no money came, then the bubble will break up.

When you deposit 100 dollars in the bank, you are guaranteed to get that deposit back, plus interest.

When you buy one hundred dollars of shares of a company, you are told you probably get some dividend sometime if business is good. The dividend is not guaranteed. And you can not cash the stock with the company. Because they have spent it to pay rent, wage and equipment already. If you liquidate the company, most time you may get a negative asset. e.g. if it's Microsoft, what they left for you is a program of Windows. UA may have some airplanes. But they always come with a huge debt. What kind of asset do Kodak and McDonald have for the stock they issued? What you hold finally could be a piece of paper. What you hope is someone else would buy that paper from you to take over your potential loss. When people put all their retirement fund in stock market, they are sitting on a big bubble. All they hold is a bunch of paper. One day when people wake up and refuse to behave like a fool, then there will be a collapse of stock market.

What Bush does is to persuade people put their retirement fund into the market to take over the hot potatoes.

__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.

3. The stock price depends on the amount of investment fund.

If monthly trade stock is 100 shares, ($1.00 each) the investment fund in that month is $110, then the share price will be 1.10 each, it's a 10% rising market. If there is only $90 fund go into the market, then the price will be $0.90 each. A falling of 10%.

For decades, the index of US stock market went upwards. It created a fake phenominen that if you invest in long term, (e.g. 40 years) you got a good return. That's the justification someone like Bush used.

But if you know the above principle(a rising market dependent on increasing investment fund) you must know that it was built up artificially. The US stock market growing up at public's pension fund. At first, Different pension fund push up the stock market. Then financial group created mutual fund in 1970s(?) which put your savings into the stock market. When it was not enough they invented "IRA" in 1980s which push another amount of retirement fund into the stock market. Further more, in 1990s, government allowed 401(k) to access the stock market. Wave after wave, Americans' retirement money were pushed into that gambling market. It became a big bubble.

But money was harvested by company and winners already. What public held are only a bunch of papers. When people want to cash their 40 years long savings, (they think they have a bunch of treasures, but that's only a paper value) Who has the ability to take over that big bubble? It needs a lot of new investment fund to support it.

That's why when government exhausted your money by "pension fund investment", "IRA", "401(k)" the last exit is your social security

__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.

4. The reverse point

As I have said, a growing up stock market must be supported by increasing investment fund. A $100 market grew up 10% in first year with $110 investment.Next year, to support a $110 market growing another 10% up, you need $121 new investment fund. And $133 for the third year..... To blow a ballon bigger, you need more air.

That's what happened in past 40 years. It's a process of how babyboomers cast their retirement fund into the stock market. It's a process how babyboomers exchanged their treasure(retirement fund) with papers (stock shares). When I said potential losers hold a bunch of papers, I mean the stock paper may lose value any time. (Unlike the certificate of CD which banks guarantee to cash or Grand deed of a house that you have a house, no one has obligation to cash your stock certificate, the only interest(dividend) was often cancelled in the name of re-investment by company)

Now it goes to a reverse point. The first generation of babyboomers reach their retirement age, they will not put money in pension fund any more, instead they will cash the stock in their portfolio for their retirement spending. If the market was originally at 10% growing up step, ($100 stock with $110 new investment fund) now it will be a staggering market or a recess market. The new investment fund becomes 105,(due to less retirement fund) the stock for sale becomes $105 (more old people cash their portfolio), then the stock market stagerring with no growing up. Or a recess, $100 new investment fund with $110 selling stock. Market will fall at 10% rate. (depends on retirement rate)

The World War 2 ended in 1945. The first generation of babyboomers were born in 1946. If the legal retirement age was 63, 1945 + 63 = 2009, then starts from 2009, same problem face to Social Security will face to stock market. Less working people contribute to pension fund, more old people to cash portfolio. A long term grow up stock market will become a long term recess market. The fairy tale will break up.

That's why Bush set the date of his privitization of S.S. in 2008. To save the stock market from collapsing. And deliver the bubble at the cost of young people's retirement fund.

__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.

Yeah, just like Enron was a HUGE success, until is wasn't. If private pension plans were run like Social Security the Sr. Management of that company would likely face indictment! Are you familiar with the term Ponzi Scheme?

American retirees are wealthier than at any time in history, and this is not because of their Social Security checks, it is because of their own savings and investments.

5. Bush's privatization plan will endanger S.S. further (5/22/05)

(1) “In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes,” Bush said.

So in 2018, it will be a break even year.

If the S.S. payroll tax is $100 in 2008, the actual benefits paid to old people are $75, then there will be $25 surplus fund go to save in current account of S.S. This trend will go on until 2018.

But when Bush's plan is carried out, about one third of S.S.tax will go to the privatization account instead of S.S.current account. The calculation is: 35/42 x 1/3 = 0.27. Here I suppose the working years of people are 42 years.(also the period they pay tax. If their work start from 20 years old to 62 when they retired.) the rate of people who enjoy privatization are 35. years. (20 years old to 55 years old which Bush said enjoying privatization)

So $27 would go to privatization instead of S.S.current account. There is only $73 left to pay retired people while they were promised $75. The $2 shortage will have to take from the S.S. saving portfolio. The break even year will be in 2008 instead of 2018.(I don't know the exact figure. It can be worse then what I said.)

Bush should say, "In the year 2008 when my privatization plan goes, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes,”

Bush's plan accelerates the collapse of Social Security and directly endanger the old people who depends on S.S. benefit.

(2) Administration fee. Estimated 2 trillion in ten years period. It will either come from S.S. tax or from an additional tax from all tax payers. One thing for sure is it won't come from the pocket of Bush and his group. Another thing for sure is it will go to the pocket of financial group.

Quote, "Economists opposed to Bush's plan say the 10-year, potential $2 trillion cost of shifting to individual investment accounts is reckless and would require such a huge increase in government borrowing that it could destabilize the nation's economy. " ("Social Security change pitched" Mercury News 12/17/04)

Quote, "Social Security spends 1 percent of its money on administration. But administrative costs for private insurance range between 12 and 14 percent, according to the American Council of Life Insurance. In Chile, which instituted a system of mandatory private savings accounts in the early 1980s, administrative costs exceed 20 percent. This is your money, going straight into the pockets of Wall Street. "

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takea...720?z00m=20239

Before you gamble in Casino, you lose first with a fee about 15% to 20%.

__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.

6. Average investors in stock market (6/2/05)

Everyday, in debate of Social Security privatization, I always encounter with the argument, "Historical, the stock market offered 10% returns over the long haul (40 years)."
Or "average S&P goes up 10.5% each year. In latest two years went up 50%."
It seems there is a strong reason to invest in stock market. 10% return each year, what a brilliant figure. Yet it's a gimmick.

The flaw for this theory is that high return from stock market doesn't mean high return to average investors. But Bush never talked about this. And seldom media talked about this too. One day I finally found a data about the return of average investors. And found why media and government avoid this topic, the most important topic. Read this:

Quote, "Over the past 20 years, the average investor in mutual funds that hold stocks earned almost nothing once inflation was taken into account, even though stocks enjoyed terrific gains.

These are among the results of the 12th annual study of investor behavior by Dalbar, a Boston financial-research firm.

The study found stock-fund investors had returns averaging just 3.7 percent a year from 1985 through 2004, while the Standard & Poor's 500 index returned 13.2 percent a year. Annual inflation averaged 3 percent, chewing up most of the investors' gains." ("Break the buy-high, sell-low pattern" S.J. Mercury News, 5/8/2005)

There did is high grow up of S & P index, there was also a low return for average investors that almost was nothing if considering inflation.

Average people don't care about the high index of S&P. They care about thier return. Where did the money go? It went to the firms which control the market.
To my equation, (suppose the stock is S&P index, oringinal price at $100, in 10 years period)

37 (average investors gain in 10 years) + 95 (special interest group gain in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)

One thing I should remind you that this is the result of mutual fund. Though there was little gain, the average investors haven't lost its capital because the fund was managed by expert. What if there is a real "privatization", average investor does it individually?

Here is a story again seldom to be reported.

Re: This is a problem that is beginning to be recognized. Since 1964 Nebraska offered state employees the chance to manage their 401(k)-type plan. Extensive employee education and training seminars were given, and everyone expected outstanding investment returns. But when the state audited the program in 2000, the results were incredibly discouraging: employees were making bad investment after bad investment. So in 2003, Nebraska eliminated employee choice from its 401(k) plan.

From: NewCartesian

http://forums.washingtonpost.com/wpf...s?msg=2800.351

Hardly a gain (with expert) or a loss (invest by yourself even trained), that's average investors' encounter in stock market.

The most important thing is this happened in a grow-up market. That more and more pension fund were guided into the stock market. Yet, average investors had such a poor result. What if the trend reversed? (When the fund lured to support stock market is exhausted like what I said in "4. The reverse point"?)

Of course, Bush will never tell you this. Otherwise, how can his group get fatter without your fund joining in?

__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.

A myth about wealth

question, "I don't think your equation works very well at all.
It is like owning a house. If you do some landscaping and renovations, and keep up with repairs, your house will likely appreciate in value over time. This does not mean you have benefited at the expense of anyone else. Investing in stocks works the same way. The company reinvests most of its profits in expansion and improvements; if they do this wisely then the company will grow in value. It is not the zero sum game that you suggest it is."

-----------

Answer: You still haven't told us how the wealth created in winners' gain. The sample you given is a misleading of company's activity with stock trading. A company of course must work hard to earn a profit so it can distribute dividend to investors. They plant, produce, or do a house repair as you said. It doesn't related to stock trading. The wealth company created was used to distribute dividend. When you said company reinvested its profit in business, that means company diverted the dividend investor deserved to re-investment. You know there had been a period that Microsoft holding the profit and hadn't distribute the dividends to the stock holders. That is typical story fits your "company grow in value". But it belongs to the category of dividend distribution. I have said the dividend is the same thing like interest paid by bank to its investors. There is totally nothing related to the profit gain in stock trading. If you want to know where the profit of winners came from, go to my eqation. It is from the losers and potential losers. Or you show me where it came from.

My equation: Profit( stock winners gain)+ Capital gain(Company issued stock) = Loss(losers) + Potential loss (One who hold the stock)

Or to satisfy you: Profit(stock winners gain) + Capital gain (Company issued stock) + Capital gain 2 (Company re-invest with money originally should be used as dividend) = Loss (losers) + Potential loss (One who hold the stock) + Loss (Investor loss of dividend)

That Capital gain (company re-investment) is always equal to Investors' loss of dividend. It should belong to the category of dividend. (I omitted it because it is similare to interest)

__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.

7. The point is they need fund to save stock market (6/20/05)

In my illustration equation in message 6: (based on fact that the return of average investor was 3.7%, and average return of S&P was 13.2% each year)

37 (average investors gain in 10 years) + 95 (special interest group gain in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)

to maintain a high return rate in stock market, special interest group needs more and more fund. In that equation, it's the amount 232 paid by potential losers. Next year, to maintain a 13.2% grow up rate, they need 262 new fund from potential losers. So far it works well becasue they successfully guided the pension fund, then IRA, then 401(k) into the market. But once those who invested in stock market with their pension fund want to cash their portfolio who has that big money to take over the stock papers? They turn on to your social security.

2018 is the year when paid S.S. tax will be less than the benefit paid to retirees. That's 13 years away. 2042 is the insolvent year for S.S. That's 37 years away. Why Bush is so eager on this issue? Because the stock market will have problem in 2009. That's 4 years away. Bush's privatization plan is not to save Social Security, (on the contrary, it endangers S.S.. See message 5. Bush's privatization plan will endanger S.S. further (5/22/05)) It is to save the stock market. The sacrifice is young people's retirement fund.

Back to my equation, when potential loser paid 232 for a stock paper, the money has gone to the winners' profit gain and company's capital gain already. When potential loser wants to cash his stock paper, who has the money to take it over?

That's why Bush and his accessaries bang the drum to propaganda on "high return in stock market" (it's a gimmick, see message 6. Average investor in stock market) to lure people to invest their money into the stock market to take over the hot potato.

Bush's plan is opposed by majority people. But he tries to play with tricks. whatever the new plan he proposed, one thing is for sure: 1. He needs money(fund). 2. The money is from Social Security fund. 3. And that fund will be put into the stock market to save it from collapsing.

__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.

S.S. is Social security not Social risk
BOOMERJEFF said,
"Your equation leaves out the human creativity/innovation/invention/management element.

For example, Cell phone Co may have invested $1 million on R&D to develop the ability to take pictures. They may invest $2 million in a factory to make the new phones that take pics.

.....

So, the $3 milion invested in the picture phones could generate much more profit than $3 million invested in phone-only phones, or $3 million invested in improved pots and pans, or $3 million invested in improved lawn mowers. Thus, the market value - not your theoretical book value - of the picture cell phone stock will rise many times as much as the market value of stock in the phone-only cell company, or stock in the pots & pans company or stock in the lawn mower co.

===========

When the debate starts, I always encounter with arguments like above one. It used to be:
1. They use unique sample to covert all.
2. Businees belong to dividend category but they mix it with stock trading.

My Answer

1. A new technique will make big money, that's true. It used to be invested by V.C. (venture capital). When one such technique succeeded, there may be 9 others failed. V.C. may invested in 10 companys with one million each. One company succeeded and 9 others failed. The average return is still flat.

Or in stock market, 10 people invested, one made high return like you said, the others suffer a lost you don't mention at. The average return you avoid to talk is still low.

As a matter of fact, it's like the propaganda of gamble business. They say every week there is a millionare prize winner. That the critics neglected the lucky element(in your word, "creativity/innovation/invention/management element.)

Here we talk about average return. Not a lottery. And that average return of stock market for ordinary people is almost nothing consider to inflation. I have that fact in message "6. Average investor in stock market" in this forum.
2. The profit still came from potential loser.

In your sample. If the stock price went up 5 times to the original one and you sold all the stock, then to my equation: 12 million (profit gain by original investor)+ 3 million ( Capital gain of phone company)= 15 million (potential loss of new investors who bought the stock)

Remember the profit gain in stock market is always from the buyer. Because however a company successful the money paid to stock trading is always from the stock buyer (potential loser) not the company.

Then you may ask where is the value created by "human creativity/innovation/invention/management element" goes?

It reflects in dividend distribution. And it used to be a flatened one because such success is always be in consideration when the stock was issued. In another word, the profit was gained by inventors and VC capitalist. (VC capitalist must average the profit with other failed cases) Have you ever heard a company paying dividend equal to its stock price, or even 50% of it? So far as I know, the average dividend is close to the rate of interest bank paid to its customers.

Of course, I always talk about average not lottery or unique accidence. Social Security is a system to guarantee most people have a minimum income when they retired. Not put them in a risk life when they got old.

__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.

8. The game is who will be the potential loser (7/19/05)

First of all. People should recognize the difference of average return of stock market and average return of stock investors?

The Dalbar research gave you the result: In latest 20 years, 1985 to 2004, (2005 not finished yet).

Average investor's yearly return: 3.7%. (ordinary people)
Average S&P 500 index yearly return: 13.2% (stock price gain)

Get clear the idea of "average investor" and what happened to the difference between 3.7% and 13.2%.

Nobody deny the high return of stock market, only it belongs to special interest group not ordinary people.

I emphysize the average investor's return: 3.7%. Because S.S. is about the interest for ordinary people - the average tax payer, not for the special interest group. And my equation tells where the money went.

37 (average investors gain in 10 years) + 95 (special interest group gain in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)

This is how Bush and his S.S. war room show to people:
132 (total profit made in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)

They mix average investor with special interest group.

And this is how ordinary people got in stock market in latest 20 years, almost nothing (in mutual fund) or a loss (401k in Nebraska). A rare data leaking from government censorship net.

Bush and his group only blow the trumpet on that 13.2 but leave the "3.7 and loss" alone.

One thing very important is this took place in a rising stock market. Investor should have a rich profit, yet the result is poor. Where the profit came from? Stock market won't create wealth. It came from potential loser. From 232 paid by new buyer.

In the chart of S&P 500 index, we can see there are two obvious expanding period. The index rose from about 200 to 500 in 15 years. (1980 to 1994) This is the time when pension fund and IRA introduced into the market. And index rose from about 500 to 1200 in 10 years (1995 to 2004). It reflects that how the investment fund baloons the price of stock market.

I made a rough metaphor to make it easy to understand: The original invetor had a stock worth $200 for 30 years, then government introduced a new buyer, Pension and IRA. Pension and IRA paid $500 in 15 years and had the stock price being $500 in 1994. To make market a prosperous one, government found another big buyer, 401(k). 401(k) is a rich man, in 10 years, he raised the market by $700 to $1200. 401(k) now has no extra money to raise the market. (401k paid $1200) G(government) promised it can double in 10 years. But who has that much money to double the price to $2400? G now is in a hurry, the only one he can find is S.S.. S.S. has that ability to boost the stock market, but the problem is 10 years later, when S.S. intends to sell the stock, who has that much money $4800 to take over the hot potato? After all there will be an end. That's how a potential flood developing into a tsunami.

Bush doesn't care. What he wants is at current he and his group can make money. He borrows to pay the bill. (He cut tax by issuing national bond, you people pay it later) He spends at your debt. When crisis break out, he is not a Presidnet any more. Or even he is not alive then. Young people will bear the loss.

__________________
If Feds call you and defame my message, it is a tactic of intimidation. They don't want people know the fact.
It also proves what I wrote are truth. They are afraid of it.

Okay...

First of all, I only read the first three pages of your nonsense, and the last page, so if what I'm going to say here was already said, so be it.

You [whoever the guy is that's copying and pasting articles from ConspiracyTheoriesRUs.Com] fail to draw the connection between the "giant evil inside conspiracy group" and the American people. Mainly the fact, the incredibly coincidental fact, that this "giant evil inside conspiracy group" manages to do exactly what the American people want. It's almost as if this conspiracy is controlled by the votings of the American citizenship- what an insane idea!

I mean, the group actually let Bush into the office. What a coincedence- Bush actually won an election amongst the American citizens! What a conspiracy there! And the group is making America stay in Iraq? Wow, just like the American people want! And the inside conspiracy is keeping Bush from being impeached? Good thing, considering that there isn't enough support for Bush to be impeached, huh?

I think that you have to realize that most people either like Bush or at least support Bush... They do exist; not in San Jose Mental Asylum or your parent's basement, but in most of the country. Blaming a giant conspiracy on the doings of the American people, doings which most of us are proud of, is just to help you cope better with the fact that you are in the minority.


Although I am guessing that you are actually enjoying brainwashing yourself into believing this stuff and are recieving great satisfaction in knowing that you know so much more than everybody else...


Ahh, it's worthless... I can't believe I wasted my time...

Did anyone actually read the obviously copy & pasted long, stupid post?

__________________
Extremists make the world, for good or evil.

It is in the interests of all Free Men for all men to be free

I'm loading up on shells right now. I damn well knew that the frozen head of Walt Disney was ruling the world, and now the magic kingdom is gunna burn

Tonight ALL the magic kingdoms shall burn....

__________________

THE GOVERNMENT HAS SENT ME

You know... There ARE conspiracy sites out there... But then again, it is quite possibly true.

__________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~