Airborne1 and those that do not care for W/L

[Guest]

Airborne1

Thanks for your efforts in reaching me.

Check your forum inbox

Thanks so much Airborne1.

Very decent of you to share the information.

Thanks, Hope I can return the favor some day.

 

[Airborne1]

I hope it sounds as simple as it really is

If not, ask away.

 

[James]

Now some want to put the idea of "Retirement Funding" strictly on the back of Private Companies/Corporations? I for one am thinking this might be a bit much if we desire to stay a free social and free economic base society. Today I see a rather Facsist set of ideas coming from all political parties, why? Because large Business is becoming so entangle with our everyday needs now including retirement funding which is quite personal to many. Go back before WWII and most retirement circle around the family not Wall Street and our retirement agenda has change and for the most part is new if we consider the idea of Middle Class retirement.

James,

Are you saying you're against investing in the markets for retirement?

That is a no brainer. While one can make money but the long term outlook is bleak at best in the idea of Retirement strategy. What you have to keep in mind is three things, Labor, Profitablility and Regulations. Whenever a Corporation or Business identity is called upon to provide retirement monies you run into the GM effect.

GM has in its future a condomdrum, honor its retirement package or continue to pay Labor or walk away from one of the two. It can not continue to balance the two, now the 800lb Gorilla in the room is called the US Government that will in the end be the arbitrator via Regulations. Unless you know something I don't you can add how you think a private enterprise such as a Corporation may it be GM, Nabisco or Microsoft can at its foundation provide large pools of retirement cash and continue to be a competitive identity in the market place. No one to this date has laid out how that is too happen to much satifaction outside of pie in the sky or the idea of a New Economy that doesn't rely on profitability. Much like the DotCom experiment of not many years ago, obviously it just doesn't work.

A good read.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north297.html

 

[sman]

Now some want to put the idea of "Retirement Funding" strictly on the back of Private Companies/Corporations? I for one am thinking this might be a bit much if we desire to stay a free social and free economic base society. Today I see a rather Facsist set of ideas coming from all political parties, why? Because large Business is becoming so entangle with our everyday needs now including retirement funding which is quite personal to many. Go back before WWII and most retirement circle around the family not Wall Street and our retirement agenda has change and for the most part is new if we consider the idea of Middle Class retirement.

James,

Are you saying you're against investing in the markets for retirement?

That is a no brainer. While one can make money but the long term outlook is bleak at best in the idea of Retirement strategy. What you have to keep in mind is three things, Labor, Profitablility and Regulations. Whenever a Corporation or Business identity is called upon to provide retirement monies you run into the GM effect.

GM has in its future a condomdrum, honor its retirement package or continue to pay Labor or walk away from one of the two. It can not continue to balance the two, now the 800lb Gorilla in the room is called the US Government that will in the end be the arbitrator via Regulations. Unless you know something I don't you can add how you think a private enterprise such as a Corporation may it be GM, Nabisco or Microsoft can at its foundation provide large pools of retirement cash and continue to be a competitive identity in the market place. No one to this date has laid out how that is too happen to much satifaction outside of pie in the sky or the idea of a New Economy that doesn't rely on profitability. Much like the DotCom experiment of not many years ago, obviously it just doesn't work.

A good read.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north297.html

Good Lord James, I have no idea what you just said. And what is a condomdrum? Do you proof read anything? And I think you meant 'entity' instead of 'identity' in a few places.

I think we're talking about 2 separate things. I'm speaking specifically of investing in the equity markets for retirement. It sounds as if (I think) you are speaking of pension plans provided by employers.

As for GM, one of their bigger issues is the health insurance benefits they provide for employees and retirees. I think I read they spend $5 billion per year on health benefits.

And yes, I believe pesnion plans are a thing of the past. It's getting to the point where the only pension plans are going to be provided by government jobs. It is too costly for private industry to provide a pension and remain competitive in the market place. Thus, the shift to 401k's and personal responsibility. The days of 30-40 years at one place and retiring with a pension are gone. And have been for quite some time.

When I read your post that I originally replied to I thought you were speaking of equity investments, but now, as I said, it appears you were speaking more of pension plans (i.e. - putting retirement funding on the backs of corporations). I agree, that just won't work. It is OUR responsibility to provide for OUR retirement. If an employer wants to provide a pension and can remain competitive, more power to them.

 

[James]

Now some want to put the idea of "Retirement Funding" strictly on the back of Private Companies/Corporations? I for one am thinking this might be a bit much if we desire to stay a free social and free economic base society. Today I see a rather Facsist set of ideas coming from all political parties, why? Because large Business is becoming so entangle with our everyday needs now including retirement funding which is quite personal to many. Go back before WWII and most retirement circle around the family not Wall Street and our retirement agenda has change and for the most part is new if we consider the idea of Middle Class retirement.

James,

Are you saying you're against investing in the markets for retirement?

That is a no brainer. While one can make money but the long term outlook is bleak at best in the idea of Retirement strategy. What you have to keep in mind is three things, Labor, Profitablility and Regulations. Whenever a Corporation or Business identity is called upon to provide retirement monies you run into the GM effect.

GM has in its future a condomdrum, honor its retirement package or continue to pay Labor or walk away from one of the two. It can not continue to balance the two, now the 800lb Gorilla in the room is called the US Government that will in the end be the arbitrator via Regulations. Unless you know something I don't you can add how you think a private enterprise such as a Corporation may it be GM, Nabisco or Microsoft can at its foundation provide large pools of retirement cash and continue to be a competitive identity in the market place. No one to this date has laid out how that is too happen to much satifaction outside of pie in the sky or the idea of a New Economy that doesn't rely on profitability. Much like the DotCom experiment of not many years ago, obviously it just doesn't work.

A good read.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north297.html

Good Lord James, I have no idea what you just said. And what is a condomdrum? Do you proof read anything? And I think you meant 'entity' instead of 'identity' in a few places.

I think we're talking about 2 separate things. I'm speaking specifically of investing in the equity markets for retirement. It sounds as if (I think) you are speaking of pension plans provided by employers.

As for GM, one of their bigger issues is the health insurance benefits they provide for employees and retirees. I think I read they spend $5 billion per year on health benefits.

And yes, I believe pesnion plans are a thing of the past. It's getting to the point where the only pension plans are going to be provided by government jobs. It is too costly for private industry to provide a pension and remain competitive in the market place. Thus, the shift to 401k's and personal responsibility. The days of 30-40 years at one place and retiring with a pension are gone. And have been for quite some time.

When I read your post that I originally replied to I thought you were speaking of equity investments, but now, as I said, it appears you were speaking more of pension plans (i.e. - putting retirement funding on the backs of corporations). I agree, that just won't work. It is OUR responsibility to provide for OUR retirement. If an employer wants to provide a pension and can remain competitive, more power to them.

Well give me a break, couldn't sleep last night and posted very late!

Today you have trillions of dollars being placed inside of qualified accounts that invest one way or another within a broad range of varying companies. Mostly US companies and some Foreign Companies. Yet the problem is basically the same, at some point in time an exodus of money has to leave these companies to pay for retirement of those that invested via the qualified account or just straight investment. Now tell me what do you expect the market response will be when that happens? Remember the companies we are investing in today have self interest, their interest doesn't have retirement of others as a part of their self interest.

Or let's play it this way, lets make it simple. How does long term investing in the market create a return that outstrips the average growth of the economy in general? Remember the vast amount being invested via the qualified plans, it is how many trillions of dollars? Remember this discussion circles around the idea that retirement investing over the long haul can achieve 10% and greater returns Vs the nominal growth of say Bonds and Insurance contracts paying anywhere from 4-6% on average.