cwd Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Pension benefits have been disappearing or otherwise impossible to deliver at the promised rate ever since they became a normal part of US employment in the 50s. A bit of history. Old style conservatives, mainly Republican, were opposed to worker pensions on principal, even SS, because they thought that a less secure and fearful worker is a better worker. This sort of carping disappeared as the checks from the defined beneift plans started rolling into Wall Street month after month. Then too if companies went bankrupt the pension plan assets reverted to the company to pay off creditors. That was done away with in the early 80s. There is other complicated stuff having to do with employers actually making enough contributions and the assumptions about investment retruns but the bottom line has always been that a good number of retirees will never get what they thought they would get. My take is that was all by design. The money goes into the Street and doesn't multiply. It always divides and sometimes subtracts. Wonder why. The same applies to the tax advantaged investment plans. I wouldn't say that cumulatively the results would have been better if people put the money in their mattress but perhaps not far off. I think those old fashioned conservatives were onto something but for the wrong reason. Give someone your money and they are likely to keep it or fritter it away. Finance being the art of passing money hand to hand until it disappears. That is too harsh but don't tell that to Madoff's investors. The faith, admiration and deference given to people who use others peoples money is insane. It used to be Americans were supposed to pride themselves on their skepticism. Then again there is what PT Barnum said about suckers. I am working on a theory that there is too much money to invest versus any possible cash flow to give people the 10% they seem to think is their right. I don't think there is any doubt about that. Which is why speculation, which depends totally on asset price changes and not cash flow returns came to be called investment and then savings. So we cut taxes at the top and on capital gains to spur investment and we got investment in CDO's squared and Palm Island and all manner of sillyness and still we hear what is needed is more investment. In a vicious circle. I know this is a back asswards way of looking at things that will rub many the wrong way. It sounds reasonable to me if the value of the money had stayed stable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche doctor Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Looks like the fraudex futures are being jammed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shorty Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Looks like the fraudex futures are being jammed. Bohnar Ben whips it out fer the night session gotta torment the maSSes - ha ha it's all good, while we grind your sorry third world aSSes into the dirt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 PRODUCTIONS FOR 2010!) 1? I thing the great governbent blond bubble will bust 2/ Apple's shock price will go pear shaped! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 MUSINGS ON HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING 1/ It seems that one could hide a lot of front running quite easily in the high frequency trading forrest - a wonderful smokescreen - especially with sponsered access. 2/ HFT would also seem to be a great way to determine the "viscosity" of a stock - eg how a buy or sell order attracts more buying or more selling from others. eg seeking out high viscosity stocks and moving them greatly with very little money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.