 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Originally Posted by robwbright
My comment - if the dollar was backed by gold (as it was decades ago), we would be paying the same amount for oil as in 2001 - see graph for proof.
Thanks for the $3.50 regular unleaded, Federal Reserve! |
|
Originally Posted by XRpredator
So, you're saying it's all Nixon's fault.
|
You betcha big guy. 
|
Originally Posted by robwbright
Thanks for the $3.50 regular unleaded, Federal Reserve! |
|
Originally Posted by tyler_43
gas is still cheap when you consider how much people pay for a bottle of water...
|
|
Originally Posted by MSB22
its all bs everyones getting poorer and the oil companies are building palaces. . .
|
|
Originally Posted by XRpredator
or a case of beer
|
|
Originally Posted by robwbright
If you recall, FDR confiscated all gold from Americans. The Fed Gov's tearing down the gold standard started long before FDR. The initial problem was the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.......
......... Let us not be swayed by politicians out for power or by reporters out to create news where none exists. Facts and economic logic should prevail rather than rhetoric. |
|
Originally Posted by knowiam
Either, I don't get it.... or, I'm not buying it!
|
)
|
Originally Posted by Reuters
House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices
Tue May 20, 2008 2:27pm EDT By Tom Doggett WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure. The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow. The measure passed in a 324-84 vote, a big enough margin to override a presidential veto. The legislation also creates a Justice Department task force to aggressively investigate gasoline price gouging and energy market manipulation. "This bill guarantees that oil prices will reflect supply and demand economic rules, instead of wildly speculative and perhaps illegal activities," said Democratic Rep. Steve Kagen of Wisconsin, who sponsored the legislation. The lawmaker said Americans "are at the mercy" of OPEC for how much they pay for gasoline, which this week hit a record average of $3.79 a gallon. The White House opposes the bill, saying that targeting OPEC investment in the United States as a source for damage awards "would likely spur retaliatory action against American interests in those countries and lead to a reduction in oil available to U.S. refiners." The administration said less oil going to refineries would limit available gasoline supplies and raise fuel prices. House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices Foreign investment in U.S. oil infrastructure has declined in the last decade. But the state-owned oil companies of several OPEC nations are owners of U.S. refineries, and those investments could be affected if the legislation becomes law, said Arlington, Virginia-based FBR Capital Markets Corp. The bill also requires the Government Accountability Office to carryout a study on the effects of prior oil company mergers on energy prices. The Senate would still have to approve the House measure. The Senate previously approved similar legislation as part of a broad energy bill. However, the OPEC-suing provision was removed after White House opposition in order to get the underlying energy legislation signed into law. (Editing by Christian Wiessner) |
|
Originally Posted by oldguy
On the morning news just a minute ago they were predicting a higher then average hurricane season possibly driving gas to $5.50 - $6 a gallon by mid summer
|
|
Originally Posted by 2strokerfun
Seems to me that it used to be illegal to trade oil futures in the U.S. I remember in about 1981 a local rich guy whom the local minor league field was named after was sent to federal prison for trading futures (so, of course, they ignored the millions he donated and renamed the field after he was convicted). So, doing some quick research, it appears crude futures trading started on the NY mercantile in 1983. Wonder how it would affect oil prices if they stopped trading futures again.
|
|
Originally Posted by NY Times The Cassandra of Oil Prices Louise Story
The analysts who predict lower prices say there are supplies of oil that the bullish analysts are missing. “This year will be a year in which supply will be put into the market by stealth by OPEC and by countries we call black-hole countries,” said Edward L. Morse, chief energy economist at Lehman Brothers. China is one example, he said.
|
|
Originally Posted by NewYork Times
The Cassandra of Oil Prices
The New York Times By LOUISE STORY Published: May 21, 2008 Arjun N. Murti remembers the pain of the oil shocks of the 1970s. But he is bracing for something far worse now: He foresees a “super spike” * a price surge that will soon drive crude oil to $200 a barrel. Arjun Murti at Goldman Sachs studied the 1970s’ oil spikes. One had drivers lined up at a gas station in San Jose, Calif., in 1974. Henny Ray Abrams/Associated Press The oil options pit at the New York Mercantile Exchange; oil prices touched $129.60 Tuesday. Mr. Murti, who has a bit of a green streak, is not bothered much by the prospect of even higher oil prices, figuring it might finally prompt America to become more energy efficient. An analyst at Goldman Sachs, Mr. Murti has become the talk of the oil market by issuing one sensational forecast after another. A few years ago, rivals scoffed when he predicted oil would breach $100 a barrel. Few are laughing now. Oil shattered yet another record on Tuesday, touching $129.60 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Gas at $4 a gallon is arriving just in time for those long summer drives. Mr. Murti, 39, argues that the world’s seemingly unquenchable thirst for oil means prices will keep rising from here and stay above $100 into 2011. Others disagree, arguing that prices could abruptly tumble if speculators in the market rush for the exits. But the grim calculus of Mr. Murti’s prediction, issued in March and reconfirmed two weeks ago, is enough to give anyone pause: in an America of $200 oil, gasoline could cost more than $6 a gallon. That would be fine with Mr. Murti, who owns not one but two hybrid cars. “I’m actually fairly anti-oil,” says Mr. Murti, who grew up in New Jersey. “One of the biggest challenges our country faces is our addiction to oil.” Mr. Murti is hardly alone in predicting higher oil prices. Boone Pickens, the oilman turned corporate raider, said Tuesday that crude would hit $150 this year. But many analysts are no longer so sure where oil is going, at least in the short term. Some say prices will fall as low as $70 a barrel by year-end, according to Thomson Financial. Experts disagree over the supply of oil, the demand for it and whether recent speculation in the commodities markets has artificially raised prices. As an energy analyst at Citigroup, Tim Evans, reportedly put it, trading commodities these days is like “sticking your hand in a blender.” Whatever the case, oil analysts like Mr. Murti have suddenly taken on the aura that enveloped technology analysts in the 1990s. “It’s become a very fashionable area to write about,” said Kevin Norrish, a commodity analyst at Barclays Capital, which began predicting high oil prices around the same time as Goldman. “And to try to get attention from people, people are coming out with all sorts of numbers.” This was not always the case. In the 1990s, oil research was a sleepy area at banks. Many analysts assumed oil prices would hover near $15 to $20 a barrel forever. If prices rose much above those levels, they figured, consumers would start conserving, suppliers would raise production, or both, causing prices to decline. But around the turn of the century, oil company after oil company started missing predicted production. Mr. Murti, who covers oil companies like ConocoPhillips and Valero Energy, decided to study the oil spikes of the 1970s. Since starting his career at Petrie Parkman & Company, a Denver-based investment firm acquired by Merrill Lynch in 2006, he had been conservative in his calls on oil. But by 2004, he concluded the world was headed for a long supply shock that would push prices through the roof. That summer, as oil traded for about $40 a barrel, Mr. Murti coined what has become his signature phrase: super spike. The following March, he drew attention by predicting prices would soar to $105, sending shock waves through the market. Angry investors questioned whether Goldman’s own oil traders benefited from the prediction. At Goldman’s annual meeting, Henry M. Paulson Jr., then the bank’s chief executive and now Treasury secretary, found himself defending Mr. Murti. “Our traders were as surprised as everyone else was,” Mr. Paulson reportedly said. “Our research department is totally independent. Our trading departments have no say about this.” Over time, Mr. Murti was proved right again. Oil crossed $100 in February. Mr. Murti’s forecasts now feed into many of Goldman’s economic and corporate forecasts, affecting research of companies like Ford and Procter & Gamble. His research is distributed widely among investors. “Even if you disagree with their views, the problem is that Goldman does carry so much credibility,” said Nauman Barakat, senior vice president for global energy futures at Macquarie Futures USA. “There are a lot of traders who are going to buy based on their reports.” His sudden fame unsettles Mr. Murti. He rarely grants interviews, citing concerns about privacy, and he declined to be photographed for this article. He is not the bank’s only gas prognosticator: Jeffrey R. Currie predicts oil prices out of London. Mr. Murti, for his part, discounts suggestions that his reports affect market prices. “Whenever an analyst upgrades a stock or downgrades a stock, sometimes you get a reaction that day, but beyond a day, fundamentals win out,” he said. Mr. Murti falls into the camp of oil analysts who believe that supply is likely to remain tight because of geopolitical factors. These analysts predict higher prices because production is declining in non- OPEC countries like Britain, Norway and Mexico. The analysts who predict lower prices say there are supplies of oil that the bullish analysts are missing. “This year will be a year in which supply will be put into the market by stealth by OPEC and by countries we call black-hole countries,” said Edward L. Morse, chief energy economist at Lehman Brothers. China is one example, he said. But while oil and gas prices have been rising for a while now, Americans have only just begun to reduce gasoline consumption, so their efforts to conserve have not dragged down oil prices. “The fact that the U.S. gasoline demand can be down and that the U.S. gasoline consumer is no longer driving world oil prices is a monumental event,” Mr. Murti says. He spends most of his time talking to money managers and analysts, many of whom keep asking him if oil prices will stay high if speculators abandon the market, and says he applauds investors for driving up oil prices, since that will spur investment in alternative sources of energy. High prices, he says, “send a message to consumers that you should try your best to buy fuel-efficient cars or otherwise conserve on energy.” Washington should create tax incentives to encourage people to buy hybrid cars and develop more nuclear energy, he said. Of course, if lawmakers heed his advice, oil analysts like him might one day be a thing of the past. That’s fine with Mr. Murti. “The greatest thing in the world would be if in 15 years we no longer needed oil analysts,” he says. |
|
Originally Posted by fatcat216
You think that's funny...This one will have you snorting your coffee onto your computer screen:
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMo...T00953020080520 I honestly thought is was out of The Onion when I read it. |
|
Originally Posted by rickyd
Has the price per barrel gone up because out dollar is not worth as much?
|
| If the other 48 states override Florida and California, possibly, maybe, domestic drilling and production will return. |
| i want the black dude to win. |
|
Originally Posted by Patman
Might I suggest a book called "Pirates of Manhattan" for some very interesting reading.
|
]
|
Originally Posted by Patman
Not in my backyard and let other people change seems to be part of what has kept us in the pickle we're in.
|
|
Originally Posted by just-startin
I must admit that I look around at how much our lifestyle is currently dependant on cheap, abundant, energy. I harbour a certain nagging feeling of panic at the prospect of what a crazy shift in energy prices will bring.
|
issed: .......
|
Originally Posted by Moose
You guys have two choices.
You can stop complaining. Or you can come live in Canada and pay nearly 6 dollars a gallon. Or, you can live in Europe and pay anywhere around 11 dollars a gallon. Feel better? |
|
Originally Posted by BSWIFT
We still pay for our own medical care. Your extra taxes pay for socialized medicine, amoung other things.
Nice places to visit but I'll live right here in the buckle of the bible belt. |
|
Originally Posted by Moose
You guys have two choices.
|
|
Originally Posted by robwbright
"No state shall . . . make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts . . ."
|
|
Originally Posted by JuliusPleaser
Here's some common sense for you.
Big oil has two choices. They can either: A. Do nothing and continue to make more profit than any industry in the history of mankind (while blaming the Democrats, liberals, hippies, ecoterrorists, and enviro-nazis for those record profits). B. Spend billions of dollars on drilling and new refineries so they can sell their products for less. Let's talk about common sense. |
|
Originally Posted by Patman
How do ya' figure that JP?
The "cost" of gasoline roughly breaks down like this. -58 percent of the cost is for crude oil (the product itself, with a price determined by its market demand) -15 percent goes to state and federal taxes -17 percent to oil companies and refineries -10 percent to distributors and marketers Do the big oil companies make huge profits? Sure but what drives the cost of the base product up? Who doesn't want us tapping in to some the largest oil fields ever found? It looks like 17% of the buck stops at the big oil companies and 58% is someplace else. Shouldn't the 58% get 58% of the blame? The oil companies are not setting the price of the base product, but I figured everyone knew that. |
|
Originally Posted by XRpredator
I think they'd spend billions of dollars on drilling and new refineries if the Democrats, liberals, hippies, ecoterrorists, and enviro-nazis (and anyone else for that matter) would take a step back and let some of it happen. If the mandates and regulations weren't so prohibitive, I would imagine the oil companies would be building refineries and drilling wells like crazy, because those billions would translate to trillions at some point, maybe even translate to brazilians!
I love you JP Love, your pal pred |
LOTS of people and companies make profits so we need to blame them for the "high" cost of those products as well? I'm sure none of this has anything to do with global supply and demand, speculation on oil prices nor government policy 
If you knew you could quadruple your money on something by spending 15% more than you currently do on that same something with virtually no risk would you do it or are are you just happy as can be with what you currently have? Unless you have turned in to a monk there is only one answer.
|
Originally Posted by JuliusPleaser
That's the cool thing about being an American - you're free to buy whatever BS story you choose.
. |
|
Originally Posted by Patman
Let me guess Elvis is still alive but abducted by little green men.
|
|
Originally Posted by Patman
Now that IS true. Do you happen to subscribe that all this oil that is being extracted will also cause the plates of the eart to rub together like a giant 2 stroke piston without premix?
|
|
Originally Posted by Patman
Now that IS true. Do you happen to subscribe that all this oil that is being extracted will also cause the plates of the eart to rub together like a giant 2 stroke piston without premix?
|
|
Originally Posted by JuliusPleaser
I was wondering what all the squeaking was about.
|
|
Originally Posted by BSWIFT
I don't know the exact amount of gallons of fuel sold in the US every day but, let's say that the oil companies clear $.01 of every gallon as profit. The resulting figure is huge (economy of scale). If you allow them to make $.01 thru every process from crude extraction, transportation, storage, refining, and retail delivery, you can see that their profits are HUGE. That is how an economy of scale works.
As a small business owner, I would flat be broke if I only made $.01 profit per given widget I produce. Now if you or anyone else are working for a private company and you only produce $.01 profit per widget, you'd be unemployed pretty quickly and you are about to see this happen in the 3 major US automakers. US history provides many examples of "carpet bagging" and speculation. Each envolves greedy people or companies taking advantage of those in dire need. This is in effect, capitalism at its extreme. To me, those who drive up the price of such a vital comodity are UN-patriotic and they threaten our nations economic security, regardless of political affiliation. With all speculation there comes risks. The largest risk in this type of uncontrolled speculation is economic collapse and no president will have the power to stop it. Our do-nothing Congress will argue, study, and argue more before taxing us more and cause a second Historic Wall Street crash before any real solution is to be found, all the while lining their pockets with stock gains. Continue to blaim the oil companies and the president if you must but they are only the whipping post of the ignorant and politically motivated. The Constitution spells out the powers of the three branches of government and I don't see anywhere that the President controls the price of fuel. The buck stops in congress. Congress is controlled by corperate special interests and the national party leaders that put their own agenda's ahead of the natural economic supply and demand formula. Learn to grow your own food, fish, and hunt because the trips to the grocery store wll soon be the largest cut of your budget. |
|
Originally Posted by Senior KX Rider
Arctic May Hold 90 Billion Barrels of Oil, U.S. Says
|
|
Originally Posted by Senior KX Rider
You are absolutely right Brian. These companys operate on a profit margin of somewhere between 9 and 11 percent. That is borderline of being shameful in the business world.
|
|
They’ve always been at the top of the pyramid, but the past few years it’s exceeded anything in the past. Businessweek recently published article on oil executive paychecks. For the article, they commissioned a study on the compensation of the top 25 oil and gas firm’s executives. Here’s some of what they found: “Equilar’s study found that for the 12 CEOs at the largest U.S.-based, publicly traded oil companies, median total compensation increased by more than four times the rate of that of executives in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index as a whole.” |
|
Last year, Exxon made the biggest profit of any company ever, $36 billion, and its retiring chairman appears to be reaping the benefits. Exxon is giving Lee Raymond one of the most generous retirement packages in history, nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes. Last November, when he was still chairman of Exxon, Raymond told Congress that gas prices were high because of global supply and demand. "We're all in this together, everywhere in the world," he testified. Raymond, however, was confronted with caustic complaints about his compensation. "In 2004, Mr. Raymond, your bonus was over $3.6 million," Sen. Barbara Boxer said. That was before new corporate documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that revealed Raymond's retirement deal and his $51.1 million paycheck in 2005. That's equivalent to $141,000 a day, nearly $6,000 an hour. It's almost more than five times what the CEO of Chevron made. |
|
Originally Posted by Jaybird
I for one am not picky about what goes up your ass, I feel you have every right to stick whatever you want up there, JP.
But, when it comes to having the slightest bit of understanding of this issue, you are quite lacking, pal. All you have is your leftist rhetoric, which is way off base from what is really happening. And as the leftist has no real understanding of such issues (and it seems they don't really want to understand), they sure do not belong on the business end of them. But I say they have every right to cry the blues about things that they simply have no real understanding of...AND they have every right to have whatever they want stuck, stuffed, pushed or blown into their stinkin ass'. I agree with you, JP. It sucks that they just won't stop trying to blow smoke up your ass and learn how to actually get er done, like your leftist leaders have learned to do. They have succeeded in filling yours it seems. Actually it may be too good of a job, because it seems it's coming out of your ears! Man those leftists sure don't mess around when it comes to blowing smoke up less than informed folks ass'. Skill like that just doesn't happen overnight. |
|
Originally Posted by JuliusPleaser
a candidate that makes John Kerry look like a man of conviction?
|
|
Originally Posted by JuliusPleaser
I'm focussed on the lies and half-truths surrounding the profits, Patman.
|
|
Originally Posted by Jaybird
Actually, if truth be told, their profits are really none of your damn business, Larry.
This is not a state run communistic society we live in. It is a capitalistic one. You do understand that concept yes? It is hell to give liberals information like gross profits and all, as they simply do not understand the concept of the whole thing. Nor do they want to understand, because the knowledge would conflict with their leaders rants and raves. The leftist motto: Never let a lie get in the way of sound leftist rhetoric. BTW...apparently we are now admitting that John Kerry is actually a man of little conviction. Bout time you saw the light. But you wouldn't joke like that if her were the candidate...you would continue with your leftist rhetoric and back him up, as if. See, phony from stem to stern. That is the leftist way of things. |
|
Originally Posted by XRpredator
|
|
Originally Posted by JuliusPleaser
That's a pretty old act, but I guess some people will never change - no matter how wrong they are.
|
|
Originally Posted by JuliusPleaser
Take a look back through the posts and see if you can tell exactly where things got ugly. |
|
Originally Posted by JuliusPleaser
It's one of my favorite movies.
|
|
Originally Posted by truespode
From my perspective all I have to do is switch the R or D and then it comes from the other person.
Ivan |
|
Originally Posted by JuliusPleaser
If any of you lived close to me, you'd find dead fish in your car on a regular basis.
|
|
Originally Posted by Jaybird
putz!
|
|
Originally Posted by robwbright
I'd suggest that everyone read this - nice article and graphs included - about the economy in general - not just oil:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/quinn4.html |
| No bias in that article at all.. |
sounds like a lot of problems from riding areas to Fanny & Freddy.
|
Originally Posted by Patman
Some folks figure it's easier to blame others for the problem than to actually take action
|
|
Originally Posted by 2-Strokes 4-ever
Heard on the news a couple weeks about a slight drop in the price of a barrel of oil. Here in the Midwest we've seen gas drop by about 35 cents per/gal since then ($3.65 yesterday.) But diesel hasn't moved much... isn't there less labor in refining oil to diesel fuel?
|
Can you imagine how much THEIR oil companies are ripping THEM off?! On the flip side Venezuela is the home of $0.12 USD per gallon gas! So I guess their company is doing something really wrong or maybe it is because their fuel "company" is government owned.
|
Originally Posted by Patman
Some folks figure it's easier to blame others for the problem than to actually take action.
|
|
Originally Posted by 2-Strokes 4-ever
Heard on the news a couple weeks about a slight drop in the price of a barrel of oil. Here in the Midwest we've seen gas drop by about 35 cents per/gal since then ($3.65 yesterday.) But diesel hasn't moved much... isn't there less labor in refining oil to diesel fuel?
|
|
Originally Posted by JuliusPleaser
Is that why so many people blame Democrats, liberals, hippies, and space aliens for high gas prices?
http://mediamatters.org/static/vide...ve-20050428.jpg |
|
Originally Posted by JuliusPleaser
Is that why so many people blame Democrats, liberals, hippies, and space aliens for high gas prices?
http://mediamatters.org/static/vide...ve-20050428.jpg |
) held accountable. I bet they're shaking in their boots at the thought of her in office. Also... wasn't her husband a snowmobile racer? I'm thinking a good amount of the sled crowd also rides dirtbikes. I believe she sees much of the environmentalist's agenda as extreme stuff. Let's make sure all conservatives make it to the polls this year! (Liberals can relax and stay home )
|
Originally Posted by fatcat216
We're quoting Allan Greenspan? The guy who "had no idea that the subprime market had commanded such a large share of the market" while under his watch?
|
|
Originally Posted by 2-Strokes 4-ever
"If" Sarah Palin gets in office, we may see some FatCats (no insult intended fatcat216
) held accountable. |
|
Originally Posted by truespode
No politician will ever hold the right people accountable... they will just blame the other party.
Things will only get worse until people stop taking sides and start solving problems. Ivan |
|
Originally Posted by 2-Strokes 4-ever
First sentence: Pretty broad statement (like a politician?) with a blame pointed at someone else.
Second sentence: True in my opinion, but I can't do it all... which is why we elect those to represent us. |
)
|
Originally Posted by Ol'89r
This is just the beginning with the bail-outs..... and then the auto makers.
|
|
Originally Posted by Vic
Already happened.
The Next Bailout Is Old News .[/b] |
|
Originally Posted by Jaybird
What say you, Vic?
|
|
Originally Posted by Vic
But, I think we are on the verge of the greatest worldwide economic expansion of all time. In ten years we'll all wonder what all the fuss was about.
|
|
Originally Posted by fatcat216
Vic I find your comments and your link pretty interesting. With due respect to Adam Smith, the Invisible Hand can be quite brutal, not only to the financiers, but to the common folk. Unregulated- the Invisible Hand can bring us economies of scale that result in ruthless monopolies, The Great Depression, The dust Bowl, flight of industries in search of cheap labor leaving a country with no manufacturing base and only two industries- paper pushers and house builders.
The invisible hand brings us doctors who sell expensive medical procedures rather than wellness. |
|
Originally Posted by fatcat216
Sure- go ahead, privatize. I can see after the last two weeks why that is such a marvelous idea.
|
|
Keep Wall Street Out of the Retirement Business Should we trust the folks who brought us Lehman and AIG with a privatized Social Security system? Should we trust them with our 401(k)s? by Chris Farrell INVESTING * Stocks Soar on Historic Bailout Plan * Strong Push for an RTC-Type Solution to the Crisis * Stovall: Financials Find a Friend in the Feds * Keep Wall Street Out of the Retirement Business * Morgan Stanley's Bank Shot STORY TOOLS * post a comment * e-mail this story * print this story * order a reprint * suggest a story * digg this * save to del.icio.us Click here to find out more! Remember the Bush Administration's push to partially privatize Social Security? The privatization advocates warned that insolvency loomed unless dramatic changes were made to the system. Social Security was also labeled a terrible investment. The Bush team's argument: Let people invest a portion of their payroll tax money with the financial wizards of Wall Street in an account reminiscent of a 401(k). Workers would get a higher rate of return on their Social Security money, and the economy would benefit from a higher rate of savings. "We heard the fear that Social Security will go bankrupt and the solution is privatize it," says Zvi Bodie, a finance professor at Boston University. "Yeah, right! It was a self-serving proposal from industry." Imagine Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers ( LEH), American International Group ( AIG), and other titans of finance managing Social Security? The late economist Robert Eisner told me during an interview in the early 1990s that "Social Security was not meant to be a get-rich scheme or a competitor to go-go funds." He was right. SO MANY RESPONSIBILITIES Question is, in light of the current turmoil in the financial markets, should Wall Street manage any of our long-term retirement savings funds? Is the 401(k) plan, which has become the main retirement savings vehicle for the American worker over the past three decades, a mistake? The case for rethinking the 401(k) as a pillar of retirement savings is compelling. To be clear, the democratization of stock ownership is a welcome and powerful trend. Two hundred years after 24 New York brokers and merchants met on Wall Street to sign the "Buttonwood Agreement," a pact that established standard commissions for trading securities, investing now has all the characteristics of a mass social movement. People's Capitalism has helped fuel entrepreneurship and risk-taking. Despite abuses, stocks options, restricted stock, profit sharing plans, and similar equity-based compensation schemes are critical building blocks to innovation, the driving force behind economic growth. Thanks to the Internet and advanced telecommunications networks, it's cheaper than ever for individual investors to buy securities. No, the question is focused on retirement savings, the money employees set aside during their working years to smooth out their standard of living in retirement. Employees bear all the responsibility if they make mistakes, and time to make up for investment mishaps shrinks as stomachs go slack and hair turns gray. It's an axiom of modern finance that the only way to create the possibility of higher returns is to take on greater risk. But the risks employees are absorbing today seem disproportionate to the potential rewards. For one thing, most employees work for companies that demand more of their time and effort, and that effort is showing up in high productivity numbers. For another, most people not only work but they also raise families, help their children with homework, spend time with friends, volunteer in the local community, vote in elections, and try and maintain their health with exercise and eating properly. At least, even if they fall short, these are all things they try to do and are encouraged to do. Yet, on top of all that, they're supposed to know how to allocate investment assets for when they retire in 5, 10, 20, or 30 years from now. |
|
Originally Posted by fatcat216
Because I was unfortunate enough to be born to a mother who only worked in a factory, and suffered serious challenges with mental illness- Medicaid fixed my broken elbow when I was an 18 year old with no insurance who fell on a bicycle. My family doctor didn't take medicaid and I worked long and hard to pay his portion.
Next. |
|
Originally Posted by fatcat216
So- no rules, no laws?
|
|
Originally Posted by Vic
Less rules, less laws. MORE personal accountability.
|
|
Originally Posted by fatcat216
Vic- you truly believe the 20s stock market crash and Great Depression was caused by Government??
|
|
Originally Posted by fatcat216
I think you did. And thank you.
|
|
Originally Posted by Vic
No question government contributed to the severity.
You sat through a lot of economics lectures in college, didn't you? |
|
Originally Posted by fatcat216
and I've gone on throughout my adult life to pay for others, and to help educate children in my community to a standard that they can contribute in positive ways throughout their lives.
|
|
Originally Posted by Vic
Didn't you already say you paid for it?
|
|
Originally Posted by fatcat216
As to you second comment, if you are "calling me stupid" please, if makes you feel better, go ahead call me stupid, or lazy or what have you. But, it seems it would serve you much better to explain to me your thoughts on why you believe the severity was made worse, than to call me stupid. I'm listening either way. |
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2009,
Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2009
- Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser