Welcome to PatsFans.com

Govt May Own GM

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Leave No Doubt, Apr 28, 2009.

  1. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    In the interest of title brevity, own=be the major shareholder for those who care about these things.

    Anyway:



  2. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    If the public is paying for it, they should own it.
  3. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Like we'll have a say;) The reality is, our govt does not equal the public and really hasn't for quite sometime. Regardless of that, this entire process of govt take-over of business is...interesting.
  4. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    That's because people think they should prefer a "small government" that bows down to private industry instead of one they are actively involved in. If people are aware and engaged, the government has to do what they say.
  5. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    So they say. Problem is, people being aware and engaged isn't enough because it doesn't lead to unity, it simply creates controversy and keeps people divided on almost every issue. That's democracy and it should work. It's all the false flags that keep people busy nit-picking about all the wrong things, while laws get passed in the dead of night and before you know it, you're owned.
  6. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    the public should not be in the auto business

    the public should have a better choice of what businesses to invest in

    they wouldn't allow a change to SS to allow for 401K type of investing, but instead are going to force GM down our throats.......such is the economic nonsense of the democratic party........don't flush it down this toilet, flush it down that toilet in the name of saving union labor

    bullcrap
  7. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Well you can put me in the camp that wanted to allow GM to fail. But if we are forced to pay for it, we own it.
  8. Terry Glenn is a cowgirl

    Terry Glenn is a cowgirl Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    7,883
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Ah yes... the smell of fascism, I mean, democracy...:D
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,985
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -8

    My God, the epic ignorance rolled into this one is beyond belief.

    Want "401-K type of investing" for social security accounts? Really??? That's what you really want?

    You want a large proportion of any given age cohort of retirees to make market bets instead of having a defined benefit based on moderate cost of living assumptions? You want the last 10 years' worth of retirees to have made WORSE bets than the current system would provide?

    Why the hell would you want that?

    Guess what, bright boy: workers would LOVE a defined benefit pension. They're considered "gold plating" by the majority who struggle by with 401(K) plans. Guess what else? The workforce is not composed of financial analysts and traders. The house wins in that game.

    Your playbook is from 2004, kid. Markets crash. Your bright idea would have millions on park benches by this time. Thank God that idea never made prime time in a big way.

    SS is a baseline and not a very realistic one, even for a modest goal like survival. But it's a damn sight better than a big goose egg.

    Play dice with your own money and leave our goddam senior citizens alone.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2009
  10. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,316
    Likes Received:
    118
    Ratings:
    +245 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    That would be a nice diatribe if 401Ks had to be in the stock market. By law every 401K has a cash (money market) option. The only negative to 401K style over SS is too many people are too stupid to manage their money correctly. Appropriately managed over a lifetime, a 401K style will come out very nicely.
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,571
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +107 / 7 / -10

    If you look at any 20 year period the idea that investing doesn'twork is silly. The ROI for someone in the system now is ~1%. Horrible. The demographics make thiseven worse for our children and grandkids (especially combined with the reckless spending of the last 20 years and the madness Obama is going to enact.).

    Some can't let go of the failed social engineering policies of the past.
  12. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    I don't understand this part:
  13. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,985
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -8

    BFan, your premise, across the universe of retirees and future retirees, is the following:

    - People should take more risk earlier on with time to recover.
    - People should tolerate less risk the closer they are to retirement (mile marker A,) and death (mile marker B.)
    - People should not try to market-time, except perhaps with a small "play money" fund.
    - People should pay very low fees.
    - People should VOLUNTARILY contribute to 401(k)s to the extent necessary to fund a retirement
    - People should all be models of sobriety and never be seduced by apparent "trees only grow up" moments in any available fund, be it money-market, bonds, stocks, whatever.
    - People should diversify their portfolios in line with their risk strategy, and should be experts at rebalancing their portfolios a couple times a year at least, with similar iron discipline.
    - People should be disciplined and realistic in their assumptions about outliving their money, and should really be members of the society of actuaries.
    - People should also have MDs, since once they figure out where they fit on the actuarial tables, even the very specific ones taking account for lifestyle, etc., each human body is different.

    Does that sound like the greeter down at your local Wal-Mart? How about the guy flipping burgers down at Wendys, or the nice lady working in the Goodwill shop, or for that matter, a nice antiques shop?

    How about this one - you really think the guys down at the local bar that bellow about how smart they were to pick one or another stock or type of stock, wants to pull off a cresting wave, just because he's 65, or just because he's 75, or whatever?

    Well, maybe you believe that can happen. I do not.

    Beyond that way of being wrong, you are wrong in another important way. An individual can attempt to mitigate risk; a system of millions of individuals can actually mitigate risk (hence Soc. Sec. as we presently know it.)

    Even our MBA/MD/Actuary above will be wrong about his or her age of death most of the time. I guarantee it. However, give me a million people, and a half-decent actuarial firm or insurance company, and you don't have to tell me a damn thing about them other than that they as a group generally represent Americans of their age cohort (i.e., they're not a skewed population). I will be able to tell you within a very small percentage how long they will live on average.

    Now then: I can apportion money to them based on personal beliefs or wishes about their specific situation but it is unnecessary and less accurate. We are all truly in the dark about the day and hour of our personal demise. But we do know when the AVERAGE person will bite the dust.

    I am sure that incenses you no end. After all, we all foot the bill for Methusaleh making it to 120, while poor ol' Uncle Ernie died at 60 without drawing a penny of social security. But see, Ernie didn't know he would die.

    We as a nation saved for Ernie and would have taken care of him had he lived. We as a nation took care of Methusaleh, but wouldn't have paid for him had he been hit by a bus. We as a nation can pretty well afford to do so. Of course we need to make changes to continue that state of affairs (means testing or higher payroll taxes, for example.)

    It's idiotic to base a system meant to supplement the retirement income of the ENTIRETY of society on "personal responsibility."

    In fact, it is the height of irresponsibility to urge such measures, given what we know about probability, even if everybody is a model of personal responsibility, and even if everybody is knowledgeable enough to make good educated guesses.

    One final coda:

    The great idiotic bleat of "personal choice", "personal responsibility," blah blah blah, is enormously satisfying to the great mass of people who believe they are above average (irony intended) in the personal choice department. Personal responsibility makes sense in many ways. Social Security is not one of them. True personal responsibility in this regards demands that you have aged beggars with no teeth freezing or starving to death if they make bad bets (unless of course others "personally choose" to give them a quarter a few hundred times a night.)

    YES, I want to remove the choices that lead to these outcomes. Know what else I want? I want any contributory system (such as 401(k)) to be an "opt out" system not an "opt in" system, where people contribute as a default, and have to choose to opt out.

    That's a very weak reform that would go a very long way, assuming defined contribution systems continue to dominate the retirement landscape.

    My personal point of view is that we need a national defined benefit system that complements Social Security. SS was designed to complement traditional pensions, but they're becoming things of the past. We've seen recently the pitfalls of 401(k)s and other vehicles. Ultimately "personal choice" is the enemy of the broad-based retirement needs of Americans in this regard.

    I'm not even saying that if you averaged the success of 401(k) investing across a society for 100 years it would fail (although much success is not guaranteed; the Dow needs to be in the millions by 2100 to match the 8% many investors consider "an okay return." So far this century we've gained, oh, let's see... NOTHING.)

    I am saying, however, that even if you average that success, and even if it does average 8% over 100 years, you're pretending that an average will result for each individual. If you want each individual to have some basic return, you don't tell each of them to roll the dice as he sees fit (especially because you are not prepared to cope with the failure stories, only the success stories). You pool the money and split the results, and you play it as safe as possible.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2009
  14. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,985
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -8

    I think you mean some can't let go of the failed market mythology of the past.

    See my post above. Social security is not about chasing returns. As I said, do that on your own dime.

    Even if the market does perform at the rates we all like to believe in (or more likely in the future, at more sustainable levels of growth,) it is a bad idea to attempt to foist individualist ideology on a system designed for society-wide results.

    PFnV
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,985
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -8

    As to the government "maybe" owning GM, that'll make company #4 (after Fannie, Freddie, and AIG.) Maybe I missed some others. It was the market purists that nationalized those enterprises. In other mixed market systems, these would raise eyebrows because of the very size of the companies we're talking about. But it wouldn't have this superstitious taboo around it that we see in the U.S.

    This actually dovetails well with the SS discussion. The reason that the financial sector (though still fragile even now) even exists at this point, is the "socialist" (or, more curiously, "fascist") rescues begun under market purist right wing ideologues, and continued under the current centrist administration.

    Think about your "returns" had these measures never been taken. I know I know, nothing did any good, everything would be exactly the same. Well, difficult to say, innit? Let the markets fail systemically -- i.e., a reversion to cash only, overnight, and the destruction of the majority of our economy that uses lending one way or another -- and your retirement planning strategy needs an overhaul, to say the least. No newly capitalized companies. Massive failures through every industry, simultaneously. No rescue. Of course, since this is only a hypothetical, one can continue to talk about what a bad idea it is to think it through, and stick to one's rhetorical guns about being against that bad, bad spending (while -- for some real extremists -- conveniently starting the clock at our latest election.)

    PFnV
  16. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,316
    Likes Received:
    118
    Ratings:
    +245 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Unfortunately SS is our own dime that has been forceably taken from us.
  17. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,316
    Likes Received:
    118
    Ratings:
    +245 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Understood which is why I've always proposed a middle ground of a small number of index funds that are allowable and an appropriate mix of risk for your age. Basically the "Lifetime" funds that mutual fund companies now offer. I don't like to limit it but too many people are too stupid.
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,571
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +107 / 7 / -10



    I would rather the government not take my money fo rtheir social engineering purposes. Your phrasing presumes the government has an inherent right to the fruits of my labor. I prefer freedom to bineg the ward of a benevolent government.
  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,985
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -8

    It has a constitutional right to the fruits of your labor. The government has the right to collect taxes. Cope. If you "prefer freedom to bineg [sic] the ward of a benevolent government," you'll have to move somewhere with no government.

    PFnV
  20. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>