StrangeSox

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 08:29 PM) It's called buying off votes. Yeah, it's sad that Republicans feel the need to sell their votes to support what should have been easily passed months ago.

FWIW, Netflix's stock jumped up on today's announcement.

It looks like Jason culled all of the old threads in November, so I'll dump this here: The Large Hadron Collider (CERN) hasn't been producing the micro black holes some were fearing would devour the Earth. And that is presenting problems for string theory. . http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/...-string-theory/

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 04:24 PM) I'm not saying their comparable, i'm just saying in effect, it is an investment. And simply because it's zero risk doesn't mean it's not an investment. Buying a bond is zero risk (absent insolvency), but it's still investing money today for a greater return tomorrow. Bonds are not zero risk, unless you're referring only to US Savings bonds or something. But then, you're not really privatizing anything, still just using secured government assets to hold the SS trustfund. From this Fortune article: Sounds like a pretty terrible idea to introduce all of that risk into what is a social insurance program so that a small percentage might see better returns in an investment and the finance industry can make personal fortunes. Privatizing it also ignores the death and disability aspects of SS, since you won't have built up enough most likely.

You're redefining investment here so you can squeeze in privatizing what is, by definition and operation, an insurance program. It is not like any other investment out there.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 04:13 PM) Again, you're picking outliers. Outliers? Whose retirement accounts didn't drop dramatically in the last several years?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 04:01 PM) I'm sure that if you were to take your SS contributions to date at a 2% rate of return, and compare it to your private investments you'd still be better off with the loss. Maybe, but again that misses the reasons why Social Security is not an investment and not directly comparable to investment products since it is a social insurance program.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 03:59 PM) Do you contribute to SS with the expectation that you'll be paid the same amount in 50 years? Or more? Is there not a rate of return? Pretty sure by definition contributing money with a 2% rate of return is an investment. Edit: obviously it's not a TRUE investment, but for all practical purposes that's what it is, just in a different form. No, it really isn't. It's a social safety net for retirement and disability, not an investment. It's official name has "Insurance" right in the title, because it's an insurance system. There's no risk, other than the government going insolvent. That's not the same as an investment.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 03:04 PM) The horrible food wasn't convincing enough? QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 04:24 PM) Their bad food is enough for me

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 03:13 PM) Um, did you miss the first drive of the game? Could have meant long-term. The team is done this year, why not give a rookie some experience?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 02:56 PM) Now you're just being ridiculous about this. We can play any number of whatif scenarios to fit our arguments can't we? Look, if you're at or near retirement age, and you've done ANY sort of thinking towards your investments, you know (and your advisor knows) that putting your money in risky instruments is beyond stupid. You switch your mutual fund investments into bonds or the like precisely because of the risk of losing a significant chunk to a drop in the market. Over the long term, even if I lost a ton of money because of the recession, i'm going to make that money back over the long term, which is exactly the type of "security" investment a SS replacement would be: long term with low risk the closer you get to retirement. Even "safe" investments have lost a ton of value in this recession, and if you're at or past retirement age, you don't have the luxury of waiting around and hoping there's not another 'lost decade' to recover. Hell, this past year, the bond fund in my IRA is the worst-performing fund. It's lost money while the rest are up about 20%.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 02:49 PM) But you can't ignore the reality that in some sense it IS an investment into your future. It's not "security" as if it sits in a vault only if you need it. It's an investment the same way life insurance or collision insurance is an investment--not really an investment at all.

I agree with what you're saying there, and Cutler deserves a lot of the criticism he gets. I just think Trent has some vendetta against him, but maybe it's just hyperbolic ESPN statements.

I don't know about Young, but this isn't the first time Trent's hated on Cutler. He was very harsh on him and the Bears offense, going as far as to call them pathetic. That's far from a valid criticism. Combine that with his unironic proclamations about teams needing great QB's to win in the post season, and it's easy to hate on him.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 01:22 PM) because these things can't be accounted for? You are being stubborn. They're not accounted for in US anti-SS rhetoric that I'm referring to, where SS is treated as an investment vehicle comparable to IRA's instead of what it is. I'm not opposed to re-examining or restructuring the system, I just don't want it changed into something it isn't.

Which leads to the other parts of SS like disability insurance and spouse and child benefits, which is one reason why comparing "only 2% returns in SS and 8% in equities (averaged over a century!)" is faulty.

some of the crazy census rhetoric would be pretty funny right now. silver's early estimates and commentary: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-redistricting/

What happens if you're stupid enough to turn 65 (or w/ever payout age is) during a huge economic recession and don't have time to wait for it to average out? I dunno, any talk of converting SS to an investment makes me really leery. That's not why it's there.

It just talks about their auto-adjustment systems and how they had to modify it a bit. Payments were/are reduced right now, but they will go back up once things "recover."

linky

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:56 AM) yeah they learned a lot from the pared back # of choices. The default plan has performed very well...and obviously a 3 year evaluation is pretty stupid. Here's a 2009 paper looking at the impact of the financial crisis on the Swedish system.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:38 AM) See: Sweden It's not free money to invest as much as choosing what bundle of stocks your money will be invested in to, add in a phase out into secure bonds gradually as you near retirement and it's not risk free but it's more choice and not terrible. Well, not very familiar with it, so went looking for some reports. Most were Cato and Heritage exulting the change, but here's one from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Page 39 starts Sweden. Here's their view of the partial IRA plan: Since then, they've pared back the number of choices. Still, you're left with the inherent risk of investment, while social security is meant as insurance. We already have IRA and 401(k) and other tax-exempt retirement accounts people can use for investment in addition to SS.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:35 AM) I thought the assumption was that if you gave everyone a choice they'd (rightly) choose to save/invest on their own and then lose it all, costing society a great deal down the road? If that's not the assumption, and the assumption is that the majority of people would be fine and wouldn't lose it all, then that makes my argument stronger. No. It's an insurance system. If too many people opt out, regardless of how well they do, the system will collapse for those left in it. The assumption is that it would cause SS to collapse, that most people would do mediocre at best and it'd probably be a net loss to society, elderly poverty would increase, and a small handful in the investment industry would make billions. More like in the 40's, I think. Anyway, how much do you think you really can invest and save at that level? You're living hand-to-mouth as it is. How are you going to fund investment for retirement? You mentioned an opt-out minimum, if it's set that low, why bother with a limit at all? What are the odds it's going to be better than what SS provides (which is far different from the "only 2% returns!", since it ignores many other factors)?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:28 AM) There was absolutely zero analysis in that article, other than "don't trust what the evil Republicans tell you." It wasn't a financial analysis, it was a look at the concepts of what Social Security is and why comparing it to investments doesn't make sense, along with why the "8% annual returns!" and such are bad-faith rhetoric..

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:25 AM) I think you could privatize social security in ways that would benefit those who want to have a choice and reduce some risk. Since it's more insurance than investment, you need everyone at the safe and secure level. Allowing opt-outs for risky investment throws off the balance.