On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:24:55 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


It seems Mr. Bpuharic would be pleased if Geithner and Summers would
pump up his 401k to the level it was before the crash.
And ignore that that reliance on Wall Street is what led to our current
economic ills.

uh no. i'm not rush limballs. im not a right wing devotee of the 'free
market'. you have me confused with someone else or, more likely, you
dont know what part the 'chicago school' played in the meltdown

i favor the french approach. ban CDO's and CDS. tie them to assets.
make the banks keep higher assets to cover losses. divorce proprietary
trading from banking.

of course, the right wing opposes this. a senator from new hampshire
said last week he's worried that CDO's would go to singapore if the US
regulated them

so you support his view of reality?


Though Mr. Bpuharic has made some points I agree with, his harping on
his 401k is not one of them.
Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:24:55 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


It seems Mr. Bpuharic would be pleased if Geithner and Summers would
pump up his 401k to the level it was before the crash.
And ignore that that reliance on Wall Street is what led to our current
economic ills.

uh no. i'm not rush limballs. im not a right wing devotee of the 'free
market'. you have me confused with someone else or, more likely, you
dont know what part the 'chicago school' played in the meltdown

Yes, I know it well enough.
Please don't misunderstand. I actually am in agreement with many of
your views.
I too am not happy with the 401k system, as it designed to benefit Wall
Street, not retirees. I see it as a form of socialism for the wealthy.
But I choose not to benefit from it to any great degree as a matter of
principle. Yes, I contribute to the extent of matching contributions,
but my contributions all go into a very low return money market fund.
My salary does not justify putting more in for the tax savings.
Since I don't feed the beast we both seem to abhor, I am not concerned
with it.
That is the only issue of real disagreement I have with you.
Your 401k protestations calls to mind "I have seen the enemy, and he is
us."
I am a frugal person, and avoid debt and save what I can.
I am not expecting a rich environment in retirement, but nor have I in
my working life.
Selling shoes in a way that keeps my customers happy is fine with me.


i favor the french approach. ban CDO's and CDS. tie them to assets.
make the banks keep higher assets to cover losses. divorce proprietary
trading from banking.

of course, the right wing opposes this. a senator from new hampshire
said last week he's worried that CDO's would go to singapore if the US
regulated them

so you support his view of reality?


Of course not.

Though Mr. Bpuharic has made some points I agree with, his harping on
his 401k is not one of them.
Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

Actually, many are. It is my understanding that those who consistently
contributed to 401k equity funds starting +20 years ago are well ahead
of the game even now.
I suspect they held on during the recent dive, and didn't move their
equity investments into other funds.
But I never get into that sort of detail with a customer.
Out of curiosity, and I don't mean to pry, doesn't your 401k show a
hefty profit over contributions?
I think much of it is a matter of timing, and those who entered in more
recently got "screwed." Does Ponzi come to mind here?

Peter

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:29:35 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

In article ,
says...



uh no. i'm not rush limballs. im not a right wing devotee of the 'free
market'. you have me confused with someone else or, more likely, you
dont know what part the 'chicago school' played in the meltdown

Yes, I know it well enough.
Please don't misunderstand. I actually am in agreement with many of
your views.
I too am not happy with the 401k system, as it designed to benefit Wall
Street, not retirees.

now THAT is true. proof of this is how george bush lusted after social
security to turn it into another 401K type program. unfortunately
it's the only game in town
r.

On 18/04/2010 12:29 PM, Peter (Yes, that one) wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:24:55 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


It seems Mr. Bpuharic would be pleased if Geithner and Summers would
pump up his 401k to the level it was before the crash.
And ignore that that reliance on Wall Street is what led to our current
economic ills.

uh no. i'm not rush limballs. im not a right wing devotee of the 'free
market'. you have me confused with someone else or, more likely, you
dont know what part the 'chicago school' played in the meltdown

Yes, I know it well enough.
Please don't misunderstand. I actually am in agreement with many of
your views.
I too am not happy with the 401k system, as it designed to benefit Wall
Street, not retirees. I see it as a form of socialism for the wealthy.
But I choose not to benefit from it to any great degree as a matter of
principle. Yes, I contribute to the extent of matching contributions,
but my contributions all go into a very low return money market fund.
My salary does not justify putting more in for the tax savings.
Since I don't feed the beast we both seem to abhor, I am not concerned
with it.
That is the only issue of real disagreement I have with you.
Your 401k protestations calls to mind "I have seen the enemy, and he is
us."
I am a frugal person, and avoid debt and save what I can.
I am not expecting a rich environment in retirement, but nor have I in
my working life.
Selling shoes in a way that keeps my customers happy is fine with me.


i favor the french approach. ban CDO's and CDS. tie them to assets.
make the banks keep higher assets to cover losses. divorce proprietary
trading from banking.

of course, the right wing opposes this. a senator from new hampshire
said last week he's worried that CDO's would go to singapore if the US
regulated them

so you support his view of reality?


Of course not.

Though Mr. Bpuharic has made some points I agree with, his harping on
his 401k is not one of them.
Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

Actually, many are. It is my understanding that those who consistently
contributed to 401k equity funds starting +20 years ago are well ahead
of the game even now.

Quite true. When I add up over the years my contributions, it is much
less that current day value. And far surpasses bank saving interest rates.

I suspect they held on during the recent dive, and didn't move their
equity investments into other funds.

One tax savvy trick for cash accounts is to churn you funds at the
bottom getting tax loses on the books. Leaving latitude on future gains
without the taxes.

But I never get into that sort of detail with a customer.
Out of curiosity, and I don't mean to pry, doesn't your 401k show a
hefty profit over contributions?
I think much of it is a matter of timing, and those who entered in more
recently got "screwed." Does Ponzi come to mind here?

Part of this is their own fault as it takes time, dicipline, patience
and realistic calls to get this right. Emotional basket cases like
bpubaric and de-plume should not consider trading stock.

Does not hurt to leave cash in cash for some time waiting for a good
opportunity. I have at times let cash say idle cash for years as I
didn't feel comfortable about commiting it.

So Jan-Fed of 2009 was a hay day. And a good percentage is back in cash
waiting for the next knee jerk or for interest rates to climb.

--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government?

On 18/04/2010 7:03 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:53:18 -0600,
wrote:

Actually, many are. It is my understanding that those who consistently
contributed to 401k equity funds starting +20 years ago are well ahead
of the game even now.

Quite true. When I add up over the years my contributions, it is much
less that current day value. And far surpasses bank saving interest rates.

I never really took my 401k seriously and only put money if it was a
100% employer match. Part of the problem is the overhead the fund
managers impose on you. It can easily be half of their return on
investment.
I bought a lot more IBM stock and with our option plan it was
definitely a better investment. There were times when we were buying
at half current market. To start with it was mine the day I bought it
and when I rolled some over into something else it was a capital gain,
not ordinary income.

Don't tell bpuharic, will wreck his day.

Have to like those capital gains.

--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government?

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:29:35 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

I think much of it is a matter of timing, and those who entered in more
recently got "screwed." Does Ponzi come to mind here?

I just got beat up for saying that.

When the boomers start cashing out it will be apparent to everyone
that most of what we think was a sound investment was crap, especially
the biggest ponzi of all, social security.

Do all of these rosy deficit projections take into account that SS is
upside down already, 4-6 years ahead of schedule (depending on which
projection you believed).
That fat surplus every president since LBJ used to balance the budget
is gone and we are putting general fund money into the social security
bucket now.

Well, SS does not at all fit the Ponzi model.
You actually know the accounting of it, and it was never an investment,
but a requirement.
The accounting of nothing, and I mean nothing, on Wall Street can be
looked upon with anything but skepticism.
And SS is not "upside down" or in "deficit" technically.
Good, honest accounting proves that.
That is why you know exactly what is in the trust fund, and are able
to make actual projections with it.
That the trust fund is now being tapped is due to the horrible economy
created by Wall Street and political malfeasance.
That political malfeasance was in allowing Wall Street to run wild, and
not addressing SS funding sooner.
But SS will be fixed soon enough by recovery of the economy, and changes
possibly increasing retirement age and most certainly contributions, as
was done back in the early 80's.
I suspect that the earning caps will be taken off, and perhaps means
testing instituted for benefits.
A lesser possibility is the payroll tax rate will be increased.
But any combination of those changes will easily push the solvency
projections ahead by decades.
Long after all the boomers are dead and not collecting.
Of course a robust economy is essential.
But the boomers dying off will be a great boon to the country's economy.
It is their demise that will help SS most.
Not being morbid here, just realistic.
In the larger scheme of things, actuarial tables don't lie.
And the SS administration knows them well.
"Despite our earthly pretensions, in the end we are mere statistics."
One of my customers, who was a statistician by profession, and a very
gentle and humble man who preferred inexpensive casuals said that to me
once, and it has stuck. He is gone now, and though my remembering his
words might seem to belie their meaning, I too will pass on, proving him
ultimately right.

Peter

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:50:40 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

Well, SS does not at all fit the Ponzi model.
You actually know the accounting of it, and it was never an investment,
but a requirement.
The accounting of nothing, and I mean nothing, on Wall Street can be
looked upon with anything but skepticism.
And SS is not "upside down" or in "deficit" technically.
Good, honest accounting proves that.
That is why you know exactly what is in the trust fund, and are able
to make actual projections with it.


Of course it fits the ponzi model. The people taking money out get it
directly from those new "investors" putting money in and when outgo
exceeds income the system quickly fails.

And how is that different than any transactional flow of money?
Are you saying that that selling shares in Ford is a Ponzi scheme?
As I said, the accounting is what determines whether or not a Ponzi fund
exists.
Can you tell me that the Ford balance sheets are honest, and that all
required government filings have real figures?

There is no real money in the trust fund. Every penny was borrowed and
spent since 1939 when the "trust fund act" was passed.

Reminiscent of a common home mortgage, isn't it.
Please don't say the U.S. government has no collateral.
The Treasury and IRS will instantly disagree.

The government now has to borrow that money again, from China or
Europe, to make its obligations. That is exactly what happened to
Madoff and Ponzi.

Actually Japan is our largest creditor now. China has sold off U.S
debt. And I noticed the sun rose yet once again this morning.
Who examined the books of Ponzi and Madoff?
Who was examining the books of AIG and Goldman Sachs?
The same people who examine the Ford books?
Though I am not an accountant, I do balance my sales at the register
each day, and know a bit about how fraud can be performed in many
flavors. Sadly, I have seen more than a few staff come and go due
to fraudulently reporting sales.
Not one has been criminally charged, but all have been required to make
restitution to avoid charges. Some have not done so for various reasons
and the losses were written off as theft.
In nearly all cases the fraud is quite easily detected, but there have
been a few sophisticated enough that it required a sharp auditor to
uncover their scheme.
I am speaking of shoe sales people here stealing at most a few thousand
dollars. It greatly saddens me when I think of it.
Can you imagine the schemes of Wall Street where books never get
examined by a good auditor?
I shudder at the very thought.

The government has been pay as you go since we came off the gold
standard, they have no vehicle to actually save money and whenever we
spend more than the revenue we take in, we either print money or
borrow money.
They have a creative name for printing money. They call it monetizing
the debt. The rest of us call it inflating the dollar.
The only good thing is China will not have to engage in a
thermonuclear war with us to get access to our resources. We will just
trade vast parts of the country for all the worthless paper we sold
them to try to maintain our credit..

And yet I can take that "worthless paper" called a dollar to the auto
dealership and purchase an automobile.
And when a customer pays with that "worthless paper" I have no qualms
about ringing up the sale for a good pair of shoe.
I have heard SS called a Ponzi scheme for many years, and predictions of
its failure for as many.
And yet it continues to pay retirees with money that can be spent to
purchase real goods and survive. And has never missed a payment.
Because it has accountability. I predict the negative cash flow into
the trust fund will be fixed soon by the revenue increases and outflow
reductions I mentioned, and you didn't address.
And here we are back where we began.
You calling it a Ponzi scheme, and me calling it an retirement insurance
plan that is well accounted and has never broken a promise.
Such is the nature of disagreement.
Of course the proof is always in the pudding.
If I hear SS misses a check that is promised, I will reconsider.
That is the acid test of a Ponzi scheme.
Late "investors" don't get back what was promised or suggested as a
return.
And where your argument falls flat.
You have only predictions, and ignore many realities regarding
accounting, politics and the social fabric of our country.
Anybody can predict anything.
I have myself predicted that the negative SS cash flow will be addressed
soon. I predict that President Obama can't avoid breaking his pledge to
not raise taxes on those with less than $250k income.
Simply raising the SS earnings cap will do that.
And I think instantly solve the SS cash flow problem, though I haven't
done that accounting, so I may be wrong.
But in my business I deal with realities, such as how a shoe will wear
in for a customer, and if I can perhaps recommend a style that I find
more suitable without causing offense.
Then there is keeping track of stock and dealing with the occasionally
unreasonable management.
I never have a defeatist attitude. It is 100% can do.
I can not tell you how many times a customer of mine has predicted "sky
is falling" scenarios.
It is the nature of some to do so.
It doesn't mean they are bad people and don't need a good new pair of
shoes. In the end, a comfortable pair of shoes has more value than
their dire predictions.
And that's what gets me up every morning, bright eyed and bushy tailed,
and off to the store to make as many customers as I can happy, with a
new pair of shoes for them, and a sale for me.
As a long-time customer once said to me, "Life should be measured by the
good you can do for others, while taking care of yourself so you can do
it with vigor."
She was a nice lady, favoring low pumps, and I miss her.
I am off shortly, and wish you as good a day as I intend mine to be.

Peter

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:46:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:37:10 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

Bubba I have been retired for 14 years. My 401k has recovered nicely.

that accounts for your love of being lazy and shiftless

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:16:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:53:57 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:46:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:37:10 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

Bubba I have been retired for 14 years. My 401k has recovered nicely.

that accounts for your love of being lazy and shiftless

Hey I worked hard, paid off all my bills and saved a lot of money so I
could be lazy and shiftless for the rest of my life, too bad you
didn't.

if you worked hard you wouldnt hate people who do.

you seem to think i'm unique. guess you havent kept up with the news.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:43:44 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:22:38 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

that accounts for your love of being lazy and shiftless

Hey I worked hard, paid off all my bills and saved a lot of money so I
could be lazy and shiftless for the rest of my life, too bad you
didn't.

if you worked hard you wouldnt hate people who do.


You seem to be the one spewing hate. You have been calling me names
for several days and I have tried to remain civil.

so did david duke


you seem to think i'm unique. guess you havent kept up with the news.

Yes I understand you are not unique. There are plenty of "bitter"
people but they are the Obama fans, not the ones he talked about last
October.

yeah. there are 100,000,000 americans like me.

and you think wall street had zip to do with it