"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:09:37 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:






I am curious. How much of the 14 trillion lost on Wall Street represents
real money loses and not paper loses. I have very modest investments in
the
stock market that I started in 1999.

and the difference is? 'paper' losses are real losses representing a
loss in equity and a loss in the ability to extend further investments

Not a 401k. Just small investments that I manage myself. Don't spend
much time watching them. Not a day trader type.

The paper value of those investments right now is about four to five times
the initial investment, despite the meltdown of 2008. I suppose I could
complain that without the meltdown the stock values would be much higher,
but I don't regard that as loses. Loses would mean the value of the
investments today are less than the original deposit into the account.

what they represent is a loss of time. if you're 20 you have no
problem. in the next 40 years you'll be OK

if, however, you're a baby boomer, well that's a different story


CC


So, in other words, I should be screaming and bitching about the "loss" of
money that I never earned or had. I see. Starting to understand how the
left thinks.

CC

Charles C. wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:09:37 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:






I am curious. How much of the 14 trillion lost on Wall Street
represents
real money loses and not paper loses. I have very modest investments
in the
stock market that I started in 1999.

and the difference is? 'paper' losses are real losses representing a
loss in equity and a loss in the ability to extend further investments

Not a 401k. Just small investments that I manage myself. Don't spend
much time watching them. Not a day trader type.

The paper value of those investments right now is about four to five
times
the initial investment, despite the meltdown of 2008. I suppose I could
complain that without the meltdown the stock values would be much
higher,
but I don't regard that as loses. Loses would mean the value of the
investments today are less than the original deposit into the account.

what they represent is a loss of time. if you're 20 you have no
problem. in the next 40 years you'll be OK

if, however, you're a baby boomer, well that's a different story


CC


So, in other words, I should be screaming and bitching about the "loss"
of money that I never earned or had. I see. Starting to understand how
the left thinks.

CC

Bill Clinton got the Dems thinking like Reps.
Everybody will be rich just by putting money in Wall Street.
Suckers.
But it worked for the older boomers who got in early on the Ponzi scheme
and took enough profits out.
That's the nature of a Ponzi scheme.
And when the Ponzi operators own the government it has some legs.


Jim - Skeptic.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:59:55 -0500, Jim wrote:


CC

Bill Clinton got the Dems thinking like Reps.
Everybody will be rich just by putting money in Wall Street.
Suckers.
But it worked for the older boomers who got in early on the Ponzi scheme
and took enough profits out.
That's the nature of a Ponzi scheme.
And when the Ponzi operators own the government it has some legs.


Jim - Skeptic.


kind of like when bush wanted to do for social security what the 401K
did for retirement plans.

good thing the dems stopped THAT

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:03:58 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:09:37 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:






The paper value of those investments right now is about four to five times
the initial investment, despite the meltdown of 2008. I suppose I could
complain that without the meltdown the stock values would be much higher,
but I don't regard that as loses. Loses would mean the value of the
investments today are less than the original deposit into the account.

what they represent is a loss of time. if you're 20 you have no
problem. in the next 40 years you'll be OK

if, however, you're a baby boomer, well that's a different story


CC


So, in other words, I should be screaming and bitching about the "loss" of
money that I never earned or had. I see. Starting to understand how the
left thinks.

go ahead and try to get a loan using your 401K as collateral

see what happens


CC

bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:03:58 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:



wrote in message
...

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:09:37 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:






The paper value of those investments right now is about four to five times
the initial investment, despite the meltdown of 2008. I suppose I could
complain that without the meltdown the stock values would be much higher,
but I don't regard that as loses. Loses would mean the value of the
investments today are less than the original deposit into the account.

what they represent is a loss of time. if you're 20 you have no
problem. in the next 40 years you'll be OK

if, however, you're a baby boomer, well that's a different story


CC


So, in other words, I should be screaming and bitching about the "loss" of
money that I never earned or had. I see. Starting to understand how the
left thinks.

go ahead and try to get a loan using your 401K as collateral

see what happens


CC

When would any lender accept a 401K account as collateral?

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:06:17 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:03:58 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:


if, however, you're a baby boomer, well that's a different story


CC


So, in other words, I should be screaming and bitching about the "loss" of
money that I never earned or had. I see. Starting to understand how the
left thinks.

go ahead and try to get a loan using your 401K as collateral

see what happens


CC

When would any lender accept a 401K account as collateral?

since it's a standard part of a loan applcation. that's when

been renting all your life, i see

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:06:17 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:03:58 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:


if, however, you're a baby boomer, well that's a different story


CC


So, in other words, I should be screaming and bitching about the "loss"
of
money that I never earned or had. I see. Starting to understand how
the
left thinks.

go ahead and try to get a loan using your 401K as collateral

see what happens


CC

When would any lender accept a 401K account as collateral?

since it's a standard part of a loan applcation. that's when

been renting all your life, i see


I may be wrong but I believe 401Ks are untouchable in bankruptcy
proceedings. You may have to list them on a loan app but they are
untouchable to a loan holder.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:27:41 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:06:17 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:03:58 -0400, "Charles C."


go ahead and try to get a loan using your 401K as collateral

see what happens


CC

When would any lender accept a 401K account as collateral?

since it's a standard part of a loan applcation. that's when

been renting all your life, i see


I may be wrong but I believe 401Ks are untouchable in bankruptcy
proceedings. You may have to list them on a loan app but they are
untouchable to a loan holder.


unless, of course, you're able to waive that...which many middle class
people did since it was a source of wealth that the rich wanted to get
their greedy hands on.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:27:41 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:06:17 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:03:58 -0400, "Charles C."


go ahead and try to get a loan using your 401K as collateral

see what happens


CC

When would any lender accept a 401K account as collateral?

since it's a standard part of a loan applcation. that's when

been renting all your life, i see


I may be wrong but I believe 401Ks are untouchable in bankruptcy
proceedings. You may have to list them on a loan app but they are
untouchable to a loan holder.


unless, of course, you're able to waive that...which many middle class
people did since it was a source of wealth that the rich wanted to get
their greedy hands on.

If you could not afford the loan without your 401k money, buy a cheaper
house. There was no way, anyone making $50k a year could purchase a $500k
house. Maybe you were too dumb to realize that. And the only reason the
banks etc. were loaning money on that ratio was the government told them to
and bought the loans from them. The reason I own a million dollar house is
because of inflation. No way should my house be selling for a $1,000,000+
but that is what inflation and the government has brought us. Was a $36k
house in 1972. With a 450 addition and a pool which probably cost $5,500 to
build in 1974 the house would have valued at about $40k then. Now it is 25
times that value 36 years later. Way more than CPI indexed inflation and
that has been the measure for increased home value for all but the last 30
years.

bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:27:41 -0400, wrote:


wrote in message
...

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:06:17 -0400, wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:03:58 -0400, "Charles C."



go ahead and try to get a loan using your 401K as collateral

see what happens



CC


When would any lender accept a 401K account as collateral?

since it's a standard part of a loan applcation. that's when

been renting all your life, i see


I may be wrong but I believe 401Ks are untouchable in bankruptcy
proceedings. You may have to list them on a loan app but they are
untouchable to a loan holder.


unless, of course, you're able to waive that...which many middle class
people did since it was a source of wealth that the rich wanted to get
their greedy hands on.

WTF?