Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5199
The only thing the government can do to help the economy is leave it alone. Now how likely is that?Gumby wrote: Government spending is simply trying to "reflate" the damage in private credit.
First of all, that's your political bias talking. It's a bad idea to base your investments off of your political biases.Kshartle wrote:The only thing the government can do to help the economy is leave it alone.
If you had that attitude in 1980, you would have lost big. Clearly you either didn't watch or didn't understand the lessons of the video. They will stop printing when private credit is reflated — just like every other time this reflationary policy has been used. It's that simple. ...And then, at some point, the next crash will happen as the cycle continues.Kshartle wrote: I'll sell my gold when everyone is convinced the dollar is finished and the printing will never end. That's probably when they'll end it. Not because they printed an improved economy.
Credit is the economy? Not productivity?Gumby wrote: Private credit is the most important part of the economy — it's practically the entire economy. .
Kshartle wrote: I'll sell my gold when everyone is convinced the dollar is finished and the printing will never end. That's probably when they'll end it. Not because they printed an improved economy.
In 1980 people were panic-buying gold because they thought inflation would never end. It was the perfect time to sell what are you talking about?Gumby wrote:
If you had that attitude in 1980, you would have lost big.
I meant in terms of its representation for the health of our economy. Just watch the video already. And if you already watched it, why are you asking me questions that were fully explained in the video?Kshartle wrote:Credit is the economy? Not productivity?Gumby wrote: Private credit is the most important part of the economy — it's practically the entire economy. .
You said you wouldn't sell your gold until the dollar was "finished". That implies that you would have waited too long to sell your gold in 1980 (since the dollar was never "finished").Kshartle wrote: In 1980 people were panic-buying gold because they thought inflation would never end. It was the perfect time to sell what are you talking about?
Kshartle wrote: I'll sell my gold when everyone is convinced the dollar is finished and the printing will never end. That's probably when they'll end it.
So.... why in April of 1980 would you have been "convinced" that the dollar was finished? The dollar wasn't ever finished. The boom/bust cycle simply carried on.Kshartle wrote:Kshartle wrote: I'll sell my gold when everyone is convinced the dollar is finished and the printing will never end. That's probably when they'll end it.
I can meet my mandatory expenses from Social Security.moda0306 wrote: I'm amazed that nobody I've ever met knows who Harry Browne or the PP is.
Tech,
You still have expenses don't you?
If gold does another stretch like '81 to '2000 and you lose your job you could hit some huge solvency issue. Leverage isn't the only cause of insolvency.
Wouldn't that be ironic!Libertarian666 wrote:I can meet my mandatory expenses from Social Security.moda0306 wrote: I'm amazed that nobody I've ever met knows who Harry Browne or the PP is.
Tech,
You still have expenses don't you?
If gold does another stretch like '81 to '2000 and you lose your job you could hit some huge solvency issue. Leverage isn't the only cause of insolvency.
I'm not sure why it would be ironic. I have been forced to pay into the SS pyramid scheme for my whole life; if I had my "contributions" and my employer "contributions", I could have bought a real annuity that would pay about the same amount per year. But since I didn't have a choice as to "participating", I see no problem with getting as much of my money back as possible. (Yes, I know it was spent already, so you don't have to enlighten me on that.)Gumby wrote:Wouldn't that be ironic!Libertarian666 wrote:I can meet my mandatory expenses from Social Security.moda0306 wrote: I'm amazed that nobody I've ever met knows who Harry Browne or the PP is.
Tech,
You still have expenses don't you?
If gold does another stretch like '81 to '2000 and you lose your job you could hit some huge solvency issue. Leverage isn't the only cause of insolvency.
(Though, I certainly hope it doesn't come to that for you)
Gold plummets whenever interest rates are unnaturally high (using one definition of "unnaturally".... essentially positive real rates on nominally risk-free assets).Kshartle wrote:If gold does plumment like that then we would have an ultra strong dollar, fear about the economy gone because it's doing so well and people are not looking for safety don't you think?moda0306 wrote: If gold does another stretch like '81 to '2000 and you lose your job you could hit some huge solvency issue. Leverage isn't the only cause of insolvency.
This would be awesome. How likely is it?
But since the money isn't there, the government has to steal from me to pay your SS benefits. You're taking your resentment of others having stolen from you to justify stealing as much from me as you can get away with.Libertarian666 wrote:I'm not sure why it would be ironic. I have been forced to pay into the SS pyramid scheme for my whole life; if I had my "contributions" and my employer "contributions", I could have bought a real annuity that would pay about the same amount per year. But since I didn't have a choice as to "participating", I see no problem with getting as much of my money back as possible. (Yes, I know it was spent already, so you don't have to enlighten me on that.)Gumby wrote:Wouldn't that be ironic!Libertarian666 wrote: I can meet my mandatory expenses from Social Security.
(Though, I certainly hope it doesn't come to that for you)
And I think it is very unlikely that it will come to that, as I have substantial other assets that I could tap if necessary. However, the longer I can postpone that, the better off I will be overall.
Nice try but it would fall apart as soon as CNN started running specials on granny eating cat food.Pointedstick wrote: My proposed change for Social Security is that anyone anytime can opt out of the system in exchange for never ever being able to collect, essentially forfeiting all the money they were already taxed. People who had been paying into the system for a few years or more who opted out would basically represent a 100% win for the government since these people could be written out of the pool of future payees. I would allow the same terms for Medicare. This proposal could be pitched as a way to shore up the systems since there would be fewer people collecting.
Mdraf,Mdraf wrote:Nice try but it would fall apart as soon as CNN started running specials on granny eating cat food.Pointedstick wrote: My proposed change for Social Security is that anyone anytime can opt out of the system in exchange for never ever being able to collect, essentially forfeiting all the money they were already taxed. People who had been paying into the system for a few years or more who opted out would basically represent a 100% win for the government since these people could be written out of the pool of future payees. I would allow the same terms for Medicare. This proposal could be pitched as a way to shore up the systems since there would be fewer people collecting.
I also think that once they put Obamacare to bed the Democrats will be going after 401Ks, IRAs, SEP-IRAs etc like some European countries are doing. The first move will be an "option" for people to convert their various holdings into T-bonds. Eventually the option will become an obligation.
As you know I disagree that they control their own debt market so I stick to my assessment. I know they both like Wall St but the time will come when they will have no choice.moda0306 wrote:Mdraf,Mdraf wrote:Nice try but it would fall apart as soon as CNN started running specials on granny eating cat food.Pointedstick wrote: My proposed change for Social Security is that anyone anytime can opt out of the system in exchange for never ever being able to collect, essentially forfeiting all the money they were already taxed. People who had been paying into the system for a few years or more who opted out would basically represent a 100% win for the government since these people could be written out of the pool of future payees. I would allow the same terms for Medicare. This proposal could be pitched as a way to shore up the systems since there would be fewer people collecting.
I also think that once they put Obamacare to bed the Democrats will be going after 401Ks, IRAs, SEP-IRAs etc like some European countries are doing. The first move will be an "option" for people to convert their various holdings into T-bonds. Eventually the option will become an obligation.
Do your really think that any admin, democrat or republican, would upset that Wall Street trough that is 401k plans? They may have different methods of showing it, but both sides love Wall Street. There'd be so little to be gained by forcing people to buy treasuries when they can control their own debt market.
Oh, that's easy. All they have to do is pay Wall Street big commissions on the Treasury sales, et voila!moda0306 wrote:Mdraf,Mdraf wrote:Nice try but it would fall apart as soon as CNN started running specials on granny eating cat food.Pointedstick wrote: My proposed change for Social Security is that anyone anytime can opt out of the system in exchange for never ever being able to collect, essentially forfeiting all the money they were already taxed. People who had been paying into the system for a few years or more who opted out would basically represent a 100% win for the government since these people could be written out of the pool of future payees. I would allow the same terms for Medicare. This proposal could be pitched as a way to shore up the systems since there would be fewer people collecting.
I also think that once they put Obamacare to bed the Democrats will be going after 401Ks, IRAs, SEP-IRAs etc like some European countries are doing. The first move will be an "option" for people to convert their various holdings into T-bonds. Eventually the option will become an obligation.
Do your really think that any admin, democrat or republican, would upset that Wall Street trough that is 401k plans? They may have different methods of showing it, but both sides love Wall Street. There'd be so little to be gained by forcing people to buy treasuries when they can control their own debt market.
There is more to it than just commissions.Libertarian666 wrote:Oh, that's easy. All they have to do is pay Wall Street big commissions on the Treasury sales, et voila!moda0306 wrote:Mdraf,Mdraf wrote: Nice try but it would fall apart as soon as CNN started running specials on granny eating cat food.
I also think that once they put Obamacare to bed the Democrats will be going after 401Ks, IRAs, SEP-IRAs etc like some European countries are doing. The first move will be an "option" for people to convert their various holdings into T-bonds. Eventually the option will become an obligation.
Do your really think that any admin, democrat or republican, would upset that Wall Street trough that is 401k plans? They may have different methods of showing it, but both sides love Wall Street. There'd be so little to be gained by forcing people to buy treasuries when they can control their own debt market.
I think the government already has a plan like that. It's called, let me see now... oh yes, it's called Social Security.MediumTex wrote:There is more to it than just commissions.Libertarian666 wrote:Oh, that's easy. All they have to do is pay Wall Street big commissions on the Treasury sales, et voila!moda0306 wrote: Mdraf,
Do your really think that any admin, democrat or republican, would upset that Wall Street trough that is 401k plans? They may have different methods of showing it, but both sides love Wall Street. There'd be so little to be gained by forcing people to buy treasuries when they can control their own debt market.
Wall Street loves retirement plans because it gives them a huge pool of money to repeatedly profit from, and not just through commissions, but through the opportunity to always have "dumb money" to sell stocks to when they are high and to buy from when they are low.
If you read our PP book, you may recall the "401(k)asino" illustration, and that's not too far off the mark. Wall Street loves suckers who will come into the casino without fully grasping the enormity of the house advantage and play basically until they are broke (or at least until they have severely underperformed the market, potentially for most of their careers).
The degree to which this makes mandatory treasury-backed annuities unlikely is hard to fully convey. I'm telling you, though, it's DOA. An optional treasury-backed annuity would actually be a REALLY nice option for a plan design like a 401(k), simply because most participants don't understand how to make a lump sum last a lifetime, but the insurance industry will strongly oppose this as well because it would seriously eat into their annuity business.
When I read the "government is going to confiscate retirement accounts" stories, I marvel at how little the reporters seem to understand how all of this works.
Just take what I'm saying FWIW, but I live in this area professionally, and what's actually happening is WAY different from the way the media is portraying it.Mdraf wrote: You can use the same arguments about Obamacare but they rammed it through against the wishes of the insurance industry, big pharma, the AMA etc.
Your point about the average person not being able to nurse a 401k nest egg is absolutely true and that's where they will start...with a convincing argument.
France just started.
And techno is right. It will turn into Social Security II, and they will use the funds (leaving a lockbox) to spend and spend. Asset "swap" be damned.
Right on all counts.Pointedstick wrote: Are you kidding? The insurance industry loved Obamacare. It forced everyone to buy their product! If anything, I think they're more likely to mandate that people set aside a percentage of their salary in 401ks. Wall St would jizz itself over something like that.