Comments on: Investment and Ignorance

By: cart456

cart456 — Fri, 15 May 2009 10:06:44 +0000

. This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone

cart456
Real Estate

By: cart456

cart456 — Fri, 15 May 2009 03:06:44 +0000

. This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone

cart456
Real Estate

By: True_Liberal

True_Liberal — Mon, 02 May 2005 23:49:00 +0000

Real estate rule: Location, Location, Location!

Investment rule: Diversify, Diversify, Diversify!

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 02 May 2005 13:48:00 +0000

Ok, I’m going to rant- How in the hell can anyone plan for retirement when I read retirement planning articles and studies that give wildly different information. None talk about reducing fixed pension spending for inflation, nor reducing for joint and survivor option. Past US data is used without deducting past investing costs (well above current index fund expenses, and no one cares that other markets had other results. Calculators cough out an end amount, yet give no pattern of withdrawal. Most planning calculators are crap. And I enjoy reading this stuff, imagine the result if you don’t.

By: Ken

Ken — Sun, 01 May 2005 16:27:00 +0000

“This seems like a libertarian version of the “socialist man” fallacy. It is an observable fact about human nature that people do not plan rationally for their retirement or for the risk of disability or premature death. They already have plenty of incentive to do so.”

Really? And what incentive would that be? And what impact do you think people’s insistence that the existence of destitute old people is horribly wrong, far more wrong than the existence of destitute young people, might have on the existence or nonexistence of “plenty of incentive” to take care of your own retirement?

By: True_Liberal

True_Liberal — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:15:00 +0000

In underdeveloped countries, the plan for retirement is to have many kids so you have a good chance to have help when you need it. That’s a rational plan, isn’t it?

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:12:00 +0000

There are lots of people who plan rationally for retirement and insure themselves against loss. Mostly, these are people who can afford it. The regressive payroll tax hits the least wealthy the hardest. For lots of poorer wage earners, after 12.4% in tax and life’s necessities, there is almost nothing left to invest. So there is no investment, no incentive to learn about investment, and the perpetuation of a non-investing, non-saving, hand-to-mouth ethos that helps to keep people poor.

By: Gareth

Gareth — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:57:00 +0000

This seems like a libertarian version of the “socialist man” fallacy. It is an observable fact about human nature that people do not plan rationally for their retirement or for the risk of disability or premature death. They already have plenty of incentive to do so. So the libertarian says that if we just change public policy, people will magically change into far-seeing retirement planners.

And if they don’t? Well, then we just have a lot of destitute old people. But it was their fault they invested all their money in that “no-risk” scheme that guaranteed double digit returns.

By: True_Liberal

True_Liberal — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:49:00 +0000

Bush embraces income redistribution in Social Security: “Progressive indexation” is yet another Robin Hood scheme.

For the last several decades, I’ve considered all that 12.4% FICA to be a pure tax. Not an insurance premium, not a pension contribution, but a pure tax.

I was right.

By: monkyboy

monkyboy — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 05:10:00 +0000

Exactly where in the article does it say the government needs to protect people from the market? It just says most Americans aren’t very educated about financial markets, which they aren’t.

As ususal, another paid add from the Republican party from Will.