I don't want you to have to hide for opting out and I'm sorry to read you were denied benefits. IMO, should you be awarded bennys you won't be leaching off the system. It's the way it's intended and the way it works. It'll work for you should you choose and the circumstances materialize. What's the average male longevity these days? Last I heard it was 74 but that was in the late 80s.
Folks wouldn't buy bonds less a positive payout. Bonds are still earning more than private bank accounts. Many generations pass their fortunes on to their beneficiaries via bonds. Long term capital... old money. Safest money in the world. One can buy 30 years bonds or the period they wish.
The market dictates the rate and you're right, rates suck right now. But it's also dirt cheap to borrow (if banks would make loans from the record liquidity they possess.) That's the way it works... when bonds pay high rates, we pay high rates to borrow.
Printing more money affects it's worth. How much of it we spend affects our debt. See, we sell bonds to back the bills we print. We have the opportunity to finance out debt, allowing interest to work for us.
This is exactly what private citizens do, hedge their overhead. Even rich folks differentiate the interest they earn with the interest they pay. Even if you don't break even or manage a profit it's wasted capital if not invested.
That whole contradiction thing was broached the moment Greenspan accepted his role in a capacity to affect less regulation instead of more. In the twilight of his career, Greenspan wasn't holding any reigns, he was slapping the ass with a rider's crop (low interest rates.) He didn't pose a contradiction because he enjoyed (and imposed) the least amount of policy controls on Wall Street than any of his predecessors since the 1930s. Simply raising the interest to buy a home loan would have kept many who couldn't afford a house out of the subslime market. That same rate increase would have affected bond yields and the world wouldn't have bought so many collateralized debt obligations plus the credit default swaps to insure them. All that from raising the prime rate.
He retired and only then admitted his failures. At least we learn from these experiences and Alan ain't the only guy who was ever wrong.
What do you say we postpone the world of p******* for another time? Maybe we could veer back to the OP or at least narrow the subject.
Folks wouldn't buy bonds less a positive payout. Bonds are still earning more than private bank accounts. Many generations pass their fortunes on to their beneficiaries via bonds. Long term capital... old money. Safest money in the world. One can buy 30 years bonds or the period they wish.
The market dictates the rate and you're right, rates suck right now. But it's also dirt cheap to borrow (if banks would make loans from the record liquidity they possess.) That's the way it works... when bonds pay high rates, we pay high rates to borrow.
Sorry to hear about the medical expenses being denied. I just paid a bill for minor surgery and it ain't cheap.
Printing more money affects it's worth. How much of it we spend affects our debt. See, we sell bonds to back the bills we print. We have the opportunity to finance out debt, allowing interest to work for us.
This is exactly what private citizens do, hedge their overhead. Even rich folks differentiate the interest they earn with the interest they pay. Even if you don't break even or manage a profit it's wasted capital if not invested.
Yep, those same state courts you want yet can't arbitrate interstate commerce.
Never considered global finance a national security risk. I thought you were all about freedom, sounds like you might have some considerable ideas of restrictions on commerce.
Greenspan was late to the point of morbidity but he's no fraud for admitting the truth. The majority of commerce goes off w/o a hitch and most folks play by the rules. Enough crime is committed to require regulation, even the enforcement that makes it mean something. (Remember, you said we need those courts)
That whole contradiction thing was broached the moment Greenspan accepted his role in a capacity to affect less regulation instead of more. In the twilight of his career, Greenspan wasn't holding any reigns, he was slapping the ass with a rider's crop (low interest rates.) He didn't pose a contradiction because he enjoyed (and imposed) the least amount of policy controls on Wall Street than any of his predecessors since the 1930s. Simply raising the interest to buy a home loan would have kept many who couldn't afford a house out of the subslime market. That same rate increase would have affected bond yields and the world wouldn't have bought so many collateralized debt obligations plus the credit default swaps to insure them. All that from raising the prime rate.
He retired and only then admitted his failures. At least we learn from these experiences and Alan ain't the only guy who was ever wrong.
What do you say we postpone the world of p******* for another time? Maybe we could veer back to the OP or at least narrow the subject.
Last edited:
