281–290 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are two sides to every transaction, and whether low interest rates are good or bad depends on which side of the transaction you are on. Nobody is entitled to high rates on their savings.
Are people entitled to have the fruits of their work stolen from them?
Who is stealing what?
Why is it painted as a problem? Why should you spend more than you need? Why is "enjoying a retirement" supposed to only be achieved by spending more money? I don't get the point of the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that what you say applies mostly in developing countries and maybe the USA, not in other developed countries, as far as I can tell.
Well, the audience here is largely American and the story is about Americans, so I'm not sure this qualification was really needed.
And frugality (and excessive government austerity) has been a European problem, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you say doesn't invalidate the paradox. In fact, that is precisely the paradox - that the individually responsible and rational thing (more saving in the face of uncertainty) actually accelerates the problem: an economy crashing down. Among the policy lessons would be to reduce uncertainty, and encourage consumption (in the economic sense), e.g. via government provided stabilisers (food stamps, unemployment bene…
A liquidity glut is caused by savings exceeding desired investment. A shortage in desired investment is caused by an undersupply of investment opportunities. An increase in the supply of real investment opportunities can be incentivized by subsidizing public inducement prize competitions. The 'stabilizers' you propose subsidize the income of individuals but do not necessarily change individuals preference for savings…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me know how you feel about that when your old
As a younger person having watched/lived through at least 3 members of my immediate family die with dementia/mental health problems, I lose more sleep at night over the prospect that euthanasia won't be legal and managed properly where I live by the time I get old. I'm actually hoping that our shared generational suffering with respect to our baby boomer parents makes us get our generations' butt in gear and do somet…
Yes, seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm getting more and more convinced that one of the most important goals in live should be to mature to a level where you are simply comfortable with dying. Being able to simply conclude at one point in life that it's enough and either submit to fate or commit suicide.
And you will also realize that this is an unachievable goal. The kind of existence you require to attain that type of ease and thinking will alienate you from the vast majority of human behavior and thought.
* to give you one random example coming to mind - the journalist in Mexico who got killed by murderers from a drug cartel past week knew very well what was at stake and chose to keep doing his job - so I'd argue he managed to come to terms with having to die. it's an extreme example but reaching this mental state is likely easier in less extreme life circumstances - those most of us are impacted by.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fallacy of the excluded middle, nobody suggested that people should be spending themselves into penury. This is a great argument for universal healthcare though.
And a collective insurance-like pension system, where the people dying early subsidise the people dying late. Then everyone just needs to save to the expected age of death, rather than the maximum age of death.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone's a fan of Logan's Run . Enjoy your manadatory execution when you're forty you old bastard.
False dichotomy. There's a pretty big difference between dying after having a stroke that leaves you permanently disabled in your 70s vs. mandatory execution of healthy 40-year-olds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone who wants to test this assertion - that "fine healthcare" equal to what a wealthy retiree gets is available to all - should go to a nursing home that offers care for normal and purely medicare-supported patients. You don't have to study the situation really closely to get what I'm driving at. The patients will generally stay in separate areas. Just walk around and use your sense of smell.
Or if you want actual truth, interview people at said missing home. Person A was rich, her 500k in savings was all spent to provide her care at a rate of 5k per month until it is gone. Person B had 100k to her name. She paid the nursing home 5k per month until it was gone. Then care is free until the money runs out. Person C had 0 money. They paid $0 from day 1. All three got the same medical care. All three got the…
> Person B had 100k to her name. She paid the nursing home 5k per month until it was gone. Then care is free until the money runs out.
> All three got the same medical care. All three got the same food. Maybe person A spring for a private room vs a shared room... But otherwise all would be the same.
Person b experienced a lower standard of care once the money ran out.
(I'm sure this isn't universally true, but in my experience it is. It's a free market...)
That's not how math works...