Live data from Hacker News

Why Saving is for Suckers

articles.moneycentral.msn.com

41–43 of 43 posts

Re: Why Saving is for Suckers

#41
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A dramatically higher savings rate would likely be disastrous for the US economy. That is why financial regulations (I presume you meant to suggest tax policy or other government incentives rather than regulation directly). Why is that? If you double the savings rate, at a high level, money changes hands about half as often across the aggregate economy. Halving the aggregate amount of economic transactions would repr…

But doesn't a higher savings rate infuse money into credit markets? B's $1 in savings is at least $1 available for capital and consumer credit alike, and with fractional reserve rates, even more. Most of the boom that preceded the current bust was fueled by credit expansion - and the bust was largely due to poor risk assessment, not the high availability of credit itself.

I'm sure there is some need for balance, but from the (smallish) amount I recall of Macro in college, a small positive savings is the "optimum" for economic growth without unbounded inflation, etc.

If the savings rate were negative, then availability of credit may be the overall bounding factor. In the situation the US finds itself currently, I believe that an increased savings rate will slow or stall the recovery. (That doesn't mean that I don't think individuals should be prudent and save, which I continue to do, but rather that I want OTHER people that I don't know or care about to continue to spend freely, ideally on products my company sells. :) )

Re: Why Saving is for Suckers

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://econompicdata.blogspot.com/2009/03/inflation-adjusted... This chart (last one on the page) indicates to me that during the greatest bull market in history, rolling ten year inflation and dividend adjusted returns on the sp500 only rarely touched 8%; usually much less. This excludes transaction costs, I'm sure. I'd have to look into it more. http://www.itulip.com/realdow.htm

First, transaction costs on following an S&P index are tiny. Second, I'm not sure how you got 8% from a graph showing a 10-year return of around 300%.

> I'm not sure how you got 8%

Basic algebra?

Re: Why Saving is for Suckers

#43
Summary:

Don't put your money in a bank, they're just profiting from your capital.

Give your money to a broker instead! Then you can "play the game" and not be a sucker!

From the article:

"Adding sectors and specific regions will increase the complexity of your portfolio but probably won't add much more in returns, which could well exceed 15% per year after the recent crash in value."

Could well exceed 15%? Holy awesome, that's great! Because you know, right? You're not just making numbers up?

Post reply on HN