Posts by William Mitchell2

Nicole Collins13 said:I don't know. It's grown quite a bit so far, and moderate growth should continue long enough to outpace inflation. I'm not buying into digital gold currencies, but that's an off-topic tangent anyway.

👍
That’s just a counter-reaction—people are panicking and piling into gold... stocks are weak, so gold climbs...
When stocks were ripping, gold just sat there.

It's basic supply and demand.
Timing the mix of both is where the money is made.

That's how you get those "fake" managers making themselves look smart.😁

Nicole Collins13 said:Yeah, go tell that to the folks at Enron.

But back then, money won't mean anything. It won't be worth a dime.

Why do you think I occasionally stash a gold bar from Canada? 🙂My precioussss...

Man, give it a rest—you're just talking nonsense...😁👍
Those bars won't mean much to you—maybe to your grandkids, if you're lucky.🤷

Nicole Collins13 said:I’m concerned about the opportunity cost of my investment, but I’m not talking about my own pocket.

The reality is that some people would rather have a guaranteed check from something like Social Security than chase a higher payout that isn't certain. It’s simple. If a massive recession hits or you deal with an Enron situation right when you’re hitting retirement age, you're stuck. That's just how it is.

And that’s exactly where the problem lies...
With that kind of investment, the entire first pillar holds all the cash—it's built on intergenerational solidarity—but given all the systemic issues baked into that system, people's money is slowly, but surely, bleeding out.

granitepilot2 said:Somalia doesn't have any taxes at all.🙂
As for Las Vegas—a pure free market always looks great in places where wages are basically peanuts. You’ve got the Nauru situation too; people live pretty well off phosphate mining, there's zero tax, and by the time the island actually disappears, they won't have a country left—but they'll certainly have the cash.

To me, Somalia is actually more similar to America when it comes to education levels and natural resources compared to Las Vegas or Nauru.😉Unfortunately,😢

😂🤣👍
Look, it isn't quite that bleak—but give it about 20 years. We're moving in opposite directions; they're climbing while we're sliding. The lines will probably cross right around 2030.😁

Nicole Collins13 said:I’m concerned about the opportunity cost of my investment, but I’m not talking about my own pocket.

The reality is that some people would rather have a guaranteed check from something like Social Security than chase a higher payout that isn't certain. It’s simple. If a massive recession hits or you deal with an Enron situation right when you’re hitting retirement age, you're stuck. That's just how it is.

There isn't a crisis out there where this setup results in a lower value compared to the old-school model. It just doesn't happen.
Unless we're talking about World War III.
But at that point, money won't mean a damn thing anyway.

Nicole Collins13 said:People should be given the option of a guaranteed pension where the amount is known upfront, even if it ends up being smaller. That’s just game theory, my dear economist. 🙂

It really comes down to two methods: go all-in on one plan, or split it between two. Personally, I’d take nothing at all and just live off rental income, dividends, and my own savings.

🤷
I don't get it.

Fine, I'll be completely blunt and literal here.
If you used to pull in, say, $1667 a salary where $1,000 went to Social Security and you took home $4,000 (I'm exaggerating here, but you get the point).

Now, you still make that same $4,000, but instead of that $1,000 going one way, $750 goes where it always did and $250 shifts over here.

So, how exactly are you getting screwed by this new retirement model? You're probably looking at a few hundred bucks more in your monthly check.

Nicole Collins13 said:He's got a point. It's his money, and he should be allowed to spend it however he damn well pleases. Making these types of funds mandatory is just foolish. If he wants to buy an old steam locomotive and burn fuel with dollars or euros, let him.
Mandatory funds shouldn't exist. If someone wants to save, they should do it their own way. If they don't want to, then they can deal with the consequences later. For those who physically can't save, that's a different issue entirely, which is why Social Security exists.

I've been playing in stocks, commodities, and gold for a long time. I was even messing around with shipping futures before that became a trendy pastime for Americans. Personally, I prefer making my own calls. If I blow it all, so be it. At least I'll know exactly how it happened and who to blame. As long as the game was interesting. 😉

Look, I wasn't expecting much from you—you're talking like a total rookie.
Who exactly decided who gets to choose what???

Before 2000, we only had one single pillar. Just one. It was called the intergenerational solidarity fund. We all contributed via payroll deductions—no questions asked, no voting involved.
With that setup, after 30 or 40 years of working, you'd retire with a pension worth roughly what $700 would buy you today. $267There are plenty of reasons why that math worked, mainly population aging (mortality rates), wars (casualties and displacement), and the ratio of retirees to workers (back in 2001, I think it was about 1:1.34), plus people working under the table to avoid taxes, etc.

Now, we have three pillars. Two are mandatory, and one is voluntary.
Those two mandatory ones work by taking 15% for the first pillar and 5% for the second.

The amount taken out of our paychecks is technically the same, but we really should be seeing a few hundred bucks more.

Nobody was starting threads when the OMF-based funds were doubling in value unrealistically. Now, suddenly, everyone is complaining because they're dropping twice as fast as they should.
And that’s how it’ll go for the next 30 years—up and down, with varying slopes on the curve.

But the bottom line is this: our pensions will still end up being a few hundred dollars higher than if nothing had changed.

Personally, I’d love to have that 5% handed to me so I could manage it myself.
Sure, I might actually outperform my OMF-managed funds, but that’s probably only true for about 1% of the population.
What happens to the other 99%? Some would blow the whole thing on bad investments, some would make a little profit—though likely less than the OMF guys—but I’d bet my life that over 50% of people would just blow that cash on iPhones or cars...
Then, when they hit 60 or 70—assuming they make it that far—how much do you think that threshold will be? They'll be starving on $167 meager pensions, blaming the government and the state for everything, while refusing to take any responsibility themselves.

p.s. I'm definitely not absolving a huge number of incompetent managers of their share of the blame here.

dustymarlin10 said:Try telling me nothing was lost—or stolen—when I actually hit retirement age. Then we'll see how much I really lost. Besides, I can't exactly "sell" anything like you're claiming, because this is a mandatory fund that nobody ever bothered to ask if I actually wanted to participate in. And let me repeat: it would have been better if the money just sat in my bank account, but then all these so-called managers wouldn't have a reason to exist, would they?
And yeah, I still think politics belongs in this discussion, just like the stock market belongs in politics, considering policy is what drives everything anyway.

And one last thing, do you even know what investing means to me?
I'm sure it isn't this endless cycle of moving money from one empty pocket to another based on market whims...

Man, you’re lecturing people on things you clearly don't understand.
You want to stash it under a mattress? Or just let it rot in a savings account? ...
With inflation sitting at 3-5%, if it climbs any higher, they'll bleed your account dry long before you ever reach whatever "dream amount" you're aiming for in 20, 30, or 40 years.

You'll have plenty in the bank $100 but you'll only be able to afford a single bag of pepper with it.

slypilot13 said:There's some truth to that, I guess. But we're talking about a MANDATORY pension fund here. Mandatory. Nobody really gives you a choice. Whether you want to take that kind of risk or sit through twenty more recession cycles, it's happening. Maybe the fund managers should be a bit more cautious with those investments, considering it's a mandatory fund?
I'm no expert, but I feel like they should probably be more careful.

But they didn't add that extra 5% specifically for the pension fund...
Instead, they carved out 5% of the total retirement allocation for OMF.

Basically, if that 5% hadn't been set aside, everything would still be running on the old model—and then a total collapse would have been a 100% certainty.

dustymarlin10 said:roughly like this:

"Dear valued customers, it is my absolute honor to introduce our Fund Manager of the Year: this time, we have Hrvojko Sposobnić—the man who actually managed to blow through your ENTIRE last year's contribution! Yes, you heard that right—the WHOLE thing!"

Hey, take a breath and chill out.
You haven't lost a dime.
I could go back and forth with you on investment theory all day, but it's clear you aren't even trying to make a real point—if you were, you'd actually be talking about the economy. Instead, you're just leaning on politics so you can spout nonsense without any real consequences.

Just look at how much the Nasdaq has tanked lately—not to mention the surrounding markets, or the global situation for that matter.
Even OMF managed to scrape by. Though, honestly, they share the blame for this Nasdaq slump since the government incentivized investing in those funds, which eventually triggered those massive sell-offs.

Your money isn't gone unless you actually sell—or in this case, until you start drawing from your retirement—and before that happens, this market will likely swing wildly "100" more times between hitting the moon and crashing into the abyss.