4 ms·

>Asking average citizens to understand market volatility and diversification and to rely on the total abject falsehood that “markets just go up in value” is equ

>Asking average citizens to understand market volatility and diversification and to rely on the total abject falsehood that “markets just go up in value” is equally immoral. Why? We expect people who drive cars to understand the basics of driving to the extent it is safe for them to drive. Simple diversification isn't a hard concept. Neither is risk/reward in determining where to put your money. >The aspect of pensions, to me, that satisfies the primary moral constraint of the situation is that you are guaranteed income of a certain level, so that the organization granting the pension has to bear the risk of volatility in whatever funding instruments are used to back it. But you aren't guaranteed it because things can happen. Immoral or even illegal things, or just having a run of bad luck. Regardless of the cause, there is a risk for the money not being there when you need it, a risk that seems to be worse than a 401(k) or equivalent. That risk includes governments not doing what you think they should've done, because no matter how much you think they should've done something they didn't do, it still wasn't done (in this case, companies weren't forced to fund and protect their pensions). If you have your own money, you can at least protect against this by having diversified investments, and if you are an adult who is allowed to vote then you can understand the concept of not putting all your eggs in one basket.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
Your comparison between comprehending financial principles (which are “not hard” according to you) with comprehending driving a car tells me you are severely disconnected from regular folks. I don’t think it will be productive to try to convince you of my view point. The best I could do is try to lobby for laws that prevent attitudes like yours from applying regular people, because it would amount, quite literally, to preying on the incompetence of average workers who don’t have specialized financial decision making skills... which is largely what our whole banking and retirement systems are set up to do.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  >Your comparison between comprehending financial principles (which are “not hard” according to you) with comprehending driving a car tells me you are severely disconnected from regular folks. People understand the concept of 'don't put all your eggs in one basket'. People understand the concept of 'no pain, no gain'. It is not difficult to apply these to stocks. This isn't about understanding accounting or understanding exactly how to measure the risk of a stock. You don't need to understand physics to understand why a seat belt saves lives. You just need a very basic understanding of being ejected from a car. This isn't about getting them enough understanding to build a seat belt that saves lives, only about getting enough understanding to use the seat belt provided. >The best I could do is try to lobby for laws that prevent attitudes like yours from applying regular people, because it would amount, quite literally, to preying on the incompetence of average workers who don’t have specialized financial decision making skills... which is largely what our whole banking and retirement systems are set up to do. You will find that people do not like being treated as children and will avoid your regulations for the sake of making profit, often choosing far more unwise methods than the ones you are preventing. If your political stance is to treat adults, especially older adults nearing retirement as children, you will find yourself unable to enact any of the silly measures you think will help. We can't even get the elderly who no longer can safely drive vehicles to stop driving them, an action that puts the lives of innocents at risk. It will be taken, perhaps justly so, as trying to legally forbid the common methods from making a profit and forcing them to use worse options that will allow them to be taken advantage of, just like modern day pensions do.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

Your comparison between comprehending financial principles (which are “not hard” according to you) with comprehending driving a car tells me you are severely disconnected from regular folks. I don’t think it will be productive to try to convince you of my view point. The best I could do is try to lobby for laws that prevent attitudes like yours from applying regular people, because it would amount, quite literally, to preying on the incompetence of average workers who don’t have specialized financial decision making skills... which is largely what our whole banking and retirement systems are set up to do.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>Your comparison between comprehending financial principles (which are “not hard” according to you) with comprehending driving a car tells me you are severely disconnected from regular folks. People understand the concept of 'don't put all your eggs in one basket'. People understand the concept of 'no pain, no gain'. It is not difficult to apply these to stocks. This isn't about understanding accounting or understanding exactly how to measure the risk of a stock. You don't need to understand physics to understand why a seat belt saves lives. You just need a very basic understanding of being ejected from a car. This isn't about getting them enough understanding to build a seat belt that saves lives, only about getting enough understanding to use the seat belt provided. >The best I could do is try to lobby for laws that prevent attitudes like yours from applying regular people, because it would amount, quite literally, to preying on the incompetence of average workers who don’t have specialized financial decision making skills... which is largely what our whole banking and retirement systems are set up to do. You will find that people do not like being treated as children and will avoid your regulations for the sake of making profit, often choosing far more unwise methods than the ones you are preventing. If your political stance is to treat adults, especially older adults nearing retirement as children, you will find yourself unable to enact any of the silly measures you think will help. We can't even get the elderly who no longer can safely drive vehicles to stop driving them, an action that puts the lives of innocents at risk. It will be taken, perhaps justly so, as trying to legally forbid the common methods from making a profit and forcing them to use worse options that will allow them to be taken advantage of, just like modern day pensions do.