7 ms·

This is 1000000% true. The entire system is completely broken. It is literally designed to make the markets keep going up, which as usual benefits the wealthy

This is 1000000% true. The entire system is completely broken. It is literally designed to make the markets keep going up, which as usual benefits the wealthy far more than the average person. And people who are even middle class barely really benefit from it. While the lower class and poor don't benefit at all. I choose not to participate in "investing" because it's not investing. It's literally gambling. You can't control what a company does. You can't control if a pandemic hits just when you want to retire and your assets as cut in half. Instead of real retirement plans, higher guaranteed social security.. they have shifted nearly all the risk to the individuals and essentially forced them to just put money in the markets which artificially inflate the value of everything. And they just hope the ponzi scheme continues.

imtringued 5y ago
Well, the gold standard and any currency modeled after it, e.g. fiat is just a gold standard that can be mined infinitely, it's still expensive permanent money. You have these forced contracts that demand permanence in a world without permanence. It's a ponzi scheme because people age and die but gold doesn't. Imagine running a ledger, you are owed 50 years of work by person A. Person A dies. You are still owed 50 years by the rest of society. Society just lost 50 years of work because person A died so the rest of society must work harder to honor your ledger. That's where the ponzi scheme originates from. The idea that you are owed something that is no longer in this world. A gold standard is a ponzi scheme and since modern day fiat is just a stretched gold standard it is a ponzi scheme too.
awillen 5y ago
But how do you fund higher guaranteed social security? You need more money, which means either higher taxes or more people earning taxable money. The speed of population growth is declining, which is a big problem for the latter, and the former clearly has its limits. You're saying stocks are a Ponzi scheme, but as a solution you're proposing something that constantly needs more people paying in money or it will collapse... sounds like a Ponzi scheme.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  Agree with you. To be sure government and our Corporate overlords have demurred responsibility and put retirement planning on the backs of us clueless workers. But every other proposal sounds worse or unworkable.
  - batshit_beaver 5y ago
    Name a non Northern-european country that does retirement better than US.
    - dannyz 5y ago
      Canada?
      - maigret 5y ago
        Monaco
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- eatsyourtacos 5y ago
  >But how do you fund higher guaranteed social security? Did we forget we just changed the corporate tax rate from 35% to like 22%? We stop taxing self employed people social security/medicare after about ~140k.. where many crazy rich people make WAY more than that, so they could continue to contribute a hell of a lot of income. We have an insanity of tax loopholes.. including long-term capital gains which just incentivize the ponzi scheme further. >You're saying stocks are a Ponzi scheme, but as a solution you're proposing something that constantly needs more people paying in money or it will collapse... sounds like a Ponzi scheme. Do you consider current social security a ponzi scheme? All I'm talking is extending it.. tax people more, more money goes in, more money can go out. I call the markets a ponzi scheme because it's literally fake valuation to a degree. I'm not saying fake as in fraudulent at all- don't get me wrong. But if the entire market valuation is let's say $1 trillion. If the S&P goes up 1% on the day, that entire valuation (and let's say the sum of peoples retirement, even though it's not nearly this simple) goes up $10 billion. Then the market drops 10% and all the sudden people lost $100 billion in retirement. Money can literally disappear in that kind of system. That's why I call it a ponzi scheme. It only works if people keep making it go up. Social security doesn't work like that.
scarface74 5y ago
You mean “guaranteed social security” by a government that keeps borrowing more money and spending social security funds just as they do regular tax income? You have a lot more faith in our government than I do. If you choose not to invest, do you keep all of your money in a savings account that loses value to inflation?
- juanci_to 5y ago
  I agree. After saying that the decisions of companies are unpredictable, it comes to me as a surprise to expect that the decisions of governments are predictable. Governments and companies are both organizations, both are run with the purpose of profit, and both can be as unpredictable. In my country, Argentina, the state manages the retirement funds of the people. And they have been destroying their savings for decades. People who worked for 45 years get into retirement to learn that all their savings got destroyed by the inflation. There used to be, alternatively, private systems, but they were nationalized so the state took the retirement funds of all the people who trusted in the privates more than in the state, and now they are giving them pennies. So all that people feels that they were right by not giving their money to the state in first place. Your retirement system might be flawed, but at least you have the freedom to decide what to do with your own money. And, thanks to that, American people is way more savvy about finances and investment, and how money works. In my country, the average person knows nothing about basic economy, or even about how to save money. Otherwise, no government would be able to keep a 30% base of the votes despite getting us a 50% of inflation year after year.
jstx1 5y ago
> I choose not to participate in "investing" because it's not investing. It's literally gambling. You can't control what a company does. You can't control if a pandemic hits just when you want to retire and your assets as cut in half. If you have money, you need to allocate it in some way - how are you allocating yours in a way that isn't investing, isn't gambling and gives you control over the performance of your assets?
- eatsyourtacos 5y ago
  >If you have money, you need to allocate it in some way Why do you "need" to allocate it? This is my whole point. Everyone acts like "oh my god, I must have my money making more money!" What the hell do you think 80% of the country who has no substantial assets do? They can't do anything. The whole concept of getting rich off your own money is honestly sickening to me. >how are you allocating yours in a way that isn't investing I'm literally not. Even my house, for example.. I don't consider an "investment". Will it probably 'make money' over the long term? I guess (and well, it has substantially over the last few years, but again I had nothing to do with that- simple luck, just like it would be bad luck if it went down substantially). But that's not the point of me having a home.. I have a home as a place to live with my family. This mentality of everything being an investment and our whole lives revolve around trying to accumulate assets so those assets can make more money... it's just sad.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    I actually agree. If you asked me 7 years ago I would have wanted to be the winner of the investment treadmill. I.e. I and my children will be living off our investments without having to do any work, while obviously ignoring the fact that other people still have to work and that the money I would earn is obviously only valuable because they are selling their time to me for that money. If everyone started living off investments no work would get done. It's clearly a hierarchical system.
  - jstx1 5y ago
    My point is that not allocating it is not an option. If you have it, it's in something, and that something is an allocation decision that you've made (even if it's cash). You can decide to not participate in the stock market (and that's fine) but then your money will be in cash, in the equity in your house or in anything else you buy with that money. Picking those assets over the stock market is still an investment decision, and that decision comes with its set of risks and potential returns.
zhdc1 5y ago
> Instead of real retirement plans, higher guaranteed social security. This comes out in practice as PAYGO, or "pay as you go". A lot of countries use this model, and it goes bad quickly when tax receipts aren't enough to cover retirement outlays. With poor demographics in almost all large economies, PAYGO plans are going to cause a lot of pain in the next couple of decades. > They have shifted nearly all the risk to the individual... The risk comes down to 1. is either the individual, their employer, or the state investing for that individual's retirement and 2. how is that money invested. The US has more than 150% of its GDP invested in retirement savings. Some of these savings are invested in equities. It has to go somewhere.
- imtringued 5y ago
  Well, the stock market is a very complex PAYGO system in the sense that it doesn't solve the demographic problem at all. You still need young people working in those companies for them to maintain their valuations.
- eatsyourtacos 5y ago
  >The US has more than 150% of its GDP invested in retirement savings. Some of these savings are invested in equities. It has to go somewhere. But that's all by design, which is my point. Let's say from.. I don't know, 50 years ago. Taxes were increased such that social security is 2-3x what it is now. Some level which basically guarantees you have descent money for retirement. Sure you should still save some more over the years, but you won't be completely fucked. In that situation, there is no way 150% of the GDP would be invested in retirement savings. The social security pot would be massive, instead of inflating the stock market. Trust me, I get what you are saying.. but that is also my point. It was all designed to do this, and it was designed to benefit the rich- NOT individuals. Individuals (as a whole) would be FAR better off being able to depended on social security. And I think what's lost here, is we are discussing on HN- a place where most people (myself included) make FAR more than the median income. Like many multiples. I guess that just makes it a foreign concept- but most people in this country can't throw 10-20k a year into retirement funds. That's a massive part of most peoples income. So for the solution to be "hey, no retirement plans and low SS for you.. but don't worry, throw your money into the markets and over time it will be great!" is meaningless when you don't have a high income to begin with.
belval 5y ago
> The entire system is completely broken. It is literally designed to make the markets keep going up, which as usual benefits the wealthy far more than the average person. And people who are even middle class barely really benefit from it. While the lower class and poor don't benefit at all. Yes and no. Inflation/markets going up is a way to prevent boomers/gen X from sitting on stacks of money hidden away as a rainy day fund. It does benefit newer generation as it allows them to be paid more than their parents and give them access to credit to do stuff like buy houses. You want markets to keep going up, there is nothing good about deflation. > I choose not to participate in "investing" because it's not investing. It's literally gambling. You can't control what a company does. You can't control if a pandemic hits just when you want to retire and your assets as cut in half. You need to transition your assets progressively as you get older. If you hit 60 years old and your assets are still only in the S&P500 index then you have failed to diversify and yes, your high-risk portfolio is still high-risk. That's not gambling, that's poor planning. There are securities that can offer a lot more stability, at the cost of smaller overall returns. > Instead of real retirement plans, higher guaranteed social security.. they have shifted nearly all the risk to the individuals and essentially forced them to just put money in the markets which artificially inflate the value of everything. I've already addressed this above. > And they just hope the ponzi scheme continues. The stock market is not a Ponzi. The profits of the companies are what you are buying when taking a share of said company. It's an overall straightforward understanding. If you don't want to speculate on higher-risk assets such as tech stocks, you can buy banking/industrial/natural resources stocks which usually pay dividend based on their revenues.

imtringued 5y ago

Well, the gold standard and any currency modeled after it, e.g. fiat is just a gold standard that can be mined infinitely, it's still expensive permanent money. You have these forced contracts that demand permanence in a world without permanence. It's a ponzi scheme because people age and die but gold doesn't. Imagine running a ledger, you are owed 50 years of work by person A. Person A dies. You are still owed 50 years by the rest of society. Society just lost 50 years of work because person A died so the rest of society must work harder to honor your ledger. That's where the ponzi scheme originates from. The idea that you are owed something that is no longer in this world. A gold standard is a ponzi scheme and since modern day fiat is just a stretched gold standard it is a ponzi scheme too.

awillen 5y ago

But how do you fund higher guaranteed social security? You need more money, which means either higher taxes or more people earning taxable money. The speed of population growth is declining, which is a big problem for the latter, and the former clearly has its limits. You're saying stocks are a Ponzi scheme, but as a solution you're proposing something that constantly needs more people paying in money or it will collapse... sounds like a Ponzi scheme.

JKCalhoun 5y ago
Agree with you. To be sure government and our Corporate overlords have demurred responsibility and put retirement planning on the backs of us clueless workers. But every other proposal sounds worse or unworkable.
- batshit_beaver 5y ago
  Name a non Northern-european country that does retirement better than US.
  - dannyz 5y ago
    Canada?
    - maigret 5y ago
      Monaco
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
eatsyourtacos 5y ago
>But how do you fund higher guaranteed social security? Did we forget we just changed the corporate tax rate from 35% to like 22%? We stop taxing self employed people social security/medicare after about ~140k.. where many crazy rich people make WAY more than that, so they could continue to contribute a hell of a lot of income. We have an insanity of tax loopholes.. including long-term capital gains which just incentivize the ponzi scheme further. >You're saying stocks are a Ponzi scheme, but as a solution you're proposing something that constantly needs more people paying in money or it will collapse... sounds like a Ponzi scheme. Do you consider current social security a ponzi scheme? All I'm talking is extending it.. tax people more, more money goes in, more money can go out. I call the markets a ponzi scheme because it's literally fake valuation to a degree. I'm not saying fake as in fraudulent at all- don't get me wrong. But if the entire market valuation is let's say $1 trillion. If the S&P goes up 1% on the day, that entire valuation (and let's say the sum of peoples retirement, even though it's not nearly this simple) goes up $10 billion. Then the market drops 10% and all the sudden people lost $100 billion in retirement. Money can literally disappear in that kind of system. That's why I call it a ponzi scheme. It only works if people keep making it go up. Social security doesn't work like that.

scarface74 5y ago

You mean “guaranteed social security” by a government that keeps borrowing more money and spending social security funds just as they do regular tax income? You have a lot more faith in our government than I do. If you choose not to invest, do you keep all of your money in a savings account that loses value to inflation?

juanci_to 5y ago
I agree. After saying that the decisions of companies are unpredictable, it comes to me as a surprise to expect that the decisions of governments are predictable. Governments and companies are both organizations, both are run with the purpose of profit, and both can be as unpredictable. In my country, Argentina, the state manages the retirement funds of the people. And they have been destroying their savings for decades. People who worked for 45 years get into retirement to learn that all their savings got destroyed by the inflation. There used to be, alternatively, private systems, but they were nationalized so the state took the retirement funds of all the people who trusted in the privates more than in the state, and now they are giving them pennies. So all that people feels that they were right by not giving their money to the state in first place. Your retirement system might be flawed, but at least you have the freedom to decide what to do with your own money. And, thanks to that, American people is way more savvy about finances and investment, and how money works. In my country, the average person knows nothing about basic economy, or even about how to save money. Otherwise, no government would be able to keep a 30% base of the votes despite getting us a 50% of inflation year after year.

jstx1 5y ago

> I choose not to participate in "investing" because it's not investing. It's literally gambling. You can't control what a company does. You can't control if a pandemic hits just when you want to retire and your assets as cut in half. If you have money, you need to allocate it in some way - how are you allocating yours in a way that isn't investing, isn't gambling and gives you control over the performance of your assets?

eatsyourtacos 5y ago
>If you have money, you need to allocate it in some way Why do you "need" to allocate it? This is my whole point. Everyone acts like "oh my god, I must have my money making more money!" What the hell do you think 80% of the country who has no substantial assets do? They can't do anything. The whole concept of getting rich off your own money is honestly sickening to me. >how are you allocating yours in a way that isn't investing I'm literally not. Even my house, for example.. I don't consider an "investment". Will it probably 'make money' over the long term? I guess (and well, it has substantially over the last few years, but again I had nothing to do with that- simple luck, just like it would be bad luck if it went down substantially). But that's not the point of me having a home.. I have a home as a place to live with my family. This mentality of everything being an investment and our whole lives revolve around trying to accumulate assets so those assets can make more money... it's just sad.
- imtringued 5y ago
  I actually agree. If you asked me 7 years ago I would have wanted to be the winner of the investment treadmill. I.e. I and my children will be living off our investments without having to do any work, while obviously ignoring the fact that other people still have to work and that the money I would earn is obviously only valuable because they are selling their time to me for that money. If everyone started living off investments no work would get done. It's clearly a hierarchical system.
- jstx1 5y ago
  My point is that not allocating it is not an option. If you have it, it's in something, and that something is an allocation decision that you've made (even if it's cash). You can decide to not participate in the stock market (and that's fine) but then your money will be in cash, in the equity in your house or in anything else you buy with that money. Picking those assets over the stock market is still an investment decision, and that decision comes with its set of risks and potential returns.

zhdc1 5y ago

> Instead of real retirement plans, higher guaranteed social security. This comes out in practice as PAYGO, or "pay as you go". A lot of countries use this model, and it goes bad quickly when tax receipts aren't enough to cover retirement outlays. With poor demographics in almost all large economies, PAYGO plans are going to cause a lot of pain in the next couple of decades. > They have shifted nearly all the risk to the individual... The risk comes down to 1. is either the individual, their employer, or the state investing for that individual's retirement and 2. how is that money invested. The US has more than 150% of its GDP invested in retirement savings. Some of these savings are invested in equities. It has to go somewhere.

imtringued 5y ago
Well, the stock market is a very complex PAYGO system in the sense that it doesn't solve the demographic problem at all. You still need young people working in those companies for them to maintain their valuations.
eatsyourtacos 5y ago
>The US has more than 150% of its GDP invested in retirement savings. Some of these savings are invested in equities. It has to go somewhere. But that's all by design, which is my point. Let's say from.. I don't know, 50 years ago. Taxes were increased such that social security is 2-3x what it is now. Some level which basically guarantees you have descent money for retirement. Sure you should still save some more over the years, but you won't be completely fucked. In that situation, there is no way 150% of the GDP would be invested in retirement savings. The social security pot would be massive, instead of inflating the stock market. Trust me, I get what you are saying.. but that is also my point. It was all designed to do this, and it was designed to benefit the rich- NOT individuals. Individuals (as a whole) would be FAR better off being able to depended on social security. And I think what's lost here, is we are discussing on HN- a place where most people (myself included) make FAR more than the median income. Like many multiples. I guess that just makes it a foreign concept- but most people in this country can't throw 10-20k a year into retirement funds. That's a massive part of most peoples income. So for the solution to be "hey, no retirement plans and low SS for you.. but don't worry, throw your money into the markets and over time it will be great!" is meaningless when you don't have a high income to begin with.

belval 5y ago

> The entire system is completely broken. It is literally designed to make the markets keep going up, which as usual benefits the wealthy far more than the average person. And people who are even middle class barely really benefit from it. While the lower class and poor don't benefit at all. Yes and no. Inflation/markets going up is a way to prevent boomers/gen X from sitting on stacks of money hidden away as a rainy day fund. It does benefit newer generation as it allows them to be paid more than their parents and give them access to credit to do stuff like buy houses. You want markets to keep going up, there is nothing good about deflation. > I choose not to participate in "investing" because it's not investing. It's literally gambling. You can't control what a company does. You can't control if a pandemic hits just when you want to retire and your assets as cut in half. You need to transition your assets progressively as you get older. If you hit 60 years old and your assets are still only in the S&P500 index then you have failed to diversify and yes, your high-risk portfolio is still high-risk. That's not gambling, that's poor planning. There are securities that can offer a lot more stability, at the cost of smaller overall returns. > Instead of real retirement plans, higher guaranteed social security.. they have shifted nearly all the risk to the individuals and essentially forced them to just put money in the markets which artificially inflate the value of everything. I've already addressed this above. > And they just hope the ponzi scheme continues. The stock market is not a Ponzi. The profits of the companies are what you are buying when taking a share of said company. It's an overall straightforward understanding. If you don't want to speculate on higher-risk assets such as tech stocks, you can buy banking/industrial/natural resources stocks which usually pay dividend based on their revenues.