4 ms·

Here is some examples of Merryl lynch lobbying for such things: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientbills.php?id=D000000108&year=2006 http://www.opensecrets.

Here is some examples of Merryl lynch lobbying for such things: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientbills.php?id=D000000108&year=2006 http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientbills.php?id=D0000001... 401(k) started in 1986 so it takes some digging to find who actually lobby'd for it, but you can look at recent examples on who is trying to kill SS to see who benefits from such things. On 401k fees: (GAO) http://www.gao.gov/htext/d10153t.html http://www.gao.gov/htext/d10153t.html (more readable blog post) http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2010/01/19/finally-your-hidden-401k-fees-revealed/ http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2010/01/19/finally-your... Note: 401k's should last well into retirement so over 60 years fees can really eat into that savings. Bill gates connection to IBM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates / http://prospectingprofessor.blogs.com/prospecting_professor/2005/12/bills_billions_.html http://prospectingprofessor.blogs.com/prospecting_professor/... / Original DOS author Tim Paterson http://inventors.about.com/od/computersoftware/a/Putting-Microsoft-On-The-Map.htm http://inventors.about.com/od/computersoftware/a/Putting-Mic... As for developer bribing local politicization's, umm just read the news... http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/2011/05/pg_county_johnson_plea_reveals.html http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/2011/05/... etc etc.

CWuestefeld 15y ago
>> The SSA could administer the same program [ie a 401k investment plan] for literally 1/5th what people are being charged. This is an odd thing to say, since SS is not in the business of investment. SS doesn't invest. It's a defined-contribution plan that takes the money in and loans it to the federal government. At some time later, they and Congress decide how much they'll pay you back. How can we know how much it would cost them to run investments? >> Over the lifetime of many plans they extract 20%-50% of all gains This isn't much of a statistic. If those expensive ones are charging lots of money for sky-high returns, then everyone is winning, right? But commonly, yes, they do take a big chunk of gains. But if you reframe your statistics to better show how hard it is to make money, it's really not so evil. If my investment manager is able to beat the Dow consistently, and takes a goodly chunk of the difference, then we're all better off. Moreover, market theory holds that high profits are prima facia evidence that one is providing value to one's customers. Do you have reason to believe that this isn't the case here? >> Bill gates connection to IBM Yes, but so what? The only thing I can think to read from this is that the only people who add value are engineers; those who are able to see a need, identify a means of fulfilling the need, and bringing the two together, are irrelevant. But I think that this very story shows what a big difference such a role can make. >> As for developer bribing local politicization's I won't bother arguing, since again, I think you're making a point opposite of what you're trying for. Saying that government is corruptible and can be subverted to line the pockets of the unscrupulous is not a very good argument for having government step in to resolve putative differences in income inequality. Doing so would simply invite more abuses of power.
- onemoreact 15y ago
  how much it would cost them to run investments? We know how much it costs them to collect money and do correspondence (aka mail stuff). While the SS administration is legally prohibited from running investments you can look at other government agency's that do so and it's significantly lower overhead than even cheap index funds. As to the actual costs of buying and selling stocks you can do that with moderately complex software buying 1000x as much stock is not a hard problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_trading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_trading If those expensive ones: There is a lot of research that shows high fee mutual funds simply have a lower returns. but for a quick summary: http://bonds.about.com/od/bondfunds/a/Why-Invest-In-The-Lowest-Fee-Mutual-Funds.htm http://bonds.about.com/od/bondfunds/a/Why-Invest-In-The-Lowe... Buffet in support of index funds: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2007-05-07/finance/30714109_1_index-funds-exchange-traded-funds-etfs http://articles.marketwatch.com/2007-05-07/finance/30714109_... putative differences in income inequality Taxing wealth and not the income that wealth generates is not inherently punitive. What it does is eat's away at fortunes that stick with ultra safe investments in favor of the risk takers. Because I don't think income / wealth inequality is inherently bad, what's dangerous is type of back room deals /networks that favor 'old' money. In the end I don't think there is much you can do to prevent insider deals, but you can put a damper on what it means for your great, great, grand father to have built a modest fortune that was managed reasonably well after that. PS: I have plenty of rich relatives, heck my grandmother went to Harvard and one of my closet friends growing up came from 'old' money with multi million dollar trust funds so I may be a little to close to be objective on this one. But, on net I don't have a lot of good things to say about what happens when your parents inherit wealth and you can look forward to more of the same.

CWuestefeld 15y ago

>> The SSA could administer the same program [ie a 401k investment plan] for literally 1/5th what people are being charged. This is an odd thing to say, since SS is not in the business of investment. SS doesn't invest. It's a defined-contribution plan that takes the money in and loans it to the federal government. At some time later, they and Congress decide how much they'll pay you back. How can we know how much it would cost them to run investments? >> Over the lifetime of many plans they extract 20%-50% of all gains This isn't much of a statistic. If those expensive ones are charging lots of money for sky-high returns, then everyone is winning, right? But commonly, yes, they do take a big chunk of gains. But if you reframe your statistics to better show how hard it is to make money, it's really not so evil. If my investment manager is able to beat the Dow consistently, and takes a goodly chunk of the difference, then we're all better off. Moreover, market theory holds that high profits are prima facia evidence that one is providing value to one's customers. Do you have reason to believe that this isn't the case here? >> Bill gates connection to IBM Yes, but so what? The only thing I can think to read from this is that the only people who add value are engineers; those who are able to see a need, identify a means of fulfilling the need, and bringing the two together, are irrelevant. But I think that this very story shows what a big difference such a role can make. >> As for developer bribing local politicization's I won't bother arguing, since again, I think you're making a point opposite of what you're trying for. Saying that government is corruptible and can be subverted to line the pockets of the unscrupulous is not a very good argument for having government step in to resolve putative differences in income inequality. Doing so would simply invite more abuses of power.

onemoreact 15y ago
how much it would cost them to run investments? We know how much it costs them to collect money and do correspondence (aka mail stuff). While the SS administration is legally prohibited from running investments you can look at other government agency's that do so and it's significantly lower overhead than even cheap index funds. As to the actual costs of buying and selling stocks you can do that with moderately complex software buying 1000x as much stock is not a hard problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_trading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_trading If those expensive ones: There is a lot of research that shows high fee mutual funds simply have a lower returns. but for a quick summary: http://bonds.about.com/od/bondfunds/a/Why-Invest-In-The-Lowest-Fee-Mutual-Funds.htm http://bonds.about.com/od/bondfunds/a/Why-Invest-In-The-Lowe... Buffet in support of index funds: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2007-05-07/finance/30714109_1_index-funds-exchange-traded-funds-etfs http://articles.marketwatch.com/2007-05-07/finance/30714109_... putative differences in income inequality Taxing wealth and not the income that wealth generates is not inherently punitive. What it does is eat's away at fortunes that stick with ultra safe investments in favor of the risk takers. Because I don't think income / wealth inequality is inherently bad, what's dangerous is type of back room deals /networks that favor 'old' money. In the end I don't think there is much you can do to prevent insider deals, but you can put a damper on what it means for your great, great, grand father to have built a modest fortune that was managed reasonably well after that. PS: I have plenty of rich relatives, heck my grandmother went to Harvard and one of my closet friends growing up came from 'old' money with multi million dollar trust funds so I may be a little to close to be objective on this one. But, on net I don't have a lot of good things to say about what happens when your parents inherit wealth and you can look forward to more of the same.