5 ms·

I completely agree with you that when measuring losses, you have to consider the fact that much of the wealth lost never existed in the first place. There is s

by geebee 12y ago

I completely agree with you that when measuring losses, you have to consider the fact that much of the wealth lost never existed in the first place. There is still a tremendous amount of collateral damage, but a proper accounting is important. I remember thinking along similar lines during the enron scandal. Evidently, employees moved all their retirement account money into Enron stock, and lost everything when the company tanked. There was an article about a couple who had lost $500,000. At the time, I do remember thinking - did they contribute $500k in principle, or was 500K the peak value of their 100% enron portfolio before it all fell apart? If it's the latter (and it probably was), then it's entirely possible that they contributed no more than 50k (perhaps even considerably less) to the account.

balabaster 12y ago
...and that's probably the same for 90% of everyone's retirement portfolio. The "we lost everything we had" line could be as meaningless as having someone say "well, I put all my life savings in this slot machine because the guy at the casino said he'd been keeping track of it and it's been paying out over the odds for months, and at first, it seemed to be true... until I put in my last dollar and it blew up." Not that this makes anyone feel any better about losing their life savings - but risk is risk... and betting all your life savings on something as fickle as an illusion carefully sculpted by financial giants to pad their coffers, protected by bills carefully designed by lobbyists to protect what might as well be fraud, all buoyed up by public opinion of those chasing the dream of endless wealth [which about sums up the entire financial market], is a gamble no matter how you look at it. What did we learn about gambling in school? The odds always favour the house... and unless you're the house [which you're not, because the house is the conglomerate of banks that propagate this mess], you're extremely unlikely to win.

by geebee 12y ago

balabaster 12y ago

...and that's probably the same for 90% of everyone's retirement portfolio. The "we lost everything we had" line could be as meaningless as having someone say "well, I put all my life savings in this slot machine because the guy at the casino said he'd been keeping track of it and it's been paying out over the odds for months, and at first, it seemed to be true... until I put in my last dollar and it blew up." Not that this makes anyone feel any better about losing their life savings - but risk is risk... and betting all your life savings on something as fickle as an illusion carefully sculpted by financial giants to pad their coffers, protected by bills carefully designed by lobbyists to protect what might as well be fraud, all buoyed up by public opinion of those chasing the dream of endless wealth [which about sums up the entire financial market], is a gamble no matter how you look at it. What did we learn about gambling in school? The odds always favour the house... and unless you're the house [which you're not, because the house is the conglomerate of banks that propagate this mess], you're extremely unlikely to win.