| jcfla7 |
|
Gold User, Member, Platinum User, TeleChart
|
| Registered User |
|
|
|
|
| Unsure |
|
| Wednesday, September 21, 2005 |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2015 10:34:44 PM |
566
[0.19% of all post / 0.08 posts per day] |
|
Scott, I dont totally diagree with you about some kind of safety net - just would rather see charities like the United Way and Salvation Army take the lead. I would also be ok with state government establishing some kind of saftey net if they chose, just dont think the Federal government which is already so big and intrusive in our lives is the right way to go.
Per you point that not enough people would give to charities, consider how many give today even with our high tax code. The United Way receives billions and I suspect the Salvation Army and others like it would increase the amount to tens of billions - which aint too bad if you think about it.
For the poor janitor that could not look after himself, I would require forced savings on his behalf. He would help save for his own needs rather than you and me paying a subsidy for him. I admit that he might have a poor existance but accept that possibility as part of our system. Not everyone can be rich and some will be downright poor. But give them every opportunity to climb the ladder.
What strikes me as interesting (this is not directed at you but just in general) is that a lot of east coast and California liberals who believe in socialism and socilistic type progams have a fair amount of wealth - often in the millions. If they really believe in wealth distribution and social programs like social security and medicare, I would encourage them to sell the beach house, and apartment in NYC, move to Nebreska or Kansas and rent an apartment. Of course all of their sales proceeds should be confiscated and redistributed (as they adovcate that every one must do) and they can see how pleasant a life they can lead in the type of world they advocate. I bet you that if they had to live a simple existance they might think twice about their socialistic views. Take all the leading Democrats running for President - how many are poor or at least middle class. Edwards, Obama and Clinton are all millionairs if not multi- so I really dont feel much interest when they talk about helping the little guy. When the move to a run-down apartment and donate all their wealth, I will listen to what they have to say.
|
QUOTE (diceman)
To my view most of things pointed out by realitycheck and
jcfla7 are the failure of socialism and not capitalism. Once
you let politicians control your life. You better hope they are
good. (let me know when you find them)
Dice, I couldn't agree more. Socialism and socialist programs put in the hands of politicians that want to get reelected is an inherently corruptive combination. I would ban all these welfare/socialist governmental programs if I could and encourage people to donate to charities if they feel so inclined, but in my view its not the role of government to redistirbute wealth in a capitalistic society. New Deal programs and Great Society programs are going to be our undoing. Then again, the estate tax is an complete farce as well. Someone dies, and that gives the government the right to confiscate half his wealth?
|
QUOTE (diceman)
To my view most of things pointed out by realitycheck and
jcfla7 are the failure of socialism and not capitalism. Once
you let politicians control your life. You better hope they are
good. (let me know when you find them)
Dice, I couldn't agree more. Socialism and socialist programs put in the hands of politicians that want to get reelected is an inherently corruptive combination. I would ban all these welfare/socialist governmental programs if I could and encourage people to donate to charities if they feel so inclined, but in my view its not the role of government to redistirbute wealth in a capitalistic society. New Deal programs and Great Society programs are going to be our undoing. Then again, the estate tax is an complete farce as well. Someone dies, and that gives the government the right to confiscate half his wealth?
|
True enough. It would be funny in a way that programs could be so mismanaged if it weren't true. My aim is to save as much as I can figuring that is all I will ever see. I expect to get nothing from either medicare or social security just hope that they don't increase my taxes further since I should probably be punished for trying to save money.
I know of one social security program out there, Austraila, that makes a lot of sense. The gist of the program is mandated retirment savings by each worker on his own behalf. I think their social security tax is 10% or so. The big difference though is the funds that are withdrawn are actually invested in real stuff like stocks and bonds and the worker gets a personal account with his name on it so it knows what his account is worth and the government can't mismanage the funds. When he retires, there is money for him provided by hiw own efforts. This way most workers who would otherwise spend all they make are forced to save on their own behalf. This concept probably would never work in this country though because too many people like the concept of getting a free ride and would be upset to learn they had to cut back on their living costs to provide for retirment.
Like you said, "It may even get "interesting" long before everyone thinks ..."
|
Reality - thanks for finding that quote. The guy who wrote it really had a grasp of things.
Let me add a couple items that are on point here. There is a big misconception among most people I meet that there is a trust fund for social security. Not sure about medicare but I suspect the 'trust fund' for that is just as empty. The social security 'trust fund' is really just a bunch of government IOUs sitting in a file cabinet that represent a claim but nothing more. The real excess funds that are being generated every year by social security taxes are spent every year by the government on current spending. That is why the social security system will go negative far earlier than 2041. As soon as the baby boomers start retiring in numbers (maybe 10 years from now) social security won't have the worker to retiree ratios to support them.
Just heard this on an investment program today. Not sure its true but have no reason to doubt it. If the government was forced to account for the total current value of its future promises (just as companies are required to do) by way of pensions, medicare, social security and others than the real budget defecit would actually be over a trillion dollars. I think about the trillion dollar figure and it makes me realize no politician who wanted to get elected or reelected would be willing to talk about it.
|
tradestation easy language is more difficult than pcfs but probably can do more elaborate calculations as well.
Once you get into tradestation you can spend countless hours learning it. Very robust program but most people probably only use 10-20% of what it can do.
Gotta like the 5000 trades per month and no commissions.
|
This is a great thread. You dont get many economics threads on this site but when Diceman, Hohandy and Bigblock start posting the writings get interesting.
I can't remember who wrote it but there was or is a historian who has found that democracies in history only tend to last a few hundred years. After that they have tended to fail usually due to moral or economic decline caused by forces from within. Also, and importantly, he talked about the capacity of democracies to vote themselves all kinds of benefits without being willing to pay for them. If someone knows the name of this guy, help me out.
Anyway, I think objectively if you look at the US you have to admit we are a failing economic power and will likely be a failing military one as well in the next 50 years or so. How long can an economy thrive if it outstources its best manufacturing jobs, has become the largest debtor nation, and has a government that has endemic corruption?
Two examples come to mind: Medicare pays out benefits far greater in value than people have paid in taxes. Yet any attempt to cut it and politically its a non-starter for the lucky elderly who are now hogging all the dollars and their congressional friends who want to get reelected. A new perscription drug benefit is enacted and could easily cost trillions of $ and yet there is no funding mechanism to pay for it. The money will just magically show up I suppose. Point three for good measure is current war in Iraq - all borrowed money and likely to cost a trillion or more before its said and done. Are any of these signs of a government that you would want to hire or would have faith in to run your country? My guess is that historians will point to these and other current events as indications of societal failures prior to more future problems. It will be interesting when the baby boomers retire in large numbers and realize their is no money in the bank to pay for the empty promises made to them.
|
Hey David,
Would you explain what you meant by this: 'By using a breach of the 20 day max close as my entry I was kept happily out of cc.' I want to be sure I understand. I know what a channel is and am assuming you mean a channel low based on a 20 day period? but would appreciate any extra info.
By the way, will look forward to seeing some of you gap down sell climax examples coming up...
|
|
WOW, is all I can say on how this stock has fallen. Please ignore any posts above by Jcfla7 discussing going long this stock - he briefly confused CC with another stock that had a reason to go higher - other than it had gone down so far. Gonna have to re-read some Diceman posts to get my head on straight.
|
Hey HH,
I was away on a work 'vacation' so didnt see this post until now. Did you take this trade? To be honest with you, I would have been shaken out of the stock when it gave up some ground in July. I think it was July. I have to find a way to try to guage a MACDH that is experiencing a pullback versus a stock that has run its course. Its hard to judge.
I am going to pay much closer attention to MACDH going forward because I need an approach that is suitable for longer-term trades and less active trading in general. Work has become too demanding time-wise to trade actively.
I will say this though in my own regard, I have wittled my surfer approach down to one long and one short and so far (knock on wood) the results are not bad. I think about 2-5% per month, although to be honest I dont have more than 3-4 months of data to base this on. I will keep monitoring it even if I don't trade it.
|
|