In the October 19th issue of Time Magazine, the cover article is about why it's supposedly time to get rid of the 401K, and they (incredibly) make the argument that somehow we need to move back to pensions and such for retirement because the 401k option is too exposed to the vagaries of markets.
As if pension funds aren't invested in the very same securities held in 401k and IRA plans.
One of these days, I'm hoping that people realize that if there are no corporate and personal profits to make stock and bond investments profitable, there are also no corporate and personal profits to make pension plans profitable, and most importantly there is no tax base to make Socialist Insecurity and Mediscare solvent.
I'm finding it amazing that a journalist with a college degree had such poor thinking, and even more incredible that his editors allowed him to publish such nonsense. Does the entire staff at Time have a collective economic IQ of seven?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Fourteen, maybe. They're assuming that pensions are guaranteed by the company, and so there's someone to vilify, protest, and sue if the market doesn't do its magic. That, apparently, makes all the difference, and companies that are forced into bankruptcy for their pension obligations can be called immoral and complained about, thus providing (misguided) moral satisfaction in lieu of market returns, which for some people, is worth almost as much.
there is no money anyway. its all just govt approved promises to begin with.
scary, aint it?
It is mind-boggling, BB.
Post a Comment