Hi y'all - boils down to welfare state or self reliance? Most countries have a combination of the two. I'll go along with that. The present economic debacle, brought on by Bush, demonstrates how no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
On Dec 16, 10:41 am, Morpheal <[email protected]> wrote: > OLD AGE PENSION HELL AND ONLY A GOVERNMENT CAN SAVE US > > Government pensions are grossly inadequate in most nations, and need > to be rectified. There are far too many victims who have no recourse > as to making up for all the losses and inadequacies of pensions that > are imposed by the actions of others. Many people have been forced to > work hand to mouth. Others have broken work histories, due to being > forced to contract and take on temporary work, which provides neither > savings nor does it provide any corporate pension. Corporations have > also adopted more negative attitudes to moon lighting, and tend more > often to see such activities as an undesirable conflict of interest. > Despite unemployment levels and the sporadic, poorly planned, work > loads of many, long hours have become more customary, (particularly in > regions under American rather than European influence), in some work > places, further diminishing the capacity of workers to supplement > their inadequate wages. In some situations companies have found ways > to close their doors, taking pension dollars away with them, and even > reopening under new guises, in new places, the owners and investors in > the firms unscathed by their crimes against the workers. While such > situations are not as common as are failed corporate pension plans > that invested and lost funds, or the turn towards self managed (and > thus poorly and inexpertly managed) plans, they do form a fraction of > the problem. Government has been lax at best. > > Socially there are negative trends that further impact the pension > crisis. Standards of attractiveness have been changed to job > stability, permanence of corporate occupation, salary level and perks, > as a primary characteristic of desirability in a mate, leaving many > disadvantaged even more desperately disadvantaged. Women who are > successful have not reversed the traditional trend of male support for > women, to support men who are not as successful. Instead they almost > always demand the male be more financially successful despite their > own successes. > The rising cost of finding a life partner, nor mate, and the increased > lack of genuineness in relationships further debilitates finances for > single individuals. Money that would have been saved, or better > utilized ends spent socially in the search for meeting social needs > that tend to be poorly met, with a wide range of teasing practices > costing dearly. Added to this is the impact of increasingly common > relationship based fraud, greatly increased by the actions of > foreigners from Africa, Russian Federation, and parts of Asia, but > something that has always been a less than adequately challenged part > of European and North American social practices.. Ageism, a more rigid > and more intensely and finely stratified class structure than some > decades ago, and the primarily American influenced push to more > extreme self centeredness add to the social barriers against social > remedies to the attaining of needs. While this has promoted the > primarily gay oriented “friends with benefits” and gay marriage > trends, that is psychologically available only to a minority. The > often inappropriate push to that option may in fact be doing more > social harm than good in a large number of other instances. Clearly > the cost of living, and the costs of meeting needs, inclusive of > social inclusion, social recognition, social status, and social > opportunity of any type have grown, but the opportunities are less in > a very supply and demand dominated system. As the opportunities are > diminished, as to meeting other needs, the costs go up, further > straining scarce fiscal resources. Of course it is all meant to > stimulate spending, not saving. Saving won’t help you if you are in > social, and sexual, hell. > > Added to this are negative trends making profitable independent > ventures very difficult to start, costly and socially challenged. More > challenged than some decades ago, and certainly more costly. > Collectivist ventures, and communal ventures have been made nearly > impossible by the American led politics of a post Cold War American > victory against communism. Unless that trend is reversed many more > viable options for achieving material progress in terms of production > and access to or owning the means of production, will continue to be > largely completely thwarted. That option removed from the scenario, > what remains is either excessive borrowing on a pie in the sky hope of > making it, or investing the failing nest egg into something to do that > might make money. In a society where big corporate marketing and > advertising gimmicks tends to control selling, and where there is as > much dependence on establishing a name brand, as big corporate names > are able to offer, the road is perilous at best. Establishing a name > costs a lot of money and it costs a lot of social capital which in > fact is also extremely expensive and leads to severe compromises in > terms of lifestyle and questionable, but socially attractive, habits. > The cost to health, of gaining social capital, can easily exceed the > capital to be gained. Some do succeed in that way, but the damage is > far more severe than it ever was before. Added to that is the trend in > a society that is taught to disregard talent, skills, and abilities, > that are failing to make money. The piece of trash blessed with a high > price tag takes on a higher value than the carefully crafted and > meticulously original demonstration of real talent if the latter does > not command the same high price. That transformation of values is > somewhat consistent with the decline in quality, durability and > design, of much of mass produced culture. There are no lasting values > there. It is toss and replace at a relatively low cost, and change the > style regularly rather than anything enduring. The individual has > little to offer, if anything, in that mass market oriented culture and > society, to compete with its transformed values. Most give up long > before they succeed, wasting their capital and losing social capital > along the way, as they lose status for trying and not having as much > money to spend on social capital as do their peers. After all it costs > a lot of money to make the attempt and any individual’s budget is > limited. Much more limited in instances of real need for success. Of > course the increased difficulty for many, as to finding a partner, is > further worsened by the sacrifices necessary to achieve any > independence, or to supplement sparse other means. Failure to make > gains further disadvantages the social side of life, further > tightening the noose and plunging the individual further into the > social and economic abyss. Luck might have saved the individual from a > worse level of hell, but the lure of something interesting to do, in > an increasingly repetitive and routine oriented society, perhaps > socially limited and alone in life anyway, due to lack of sufficient > fiscal success symbols and social capital acquisition, plus the need > for improved security beyond what fickle corporate existences tend to > offer, can be irresistible and even more so for anyone with any > exceptional talent. So the road to hell is even more paved with good > and valid intentions, but the hell can be the same. > > While all of that needs to be changed, and values need remedy, that in > itself cannot resolve the growing and immanent problem of pensions. > > Clearly the real solution is to increase pensions, and to fund them > via the inevitable nationalization of some gainful and potentially > stable means, such as banking. If it is done now. Banks stole much of > the pension investment of many and it is only fair. > > The banks have stolen pension funds from many who trusted them to make > their meager savings grow. The mutual funds that showed such promise, > run by what was reputed to be the best talent in the industry, mostly > all lost money, suddenly and unexpectedly. The bankers and investment > counselors all counseled their clients to remain in it for the long > haul, and that it would pick up if given time. Well the losses > continued with small peaks and larger valleys. For most of the lucky > nothing much was made, and they broke near even. For the unlucky, > their meager savings were significantly dwindled. The banks got their > fee, for what proved to be a very poor service, failing on most of its > promises. Now we have another round of severe attrition, where mutual > funds again have taken a massive hit that they can likely never > recover from. Nevertheless many investment counselors are still > proclaiming the faith, and counseling their clients to stay in it, and > that it will recover and turn a profit for them in the long haul. > Lifetimes are clearly not that long and working lives, to pension age, > even less so. Where does the faith collapse into disbelief ? The > marketing, advertising, spin doctoring, is too effective. That too has > led the lemmings over the financial cliff and onto the fiscal rocks > below. > > What is the answer to this chronic illness that is so debilitating to > pension incomes and pension hopes ? When corporate means, unable to > buy good and reliable investment services from financial institutions, > have abandoned such means and left the permanent and thus benefitted > employees to fend for themselves in RRSP, matching funds, self managed > investment hell ? When banks have proven the utterly failed > inadequacy of their wisest investment counsel, and have shown that > even they cannot buy sufficient expertise to turn a small savings into > a pension nest egg adequate for old age ? The corporations don’t know > how. The banks don’t know how. Government shrugs its shoulders largely > claiming it is not in the business. > > Well, government needs to get into the business. What is the most > practical way ? Make the banks pay for the pensions that they > diminished, essentially stole with their mass marketing, advertising, > and proven to be utterly false promises. How can government make banks > pay for all of that fiscal and self serving misdemeanor ? Government > can nationalize banking, and from well governed, well regulated, > financial management, government can take the profits that the banks > would have taken for themselves, and pay adequate pensions to workers > who otherwise have no chance to either achieve them or make up for the > massive losses that fiscal mismanagement and outright fraud, in > addition to false promises by nearly every private financial > institution regarding nearly every seemingly lucrative investment > plan, have caused to most pension oriented and advantaged investors. > Not only that, but it would provide pensions for the disadvantaged > who, in society as it has been manipulated to be, have no real chance > to invest into pensions, in any real way, due to the pressing number > of other costly needs, and due to the changed nature of work and > social capital in a world where they are made victims by those > depriving them of adequate options and adequate means. > > Robert Morpheal > > This article may be copied, reproduced, distributed, by any means, > anywhere, in any form, and in fact anyone is encouraged to do so. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
