Any comments about Mr Madoff?

[TheMercenary]

I can't agree more. It is wild to think of the number of people who have gone from fame and fortune to destitute. It certainly has shades of the day of the crash in '39.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I can't agree more. It is wild to think of the number of people who have gone from fame and fortune to destitute. It certainly has shades of the day of the crash in '39.

That would be '29. But not really. '29 was a collapse of the entire market. This is just a case of a con man being unmasked by a market collapse.

And who the hell gives their entire fortune to one guy to invest? Didn't these knuckleheads ever hear of diversification? I feel bad for the people who lost their life savings to Madoff but they could have given at least some of it to... I dunno, Fidelity or T Rowe Price or any number of reputable investment firms.

Why didn't they? Because Madoff promised returns higher than those offered by reputable investment firms. Now why would any sane person think that Madoff is smarter than the entire portfolio investment brain trust at TRP/Fidelity/etc.?

Too bad P. T. Barnum or Ben Franklin aren't here to answer that question.

[TheMercenary]

Or the other way around.

[sugarpop]

Did anyone catch the hearings with Harry Markopolos? He's the man who tried, for YEARS, to get the SEC to do something about Madoff. He gave pretty scathing testimony about how inept they are earlier this week.

I hope we get some sensible regulations on business again. I have a feeling that a LOT of people will going to prison over the next few years, for fraud, or not doing their jobs (of providing oversight), or causing the collapse of the entire world economy.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Did anyone catch the hearings with Harry Markopolos? He's the man who tried, for YEARS, to get the SEC to do something about Madoff. He gave pretty scathing testimony about how inept they are earlier this week.

It has been noted here for years. During the Enron hearings, both Democrats and Republicans wanted to double the SEC budget. Harvey Pitts, the SEC Chairman refused the money. Even at the start of 2000s, the political agenda was to subvert oversight in the name of deregulation.

Previously, Clinton also tried to increase the SEC Budget. Congressional Republicans were united in their threat. If Clinton tried to increase SEC powers, then the political agenda would remove all SEC funding. Clinton backed down.

Some ask if this about philosophy. Reasons for outright fraud were apparent even in LTCM, Enron, and the mythical CA energy crisis. Even First Energy created the NorthEast blackout. Even First Energy violated a long list of operational requirements and was exonerated as lies about an obsolete grid, instead, were promoted. Even First Energy operated a nuclear reactor with a hole in its cap and other complications that could have taken out Toledo. Technical violations were all but encouraged by deregulation. Deregulation designed to eliminate oversight and responsibility to the product in the name of profits short term profits.

Madoff is only another example of what we encouraged and created at the highest levels of government. Engineers were even denied facts necessary to save the Columbia because managers were more interested in their politics and image rather than in technical facts. My god. The President even outrightly lied about Saddam's WMDs when facts said otherwise were even withheld. These are accidents? Hardly. We did not even hold him responsible. Why should SEC investigations of Madoff be anything different?

Those SEC investigators were only doing what we wanted the administration to impose on them. Least paid government employees were in the SEC. That political agenda was painfully obvious when Harvey Pitts testified before Congress and refused to take a budget increase. Where were you when the problem was so painfully obvious?

Government did what we wanted for the past 10 years. Where is the investigation of Morgan Stanley and other for manipulating oil prices? When do we prosecute others for intentionally creating the CA energy crisis? Why is Madoff any different? In those other cases, we considered these accidents? Even the State of Oklahoma had to embarrass the Federal government and file suit against Enron before the Feds would finally prosecute.

[sugarpop]

They didn't do what I wanted. I have wanted more regulation of business since Reagan started systematically deregulating everything in sight.

[OnyxCougar]

I'm shocked that no one here made a smart ass comment about how the federal government has been actively participating in and forcing a ponzi scheme on us all for YEARS.

[classicman]

You mean the one called Social Security?

[sugarpop]

Some people would not survive without SS and Medicare. Those are not schemes, they are successful programs. Is there some waste? Yes, but the whole health care industry is full of it. So you can't really blame Medicare...

[Clodfobble]

Correction: they are rapidly failing programs. "Some people" need SS and Medicare, just like all social programs. It's when you try to pretend that everyone will receive reasonable and fair benefits when they retire that it becomes a Ponzi scheme. The money simply isn't there.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Correction: they are rapidly failing programs. "Some people" need SS and Medicare, just like all social programs. It's when you try to pretend that everyone will receive reasonable and fair benefits when they retire that it becomes a Ponzi scheme. The money simply isn't there.

And I believe people who don't need the money when they hit retirement age (Gates, Buffet, etc.) should be allowed to not take the money, so that money could be divided among the people who DO need it, but they aren't allowed to do that. If they were though, that would go a long way toward increasing benefits for those who do count on that money to survive.

[Happy Monkey]

That's not true. The absolute worst case scenario for Social Security is that all of the beneficiaries split up all of the contributors' tax contributions. This could (depending on the ratio of workers to retired/disabled) be less than is currently promised, but will never be zero. It will never fail. And the rates/retirement ages/upper tax limits can be adjusted for the times.

A Ponzi scheme with only two levels, in which everyone (who doesn't die early) gets to be in the top level eventually, isn't really a Ponzi scheme.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It will never fail. And the rates/retirement ages/upper tax limits can be adjusted for the times.

Ok, I've not thought of it this way before, I recognize that there will be little to nothing when I retire and try to plan accordingly.

But for the sake of the argument, if they raise the age to say 80 and I die at 79 1/2 how much do I get?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Ok, I've not thought of it this way before, I recognize that there will be little to nothing when I retire and try to plan accordingly.

You recognize incorrectly, then. As stated, there will definitely not be "nothing". The actual amount is dependant on many varibles, including the ratio of workers to retirees and the state of the economy (how much total salary there is to tax). It will probably be significant, but it is always good to plan to have more, if you can.

But for the sake of the argument, if they raise the age to say 80 and I die at 79 1/2 how much do I get?

It depends on whether you opted to enter the program early at a reduced payout.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by classicman

But for the sake of the argument, if they raise the age to say 80 and I die at 79 1/2 how much do I get?

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It depends on whether you opted to enter the program early at a reduced payout.

Lets use the above example and say I stop working and die at 79. How much am I getting after contributing my whole life? No, I am not opting for a reduced payout.