NationStates Jolt Archive

Social security has clearly outlived its usefulness, if it was ever useful. That's because the risk-free interest rate of a treasury bond is around 4% to 6% per year (currently, 4.7%). It's impossible to lose money by investing in only treasury bonds, and your returns are guaranteed to be greater than the current yields of social security. Why are people so adverse to the idea of not sending their money down the bottomless pit that is social security? Why do they not want to make more money by investing in the US? It just doesn't make any sense. Take control of your own destiny, people -- don't let the government do it for you.

Take control of your own destiny, people -- don't let the government do it for you.

And if they're physically unable to do so? IIRC Social Security was created in order to give an income to people who were unable to work, these people still exist and as such, social security should still exist.

And if they're physically unable to do so? IIRC Social Security was created in order to give an income to people who were unable to work, these people still exist and as such, social security should still exist.

Why, according to MTAE's dystopian visions, they'd be enslaved, or better yet, removed from the gene pool entirely.

Social security has clearly outlived its usefulness, if it was ever useful. That's because the risk-free interest rate of a treasury bond is around 4% to 6% per year (currently, 4.7%). It's impossible to lose money by investing in only treasury bonds, and your returns are guaranteed to be greater than the current yields of social security. Why are people so adverse to the idea of not sending their money down the bottomless pit that is social security? Why do they not want to make more money by investing in the US? It just doesn't make any sense. Take control of your own destiny, people -- don't let the government do it for you.

Im sorry, who would be investing in T-bills? You want the US government even further in debt as opposed to helping the most vunerable in the US?

Are you arguing that someone who cannot work as a result, of for example a work place injury should starve? A cop who gets shot on the beat? A fireman who inhales nastiness? Soldiers in Iraq?

I understand the abuse of welfare argument, but aboliition? :confused:

And if they're physically unable to do so? IIRC Social Security was created in order to give an income to people who were unable to work, these people still exist and as such, social security should still exist.

I am not talking about unemployment insurance, just retirement insurance. That's a whole separate issue.

I understand the abuse of welfare argument, but aboliition? :confused:

I'm not talking about welfare, I'm talking about retirement. Since I have some rather obscure views on that issue, I'm not going to start debating it. Also, buying treasury bonds allows the US economy to expand while inflation is kept low -- it benefits not only the US economy, but a consumer. It also relieves our dependence on foreign savings.

I am not talking about unemployment insurance, just retirement insurance. That's a whole separate issue.

Well you should have specified pensions then.

You reckon your average joe is a more savvy investor than the professionals?

T-bills are denominated in round $100k amounts and the brokerage fee on an individual would be prohibitave. And their yields are falling as the US becomes more indebeted. 4.7%? Whats the Fed Funds? 5%? You would literally make more leaving your money in a savings account.

As an investment banker, I wouldnt advise touching US paper at the moment. But you clearly havent a clue, so why am I bothering....

I'm not talking about welfare, I'm talking about retirement. Since I have some rather obscure views on that issue, I'm not going to start debating it.

Seriously, pensions?

That's cold..

I am not talking about unemployment insurance, just retirement insurance. That's a whole separate issue.

No, its not. Social Security was created in order to supply money to people who could not work. This includes people who are too old to work, you could argue for the abolshment of that, but in doing so you are argueing to abolish the aspect of Social Security that supplies an income to disabled people.

No, its not. Social Security was created in order to supply money to people who could not work. This includes people who are too old to work, you could argue for the abolshment of that, but in doing so you are argueing to abolish the aspect of Social Security that supplies an income to disabled people.

Yes, unemployment benefits were included in social security back in the 1930s when the programme was started. Now, only disability benefits are included, and not just unemployment in general. In either case, that was not its main goal. Quoting from Wikipedia, "The term, in everday speech, is used to only refer to the benefits for retirement, disability, suvivorship, and death, which are the four main benefits provided by traditional private-sector pension plans." A separate programme needs to be created to help the disabled, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Yes, unemployment benefits were included in social security back in the 1930s when the programme was started. Now, only disability benefits are included, and not just unemployment in general. In either case, that was not its main goal. Quoting from Wikipedia, "The term, in everday speech, is used to only refer to the benefits for retirement, disability, suvivorship, and death, which are the four main benefits provided by traditional private-sector pension plans." A separate programme needs to be created to help the disabled, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Programme? I thought you were American dude... :eek:

Anyways, I'm not really for abolishing Social Security, but I would like to see it privatized.

No, its not. Social Security was created in order to supply money to people who could not work. This includes people who are too old to work, you could argue for the abolshment of that, but in doing so you are argueing to abolish the aspect of Social Security that supplies an income to disabled people.

[Not defending MTAE, just clarifying your argument...]
So, are you saying that if you consider "too old to work" as a disability, then we can get rid of the age requirement on Social Security? While I was still in the pharmacy, I knew people who were productive workers into their 70s with no desire to retire but still collecting Social Security. I also knew people in their late 50s who were too infirm to work but still doing so because they couldn't collect the entire benefit. Could such a person qualify under "too old" before age 65 since that other guys are still going strong at almost 80?

I think I confused myself... :confused:

You reckon your average joe is a more savvy investor than the professionals?

No, they should simply know that buying US treasury bonds is a risk-free investment since the US has never defaulted on its debt.

T-bills are denominated in round $100k amounts and the brokerage fee on an individual would be prohibitave.

You can invest whatever amount that you want, within reasonable limits, and you need not go through a broker. The whole transaction can be arranged through the government. The site can be found below.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/myaccount/myaccount_legacytd.htm

Also, the minimum denomination is $1000 dollars.

And their yields are falling as the US becomes more indebeted. 4.7%?

Social security currently has negative yields. You were saying?

Programme? I thought you were American dude... :eek:

I currently reside in Kansas, but I emigrated from Europe, and I learned British English in school. Old habits die hard, and all that.

Trilby63;11933778']Seriously, pensions? That's cold..

How is making more money "cold"? How is wanting to increase the yields on the investments of workers in any way "cold"?

I currently reside in Kansas, but I emigrated from Europe, and I learned British English in school. Old habits die hard, and all that.

I see.

No, they should simply know that buying US treasury bonds is a risk-free investment since the US has never defaulted on its debt.


Nor have about 40 other nations whose debt is yeilding higher. And with a weak dollar....



You can invest whatever amount that you want, within reasonable limits, and you need not go through a broker. The whole transaction can be arranged through the government. The site can be found below.

fair enough, I was looking at it from an industry point of view.


Social security currently has negative yields. You were saying?

Im assuming you mean pensions? This is a broad problem globally as equities fell. Buying Treasuries is a ludicriuos solution. There arent enough and the US govt is in more debt than it can handle already.

There is an argument to be made for allowing individuals more control over their private pensions,especially at the higer net worth end, but state pensions have always been excluded as they are considered a floor that will be the difference between living and dying and as such are too important to allow people to risk on magic beans.

Social security has clearly outlived its usefulness, if it was ever useful. That's because the risk-free interest rate of a treasury bond is around 4% to 6% per year (currently, 4.7%). It's impossible to lose money by investing in only treasury bonds, and your returns are guaranteed to be greater than the current yields of social security. Why are people so adverse to the idea of not sending their money down the bottomless pit that is social security? Why do they not want to make more money by investing in the US? It just doesn't make any sense. Take control of your own destiny, people -- don't let the government do it for you.

Are you talking about abolishing SS or privatizing it and alowing people to invest in the free market the same way they do with a 401K?

Buying Treasuries is a ludicriuos solution. There arent enough and the US govt is in more debt than it can handle already.

Sure there are enough. With the extremely low savings rate in this country, we have plenty of treasury bonds to spare. Also, buying treasury bonds allows us to pay off some of our debt and continue to invest in our economy -- it is one of the engines which powers economic growth. If we opted to sell treasury bonds to American investors instead of Chinese ones, for example, there would be plenty to go around. Alternatively, one could invest in large blue-chip companies if one wanted to make more money.

Are you talking about abolishing SS or privatizing it and alowing people to invest in the free market the same way they do with a 401K?

Completely abolishing it and allowing people to invest in the free market or allocate their money in whichever way they deem is best.

Also, buying treasury bonds allows us to pay off some of our debt and continue to invest in our economy

what? issuing more debt reduces debt? thats orwellian nonsense. -- it is one of the engines which powers economic growth.
If we opted to sell treasury bonds to American investors instead of Chinese ones, for example, there would be plenty to go around.

ahhh, the anti- free trade element of US capitalism rears its head. its either a free market or its not a free market. piss or get off the pot.


Alternatively, one could invest in large blue-chip companies if one wanted to make more money.

no one in their right minds would place the US state pension fund into equities. madness. if you want to risk your own private pension on corporates, go for it, but you cant put peoples only source of income on products that risky.

what? issuing more debt reduces debt? thats orwellian nonsense.

No, it's most certainly not. Ask any economist what the point of issuing treasury bonds is and they'll tell you that they reduce foreign debt and power economic growth.

ahhh, the anti- free trade element of US capitalism rears its head. its either a free market or its not a free market. piss or get off the pot.

I was just illustrating the ease with which we could meet the added demand, but I am certainly not advocating imposing a quota on how many treasury bonds we sell. However, the idea that we should have a ceiling on them is ludicrous -- they're not physical products, and as such, we have an infinite supply of them.

I tend to concur with MTAE -- but not with his speed or for the exact reasons given.

First off, there are two functions that Social Security pensions do. One is to act as a savings vehicle for people who can save. The second is to transfer income from certain groups (workers) to other groups (retirees). These two functions can be usefully separatesd.

If we sat down with a blank piece of paper, I doubt that anyone would come up with America's social security pension system as their ideal. I would want a system that minimizes government intervention. So, I'd say that getting rid of it entirely is a great idea. Since that's not likely to happen, what system would accomplish the goals of ensuring adquate savings by individuals and also ensuring that retirees have a minimum income?

I would say that it is a combination of a forced savings program and a flat rate pension.

The forced savings component would require everyone to put x% of their earned income into one or more accounts that they own, but which they cannot spend until retirement age. They get to decide their risk preferences and so on. If they have ups and downs in their income, there should be some minimum amount that they can contribute; the amount would grow every year, so that, for example, if the amount is $10,000 per year, and I don't contribute anything this year, I can add $10,000 next year instead.

All employer-based pension programs should, ideally, be converted into a contribution into the individual accounts. In practice, this may be too difficult, but 401(k) programs and IRA's should at least convert over.

The flat rate pension would give every citizen who reaches retirement age a flat dollar amount per month. This should be enough to avoid poverty (but not the upper-middle class definition of "poverty" of being unable to afford cable TV). This should be enough to house, clothe, and feed themselves, but little more. This ensures that people have an incentive to save and look after their savings during their lifetimes.

To get from here to there, I would enact the forced saving program, but have it phased in over a very long time -- 30 years, at least. That prevents too great a drain on consumption. The Federal Reserve should have the authority to accelerate the phasing-in, so that they can use forced savings (rather than higher interest rates) to deflate demand bubbles.

To move the current pension program towards the flat rate concept, I would start slowly collapsing the spread of outcomes in the existing system. For example, I would place a maximum dollar value on the pension that grows more slowly over time than the minimum or average values. I would also slowly increase the pension awarded to a survivor of a pensioner. I would introduce a "citizens" pension available to anyone who did not otherwise qualify. It would grow the most quickly. When the values converge (50 - 80 years from now), that value would become the flat citizens' pension.

To avoid the issue of immigrants arriving at retirement age, I would require that you have to reside in the US to get credit towards the citizens pension. For each year you live here, you get 2.5% of the pension. After 40 years, you are entitled to the pension.

You will note that all of the implementation time-frames discussed above are extremely long. The reason for that is that any pension reform has to take in to consideration that the close a person is to retirement, the more they have relied on the current system being in place for retirement and the less ability they have to adjust to change. Quite simply, it would be terribly unfair to enact sweeping changes in a way that does not phase them in over a couple generations.

Once all that is done, we could consider how to move towards greater liberty, but I don't readily see a path that would appeal to people's compassion at this point. Further experience under the system above might make that clear. In any case, it might make people more aware that their are responsible for their own well-being after retirement -- something that the obscure and complex nature of today's social security pension does not do.

For the libertarians who argue that compassion does not extend to stealing people's money through taxes, while I agree with you, I doubt the public would initially. The system above would have a much better chance of educating them than the current system does. Further, this sysrem would at least be a net increase in liberty, since the individual at least have some control over some of what the government takes from him -- specificially, the management of the forced savings assets. Since many of us would probably save this much anyway, the infringment of liberty arising from that component is no worse than a law requiring us to breathe at least once a day -- objectionable in principle, but much less so in practice.

Now, can someone tell me why this could not have been sold to the American public (at least outside of the poisoned atmosphere surrounding the recent elections)? That's not a rhetorical question -- I'd like to know what people see as the plan's defects.

No, it's most certainly not. Ask any economist what the point of issuing treasury bonds is and they'll tell you that they reduce foreign debt and power economic growth.



I was just illustrating the ease with which we could meet the added demand, but I am certainly not advocating imposing a quota on how many treasury bonds we sell. However, the idea that we should have a ceiling on them is ludicrous -- they're not physical products, and as such, we have an infinite supply of them.

I am an economist. Treasury bonds (like all soverign debt) are a way of rasing money, which is cheaper that going directly to a bank and an alternitive to rasing taxes. They are most certainly borrowings. How does placing debt on an open market 'reduce foreign debt'? Whether or not the funds generated 'power economic growth' depends on whats done with the money. Which at the moment is funding the war in Iraq. So its not.

Saying there is an infinite suppy of debt is like saying there is an infinite suppy of money, you can just just print more. You issue more debt, you end up in more debt and the value (yield) falls in classic supply/demand fashion.

You are drowning here.

Hey, SR, is that what is known as Keysian economics?

That's not a rhetorical question -- I'd like to know what people see as the plan's defects.

Sorry, that was a very long chunk of text and I'm not sure that I fully understand it. Are you proposing that everyone is forced to save x% of their income and everyone (with the exception of new immigrants and the like) is entitled to y% of the combined national pension savings rate? If so, there's bound to be a surplus, but I'm probably missing something here.

How does placing debt on an open market 'reduce foreign debt'?

If we don't have enough money to pay off our debt, we can borrow some money with which to pay off our debt. Since debt needs to be paid off at par, there are very few other alternatives short of raising taxes, which would stifle economic growth.

So its not.

Actually, the war in Iraq has had a positive impact on total production and employment.

You issue more debt, you end up in more debt and the value (yield) falls in classic supply/demand fashion.

Exactly.

Sorry, that was a very long chunk of text and I'm not sure that I fully understand it. Are you proposing that everyone is forced to save x% of their income and everyone (with the exception of new immigrants and the like) is entitled to y% of the combined national pension savings rate? If so, there's bound to be a surplus, but I'm probably missing something here.

Indeed it was -- sorry for the length.

The forced savings program is completely separate from the flat rate pension. The money that each individual is required to save is paid into an account set up by the individual at an institution chosen by the individual to pursue investments chosen by the individual. Presumably, there would have to be rules prohibiting the individual from cashing the account in, requiring the institutions to allow transfers to qualified accounts at other institutions, requiring the institutions to provide important information along with the transfer, etc. Presumably, the accounts would be tax-advantaged. All in all, very much like a current IRA -- except that you have to pay into it (primarily through payroll deductions).

The citizens pension is completely separate, and would be funded by a tax. What the tax ought to be is actually a different question than what the benefit ought to be, so I think it is sufficient to say that it will be tax-funded. The singificance is that the amount is a flat amounts of dollars per month per retiree, and the amount does not vary between individuals. It would only be enough to stave off poverty, not enought to live in comfort and style.

Indeed it was -- sorry for the length.

As it compares to our current system, I see no problems with it. I don't much relish the idea of taxing the rich to lend a minimum standard of living to the poor, but it's not something I'd get hung up over.

Actually, the war in Iraq has had a positive impact on total production and employment.

Well, if it's due to war, then we'd see the positive impact in defense contracts. But it's not there. No, the "soft goodness" of the economy is from some other source.

Indeed it was -- sorry for the length.

The forced savings program is completely separate from the flat rate pension. The money that each individual is required to save is paid into an account set up by the individual at an institution chosen by the individual to pursue investments chosen by the individual. Presumably, there would have to be rules prohibiting the individual from cashing the account in, requiring the institutions to allow transfers to qualified accounts at other institutions, requiring the institutions to provide important information along with the transfer, etc. Presumably, the accounts would be tax-advantaged. All in all, very much like a current IRA -- except that you have to pay into it (primarily through payroll deductions).

The citizens pension is completely separate, and would be funded by a tax. What the tax ought to be is actually a different question than what the benefit ought to be, so I think it is sufficient to say that it will be tax-funded. The singificance is that the amount is a flat amounts of dollars per month per retiree, and the amount does not vary between individuals. It would only be enough to stave off poverty, not enought to live in comfort and style.

Sounds a bit like the system used in New Zealand and proposed for the UK (in the Turner Report, which the government completely disregarded).

As it compares to our current system, I see no problems with it. I don't much relish the idea of taxing the rich to lend a minimum standard of living to the poor, but it's not something I'd get hung up over.

Right now, we're taxing the poor worker to lend a better standard of living to the wealthy retired. :headbang:

Right now, we're taxing the poor worker to lend a better standard of living to the wealthy retired. :headbang:

So, how does US pensions work, then?

Sounds a bit like the system used in New Zealand and proposed for the UK (in the Turner Report, which the government completely disregarded).

Yep. And in Chile (or at least so I understand).

Saying there is an infinite suppy of debt is like saying there is an infinite suppy of money, you can just just print more. You issue more debt, you end up in more debt and the value (yield) falls in classic supply/demand fashion.
Exactly.
Yes, exactly, but it doesn't support your argument MTAE. ;)

Right now, we're taxing the poor worker to lend a better standard of living to the wealthy retired. :headbang:

And that's even worse, which is why your plan would be better than our current system. However, I'd prefer not taxing anybody to maintain a standard of living for anybody -- let them work it out for gthemselves, unless they're disabled.

Yes, exactly, but it doesn't support your argument MTAE. ;)

What do you mean? Yes, the yield would decrease somewhat, but it would still be higher than the negative yield of our current social security system. Additionally, one could invest in a large, blue-chip company if one thought that treasury bond yields were too low.

So, how does US pensions work, then?

We have a payroll tax. Workers pay about 7% of their wages, up to an upper limit. Employers pay another 7% of the wages, again subject to an upper limit. The money is paid out by the government immediately to retirees. None of it is tracked on an individual basis. (Notionally, there is a "social security trust fund" which is really just a ledger entry saying that in some years we took in more in social security taxes than we spent on social security payments, so we let the government spend the rest.)

Two perverse things: First, high earners pay less -- the tax caps out at something like $110,000 of wages Second, the notional "employer" portion typically comes out of the worker's pocket in the form of lower wages. (There are industries where this may not happen all the time. It depends on the shape of the labor supply curve, if I recall that economics class right.) So essentially, it is a 14% tax on workers' wages that declines for high income individuals.

On the benefit side, it is truly complex. Your benefits are tied to earning "credits". You can earn up to four credits in a year. To earn a credit, you have to pay tax on about $2000 in income. (I don't remember the exact amount, but it is about that low.) So working your ass off for 20 years is not as good as working part time for twice that.

Once you get enough credits, you qualify for a pension when you retire. But the pension is not calculated straightfowardly on the number of credits you have. It is a function of a whole bunch of things, like the number of credits, the amount you actually paid, your age, etc. The fact is that most people have no idea how more work translates into more benefits, which diminishes any impact on labor supply.

The social security administration will send you a statement if you ask for one. Having looked at mine for the last several years, it is clear that high earnings drive a higher benefit. Hence, while high-paid workers pay less taxes, they don't receive less benefits.

Now, take into account that the American Association of Retired People is one of the best lobbyists in the US. They are always looking for more benefits out of the system. You should also know that their membership is comprised of people who have enough money to pay their membership fees, so who on the income scale do you think they lobby hardest for?

Thus, my statement that the social security pension transfers money from the poor worker to the wealthy retired.

What do you mean? Yes, the yield would decrease somewhat, but it would still be higher than the negative yield of our current social security system. Additionally, one could invest in a large, blue-chip company if one thought that treasury bond yields were too low.

Because (cp) the yield will fall at an increasing rate as more debt is issued. Issuance of securities to secure debt is contingent upon the government's future ability to pay it back. No one is going to invest a bond or T-bill or whatever that the government is going to refuse to honor because it can't make payment. You'll just be holding worthless scrip after a while and the country will be bankrupt.

If the government can't pay its debts (or even make the interest payment on the current debt), there will be no economy on which the large, blue-chip alternative can operate. At least, not for a long while.

No one is going to invest a bond or T-bill or whatever that the government is going to refuse to honor because it can't make payment.

Except, that has never happened because the government has never defaulted on its debt for precisely that reason. The yields may fall somewhat, but certainly not enough to bankrupt the government. If the government does not need to borrow any more money, inflation would be extremely low and the yields would also hit rock bottom. However, that will not be the case because workers will not invest enough to drive down the yields so much, as more savvy workers will simply invest in various companies instead of the government.

-snip-

Thus, my statement that the social security pension transfers money from the poor worker to the wealthy retired.

Does seem that way.

Except, that has never happened because the government has never defaulted on its debt for precisely that reason. The yields may fall somewhat, but certainly not enough to bankrupt the government. If the government does not need to borrow any more money, inflation would be extremely low and the yields would also hit rock bottom. However, that will not be the case because workers will not invest enough to drive down the yields so much, as more savvy workers will simply invest in various companies instead of the government.

Past performance is not predictive of future returns. ;) The government hasn't defaulted yet, but what happens when Debt-over-GDP goes above 100%? It's not there yet, but if we keep spending, the government may very well default.

You say the government may not have to borrow money, and there's no reasoning to suggest that the debt will stop increasing when/if social security goes away in its current form. Maybe if we slash defense spending, but I can see defense cuts going straight toward education or other social programs in a one-to-one ratio.

It's not there yet, but if we keep spending, the government may very well default.

That means that we need to tighten our belts by cutting out some relatively unimportant social programmes. The trick is to make our economy expand faster than our debt, and allowing workers to invest in the economy instead of a failed programme is one way to encourage that.

Completely abolishing it and allowing people to invest in the free market or allocate their money in whichever way they deem is best.

Not a good idea. Many people might not save and become a burden on the welfare system when they get old. Also, it would do away with disability for those who become disabled and could not work and the death benefit for children whose parent dies.

If I were younger, I would like to privatize SS and allow people the option of investing their money however they see fit (similar to 401K) or keeping their money in the present system.

That's not a rhetorical question -- I'd like to know what people see as the plan's defects.

It sounds pretty reasonable to me. One question though, would the forced savings (which is what SS is) be in addition to voluntary plans such as 401K and non-contributary pension funds? Or, would those other programs be eliminated?

It sounds pretty reasonable to me. One question though, would the forced savings (which is what SS is) be in addition to voluntary plans such as 401K and non-contributary pension funds? Or, would those other programs be eliminated?

Just a small correction: that was the proposal of Humanity Emancipated, not me.

It sounds pretty reasonable to me. One question though, would the forced savings (which is what SS is) be in addition to voluntary plans such as 401K and non-contributary pension funds? Or, would those other programs be eliminated?

Social security is not forced savings. It is a transfer program.

In answer to your question, I would probably eliminate the other programs. The government's interest (regardless of whether I agree it is appropriate) is in ensuring adequate savings by individuals to support them in retirement. If we are forcing savings at a rate we think is adequate, then there's not much of an argument for allowing more than that. (I'd rather lower the overall tax rate.)

Social security is not forced savings. It is a transfer program.

I stand corrected. I forgot my Economics 101. :p

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

What do you mean? Yes, the yield would decrease somewhat, but it would still be higher than the negative yield of our current social security system. Additionally, one could invest in a large, blue-chip company if one thought that treasury bond yields were too low.

Like General Motors! Or Enron!

If for no other reason, social security should be abolished for being a Ponzi Scheme. It and Amway are the only legal Ponzi Schemes.

Social security has clearly outlived its usefulness, if it was ever useful. That's because the risk-free interest rate of a treasury bond is around 4% to 6% per year (currently, 4.7%). It's impossible to lose money by investing in only treasury bonds, and your returns are guaranteed to be greater than the current yields of social security. Why are people so adverse to the idea of not sending their money down the bottomless pit that is social security? Why do they not want to make more money by investing in the US? It just doesn't make any sense. Take control of your own destiny, people -- don't let the government do it for you.

I consider investing in the US to be high risk now that the Democrats have taken control with no end in sight.




That was fun.