Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: georgi_zlatev on 31/08/2015 14:09:47
-
The pension must be prohibited the way they are today.The pension model is socialist.The pension insurance is collecting in funds which invested the money in companies and the risk is distributed among all who paid this insurance.The people must not paid pension insurance but the money they receive they must to invest at their own risk.In this way public companies will be motivated to earn more profit.Not having such insurance people will be much interested where to invest their money whether In stocks,bonds or land to became a farmer after years.Now people with this pension system are irresponsible.They are so irresponsible so that they do not want to have even children.They think that somebody else must pay their pension in future.The public companies shall also be more concerned in making money.Destroying this pension system people will be motivated to start small businesses and to became farmers and they shall wanted to have children.This pension system is in favour to big companies because they get the money of the pension funds.
-
Removing the pension system will make people more responsible for there future.They shall make small businesses,shall buy perspective stocks or bonds or buy a land and become farmers.Also when they become 65 years old they shall not retire if they can work yet.
-
Stealing money from pension funds is evil, but the pension funds themsevles are not.
If I want to invest in someone else's venture, why shouldn't I? That is capitalism, not socialism.
If I want to join a group of likeminded investors,why shouldn't I? I actually rely on such venture capital groups to take my crazy ideas into practice, offering the potential for quick rewards against a risk of failure.
If I build a stable business and want to expand, why shouldn't I offer shares to a really huge group, with lots of small investors and a wide portfolio of safe investments, why shouldn't I? That's a pension fund.
And if I want to earn a reasonable return on a fairly safe capital investment, because I have had enough excitement building small companies and want to retire, why shouldn't I put some money into a pension fund?
What business is it of yours to decide when I should stop working? That's fascism, or communism, or something equally undesirable.
-
The present pension system is two types.First is called income and expenditure and all pension insurance that are coming in is spend for pension.This is bad to spend all the money for the pensioner.The second type is capital.In this case the pension insurance is spend for bonds and stocks.This type is better but the problem is that the bonds and stocks are toxic and the money for pensions are coming from incoming pension insurance not from the investment in stocks and bonds.Or this type is functioning as the first type.That is why I think that everyone must decide what to do with his pension insurance and that today’s pension system is socialist.
-
What you call the first type is a Ponzi scheme and is illegal, except where the income is from taxation and the expenditure is on public service pensions. This is supposedly better than a socialist system where taxation would be used to capitalise profitable state industries to pay the public service pensions, though I would much prever the latter.
Not all bonds are toxic. Stocks and bonds in my companies, for instance, pay a fair rate of return, which is why I invest in them.
-
Where is the problem.Each generation which is coming after is more educated,more productive and get more money than the previous generation and also make more pension insurance.In the case where the pension system is income and expenditure it is not fair to spend all the money for pension.If all the money are spent, the pensioner get more money than they worked. The pensioner must get smaller sum than that is collected in pension fund and the rest shall be invested.When in the pension fund gathered enough sum the pension fund must be destoyed and all the capital to be allocated between depositor.It is not fair the pensioner to get more money and the young generation to pay for that.
-
Let’s talk a little about the money. When in one economy there is a lot of money and there is many businesses which compete each other these bisnesses work for very low profit or even at loss. The investment In such businesses is low even negative. Or those who invested may lose capital. The case with labour is not the same. The money earn with labour may be much than if you are investor. Or the labour is more effective earning money than investment. That is the situation when there is a lot of money in economy. In that situation if pensioner have investments they shall receive very little money-lower than they get from pension fund who gathered the pension insurance. In the nature the young are strong while the old are weak. In the economy is the same. The younger work and get money and they are strong. We must not take money from young people and give the pensioner. The young people must invest that money and when they grew older they will retire and they will become weak because they will rely on their investment. From their investment they will receive less money in most of the cases. But so is in the nature.
-
I must say something about the money.There is a paradox.From one hand today’s money have low value than money in past.This is called inflation.But today is much harder to win the money than in the past.In the future will be harder to win the money than today.Knowing that it is very important to appreciate the money won from labour today.The money for pension must come from investment not from pension insurance because of the hardship of winnig money from labour.
-
There is some kind of link between devaluation of the money and money won from labour.Devaluating the money cause much harder to win money from labour.
-
Devaluating the money cause much harder to win money from labour.
There are many reasons why it might be harder to generate money from labour today. Currency devaluation can cause hardship in the import sector, but sometimes it is needed to save the whole economy.
One other potential reason is resource exhaustion:
- It takes more labor to generate (say) a ton of wheat, if you have to put your farm on arid land because (a) the good farm land is already in production, or (b) the good farmland has been destroyed by salination due to overactive irrigation.
- It takes more labour to catch a ton of fish, if the fish stocks have been depleted
- It takes more labor to produce a barrel of oil from a deep-sea or arctic oil well than it did in Texas a century ago.
On the other hand, today we have better sonar to detect any remaining fish, or seismographs to detect rock structures that might harbor oil; we have better machines for farming the land and drilling oil wells in deep water. So this means it takes less labor than it would have without these advances.
I really don't know whether the average wage has declined in real terms over the past 50 years.
But "real terms" are rather vaporous when the average kid today regards their cellphone as their most valuable posession, and this year's model is seen as being so much better than last year's model! I've heard claims that more people in the world today have a mobile phone than the number who have access to running water and a sewage system.
Perhaps the most real measure of income is the fraction of the population that is malnourished. And that does not always show up in the "average wage" measure, because the wage distribution is skewed so that some people are paid very well (ie most people in western countries), while many are paid almost nothing.