... has probably not been missed. I have not posted much lately, other rants at the weird politics going on around us. The economic situation has been a distraction, to say the least. I know that I cannot do much to solve the global liquidity problem, so being pragmatic, I am not trying to do so. However, the advice that is being freely dished out along the lines of "Hang in there, it will get better in time" is not really applicable in my case. When the time comes, I may be too old to benefit from it. Living in retirement with no earning power, it is always a concern that the money will run out before I do.
Long running bull markets are nice, and younger people can look at 30 year outlooks and say that mostly they will be fine. However for me a 30-year outlook has me outliving all family members of whom I am aware. So the good news is that I will probably be dead before my assets are depleted.
Or, more likely, the "Right to Life" movement will ensure that so much money is spent on keeping me alive for the last few hours of my life that my assets will depleted about 30 seconds before die, at which point the "Right to Life" folk will decide that health care is available only to those who can buy it in an open market environment, and I should be allowed to expire peacefully with no impact on the bottom line of the hospital in which I am being killed. If I don't like their decision, I can always rip off the oxygen and feeding tubes and go shopping for a different medical insurance policy.
What a beautiful balance between morality and economy.
So, the question posed by the chart below (presented with thanks to the Wall Street Journal, who may sue me for showing this, but I think it is fine to show it with attribution and a comment that while the WSJ's political posture detracts from their journalistic integrity, their presentation of data can be trusted (mostly) to be free of political bias.) is: Is this 1906 (15 years of no growth punctuated by a horrific war), 1929 (13 years of no growth ended by a horriffic war) or 1966 (16 years of no growth for reasons that escape me - this was the era in which computers rose from oddities to essentials)?
The other point to be mentioned that if you can actually understand the deeply nested sentence above, you are clearly a member of the elite, and not be be trusted with a position in government.
Long running bull markets are nice, and younger people can look at 30 year outlooks and say that mostly they will be fine. However for me a 30-year outlook has me outliving all family members of whom I am aware. So the good news is that I will probably be dead before my assets are depleted.
Or, more likely, the "Right to Life" movement will ensure that so much money is spent on keeping me alive for the last few hours of my life that my assets will depleted about 30 seconds before die, at which point the "Right to Life" folk will decide that health care is available only to those who can buy it in an open market environment, and I should be allowed to expire peacefully with no impact on the bottom line of the hospital in which I am being killed. If I don't like their decision, I can always rip off the oxygen and feeding tubes and go shopping for a different medical insurance policy.
What a beautiful balance between morality and economy.
So, the question posed by the chart below (presented with thanks to the Wall Street Journal, who may sue me for showing this, but I think it is fine to show it with attribution and a comment that while the WSJ's political posture detracts from their journalistic integrity, their presentation of data can be trusted (mostly) to be free of political bias.) is: Is this 1906 (15 years of no growth punctuated by a horrific war), 1929 (13 years of no growth ended by a horriffic war) or 1966 (16 years of no growth for reasons that escape me - this was the era in which computers rose from oddities to essentials)?
The other point to be mentioned that if you can actually understand the deeply nested sentence above, you are clearly a member of the elite, and not be be trusted with a position in government.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment