If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
There have been some psychological studies on the issue. Some people do
have an natural sense when determining truth from fiction and trustworthiness. Others appear to be totally lacking the ability. The studies are trying to figure out if this ability is innate or learned and what triggers it. It is also possible, due to health problems such as Alzheimer's, for a person who does have the sense to lose it. That can go in either direction--the subject trusts everyone and everything or the subject trusts noone and nothing. Until this mechanism is fully understood and can be developed, there is no way to fully protect all the people from scam artists. Privatizing Social Security, however, is going to bring the rats into a lot of places that haven't been targeted before. Of course my main objection to the private accounts is I think the government is just trying to flee the sinking ship--or at least shift the blame for it. If the system collapses and the funds are all the government's responsibility, the elected officials and bureaucrats can only point fingers at each other. If the funds are in private accounts which are supposed to be managed by the individuals, the government will simply say the "people" messed it up and it isn't the government's fault. Never mind the fact that the system is already in a crisis and there is no way private accounts alone will save it. Cheryl Isaak wrote: As a general issue, how do "we" shut down scam artists? No matter how much you (the general you) tell "people" that if is sounds too good to be true, it isn't, people still fall for it. It is a critical thinking issue and ought to be "instinctive" or at least teachable, but, well you get my drift. -- Brenda |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Cheryl Isaak wrote in
: It is a critical thinking issue and ought to be "instinctive" or at least teachable, but, well you get my drift. Heh. As chair of our general education committee, next Thursday I have to do a presentation at our faculty in-service on critical thinking. I plan on starting out with a comment about how all my years on the Internet communicating with thousands of people have taught me one: critical thinking isn't as basic a skill as one might hope. K |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Brat wrote:
Cheryl Isaak wrote: I suspect you're wrong there. More people are conservative about money than you think they are. I think we'll see a new type of growth in the banking industry, interest deferred accounts and other new savings vehicles. I'm gonna sound lazy here, but my issue with privatising Social Security is that it makes too much work for the employee. I don't have Social Security, I have State Retirement. When I was hired, I opted for an account that I could manage myself. And I simply don't have time. I'm sure my funds could be better handled, but frankly, there are other things I would rather do than research my fund options. When I lived in Ohio, all my retirement money went into a state managed account and, although that took away my options, it also took away my burden. I'd rather have a lower guaranteed return with less risk and less baby-sitting. But that is absolutely an opinion, nothing more. Elizabeth I would also add that a very large portion of the public simply couldn't do it because they lack the sophistication. I know many people who can't balance a check book, have no interest (nor probably aptitude) to handle finances. Conversations usually end up generalizing how things should be based on the criteria of the one doing the talking. :-) In reality, society is a lot more complicated. Dianne -- "The Journal of Needlework" - The E-zine for All Needleworkers http://journal.heritageshoppe.com |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Dianne Lewandowski wrote in
: Dr. Brat wrote: Cheryl Isaak wrote: I suspect you're wrong there. More people are conservative about money than you think they are. I think we'll see a new type of growth in the banking industry, interest deferred accounts and other new savings vehicles. I'm gonna sound lazy here, but my issue with privatising Social Security is that it makes too much work for the employee. I don't have Social Security, I have State Retirement. When I was hired, I opted for an account that I could manage myself. And I simply don't have time. I'm sure my funds could be better handled, but frankly, there are other things I would rather do than research my fund options. When I lived in Ohio, all my retirement money went into a state managed account and, although that took away my options, it also took away my burden. I'd rather have a lower guaranteed return with less risk and less baby-sitting. But that is absolutely an opinion, nothing more. Elizabeth I would also add that a very large portion of the public simply couldn't do it because they lack the sophistication. I know many people who can't balance a check book, have no interest (nor probably aptitude) to handle finances. Conversations usually end up generalizing how things should be based on the criteria of the one doing the talking. :-) In reality, society is a lot more complicated. That's my primary reason for not believing in privatization of Social Security, that people won't make good decisions about the investment. In addition to the time and sophistication required, how is someone who is worried about putting food on the table tomorrow going to make reasoned judgments of how to invest money to ensure there is food on the table 30 years from now? The scam artists, the governmental lack of responsibility, and the false growth of the economy are all others. Just a bad idea all around as far as I'm concerned. K |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On 1/7/05 2:02 PM, in article ,
"Brenda" wrote: There have been some psychological studies on the issue. Some people do have an natural sense when determining truth from fiction and trustworthiness. Others appear to be totally lacking the ability. The studies are trying to figure out if this ability is innate or learned and what triggers it. It is also possible, due to health problems such as Alzheimer's, for a person who does have the sense to lose it. That can go in either direction--the subject trusts everyone and everything or the subject trusts noone and nothing. Until this mechanism is fully understood and can be developed, there is no way to fully protect all the people from scam artists. Hmmm, we understand that, we might understand how to "turn off" the con artist. Privatizing Social Security, however, is going to bring the rats into a lot of places that haven't been targeted before. The rats will find a place to nest no matter what we do with SS. Heck, I was approached by a windows person asking if I knew how much heat I was losing with all that glass. The poor little dear didn't know what hit her - figuratively that is. Of course my main objection to the private accounts is I think the government is just trying to flee the sinking ship--or at least shift the blame for it. If the system collapses and the funds are all the government's responsibility, the elected officials and bureaucrats can only point fingers at each other. If the funds are in private accounts which are supposed to be managed by the individuals, the government will simply say the "people" messed it up and it isn't the government's fault. Never mind the fact that the system is already in a crisis and there is no way private accounts alone will save it. I don't that is not savable - but it will take some work and it may mean that not everyone gets SS some time in the future, despite having paid in, based on assets and income combined. Cheryl Isaak wrote: As a general issue, how do "we" shut down scam artists? No matter how much you (the general you) tell "people" that if is sounds too good to be true, it isn't, people still fall for it. It is a critical thinking issue and ought to be "instinctive" or at least teachable, but, well you get my drift. -- Brenda |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On 1/7/05 2:19 PM, in article
, "K" wrote: Dianne Lewandowski wrote in : Dr. Brat wrote: Cheryl Isaak wrote: I suspect you're wrong there. More people are conservative about money than you think they are. I think we'll see a new type of growth in the banking industry, interest deferred accounts and other new savings vehicles. I'm gonna sound lazy here, but my issue with privatising Social Security is that it makes too much work for the employee. I don't have Social Security, I have State Retirement. When I was hired, I opted for an account that I could manage myself. And I simply don't have time. I'm sure my funds could be better handled, but frankly, there are other things I would rather do than research my fund options. When I lived in Ohio, all my retirement money went into a state managed account and, although that took away my options, it also took away my burden. I'd rather have a lower guaranteed return with less risk and less baby-sitting. But that is absolutely an opinion, nothing more. Elizabeth I would also add that a very large portion of the public simply couldn't do it because they lack the sophistication. I know many people who can't balance a check book, have no interest (nor probably aptitude) to handle finances. Conversations usually end up generalizing how things should be based on the criteria of the one doing the talking. :-) In reality, society is a lot more complicated. That's my primary reason for not believing in privatization of Social Security, that people won't make good decisions about the investment. In addition to the time and sophistication required, how is someone who is worried about putting food on the table tomorrow going to make reasoned judgments of how to invest money to ensure there is food on the table 30 years from now? The scam artists, the governmental lack of responsibility, and the false growth of the economy are all others. Just a bad idea all around as far as I'm concerned. K But is the government making decisions that are any better? Cheryl |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Cheryl Isaak wrote in
: But is the government making decisions that are any better? No, but it's much more fun blaming the government than taking responsibility ourselves. ;-) K |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On 1/7/05 2:10 PM, in article ,
"K" wrote: Cheryl Isaak wrote in : It is a critical thinking issue and ought to be "instinctive" or at least teachable, but, well you get my drift. Heh. As chair of our general education committee, next Thursday I have to do a presentation at our faculty in-service on critical thinking. I plan on starting out with a comment about how all my years on the Internet communicating with thousands of people have taught me one: critical thinking isn't as basic a skill as one might hope. K Afraid so! Cheryl |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On 1/7/05 2:41 PM, in article
, "K" wrote: Cheryl Isaak wrote in : But is the government making decisions that are any better? No, but it's much more fun blaming the government than taking responsibility ourselves. ;-) K And people wonder why I want LESS government, not more! Cheryl |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Great discussion of human behavior and some of the ongoing studies -- but...
the policy discussion ISN'T about PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY, it's about allowing people under some age limit (current talk is 50 yrs old) invest some portion (current talk is less than 10%) of their SS contribution into federally approved investment vehicles (a limited number of these too). It wouldn't be mandatory -- so you wouldn't be forced to change from the current scheme if you didn't want to. (not arguing with Brenda -- just trying to add some clarity) S "Brenda" wrote in message ... There have been some psychological studies on the issue. Some people do have an natural sense when determining truth from fiction and trustworthiness. Others appear to be totally lacking the ability. The studies are trying to figure out if this ability is innate or learned and what triggers it. It is also possible, due to health problems such as Alzheimer's, for a person who does have the sense to lose it. That can go in either direction--the subject trusts everyone and everything or the subject trusts noone and nothing. Until this mechanism is fully understood and can be developed, there is no way to fully protect all the people from scam artists. Privatizing Social Security, however, is going to bring the rats into a lot of places that haven't been targeted before. Of course my main objection to the private accounts is I think the government is just trying to flee the sinking ship--or at least shift the blame for it. If the system collapses and the funds are all the government's responsibility, the elected officials and bureaucrats can only point fingers at each other. If the funds are in private accounts which are supposed to be managed by the individuals, the government will simply say the "people" messed it up and it isn't the government's fault. Never mind the fact that the system is already in a crisis and there is no way private accounts alone will save it. Cheryl Isaak wrote: As a general issue, how do "we" shut down scam artists? No matter how much you (the general you) tell "people" that if is sounds too good to be true, it isn't, people still fall for it. It is a critical thinking issue and ought to be "instinctive" or at least teachable, but, well you get my drift. -- Brenda |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Glass Source | Michele Blank | Glass | 12 | July 17th 12 04:39 PM |
FS Machine Knitter's Source, MacKnit Magazines | ellbee | Marketplace | 0 | April 30th 04 10:21 AM |
Great new source for quilt books | Betty in Wi | Quilting | 2 | September 19th 03 12:27 PM |
coconut fibre source? | ms. brookes | Jewelry | 1 | July 26th 03 06:34 PM |
Source for jade | Peter W. Rowe | Jewelry | 0 | July 13th 03 06:20 PM |