South Walton's Community Website
Beach Like A Local!
Create Account
New posts


Beach Fanatic
May 6, 2007
Scooterbug, what TNJed is talking about is no different than the gov't using your money you have in your Social Security account for other things. The gov't likes to call it surplus money.


I agree, stick to real estate.

Social Security revenue has to be invested solely in government bonds.


Beach Fanatic
Sep 4, 2006
Seagrove Beach, FL
Shelly is of course correct that there is no one single answer for all of us. Many different things to be taken into account for an individual or couple's financial situation. Age, health, cash flow, debt, dependents, etc. I don't expect anyone to read my words and run out and do what I suggest. I do hope people take responsibility for their own investments however and just not assume that it's all being taken care of by government backstops. They don't do a very good job of managing their own not-for-profit businesses, so why would any rational person assume they will handle your private money better?

Think about what Buz said about the fees involved in gaining control over your own money. Yes, that is indeed a steep cost. Why is that? Because, taking money out of the system is akin to pulling the rug out from the fractional reserve model. They don't want to leave that up to chance so many hurdles and fees are put in your way to discourage even the thought. Works pretty good doesn't it?

I am merely of the opinion and belief we are entering a period of time where return of capital is more important than return on capital.

I know enough about SIPC to know it is a government sponsored private corporation who took MFGlobal into receivership and appointed James Giddens as trustee. Giddens firm of Hughes, Hubbard and Reed has also served as house council for SIPC since it's inception in 1970. This trustee has full discretion to freeze all accounts and collect fees with zero oversight. That's a lot of responsibility, freedom and conflict of interest for a government chartered, private corporation to be the entity responsible for accountability on behalf of the public.

I'm not going to expect anyone from within the system to look out for my best interests even though that's exactly what they're supposed to do. In fact, whether it's the church or state, continuity and survival of the system is more important than any 'minor' indiscretions. Whether it's a priest or a CEO gone wild, their betters will convince you there is nothing to see. These blatant conflict of interests directly oppose the systems reason for existence. It's quite a conundrum.

Time will only tell who has a seat when the music stops. My sincere and most humble best wishes to all.
New posts