LOOMING DOLLAR CRISIS

**teknobucks** · 01-07-2005, 01:43 AM

Greenspan is trying to prevent a collapse of the dollar, which has been declining for 2 years. So far he has managed to minimize the downward spiral.

The only reason you're not seeing big inflation is because China has frozen its exchange rate, and to a lesser extent Japan. You don't need to be a genius to realize what a falling dollar and an increasing trade deficit means in terms of inflation.

Long term (1-3 years) the I fund willoutperform the s and c.

Tekno

ps: Over the last year I've loaded up on the I fund every time I hear the dollar is growing stronger and every time it has paid off!

**retiredcg** · 01-07-2005, 02:00 AM

Tekno

Are you stilllooking for a fairly quick rebound? I saw you were at 27s and 37i on Tues. Are you still there? Would you be looking at dumping more into the S if you feel it has bottomed out? I might shift to 100s like pyriel has for short term. Thanks for your insight

**teknobucks** · 01-07-2005, 02:06 AM

retiredcg wrote:

Tekno

Are you stilllooking for a fairly quick rebound? I saw you were at 27s and 37i on Tues. Are you still there? Would you be looking at dumping more into the S if you feel it has bottomed out? I might shift to 100s like pyriel has for short term. Thanks for your insight

*****only 9% g as of wed....will put that last bit in i or s if tomm. am is red. looking 4 a rebound not sure if it will start tomm. or not

Let's toss a few things around.

If inflation is in the cards with rate hikes throughout
the year, does this necessarily mean the markets will go
up, or does it mean there's more pressure on profits and
things will stagnate. In the big picture, I think it depends directly on savings and the ability to pay debt.

It makes sense to me that if you can't control expenses,
speaking of oil, ng, etc., and prices spiral up along
with interest rates, blockers are in place for economic
growth, the housing bubble cracks, and the scramble for
cash happens. It's not how Wall St. invests or plays the
interest spread that keeps the economy going, it's the
consumer.

Thoughts? Regurgitations?

**teknobucks** · 01-07-2005, 02:16 AM

retiredcg wrote:

Tekno

Are you stilllooking for a fairly quick rebound? I saw you were at 27s and 37i on Tues. Are you still there? Would you be looking at dumping more into the S if you feel it has bottomed out? I might shift to 100s like pyriel has for short term. Thanks for your insight

I notice quite often several of you folks go to 100% C, S, or I....that really scares me.:s

100% G if your fear meter is pegged I can see....but never ever would I go 100% into one indexed stock fund. Kinda like buying only one ticket to heaven or God forbid Hell!

***by blending no more than 40% or so in one stock fund you can diversify your position, limit your risk,and increase the overall safety of your account balance.:^

JMHO

tekno

**retiredcg** · 01-07-2005, 02:23 AM

Good thoughts. Let's see now... Greenspan has raised rates what 4, 5 times since it came out of the stagnation last year? I'm not so sure that indicators are signaling a real estate bubble burst; so much of a wide disparity btwn construction #s and sales. But isn't the general consensus even with a "short" downtrend of the $, we're still going fairly strong market-wise?

**cowboy** · 01-07-2005, 01:26 PM

teknobucks wrote:

retiredcg wrote:

Tekno

Are you stilllooking for a fairly quick rebound? I saw you were at 27s and 37i on Tues. Are you still there? Would you be looking at dumping more into the S if you feel it has bottomed out? I might shift to 100s like pyriel has for short term. Thanks for your insight

I notice quite often several of you folks go to 100% C, S, or I....that really scares me.:s

100% G if your fear meter is pegged I can see....but never ever would I go 100% into one indexed stock fund. Kinda like buying only one ticket to heaven or God forbid Hell!

***by blending no more than 40% or so in one stock fund you can diversify your position, limit your risk,and increase the overall safety of your account balance.:^

JMHO

tekno

Why would that scare you! This all depends on where you are at financially and what kind of risk you can handle. I look at it this way it is all paper at this time and is not worth anything until you retire. I would be more worried about Bush trying to play stocks with your social security, to me playing stocks is not the answer. Lots of people have lost their retirements because of it. There is a better way to fix things. When stocks go down and your in all three funds it just means it might go less down in one or the other, the same aswhen it goes up. The only thing we can do with our profolio is gain how many stocks we have in our account and price is relative to when we retire.

**Rod** · 01-07-2005, 02:14 PM

teknobucks wrote:

I notice quite often several of you folks go to 100% C, S, or I....that really scares me.:s

100% G if your fear meter is pegged I can see....but never ever would I go 100% into one indexed stock fund. Kinda like buying only one ticket to heaven or God forbid Hell!

***by blending no more than 40% or so in one stock fund you can diversify your position, limit your risk,and increase the overall safety of your account balance.:^

JMHO

tekno

If you feel that a particular fund will outperform all others for that day or period, then go for the gusto. At least that's what I did yesterday, and it paid off.

As was already stated, it all depends on your risk tolerance.

God Bless:^

**Mike** · 01-07-2005, 02:19 PM

I think giving people the option to invest a portion of their social security is a good way to reform the system. Bush wouldn't be investing the money, the individuals would be. I'm tired of people trying to tell me to live a totally risk-free life.

Crimony, the return on social security is < 2% annually. You can outperform that by dumping it into the G fund. I could outperform it without devoting more than two braincells to my investing. :P

**Show-me** · 01-07-2005, 03:48 PM

Good article in "Money" that talks about SocSec. The writer talks about participants putting the portion of there SocSec. into a TSP or TSP type account. You would have the same choices as we do. G fund is a no brainer. Better that what we have now.

**Show-me** · 01-07-2005, 03:49 PM

Double post.

**cowboy** · 01-07-2005, 03:58 PM

Mike wrote:

I think giving people the option to invest a portion of their social security is a good way to reform the system. Bush wouldn't be investing the money, the individuals would be. I'm tired of people trying to tell me to live a totally risk-free life.

Crimony, the return on social security is < 2% annually. You can outperform that by dumping it into the G fund. I could outperform it without devoting more than two braincells to my investing. :P

As long as you suffer the consequencies individually it may be okay. Say you allow each person to do their own thing. If you give it to the Government and they say were going to correct social security therefor we invest it in stocks. Your letting someone else do your investing. Not good. If you do it and suffer the losses then thats your problem. Social security never was developed for you to retire on. It was developed as a supplement. An easy way to fix social security is to go back to the income averaging you had before. Now they take high 3 income average. Everyone is getting more out of the kitty that is retiring now and itwon't last long will it. By going back to average over a life time it will give everyone less and spread it out to everyone instead of breaking the kitty.

**Mike** · 01-07-2005, 04:52 PM

I haven't seen any proposal that would have the government doing the investing.

Of course, allowing partial privatization of social security is just one step. They have to take a few others, notably changing the way benefit increases are calculated (they are currently growing > the rate of inflation), raising the retirement age, and raising taxes on benefits/ raising the payroll tax / raising the cap on the income that the payroll tax can be assessed on.

Otherwise, it'll fall to the general treasury to try to replace the lost social security money that is going into the private accounts rather than to the retirees. I just don't see how thegovernment can do itvia this route without excessive borrowing, which is already having an impact on the dollar.