A "Freakonomics" question! (crime rates, companies, dollars, school)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just got done reading the book called Freakonomics and thought of a question to see if it has some merit.
Here goes: Has the 401k plan pushed more people in this country to be of a "conservative" nature?
It seems to be the trend, but i have no way to back this up. Could it be a factor or even a huge factor that GWB was voted twice instead of the "terrorist" threat?
Ah, Freakanomics is an excellent book to get the wheels and axels turning but by no means would I take what a lot of the author is saying with complete acceptance. A 401k plan may have taught many of us to be more fiscally conservative but as a whole, I'd say the conservative movement is caused more by religion and its many divisions rather than anything else.
Furthermore, the notion that our country is more "conservative" is highly debatable considering the massive amounts of people out there racking up credit card debt like there's no tomorrow and the number of debtors that just can't bother to pay their bills on time.
The book gives us something to think about, for sure, but there are many arguments made amongst those pages that are clearly full of BS and obvious that the author is just grasping for straws.
I just got done reading the book called Freakonomics and thought of a question to see if it has some merit.
Here goes: Has the 401k plan pushed more people in this country to be of a "conservative" nature?
It seems to be the trend, but i have no way to back this up. Could it be a factor or even a huge factor that GWB was voted twice instead of the "terrorist" threat?
Anyone out there think so or otherwise?
Like to hear your thoughts and/or opinions.
Thanks....BGF
Completely off topic, but if you read Freakonomics, read the rebuttal to the book in Freedomnomics:
I've a copy of that book and consider it an amazingly insightful effort to use economic tools and methods to explain various phenomena in our nation, e.g., lowered crime rates in the mid 1990's, school test ratings, etc.
I see no connection between 401-k plans and conservatism. The 401-k is a way for companies to claim they offer a retirement plan. The 401k is a defined contribution plan where a company contributes a stated percentage to match your own contribution, instead of the old style pension which was a defined benefit plan where you work a defined number of years and you get a defined benefit in a set amount of dollars each month. Most of those plans are long gone. It a way that companies can remove "unfunded pension liabilities" (UPLs) from their balance sheets. There are many billions in UPLs on the books of the auto, airline, steel and other industries, and in the end we taxpayers will probably pick up those costs via the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) a Federal agency set up to assure that people get something, as opposed to nothing. During the leveraged buyout craze of the late 1980's, many old firms were bought up and their pension funds looted by corporate raiders. Seems these economic scams run rampant during Republican administrations (LBO's, S&L Scandal, Sub-Prime loan mess, etc).
During the leveraged buyout craze of the late 1980's, many old firms were bought up and their pension funds looted by corporate raiders.
And everyone knew they were doing it. It was in all the papers. Everyone knew what the long-term consequences were and where they would fall. Nobody in power at the time cared at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east
Seems these economic scams run rampant during Republican administrations (LBO's, S&L Scandal, Sub-Prime loan mess, etc).
Lack of, or lax, regulation and oversight. Laissez-faire capitalism rather than managed capitalism. You don't have to be as perceptive as Stephen Levitt to understand the connection. Republicans as economic referees are about as effective as the third man in the ring in the WWE...
Seems these economic scams run rampant during Republican administrations (LBO's, S&L Scandal, Sub-Prime loan mess, etc).
Lack of, or lax, regulation and oversight. Laissez-faire capitalism rather than managed capitalism. You don't have to be as perceptive as Stephen Levitt to understand the connection. Republicans as economic referees are about as effective as the third man in the ring in the WWE...
As a self-proclaimed, wannabe economist, this is one of the more intelligent things I've read on this forum
But to be fair, sometimes Democrats are TOO restrictive and don't let the market "breathe" and sort itself out, know what I mean? I think the key is like you said, "managed" capitalism................not laissez-faire capitalism and certainly not Communism or overly restrictive capitalism. I suppose there is a fine line between the two, but Republicans sure do seem to have a hard time finding that line, let alone walking it.
Lack of, or lax, regulation and oversight. Laissez-faire capitalism rather than managed capitalism. You don't have to be as perceptive as Stephen Levitt to understand the connection. Republicans as economic referees are about as effective as the third man in the ring in the WWE...
Just to make things clear, most of those scandals were caused by the upper management (employees of the company) stealing from their respective corporations and little to do with Laissez Faire.
Last edited by Frank_Carbonni; 02-21-2008 at 02:11 AM..
Reason: N/A
I've a copy of that book and consider it an amazingly insightful effort to use economic tools and methods to explain various phenomena in our nation, e.g., lowered crime rates in the mid 1990's, school test ratings, etc.
I see no connection between 401-k plans and conservatism. The 401-k is a way for companies to claim they offer a retirement plan. The 401k is a defined contribution plan where a company contributes a stated percentage to match your own contribution, instead of the old style pension which was a defined benefit plan where you work a defined number of years and you get a defined benefit in a set amount of dollars each month. Most of those plans are long gone. It a way that companies can remove "unfunded pension liabilities" (UPLs) from their balance sheets. There are many billions in UPLs on the books of the auto, airline, steel and other industries, and in the end we taxpayers will probably pick up those costs via the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) a Federal agency set up to assure that people get something, as opposed to nothing. During the leveraged buyout craze of the late 1980's, many old firms were bought up and their pension funds looted by corporate raiders. Seems these economic scams run rampant during Republican administrations (LBO's, S&L Scandal, Sub-Prime loan mess, etc).
It is very true that the defined benefit pension plan is going away rapidly. I'm currently in a defined benefit pension plan. We had an opportunity to convert over to a cash basis plan. The company nearly begged everyone to do this. One quick calculation and you found out that the defined plan was better by hundreds of thousands of dollars when you're with the company for over 20 years. I stuck with the defined plan like most everyone else that was in it. All new employees get the cash basis plan and they're not happy about it when they hear what the previous plan was like.
My company also provides a 401K plan linked to profit sharing. I'm in this also. 401K plans are OK, as long as they are coupled with a nice defined benefit plan.
Ya, I work for a company that changes very slowly and I like it this way; especially when it comes to employee benefits. I also get nearly 6 weeks of PTO time and tele-commuting privileges. I got it pretty good and I know it.
As a self-proclaimed, wannabe economist, this is one of the more intelligent things I've read on this forum
But to be fair, sometimes Democrats are TOO restrictive and don't let the market "breathe" and sort itself out, know what I mean? I think the key is like you said, "managed" capitalism................not laissez-faire capitalism and certainly not Communism or overly restrictive capitalism. I suppose there is a fine line between the two, but Republicans sure do seem to have a hard time finding that line, let alone walking it.
_
I would highly disagree with both you for the following reasons. The first, government interference distorts price information in a market between buyers and sellers. This can cause a number of inefficiencies between demand and output, which further retards a free-market.
What exactly do you mean by "managed capitalism?" Could either of you two give a definition of what "managed capitalism" is? To me that would seem like an oxymoron. Capitalism is not to be managed, it is to be left up to the markets to decide the eventually outcomes. Sure, it can be argued government intervention to a certain degree may be ok, but to attempt to "manage captialism" would be siding with communist. How exactly do you manage a "free market?" Governments responsibilites are to protect rights, allow for free trade (without restrictive barriers or qoutas), uphold contracts, and maintain property rights.
If government is doing their job properly, none of this would need to be heavily regulated. We do not need to create additional oversight office or expand government to regulate these services. What we need to do is hold government responsibile for exactly what it should be regulating and allow private citizens the opportunity to regulate on their own these other services. Government intervention in the private sector should always be temporary and never a long term deal. Just my humble opinion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
