Gyroscopic Investing

"More than half of Americans, 52 percent, are currently not investing in the stock market—either by buying individual stocks or mutual funds, or through a retirement account such as a 401(k) or IRA, according to a new Bankrate.com survey."

"A study from the Federal Reserve found that only 13.8 percent of U.S. households owned stocks in 2013, down from 15.1 percent in 2010."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102573866
------------------------------------------

Maybe they should try the PP 

Its stats like this that make it really hard to see we're going to have a secular bear market bottom anytime soon.

I'd be truly shocked if anywhere close to 48% of people had any money in the stock market.  The Fed's study which ozzy also quoted, showing about 14% with something in stocks, is a lot more reasonable.  I think the percentage of households with any savings at all is way less than 48%.

Also, before we go concluding that stocks have nowhere to go but up, we'd need to compare these numbers against what they were before other crashes.

May 24, 2011

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Half of Americans say they aren't prepared for a minor financial emergency.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/24/news/ec ... /index.htm

Yet another reason why putting 25% of your wealth into physical gold might just possibly be a good idea:

What is going to happen when the crest of the Baby Boomer wave moves into retirement, Social Security benefits get cut in order to keep the program solvent, and all those Boomers start going bankrupt?

My guess is a new tax, and there's a decent chance it'll be a wealth tax, aimed at those of us who had the forethought to save responsibly.  It would still be painful, but 75% painful sure beats 100%.

The average American family spends $550 annually on lottery tickets.

sophie wrote: Yet another reason why putting 25% of your wealth into physical gold might just possibly be a good idea:

What is going to happen when the crest of the Baby Boomer wave moves into retirement, Social Security benefits get cut in order to keep the program solvent, and all those Boomers start going bankrupt?

My guess is a new tax, and there's a decent chance it'll be a wealth tax, aimed at those of us who had the forethought to save responsibly.  It would still be painful, but 75% painful sure beats 100%.

Risk:  Roth IRA tax.

Related to that, maybe an undoing of the 72t pipeline.

sophie wrote: My guess is a new tax, and there's a decent chance it'll be a wealth tax,

Oh my goodness, I hope not. Low income, high net worth. I'll drive off a cliff. Or if fears really run amok, I might even vote Republican.

sophie wrote: My guess is a new tax, and there's a decent chance it'll be a wealth tax, aimed at those of us who had the forethought to save responsibly.  It would still be painful, but 75% painful sure beats 100%.

That's projecting the status quo into the future as if there won't be any reset.  The system is literally unraveling before our very eyes, i.e. Japan and Europe.

My money is on a Citizen's Dividend.  After all, there's no need to issue debt when you can issue debt-free money.  The only constraint is inflation.  The Millennials (or was it Generation Z?) dwarf the Baby Boomers in both size and productivity.

MachineGhost wrote: The only constraint is inflation.

That's the only think that you really need to pay attention to.

Without serious inflation, the whole thing can continue indefinitely, and without any meaningful mechanism for sustained increases in wages in the U.S., I don't see how a true inflationary spiral could occur.

The Fed isn't as dumb as it looks.

I believe that the U.S. is actually in a very strong position right now overall.  I spent some time in Argentina back in April and I came back to the U.S. feeling pretty good about things here at home.  We've got problems, but they are nothing compared to the problems facing many other countries around the world.

The U.S. is like the pretty girl who is convinced that she is ugly, and the more you try to reassure her the more insecure she becomes.