Argentina Nationalizes Pensions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
10,610
Location
Las Vegas NV
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17189
Quote:
Argentina has announced that the state will "protect" private pensions from "policies under plunder" by proposing to take them over. But this socialization of savings represents a major dismantling of 14 years of privatization and individual rights, reforms that ended years of hyperinflation and dictatorship, says Investor's Business Daily.

Starting in 1994, Argentineans could choose to save for retirement through a private account that let them make investment decisions based on their retirement needs. However, under the ruse of "protecting" Argentines from their own decisions, everyone will soon be forced into an involuntary pay-as-you-go program; not only will the private assets be managed by bureaucrats, pension holders will be paid what the government dictates.

Since the announcement:


In 2 days, the Argentinean stock market lost 23 percent of its value, for a 57 percent loss since January. The losses spread to other markets in Brazil, South Africa and Spain.
Assets are likely to be spent by government - not invested; it will save the government about $3.2 billion in interest payments since the government won't pay interest on $16 billion of government bonds in pension assets that it would own.
The Argentine Congress says it will ensure that assets are used for the pensions, but with money fungible and Argentine fiscal transparency weak, it's an easily skirted requirement.
Right now, markets see the pension grab as a sign of governmental insolvency following a 40 percent surge in spending this year in socialist redistribution schemes, and amid a political climate of blaming businesses.
Moreover, nationalization may pay the bills now, but it poisons prospects for growth. For that reason, Argentina's sovereign bonds now trade at 25 cents to the dollar and yield 30 percent.

A similar idea has been floated around the US Congress as a "fix" for Social Security.
 
Yep. Watch out...

Here it comes.
smirk2.gif


"Change" that we can believe in...
20.gif


I really feel sorry for my Kids.
frown.gif


They never had a chance.
 
"Assets are likely to be spent by government - not invested; it will save the government about $3.2 billion in interest payments since the government won't pay interest on $16 billion of government bonds in pension assets that it would own."

Also known in the US as social security.

When SS was first enacted and had a trust fund, they told us that by investing the money in treasury bonds, we'd be saving the money. That's like you and I saving money by loaning it back to ourselves and still spending it!
 
Last edited:
Since it's only fair to provide retirement funds to people who never contributed into the system...

Maybe the time has come where you can live like there's no tomorrow since...well is there going to be a tomorrow?
 
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
Since it's only fair to provide retirement funds to people who never contributed into the system...



Who says we do that, because we don't. You have to have enough credits from working/"paying into
smirk2.gif
" to receive SS/medicare.
 
Bolivia is trying to do the same thing. 13 years ago the gov't managed pension funds were totally broke. Everyone lost everything they had put in.
So the new President put together a new program with two privately run investment companies, and as employers we are required to withhold and match and send to one of these two, where each employee has an account. The government pays more interest than anyone else, so 80% of the funds have been invested in government bonds. Now the current government, who has no money to pay them back, wants to take them over to "protect" the funds.
 
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Yep. Watch out...



"Change" that we can believe in...


UH! Dang, you beat me to it....!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I think it comes down to the ultimate hedge fund. You just do it with your ballot. You speculate that you can make others greater losers than yourself. Just like the analysts fudge the numbers on the quarterly reports ..the figures always end up being revised after you've made your commitment.

I don't think "things are going to suck less with me" would get too much attention ...hmm..then again..
 
It's all part of the cycle.

My Grandad paid into a private pension fund year and years ago. There were some issues and risks.

Govt at the time reckoned that to remove the risk, they should (and did) resume or take over all of the assets, and promise pensions for all at a later date.

Argument was that they'd be better off "investing" the retirement money in infrastructure today, and paying pensions out of revenue when they came due...it's semi logical.

Later, when this became obviously unworkable, the baby boomers developed superannuation schemes...early ones were fixed benefits regardless of contributions. (obviously unsustainable).

So they changed the rules for the rest of us, that we had to be self funded, contributory schemes, and can't access our money until age 65 (now talking 70).

One of the problems is that with 15% of every wage in the country for the last few decades, there's (was) a huge amount "invested", and only a finite world to invest in.

I was worried for a few years that would force the superannuation into riskier investments, just to serve their function of growth institutions, there would be a failure or two, and that one day the Govt would suggest that they should look after the money.

Lo and behold the stock market crash, and all of the funds have lost HEAPS.

And there's talk of protecting retirement savings.

It's all a cycle that's repeated for the same arguments, and always presented as a reduction in fear.
 
Quote:
And there's talk of protecting retirement savings.

It's all a cycle that's repeated for the same arguments, and always presented as a reduction in fear.

It's actually delaying the pain and spreading the debt around to the next generation since they are the ones doing the "protecting" with their future earnings.
But as long as the current politicians get reelected for "solving the problem", who cares?
frown.gif
 
It's a cycle.

At one point, people are being told to save for themselves (a good thing), then it's taken over peeid up the wall, and given as debt to the future generation...who are told to save for their own retirement, only to have it resumed again to be peeid up the wall.

There's not enough stuff to invest in to have every person's retirement savings generate better than inflation for all of their life and leave them with a comfortable retirement.

Have a few big pension funds sink, and all [censored] would break loose.

So let it grow, suck it back (for an apparent good reason), prove that doesn't work, and repeat.

Extended family and community would solve all the problems, but there's no tax in that...in fact the system is heavily geared against extended family
 
Behavior doesn't matter much. No matter where you put it ..someone uses it. It just can't exist outside of the same bubble that needs it and uses it.

That's the myth of the "breeder reactor" notion of money. Same with government spending in the other direction. The liabilities of a non-durable consumption and debt based economic system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom