[Dr House]

by the way, the financial services sector is not useless. It coordinates the allocation of monetary resources, which increases efficiency in an economy. And it it provides a vehicle for people to actually live beyond their paychecks without actually becoming a burden to society (as with welfare or social security).

[Dr House]

That's because there are countless homeless people.

Showing off your pill collection isn't the best way to show how healthy you are.

you're getting off-topic here. You asserted that "we have no social support except for the Government". I'm saying that there are forms of private charity. Thus we have social support beyond what the Government provides, therefore your statement is false.

[QatzelOk]

If we didn't count on the government for housing the homeless, we would see a lot more crime.

And if private charity was really significant (which it isn't) then there would be no homeless people to begin with. They would just go sleep in your house, Dr. House.

The private "charity" we have in rich societies is a joke. It is primarily a vehicle for existentially-haunted rich parasites to make them feel a bit better by acting out some "charity" charade once a year, or send a few bucks once a month somewhere to make them feel better about doing nothing useful for a living except figuring out ways to steal people's money through complex regulations and financial formulas.

[Dr House]

Agree on the complex regulations part. Not so much on the financial formulas. I like financial formulas. They're not making me a millionaire, but at least I'll be able to retire at 45.

Can you say the same thing?

[QatzelOk]

Can you say the same thing?

Of course. I can say anything I want to.

Don't you think you'll be bored if you stop working at 45?

What exactly will you do to fill your time? Go to casinos and watch more formulas?

[Dr House]

I'll probably spend my days surfing the web, attending random events and parties around town, and getting laid. Same as I do now when I'm not working.

I don't like working. I do it because I have to, and I would support the European welfare state model were I not painfully aware it is unsustainable and does more harm than good.

By the way, you're right. Let me rephrase: can you *honestly* say the same thing?

[QatzelOk]

I would support the European welfare state model were I not painfully aware it is unsustainable and does more harm than good.

Is retirement at 45 sustainable?

Or is its sustainability dependent on you being the only one who gets it?

I prefer to have long vacations all your life rather than becoming redundant just before you become wise.

In an Islamic Liberal society, everyone - old and young - would have something useful to do, and no one would have to work for 70 hours per day in a fire-escape-less factory. It just wouldn't be this way.

Our current economic model is founded on racial dominance and stealing from others.

[Dr House]

It's not retirement at 45 that's not sustainable.
It's policies that encourage people not to work, or maybe to work 30 of 35 hours a week, as well as scare off those who coordinate an economy and make it run smoothly (thus forcing the government to go into ever more debt, and crowding out even the few that would be willing to work) that's not sustainable.

Most people in America do not work 70 hours a week. The great majority of people actually work about 40 to 50 hours a week. In any case, anyone working 70 hours a week and not making a damn fine living is doing so because they made the stupid decision to have kids. Kids are expensive and unnecessary, which is why I decided long ago not to have any.

And no, our current economic model is based on mutually beneficial free exchanges. If I sell you a remote control for $15, then you value my remote more than your $15, and I value your $15 more than my remote. Otherwise the exchange will not take place. That, or you're just retarded.

The system can sustain everyone retiring at 30, as long as they save up and live off their own money afterwards, as opposed to social security, where they would live off somebody else's.

Capitalism is based on two principles that I subscribe to. One is that people would not work if they didn't have to, or at least not in amounts that would make their own lifestyle sustainable. The other is that people need to be rewarded for being smart, hard-working and successful, because the alternative is rewarding them for being dumb and lazy, by shielding from the consequences of it.

Senior executives are people who usually spent ten years of their life in college (which is expensive and no fun) and work 75 hours a week on average. In their shoulders falls the responsibility for the actions of the hundreds of people they command, and if they mess up they catch hell from the board of directors or their shareholders (an increasing number of which are hedge fund managers holding retirement funds for average-joe americans). They earn their keep. They don't steal it. People on welfare can't say the same thing. They sit at home and expect the taxpayer to reward them for their utter failure to make something of themselves. They're not in that position because society has failed them, but because they have failed society.

[QatzelOk]

It's not retirement at 45 that's not sustainable.
It's policies that encourage people not to work

Retirement means "not working."

Having retirement at 45 encourages people not to work.

[Dr House]

No, it means that you busted your arse the first 45 years of your life to earn what you need not to work. For me that means working 55 hours a week and investing about a third of my income, wich for your edification, means I'm consuming only two-thirds of what I produce. I'm not "not working". I'm piling up my free time on the latter half of my life, so I can enjoy it uninterrupted, and live a life of luxury while I'm still (relatively) young to enjoy it.

[Dr House]

And I'm not "having retirement at 45". I'm designing my own life so that MY retirement can happen at 45. It can be done, but it requires work, sound planning and frugality. Stripping away those requirements is what "not working" is.

[QatzelOk]

I'm designing my own life so that MY retirement can happen at 45.

When you're finished designing your own life, you might want to ask yourself why you're leaving a blank spot at the end of it.

It's like saying, "I don't plan on working until I'm 55. This way, I can enjoy all my youthful activities and philosophizing, and then my working years will take place after I've evolved into something I can live with.

Putting off life until after "point X" is only good for short-term projects. Like waiting to eat that last half of a bag of cookies.

Working your ass off for the first half of your life, means that you don't really have one. You're just a machine waiting to be unplugged.

[Dr House]

Well, I can't tolerate not having a life. It is quite possible to both work and still have one. I'm good at that.

You took your sweet time to respond, by the way. I wrote this shit 3 months ago.

My life goals have slightly changed since then, though. My plan back then was to become a truck driver, live on my truck for around 15-20 years (with month-long vacations in the Caribbean and elsewhere in Latin America) and invest the enormous amount of disposable income I'd have, and then retire. I now have the plan of going back to college, getting my degree in economics and finance, probably with a minor in political science, and going into Puerto Rican politics with the endgame of fixing the economy.

[QatzelOk]

going into Puerto Rican politics with the endgame of fixing the economy

This is your endgame?

What needs to be fixed, other than you wanting a bigger piece of it?

"Hi, I'd like to repair the economy of Puerto Rico and then retire when I'm 45" sounds like a plan. But the desire to bail out of the current economic system sounds like you really hate it. As do I. But I don't believe working like a dog for 25 years, and then retiring a broken and callous working class jerk, is the way to improve anything.

Maybe if you used the Quran as your central text instead of the Economics 101 text you currently use, you would find better long-term solutions for repairing the IMPORTANT things that are wrong with the Western Consumer economy.

[Dr House]

What needs to be fixed?

It's been stagnating for the past 20 years (It dipped into recession this year), it's been suffering long-term inflation for the past ten, it's got the lowest labour participation rate in the World, and a third of the population live on American welfare (which prevents people from even considering independence, lest they lose it). I wanna fix that, and I think I know how.

Maybe if you used the Quran as your central text...

No, thanks.

[QatzelOk]

it's got the lowest labour participation rate in the World

Well then, look where your current central text is taking you:



The highest labor participation rate in the world.

[Dr House]

I was thinking more along the lines of the participation rate in modern day America. Nothing too extreme, just get people up off their asses.

[QatzelOk]

the participation rate in modern day America. Nothing too extreme, just get people up off their asses.

Most working Americans spend a lot too much time sitting on their asses at the office or driving to work.

So if you care about people getting off their asses, you're probably better off looking at another model than the American one.