Journal to portfolio afterlife

Mi piace il punto di vista espresso in questo articolo.

Per la realtà Italiana ritengo la riduzione dell'assegno pensionistico (netto) un rischio non marginale, vista la dinamica di crescita economica e demografica. Questa riduzione potrebbe avvenire con un processo limitato e graduale o con un evento più brusco ed impattante come nel caso ci dovesse essere una ristrutturazione del debito pubblico italiano nei prossimi 30/40 anni.
Although there is always some risk that Social Security payments could be reduced, I consider it the closest thing to a riskless asset, with no market or inflation risk.

Teniamo presente l'analogia per l'Italia: social security = pensione inps e l'assegno si rivaluta con l'inflazione, mentre pension = vitalizio riconosciuto dopo la conversione in rendita del montante della pensione complementare, e si rivaluta con il rendimento della gestione separata a meno dei costi ed in funzione del tasso tecnico, perciò il vitalizio non è agganciato all'inflazione.

Io al momento propendo per non convertire il montante della pensione complementare in rendita nel momento in cui andrò in pensione di vecchiaia, e non potrei riscattare l'intera somma in capitale. Presumo che perciò opterò per la Rita nei 10 anni prima del pensionamento inps con una parte del montante e chiedendo il riconoscimento in capitale della parte residua del montante rimanente al momento del pensionamento inps. Più che il longevity risk mi spaventa il lasciare i mei soldi del vitalizio in regalo all'assicurazione se dovessi andarmene all'altro mondo pochi anni dopo il pensionamento.
Un'altra opzione percorribile sarebbe non riscattare il montante della pensione complementare, lasciarlo all'interno del fondo pensione in modo che vada in eredità all'erede designato.
 
Let us face facts. Russia is not isolated. Global norms are disposable. Most of the world does not crave any one state’s “leadership”. This past year has featured one large non‐event, the worldwide rallying that wasn’t. So why are these countries hedging? And why can’t some informed observers in the West see this simple truth?
While the past haunts everyone, those in charge of countries that aren’t Western client states must live aggressively in the present. These regimes care more about their own survival, and/or their peoples’ hunger and basic needs, than sacrificing for international principles.
If this patronising Western conceit were true, if such countries were primarily driven by historical allegiances and grievances, and not the reality of their situations, they would hardly pick and choose their commitments so adroitly. Yet in fact they willingly accept or seek out Western patronage as it suits. They buy Western weapons, accept Western development aid or undertake military exercises with NATO or the United States as it suits them. The West’s image in their eyes shifts between historical oppressor and contemporary partner as circumstances shift.
As Tim Sahay argues, this à la carte behaviour is all part of a larger pattern of energy diplomacy, whereby determined states pursue both resources and leverage, making sure their diplomatic stances are valuable bargaining chips. “Countries like China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have refused to sacrifice their national interests to punish Russia. Most importantly, they believe their bargaining power in the new Cold War will result in sweeter trade, technology, and weapons deals from the West.”
The first duty of any government is to look after its own citizens, a morally serious business, before committing to internationalist self‐sacrifice.

 
Ultima modifica:
Possibile?

A Tesla has caused chaos for more than nine hours on an A-road after it broke down mid-turn and could not be moved.
The handbrakes of electric cars, and some other modern cars, are controlled electronically, unlike those of traditional petrol and diesel cars, which are mechanical. This means that the handbrake often locks when the power fails and the car cannot be pushed or towed.
 
The reality is that those who blame capitalism and free markets for the constant erosion of the middle class should think better.
Massive money printing and constant financing of larger government size in the economy with new currency have nothing to do with capitalism or the free market; it is the imposition of a radical form of statism disguised as an open economy.
Money supply times the velocity of money equals the price level, or inflation times the real output of the economy. More money in the system creates higher inflation.
The way to convince you that the previously mentioned theory does not exist is to tell you that between 2009 and 2018, there was no inflation, yet the money supply grew significantly.
This argument ignores that in that same period, healthcare, childcare, housing, and other non-replaceable goods and services rose an average of 57% according to the AEI, as did the enormous asset price inflation created from real estate to stocks and bonds when money velocity was plummeting.
If suddenly the price of oil rises abruptly for an exogenous factor, like a war, and the quantity of currency is the same, citizens would have less money to purchase other goods and services.
The only way in which one cost creeps its way to the final price of a commodity is if the units of currency issued are rising faster than economic output.
Inflation is the perfect and most immoral of taxes because governments and politicians place the blame on supermarkets, service stations, corporations or foreign producers, and present themselves as the solution to the problem these governments have themselves have created.
Inflation is the constant loss of purchasing power of the currency issued by the government.
Inflation is the transfer of wealth from savers and real wages to indebted governments. It makes the size of government in the economy larger and erodes the wealth of the private sector. Why?
The artificial creation of new units of currency is never neutral. It disproportionately benefits the first recipients of the new units, government spending and the deficit, and massively hurts the last recipients of money: real wages and savings. It is, in essence, a process of nationalisation by stealth of the economy.
In The Theory of Money and Credit, Ludwig Von Mises explains: “The sound-money principle has two aspects. It is affirmative in approving the market’s choice of a commonly used medium of exchange. It is negative in obstructing the government’s propensity to meddle with the currency system.”
Mises goes on to explain that sound money is a crucial instrument for the “protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments·, as important as the constitution, independent institutions, and the system of checks and balances that protects citizens in a democratic society”.
A currency needs to be a reserve of value, a unit of measure, and a generalised means of payment to be money.

 
Il price cap funziona :jolly:

The price of Russia’s flagship crude grade, Urals, averaged $74 per barrel in August, slightly down from August 2022, but way above the G7 price cap of $60 and higher than the July average of $64.37 a barrel, according to data released by the Russian Finance Ministry on Friday.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Alto