I think they will, WHEN it plunges. I've pegged dow fair value at 10,000 for 4 years. Before anyone suggests we've seen a "plunge", they'd do well to explain what the rise from 10,000 was based upon.
So, why isn't it reasonable to expect at LEAST a 20% fall from 10,000?

I'm thinking if more people delay retirement it helps Social Security too. Fortunately all my money is in Sarah Pallin bobble-head dolls, so it's all good.

Today's Washington Post also has an article that supports Miracle Max's point. Somehow, the fact the Washington Post and Tom Brokow can't seem to draw the connection about how folks delaying retirment is another reason Social Security is very solvent. But its a Village Meme that they all learned in the late eighties and it is now hard wired in their head.

One astounding statement last night was McCain's statement that future workers are going to get a smaller social security benefit then current retirees. Apparently, Senator McCain really believes that the United States will be a poorer country then it is now since its workers and retirees (if any) will be poorer. If so, he should come out and state that this is his "vision" for the future.

I saw Suze Orman mention this is TV just yesterday...

The other, not so nice gift: the taxes they'll have to pay to pay off the bailout and pay back china and japan.

Apparently, Senator McCain really believes that the United States will be a poorer country then it is now since its workers and retirees (if any) will be poorer.

That would be true if he understood what he said, which he doesn't.

Has anyone considered (or calculated) the impact of older people in panic, withdrawing their retirement savings? Has anyone even considered how easy it is to panic an senior citizen who can't recover like a young person? Senior's are the most serous investors and also the most ignorant. In the last ten years, retirement money socked away for years has diminished if not disappeared. Unfortunately, we have absolutely no leadership to calm the anxious senior. To calm anyone. We have a fed chairman who is forecasting doom and gloom (you did catch that, didn't you) which is enough to incite more panic to more people than just seniors. Where is FDR when we need him the most?

If the government stops living by borrowing and public does the same.
Days of Credit are over and a Savings country would be re-born.

How will the corporations get their profit from all this frivolous borrowing stops.
May be Chinese and Indians will buy American products. O wait, America doesn't really build anything anymore
except for weapons.

Ferengi-- we lead the world in spin-meisters -- USA! USA!

Yes,

But when's the dead cat going to bounce?

And more importantly, when its there going to be a reasonable semblance of a match between the market capitalization of firms and the productive power of the firms? It seems to me that Friederich List should be on everyone's reading list, because he identified productive power, the ability to make acutal items of value, as the source of a nation's prosperity, not wealth alone.

How much of the stock market rise post 2000 was the result not of an increase in the productive power of the nation, but instead of ever more elaborate derivate schemes and the like designed to capitalized on the inability of investors to understand precisely what they were buying into?

Everybody who is making regular investments in some reasonable funds, and who can expect to live for a few years, should be thrilled about the stock market downturn. Very few people have reason to be sad about the plunge, especially if they have been reasonably prudent in the past.

69andaging wrote, Has anyone considered (or calculated) the impact of older people in panic, withdrawing their retirement savings?

It's too late now, but people wouldn't be panicking if they realized that money needed in less-than-the-long-term should not be in stocks to begin with.

Manfrommiddletown wrote, ...because he identified productive power, the ability to make acutal items of value, as the source of a nation's prosperity, not wealth alone.

This is an important idea, but needs clarification.

The key is that "goods" whose value reflects economic rents are not reflective of productive power, but rather someone's ability to con us into giving them government-granted privileges that just redistribute wealth from us to them. (Examples: Microsoft, landowners.)

True contributions to production involve (a) capital, (b) labor.

So...there's nothing wrong with focussing on wealth. The problem is how the wealth was generated. If it's generated through parasitic rent collection, it's not good.

And that brings us to the recent real estate bubble. Why? Because it was a case of people crazily bidding up the price of land in anticipation of collecting income streams of land rent.

Having 'disbursed' an old 401(k) account representing ~15% of my retirement savings in Jul, lowered my 401(k) contribution to 1% (at least for the next year or so), and stashed over $140,000 over the last 10 years while I watched the real estate bubble inflate beyond all reasonable measure, I have been ROTFLMAO at the gyrations of the market and the bursting of said bubble.

See ya all on the flipside when we can buy houses for 15% less (back to trend levels) and invest for retirement in a post-adjustment market.

Many thanks to Dean, Noam Chomsky, and Jack Rasmus for explaining why my disbelief of the free-market fantasy was justified.

snowball wrote, Many thanks to Dean, Noam Chomsky, and Jack Rasmus for explaining why my disbelief of the free-market fantasy was justified.

Yeah, I owed Dean "thanks" when I moved most of my money in equity mutual funds into cash a few months before the peak of the tech bubble.

well that's all true

but now they'll be telling us that the stock market is a better investment than social security.

I think I owe Dean some thanks on this as well.

With respect to the young workers, I agree and I am happy about this myself (though I am a middle aged worker) because I have been all cash for 3 years.

The problem though is that most of those young workers will be so spooked by the potential for stock losses that they will probably stay out until the next bull market is almost over.

Young workers will not be able to move into better (or possibly any) jobs if older workers delay retirement because of their collapsed retirement accounts. The glut of workers will lower income.

logic machine

you have hit on the logic behind the recent camoring for raising the retirement age... it will hold down labor costs.

don't think those "non partisan experts" give a damn about you. they are being paid by people who know where their money comes from.

Let's not forget the cheaper housing costs the younger generation will be able to enjoy

Isn't this a possible contradiction? Dean insists that "the children" will face great health care costs in 2025 and later. The rising market will cover this?