6 September, 2006

Important Thoughts, Financial and Economic Advice

Posted by alex in Financial Column, George Lenz at 12:29 am | Permanent Link

By George Lenz

As the U. S. population ages, and the baby boomers near retirement, the jews invent new gimmicks to milk the goy cash cows dry. One of their tricks is the so–called reverse mortgage.

A reverse mortgage is a property loan that matures at a particular term, often in the year after death or change of residence of the borrower. Financially, the reverse mortgage is a combination of a single payment and lifetime annuity. Specifics depend on the requirements and financial situation of the borrower. The idea of a reverse mortgage is credited to Prof. Milton Friedman, a jewish economist, who taught at the University of Chicago. He first described the reverse mortgage in the 1960s. In the mid-seventies, two S&L associations requested a permission to extend such loans from the comptroller of the currency, but their request was denied. Yet the jews rarely give up, so they waited for financial deregulation, and in 1989 introduced reverse mortgages to U. S. consumers. The idea wasn’t particularly successful in the 1990s, yet in recent years, such mortgages have become increasingly popular.

Currently, there are at least four federal, and many state and private, reverse-mortgage programs, which allow an individual to increase his monthly income, by 1000 to 2000 USD on average. Some federal programs provide for insurance of a loan against non–payment, but many state and federal programs do not. Thus, a borrower under a reverse-mortgage program can effectively lose his house. Yet there are larger problems with the concept of the reverse mortgage – problems that make it an unwise choice for any White borrower.

To illustrate them, let’s consider a few examples. Suppose a 65-year-old White man, living in a fully paid-off house, worth 320 000 USD, decided to take up a reverse mortgage paying 1000 USD for the rest of his life. He has statistically a 50% chance of contracting a heart disease, meaning surgery that currently costs 100 000 USD. The rate of increase of costs of medical services is between 7 and 15% annually, depending on the FRS monetary policy. So let’s examine three different scenarios of what could happen in 10 years:

1) Home prices rise 5% annually. So the value of the home is 521 200 USD, and outstanding loan balance 213 600 USD. Fast growth in home prices indicate a loose monetary policy of the FRS, so the medical inflation would be between 12 and 13%, thus the costs of surgery would be 310 500 USD at the minimum. Thus a retiree would need additional 2 900 USD to pay off his medical bills, and now he faces a 75% chance of being in need of follow up surgery, costing now 310 500 USD. He is unable to take up a home-equity loan, and his family, if he has got any, is unlikely to help him, knowing they would receive nothing in inheritance.

2) Home prices remain around the same. So the value of the home is 320 000 USD, and outstanding loan balance 213 600 USD. Relatively low growth in home prices indicate a more restrictive monetary policy of the FRS, so the medical inflation would be between 10 and 11%, thus the costs of surgery would be 259 300 USD at the minimum. Thus a retiree would need additional 152 900 USD to pay off his medical bills, which are likely to be unpaid, and now he faces a 75% chance of being in need a follow up surgery, costing now 310 500 USD. He is unable to take up a home-equity loan, and his family, if he has got any, is unlikely to help him, knowing they would receive nothing in inheritance.

3) Home prices fall 5% annually. So the value of the home is 196 400 USD, and outstanding loan balance 213 600 USD, so the borrower would be left without any home equity in 10 years. Negative growth in home prices indicate a restrictive monetary policy of the FRS, so the medical inflation would be between 8 and 9%, thus the costs of surgery would be 215 800 USD at the minimum. Yes, this number is of little practical importance to the retiree, who does not any funds to cover the costs of surgery. He is unable to take up a home-equity loan, and his family, if he has got any, is unlikely to help him, knowing they would receive nothing in inheritance. So he is unlikely to be even admitted to a hospital for treatment.

I have conducted the analysis of reverse-mortgage programs under 15 different scenarios for 10 U.S. states. My findings are as follows:

1) on average, the reverse-mortgage programs provide 1000 to 2000 USD of additional monthly income per 10 to 15 years after retirement;

2) they leave the borrower able to pay for a single significant surgery at best, and without opportunity to take an equity loan should the need for further significant medical treatment arise;

3) they generally leave the borrower without equity to pass on to his heirs, destroying what is left of bonds between parents and children.

Basically the borrower receives 10 to 15 years of slightly better life in exchange for reduced ability to pay for medical care, and thus surviving. Hence some even call the reverse-mortgage programs “the euthanasia programs”.

There are also non–monetary costs, associated with this jewish scheme. For generations in White families, family residence was transferred from father to son, strengthening unity and amicable relations of the family members, and if a man was unable to support the house, the local government helped either through tax relief or a direct subsidy. Thus children always had a place to go, if hard times came. The jews, through the use of this RM scheme are: 1) destroying the family house in times when it is especially difficult for young workers to succeed on their own; 2) destroying the elderly, who are unable to pay for their medical care; 3) remove from the government its natural duty to provide for the general welfare of their senior citizens.

Two possible objections to the above: 1) under some federal reverse-mortgage programs the amount of annuity payments and accumulated balance are significantly lower (around 500 USD per month); 2) the senior citizens should not care for their medical expenses because they have Medicaid/Medicare available at age 65+. The first does not change the need to prepare for huge costs of healthcare that should be #1 concern for each American retiree, and renders the whole scheme unnecessary, since most retirees that have social security and 401 (K)/IRA can do without addition 500 USD; and of course there are those who don’t need federal support regardless of reverse mortgage. The idea that a retiree could trust Medicaid/Medicare for his medical costs is not worthy of serious consideration: the unfunded liabilities for these two programs alone over the next decade are estimated from 13 000 to 19 000 bln USD or 6 to 10 federal budgets. The baby boomers, whose health is often poor because of their lifestyles, are not, so far, retiring in large numbers, and new immigrants, mostly coloreds, are net beneficiaries of Medicaid/Medicare. Experience shows, that if a government does not have money to finance a program, it either severely restricts its availability or cancels it outright. So I wouldn’t count on Medicaid/Medicare to pay for medical expenses. Americans will be lucky if they don’t have to pay more than 50% of the costs of healthcare in ten years. The conclusion is that one should not take a reverse mortgage under any circumstance, and should warn American seniors of the dangers of this jewish scheme.

Actually, the problems with the American healthcare are getting worse by the day. Currently, most private businesses, even large corporations, are no longer able to afford health insurance for their employees. That’s been the norm for the last ten years. There are a number of things to be done to fix the problem:

1) It is necessary to abolish Medicare and Medicaid outright. Their deficit is simply too high to be covered by the federal government, and it is better to abolish the program outright, allowing baby boomers to adjust their spending and borrowing patterns rather than to leave them in the rain in ten years’ time by severely cutting these programs and raising taxes to economically prohibitive levels.

2) It is necessary to remove licensing restrictions for doctors and drugs. The current rise in medical prices is mainly due to the oligopoly structure of industry, and breaking down entry barriers will allow for the costs of medical procedures to go down significantly.

3) It is necessary to encourage immigration of European medical professionals to the U. S. by granting them automatic permanent residence and automatic recognition of their qualifications. This will alleviate shortage of medical professionals in many areas and bring the costs down.

4) It is necessary to cap medical malpractice awards at minimal economic value of human working life – 90 000 USD. This will bring costs of malpractice insurance down, thereby increasing the number of medical professionals and decreasing their fees.

5) It is necessary to start privatization of various government-controlled veteran, military and naval hospitals. Veterans and troops can get excellent care in the private sector at much lower rates.

But these reforms are unlikely to be adopted under current democratic regime. So White nationalists should:

1. Treat their healthcare as the #1 consideration they are going to face after retirement, and base their financial decisions on this consideration.

2. Cancel any private medical insurance they currently have. The premiums can be kept and invested elsewhere. Getting life insurance, payable to family or heirs, makes much more sense.

3. Find a private doctor, with reasonable out-of-pocket fees, and request from him specific recommendations on improving general health. Ideally, WN could also find a private medical center with reasonable out-of-pocket fees, offering basic surgery services.

4. Prepare both will and living will, stating that their life should not be artificially extended through the use of mechanical devices beyond 48 hours after losing consciousness.

5. Adapt to the thought that death is as natural as life: and any additional year above 75 years for men, and 80 years for women is a gift from Creator to us. Thus, it is better to die naturally in the family, than to artificially extend life through painful and expensive medical procedures.

I am often asked these days: who are our main enemies. I give comrades the following answer: our main enemies are zionists, masons and democrats.

A zionist is a jew striving for influence and domination over other states or peoples. This is our main enemy: we need to severely punish zionists who commit crimes against Whites and their families – and repatriate the rest to Israel or Africa.

A mason is a rich White gentile striving for influence and domination over White states or peoples by fraudulent or coercive means. A mason is generally a member of a masonic organization; that is, an organization that 1) keeps its membership, in whole or in part, secret; 2) adheres to the masonic creed – i.e. seeks political, economic and social power by whatever means necessary and believes in Lucifer. We should wrestle with masons — unmask them and take power from them.

A democrat is a White gentile lackey of jews and masons professing belief in democracy and democratic values and  hired by them to fulfill specific tasks. A democrat knows how to manipulate uneducated crowds, to lie and steal. We should severely punish democrats, guilty of crimes against Whites and their families, and re-educate the rest.

Taken together zionists, masons and democrats constitute politic, social and ethnic elites. The coloreds are the secondary enemy and would be easily repatriated to their homelands after the White Nationalist victory over zionists, masons and democrats.

Such definition of enemies allowed me to put WN struggle and WN message into democratic-republican frame of reference, known to most Americans, and to mainstream our message. I am finishing the development of the new framework for White Nationalist Struggle, and will publish it by the end of the month.

*  *  *

The Dow is up to 11 464, and is likely to go up further to 11 500-11 550, buoyed by the de facto refusal of the U. S. to initiate hostilities against Iran. I am looking into DOW (current value 38.3 vs internal value 45.3): my recommendation is 1-2 years buy.


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 11/30/06 Important Thoughts, Financial and Economic Advice 91% similar
  3. 09/27/06 Important Thoughts, Financial and Economic Advice 89% similar
  4. 01/02/07 Important Thoughts, Financial and Economic Advice 83% similar
  5. 01/16/07 Important Thoughts, Financial and Economic Advice 83% similar
  6. 08/23/06 Important Thoughts, Financial and Economic Advice 83% similar
  7. 7 Responses to “Important Thoughts, Financial and Economic Advice”

    1. New America Says:

      These ideas match to no model of a National Socialist society, which, to date, is the form of governance most suited to the Men of the West.

      The “reforms” are worse than the problem, but let’s work through them as a quick exercise. A more detailed analysis, incidentally, might be worthy of inclusion in Bill White’s “Journal of Theoretical National Socialist Studies.”

      you wrote:
      1) It is necessary to abolish Medicare and Medicaid outright. Their deficit is simply too high to be covered by the federal government, and it is better to abolish the program outright, allowing baby boomers to adjust their spending and borrowing patterns rather than to leave them in the rain in ten years’ time by severely cutting these programs and raising taxes to economically prohibitive levels.

      in reply:
      No, just make the Medicare and Medicaid programs “PayGo”; esentially, pay as you go with, say, a years worth of reserves.

      This pretty much removes the actuarial liabilites of these programs, and does wonders for the projected National Debt.

      Removing illegals from America, and making sure American citiizenship is not merely, and literally, an “accident” of birth, by denying automatic citizenship to the children of nonAmericans, would close a lot of the growing costs of Medicaid.

      you wrote:
      2) It is necessary to remove licensing restrictions for doctors and drugs. The current rise in medical prices is mainly due to the oligopoly structure of industry, and breaking down entry barriers will allow for the costs of medical procedures to go down significantly.

      in reply:
      This Libertarian ideal is as ideal as Libertarianism, which is to say, not at all.

      Go to a medical school bookstore, and LOOK at the textbooks.

      I agree Affirmative Action is making the standards a nullity, but DAMN, biochemistry is not any easier for that.

      I want the highest standards in the world for my physicians, and then, have THEM manage the health care with a wide range of cost-effective assistants.

      Notice, for example, the Filipino “nurses” and “nurse assistants” in our facilities, particularly our nursing homes; they have no comprehension of what they are doing, or why; however, in fulfillment of the Libertarian model you espouse, they ARE in it “for the money,” and ONLY “for the money.”

      you wrote:
      3) It is necessary to encourage immigration of European medical professionals to the U. S. by granting them automatic permanent residence and automatic recognition of their qualifications. This will alleviate shortage of medical professionals in many areas and bring the costs down.

      in reply:
      No, allowing the greater use of medical paraprofessionals – under the supervision of a physician – will help lower the growth in cost of medical services.

      If you were ever in the Armed Forces, you KNOW a LOT of medical care was delivered by everybody BUT a doctor; however, they were ALL under the supervision of a doctor.

      you wrote:
      4) It is necessary to cap medical malpractice awards at minimal economic value of human working life – 90 000 USD. This will bring costs of malpractice insurance down, thereby increasing the number of medical professionals and decreasing their fees.

      in reply:
      No, what you need is more competition in the medical malpractice insurance system; more companies, more competition.

      Right now, THAT system is the oligopoly that needs reforming.

      And, remember the famous study done by the Harvard Medical School and the Harvard Business School on the actual exposure of malpractice, and the risk management elements of it; only TEN PERCENT of what the doctors of the Harvard Medical School agreed was malpractice was identified as such, absent their analysis.

      you wrote:
      5) It is necessary to start privatization of various government-controlled veteran, military and naval hospitals. Veterans and troops can get excellent care in the private sector at much lower rates.

      in reply:
      Go to the Soldiers For The Truth website, and see what tjhey have to day about this.

      This is already being done, with the HMO system called Tri-Care.

      To them, it means “Try And Get Care.”

      NOW, look at the 25% overhead cost of medical insurance premiums for private health insurance that gpes to the shareholderes – like Aetna – and contrast that with the 3% – that “three,” as in “between ‘two’ and ‘four,'” of Medicare/Medicaid.

      If EVER there was an argument for a National Health INSURANCE System, THIS IS IT!

      New America

      An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

    2. New America Says:

      These ideas match to no model of a National Socialist society, which, to date, is the form of governance most suited to the Men of the West.

      The “reforms” are worse than the problem, but let’s work through them as a quick exercise. A more detailed analysis, incidentally, might be worthy of inclusion in Bill White’s “Journal of Theoretical National Socialist Studies.”

      you wrote:
      1) It is necessary to abolish Medicare and Medicaid outright. Their deficit is simply too high to be covered by the federal government, and it is better to abolish the program outright, allowing baby boomers to adjust their spending and borrowing patterns rather than to leave them in the rain in ten years’ time by severely cutting these programs and raising taxes to economically prohibitive levels.

      in reply:
      No, just make the Medicare and Medicaid programs “PayGo”; esentially, pay as you go with, say, a years worth of reserves.

      This pretty much removes the actuarial liabilites of these programs, and does wonders for the projected National Debt.

      Removing illegals from America, and making sure American citiizenship is not merely, and literally, an “accident” of birth, by denying automatic citizenship to the children of nonAmericans, would close a lot of the growing costs of Medicaid.

      you wrote:
      2) It is necessary to remove licensing restrictions for doctors and drugs. The current rise in medical prices is mainly due to the oligopoly structure of industry, and breaking down entry barriers will allow for the costs of medical procedures to go down significantly.

      in reply:
      This Libertarian ideal is as ideal as Libertarianism, which is to say, not at all.

      Go to a medical school bookstore, and LOOK at the textbooks.

      I agree Affirmative Action is making the standards a nullity, but DAMN, biochemistry is not any easier for that.

      I want the highest standards in the world for my physicians, and then, have THEM manage the health care with a wide range of cost-effective assistants.

      Notice, for example, the Filipino “nurses” and “nurse assistants” in our facilities, particularly our nursing homes; they have no comprehension of what they are doing, or why; however, in fulfillment of the Libertarian model you espouse, they ARE in it “for the money,” and ONLY “for the money.”

      you wrote:
      3) It is necessary to encourage immigration of European medical professionals to the U. S. by granting them automatic permanent residence and automatic recognition of their qualifications. This will alleviate shortage of medical professionals in many areas and bring the costs down.

      in reply:
      No, allowing the greater use of medical paraprofessionals – under the supervision of a physician – will help lower the growth in cost of medical services.

      If you were ever in the Armed Forces, you KNOW a LOT of medical care was delivered by everybody BUT a doctor; however, they were ALL under the supervision of a doctor.

      you wrote:
      4) It is necessary to cap medical malpractice awards at minimal economic value of human working life – 90 000 USD. This will bring costs of malpractice insurance down, thereby increasing the number of medical professionals and decreasing their fees.

      in reply:
      No, what you need is more competition in the medical malpractice insurance system; more companies, more competition.

      Right now, THAT system is the oligopoly that needs reforming.

      And, remember the famous study done by the Harvard Medical School and the Harvard Business School on the actual exposure of malpractice, and the risk management elements of it; only TEN PERCENT of what the doctors of the Harvard Medical School agreed was malpractice was identified as such, absent their analysis.

      you wrote:
      5) It is necessary to start privatization of various government-controlled veteran, military and naval hospitals. Veterans and troops can get excellent care in the private sector at much lower rates.

      in reply:
      Go to the Soldiers For The Truth website, and see what tjhey have to day about this.

      This is already being done, with the HMO system called Tri-Care.

      To them, it means “Try And Get Care.”

      NOW, look at the 25% overhead cost of medical insurance premiums for private health insurance that goes to the shareholders – like Aetna – and contrast that with the 3% – that “three,” as in “between ‘two’ and ‘four,'” of Medicare/Medicaid.

      If EVER there was an argument for a National Health INSURANCE System, THIS IS IT!

      New America

      An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

    3. Stronza Says:

      George says, “For generations, in white families, family residence was transferred from father to son, strengthening unity and amicable relations of the family members…”

      Strengthening unity? On what planet? What family of the past had only one child? I can immediately think of at least a dozen examples of children, brothers and sisters, fighting tooth & claw over who got the house when Mamma and Daddy finally died, or at least seething in resentment for decades, until their own death, because the nice house was given to the favourite son, not the daughter who nursed Ma & Pa for years. Sure has happened where I come from, and I see more problems down the road, left & right, in different branches of the family. These things happen even tho some try to hide such severe conflicts.

      This is an observation & commentary, not a defence of the reverse mortgage. It sounds like RMs could be debated until the cows come home. Maybe it boils down to the old folks spending what they have for a bit of comfort, and the adult kids be damned. The general behaviour of some children nowadays could certainly push the old folks in that direction.

    4. Keeping It Real Says:

      I’m not quite sure which would be the best way of going, free market or a more centralized system. I tend towards the free market side personally. I’m not well read on National Socialism, so I can’t comment (Can anyone recommend a good book or source that explains what it is? New America mentioned Bill White’s “Journal of Theoretical National Socialist Studies.”)

      I am convinced however, in a white society, where ONLY white people could be citizens, No Jews. Just Right, no negros, Mestizos, etc., AND some sort of non-federal reserve type system in place, 90% of the other problems would just go away, like a snowball in July.

    5. ftwainth Says:

      2 New America

      Thank you for insightful comment. However I have to respectfully disagree with it.

      1) You wrote:
      “No, just make the Medicare and Medicaid programs “PayGo”; esentially, pay as you go with, say, a years worth of reserves.
      This pretty much removes the actuarial liabilites of these programs, and does wonders for the projected National Debt.
      Removing illegals from America, and making sure American citizenship is not merely, and literally, an “accident” of birth, by denying automatic citizenship to the children of non-Americans, would close a lot of the growing costs of Medicaid”.

      In reply:
      Making Medicaid/Medicare pay as you go system will not solve the problem of chronicle shortages at the trust fund (new outlays are already at 500 bln USD per year and growing). The baby boomers are yet not retiring in large numbers, and when they will start to retire in a few years, healthcare expenses would at least triple, and the budget deficit is already close to 500 bln USD. Abolishing Medicaid and Medicare will 1) remove liabilities the government cannot serve 2) balance the budget 3) return a hefty chunk of the paycheck to the America’s lower and lower – middle class. As for removal of the colored scum, this will indeed alleviate the problem greatly.

      2) You wrote:
      “This Libertarian ideal is as ideal as Libertarianism, which is to say, not at all.
      Go to a medical school bookstore, and LOOK at the textbooks.
      I agree Affirmative Action is making the standards a nullity, but DAMN, biochemistry is not any easier for that.
      I want the highest standards in the world for my physicians, and then, have THEM manage the health care with a wide range of cost-effective assistants.
      Notice, for example, the Filipino “nurses” and “nurse assistants” in our facilities, particularly our nursing homes; they have no comprehension of what they are doing, or why; however, in fulfillment of the Libertarian model you espouse, they ARE in it “for the money,” and ONLY “for the money.”

      In reply:
      Abolishing requirements would allow lots of capable people to go into medical teaching, research as well as provision of medical services. A great many new medical schools will be opened, and a lot more doctors trained: that are currently prevented by AMA oligopoly. And I have trust into common sense of the U. S. population: they’ll choose the best physician, that it suits them. As for colored “nurses”, the coloreds definitely do not belong to White lands in any capacity.

      3) You wrote:
      “No, allowing the greater use of medical paraprofessionals – under the supervision of a physician – will help lower the growth in cost of medical services.
      If you were ever in the Armed Forces, you KNOW a LOT of medical care was delivered by everybody BUT a doctor; however, they were ALL under the supervision of a doctor”.

      In reply:
      This is critically important to alleviate the shortage of medical professionals: there are many capable White doctors and nurses in Europe willing to come to the U. S., but the immigration law prevent them from doing so. The law has to change the sooner the better.

      4) You wrote:
      “No, what you need is more competition in the medical malpractice insurance system; more companies, more competition.
      Right now, THAT system is the oligopoly that needs reforming.
      And, remember the famous study done by the Harvard Medical School and the Harvard Business School on the actual exposure of malpractice, and the risk management elements of it; only TEN PERCENT of what the doctors of the Harvard Medical School agreed was malpractice was identified as such, absent their analysis”.

      In reply:
      I would definitely agree, that the structure of medical malpractice insurance industry has to be changed, yet the sure path to lowering insurance premiums is to cap medical malpractice awards in court cases at sufficiently low level to both discourage such suites and lower premiums.

      5) You wrote:
      “Go to the Soldiers For The Truth website, and see what tjhey have to day about this.
      This is already being done, with the HMO system called Tri-Care.
      To them, it means “Try And Get Care.”
      NOW, look at the 25% overhead cost of medical insurance premiums for private health insurance that gpes to the shareholderes – like Aetna – and contrast that with the 3% – that “three,” as in “between ‘two’ and ‘four,’” of Medicare/Medicaid.
      If EVER there was an argument for a National Health INSURANCE System, THIS IS IT!”

      In reply:
      Personally I don’t like any medical insurance schemes: if this is the government scheme one has to wait longer and longer, on average a few weeks or even months to get necessary care, as this is current case with Germany, or if the scheme is private, the overhead gets bloated, and the costs are increasing rapidly every years as in the case of the U. S. I want many doctors and small hospitals, belonging to various medical schools, competing with each other and getting paid out of the pocket, thus depending on the patient, not on insurance company, for their profits.

    6. Mati The Estonian Says:

      loan is never a good idea and mortage IS a loan. and considering overall situation (jews running money business) its problably a sort of usury anyway.

    7. Donger Says:

      “New America Says:

      6 September, 2006 at 2:28 am

      These ideas match to no model of a National Socialist society, which, to date, is the form of governance most suited to the Men of the West.”

      Karl Marx the jew created socialism. Hitler lost. Russia destroyed by it. Should we mention China? Shining Path socialists of South America? Pol Pot killing fields socialism?

      How bout the Bible? Give a tithe to the poor and sick. How bout the US Constitution? Make treaties and leave us alone.