Re: Social Security
* maru dubshinki ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Curious: I would have thought that dividend would have been higher; > taxes were lowered significantly on them, and the economy has > registered mediocre gains, in which companies should be able to take > profits. But then I just heard that the producer price index has > fallen noticeably. So perhaps the profits are not that great after > all. When I say short-term, I don't mean 1 month, I mean less than 10 years. But periods of 1 month, or even 1 year, are virtually impossible to predict. Even 10 years is short enough to be tricky, but it is long enough to have some chance at predictive accuracy. So although the PPI for finished goods dropped in December versus its value 1 month earlier, this single data point is virtually meaningless. On the other hand, PPI has been trending upward since 2002 http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PPIFGS/31/5yrs By the way, PPI for finished goods is an index of the prices that producers (businesses, mostly) must pay for the materials and supplies that they buy in order to produce their goods. So if PPI were really trending downward (instead of what is likely a 1-month blip in an upward trend), then producer costs would be lower, which would tend to raise their profits. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
At 09:59 PM 1/12/2005 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: >Sometime listmember Brad DeLong's take: > >http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/ > >Why Am I Not For Bush's Social Security Reform? > >It's strange--I ought to be a member of what Joshua Micah Marshall calls >the "faint-hearted faction"--those Democrats excited about doing something >for Social Security involving private accounts, and eager to strike a deal >with Republicans. I do, after all, think it quite likely that the U.S. >government is leaving some money on the sidewalk by not investing part of >the Social Security Trust Fund in equities. I do believe that Social >Security has long-run financing problems, and that the sooner these are >fixed, the better. I do see merit in giving Social Security beneficiaries >more secure property rights in the prefunded portion of their Social >Security benefits, so that it is theirs by more than the Grace of a future >Congress. And the important and dangerous problem that private accounts >shift risk off the government (where it belongs) and onto individual >beneficiaries can be managed--restrict private acccounts to, say, be >invested 60% in long-term Treasuries and 40% in the broad stock market, >and the amount of risk shifted off is very small. > >So why, then, is my attitude toward the Bush administration's Social >Security non-proposal like that of the Dread Pirate Roberts? > >Experience. We've seen what Bush administration proposals turn into. We've >seen it turn a surplus into a deficit. We've seen its idea of a farm bill. >We've seen its steel tariff--bad economics, bad mercantilism, and bad >politics. We've seen the recent corporate tax monstrosity. We've seen the >Medicare drug benefit. We've heard from Paul O'Neill. We've heard from >John DiIulio. The Bush administration is batting as close to a zero on >economic policy as an administration can--and economic policy is the >bright spot in this administration. > >So one's assessment of what the Bush Social Security "reform" plan is >going to be must be more-or-less like this: it may look cute and friendly >now, but it won't stay cute and friendly for long. Somehow--we're not sure >how--it's gonna get mean. It's going to get ugly. And it's going to get >stupid. The chances that whatever the Bush administration proposes and the >Republican Congressional leadership gets behind will be good for the >country are indistinguishable from zero. One question I would love to ask, and I apologize if this sounds a little harsher than it really is, but here is my question: And how can a neutral, fair-minded observer distinguish the above answer from "Because I am bought and paid for by the Democratic Pary, and there is simply no way in hell that we are going to work with a President of the opposing Party to bridge our differences on the centerpiece economic agenda item of his second term" Just wondering JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
At 01:53 PM 1/14/2005 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: > FAIR-L > Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting >Media analysis, critiques and activism > >http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-socialsecurity.html Does it really contribute to the debate here to repost propaganda talking points? I mean, I can understand reposting arguments from partisan sources, but outright propaganda? >On World News Tonight, anchor Peter Jennings started off the distortions >in the show's "A Closer Look" segment. Having allowed that there is "some >argument" about whether Social Security would, as Bush argued recently, >"go bankrupt" without congressional intervention, Jennings continued: "But >there's no question that baby boomers will place great strain on Social >Security as they retire. And by 2042, by some measures, the system may not >have enough cash to pay full benefits." > >Actually, there's plenty of question about the notion that baby boomers >will strain the system; If you don't understand that when baby boomers retire that the average number of workers per retiree will decrease dramatically, then you simply aren't trying to be an honest participant in the debate. >Even if the system does need more cash four or five decades from now, it's >not clear that this should be characterized as a "great strain." The >amount of money necessary to keep paying full benefits could be raised by >a tax increase that was about one-fourth the size of the Bush tax cuts >(Washington Post, 1/12/05). I snipped quotes attribute to mysterious sources like "The Political Animal."The above quote seems *highly* suspicious. That is not the sort of analysis The Washington Post would publish unattributed, I don't think >The IOU argument is a favorite of pro-privatizers, but it has little basis >in reality. Those trust fund "IOUs" exist in the form of U.S. government >bonds, just like those held by private investors and foreign countries >like Japan and China. There is a lot of question as to whether or not those bonds have economic meaning.Since they aren't traded, it isn't clear if they really have "value."In this sense, they are much more akin to an IOU than a "bond." At any rate, one sure way to find out is to have the SSA suddenly start cashing all of those bonds all at once. that would certainly put strain on the system. Not only would it effectively cause revenues available to fund general US expenses to go down, but if the SSA starts flooding the market with bonds, the value of US bonds will go down as well, making it even harder for the US government to borrow money. >ACTION: Please write to ABC and urge them to include a full range of >___ >http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l I guess we're all liberals now on brin-l, so we can forward leftist action items to all of us, right? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
NFL Semi-Finals Picks
Well, last week I changed my pick from the Jets to the Chargers at the last moment, and ended up 2-2 for the week after a crazy overtime game including a missed field goal. (Stat of the week: teams missing a field goal in overtime of a playoff game are 4-6 in those games!) Fortunately, the St. Louis Rams came through on the Upset Special. This week: St. Louis at Atlanta - Last week I correctly noted that the Rams were better than their 8-8 record might have suggested based on the injuries to Marc Bulger and some key defenders they had survived this year. This week, they get a much better Atlanta team, coming off of a bye week no less. The difference in this one will be the Rams' defensive line, which simply won't be able to hold up under Atlanta's pass rush. Pick: FALCONS NY Jets at Pittsburgh - The Jets return to what they view as the "scene of the crime", where some really mysterious penalties changed the flow of an otherwise close game in their previous meeting.Unfortunately for the Jets, this is their third straight road game, they just finished playing a 5 Quarters football game last week while the Steelers were off, and they don't have WR's to match Hines Ward, Plaxico Burress, and Antwan Randle-El. Pick: STEELERS Minnesota at Philadelphia - The story of two 8-8 teams winning playoffs games this year was nice, but the Playoffs semi-finals is usually the week where midnight strikes for the Cinderellas, and the League returns to form. The Eagles are simply in another class from the Vikings, even without Terrell Owens. This should be the lock of the week. Pick: EAGLES Indianapolis at New England - It just seems like this is the year for Peyton Manning. The Patriots have had the Colts' number so many times in a row, and now they are signing goes off the street during their bye week to plug in for injuries. "Super Manning" gets the better of Bill "Lex Luther" Belichick this week. Pick: COLTS JDG John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "We have one country, one Constitution, and one future that binds us." -George W. Bush, 11/3/2004 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: NFL Semi-Finals Picks
John D. Giorgis wrote: This week: St. Louis at Atlanta - Pick: FALCONS Falcons. NY Jets at Pittsburgh - Pick: STEELERS Steelers. Minnesota at Philadelphia - Pick: EAGLES You're probably right, but I just cannot pick any team currently employing T.O. Vikings. Indianapolis at New England - Pick: COLTS Patriots. Although if the Colts end up in the Super Bowl, I'll be happy with that situation. :) So, our agreement this week is 2-2. Maybe one of us will go 4-0. :) (And the other will go 2-2, or maybe each of us ends up going 3-1 -- I could live quite happily with that scenario.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
JDG wrote: One question I would love to ask, and I apologize if this sounds a little harsher than it really is, but here is my question: And how can a neutral, fair-minded observer distinguish the above answer from "Because I am bought and paid for by the Democratic Pary, and there is simply no way in hell that we are going to work with a President of the opposing Party to bridge our differences on the centerpiece economic agenda item of his second term" Just wondering One can choose not to be cynical. Perhaps on either side of this debate there are people with strong beliefs that are not grounded in self-interest? Perhaps Brad is not a pawn of a political party? I find Brad's predictions of ugliness reasonable, considering the administration's starting point. I hear Bush warning us of financial instruments of mass destruction and I remember how lousy the analysis was the last time he offered a big warning about mass destruction. Fool me once, shame on me... I have no doubt that there are principles behind the administration's talk about Social Security, just as there were principles behind the war. But these are being sold to us with fear and threats, which is not leadership, but demagoguery, in my view, and so it is already ugly. Lest anyone jump to the conclusion that I think the GOP invented ugliness in politics, I'll say that I think it's a product of the power of big media in our time, not politics. The GOP's successes of late are the result of doing best at taking advantage of it, I think. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
I don't need to tell you that if the raw materials price is down, then the extractive industries are not making as much profit. But since the 'producer' segement is larger, I suppose that there might be a net rise in profits. ~Maru Erik Reuter wrote: By the way, PPI for finished goods is an index of the prices that producers (businesses, mostly) must pay for the materials and supplies that they buy in order to produce their goods. So if PPI were really trending downward (instead of what is likely a 1-month blip in an upward trend), then producer costs would be lower, which would tend to raise their profits. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
Doug Pensinger wrote: Erik wrote: I guess I haven't been clear (or perhaps you are confusing my position with Bush's confusing rhetoric). Or maybe I'm somewhat dense when it comes to this stuff. Thanks for clarifying things for me. If you're dense, you're not unduly so. I mean, I doubt that anyone here is going to be tempted to call you "neutronium-head". :) BTW, I'm very interested in the discussion, and I thank everyone for the info and clarifications they've been adding to it. I'm just too fried and up to my ears in other considerations (that I can actually make logical statements about) to participate in this particular discussion. (But if anyone wants a recommendation on a photographer in the Austin area, I can at least give *that*!) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
On Jan 15, 2005, at 7:20 AM, JDG wrote: I guess we're all liberals now on brin-l, so we can forward leftist action items to all of us, right? As an antidote to certain sources of incessant right-wing ultraconservative gabble, you mean? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
maru dubshinki wrote: > I don't need to tell you that if the raw materials price is down, then > the extractive industries are not making as much profit. But since the > 'producer' segement is larger, I suppose that there might be a net > rise in profits. > ~Maru There is also the chance that prices went down due to greater efficiencies in the "extractive" segments. That would cause more profits in that sector too. Any news on that front? xponent Belt Tightening Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
All Your base
http://www.drivenbyboredom.com/gallery/26/display.php?x=0 xponent >From Traalfamador Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
attn: wtg, MUD to Holocene Chat
David Brin has said that the Holocene Chat partners would like to hold a demo primarilly for members of Brin-L and in particular for those who participate in the Wednesday chat. Furthermore, the Holocene Chat investors would LIKE to host our weekly chat on HC since it "would be wonderful and really help [them] along". http://www.holocenechat.com/ == If you are interested please, reply to Brin-L. (Effectively this is a blank-check form of RSVP.) News from Wm. T. Goodall would be particularly apropos. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: All Your base
/me groans... Let it die. Please, just let it go to that great memetic garbage can in the sky ~Maru In the year 2020, flame war was begining. What happen? Someone set us up the meme! Greetings Brin-lers... Robert G. Seeberger wrote: http://www.drivenbyboredom.com/gallery/26/display.php?x=0 xponent From Traalfamador Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 4:42 AM Subject: Re: Social Security > average tax rate = ( present value of lifetime taxes paid minus present > value of lifetime benefits received from government ) divided by present > value of lifetime earnings > > R = (T - B) / E > > marginal rate = dT/dE - dB/dE Right, one of us did need to write that out explictly, because it appears that a lot of folks are following along...and there was always the chance that we had slightly different defintions. But, we don't; that's exactly what was I was thinking. > I think their calculation is much more extenstive than yours, but I'm > glad you want to check their numbers. I'll work through it in more > detail this weekend (and post some excerpts from the book that explain > in more detail what they are calculating) Thanks for that workI've done just a bit of leg work on your questions given below, and I'll do a bit more later today unless you said you already have done it. > In the meantime, a couple things that I can think of that would make > their figure larger than yours: > > If the extra spousal income bumps the couple into the next federal > income tax bracket, say from 15% to 25%, depending on the brackets when > the calculation was done. But, wouldn't that just be a slope changedFIT/DE = .15 to dFIT/DE = .25? If so, then as long as I'm using the right marginal rate, then I'm calculating the Federal Income Tax (FIT) contribution to T and dT correctly. > You didn't count state tax, which in California or other high tax states > could be more than 10%. True, but I just checked California. Assuming just the standard deduction, the tax rates for a married couple who takes the standard deduction in California is (roughly): from http://www.payroll.ucla.edu/Charts/taxCAcur.htm for bi-weekly and monthly tax rates and http://www.taxesindepth.com/state-taxes-California.html for the standard deduction, we get the following tax table for a married couple who take the standard deduction. income<18.3k 1% 18.3k1000k 10.30% For my example, dR/dE between 39k and 40k, they'd be in the 4% bracket. But, since state income tax is deductable, and the dFIT/dE=0.25 (25% tax bracket), the net result would be a 3% increase in taxes. For their example, from 20k to 40k, the net effect would be under 2%. If the deduction is greater than the standard deduction, that has the effect of moving the tax brackets up in income. > Economists tend to count the full FICA contribution, which I think is > either 13.85% or 15.3% (I'll check the exact figure later). If you are > self-employed, you pay the full amount yourself. 15.3%, but half of the tax can be deducted from one's income if one is self employed. If one is in the 25% bracket, that comes to a net rate of about 13.4%. I should know that, I'm self employed. :-) Also, if one does this, it should be added to the income as well as the tax. That's not critical when the rest of dR/dT is low, but as it gets high, its important. Let us consider the example where the marginal net tax rate calculated without considering employer paid tax on income as either income or tax is 75%. Let us then consider a 7.7% tax being added to this. The result is (.75+.077)/(1+.077)=.77=77%. Since they were talking about net tax rates around 80%, this gives some idea of how the two ways of calculating the tax would change the answer. It's only another 2%. > Also, they don't look just at SS benefits when they net out the changes. > If the present value of all government benefits went down when the > spouse starting working, then netting out dB/dE can actually increase > the marginal rate. They include things like medical benefits and welfare > benefits as well as SS. But, for income that is already in the 20k range, we shouldn't be talking about much in the way of Mediaid or welfare benefits. Take food stamps, for example. For a family of 4, assuming the same relationship between net and gross income as the maximum allowable for each at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/applicant_recipients/fs_Res_Ben_Elig.htm we are talking about a family of four looking at losing about $1000 in food stamps benefits. This translates in a dB/dE rate of -5% between 20k and 40k, and 0% for my example of $39k to $40k. The marginal value of working for someone on welfare is a real problem, but I think we can mostly seperate it from the problem of one spouse working for 20k/year and the other spouse thinking of taking a 20k/year job. Medicaid limits are too low to be comsidered. Head Start (for pregnant women and for children under 6) applies, but that's fairly limited. The other benefit that I can think of them losing is the earned income tax credit. If no one says that they've already calculated this in an hour or two, I'll go to last year's copy of Turbo
Re: attn: wtg, MUD to Holocene Chat
Trent Shipley wrote: > David Brin has said that the Holocene Chat partners would > like to hold a demo primarilly for members of Brin-L and in > particular for those who participate in the Wednesday chat. > Furthermore, the Holocene Chat investors would LIKE to host > our weekly chat on HC since it "would be wonderful and really > help [them] along". > http://www.holocenechat.com/ > == > If you are interested please, reply to Brin-L. (Effectively > this is a blank-check form of RSVP.) Does a bear take the Pope into the woods? No, wait, that's not quite right... ;-) But my answer is yes, I'd love to. I do have some questions, though: How open will it be to new users, who weren't signed up ahead of time? With the number of chat regulars so low these days, it's always good to add a surprising new face occasionally. Will we have to sign some form of non-disclosure agreement to try it out? I'm OK with that, since I've signed an unrelated one before, but it may add some hassle to signing up. > News from Wm. T. Goodall would be particularly apropos. Depending on how open the early Holocene Chat test is to newcomers, we may still need William to set up the IRC server we discussed. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: attn: wtg, MUD to Holocene Chat
In a message dated 1/15/2005 12:22:50 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Will we have to sign some form of non-disclosure agreement to try it out? Non-this-clothes-use? Well, I ain't talkin' nude. But I'll give Holocene a try. You'll need a test subject with dial-up slow speed AOL. Ugh. Vilyehm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
One minor nitpick here On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Dan Minette wrote: > The marginal value of working for someone on welfare is a real problem, > but I think we can mostly seperate it from the problem of one spouse > working for 20k/year and the other spouse thinking of taking a 20k/year > job. Medicaid limits are too low to be comsidered. Head Start (for > pregnant women and for children under 6) applies, but that's fairly > limited. The other benefit that I can think of them losing is the > earned income tax credit. If no one says that they've already > calculated this in an hour or two, I'll go to last year's copy of > TurboTax to make a calculation. Head Start is a preschool program for low-income children. The program you're thinking of is WIC - Women, Infants and Children. It helps pay for certain sorts of foods at the grocery store. (I've bought cheese with "WIC Approved" stickers for years. Just happened to be the sort of cheese I wanted to be buying, but it was nice to know that it was considered nutritionally sound enough to be covered by that program.) Julia see, I *am* following the thread :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 1:34 PM Subject: Re: Social Security > One minor nitpick here > > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Dan Minette wrote: > > > The marginal value of working for someone on welfare is a real problem, > > but I think we can mostly seperate it from the problem of one spouse > > working for 20k/year and the other spouse thinking of taking a 20k/year > > job. Medicaid limits are too low to be comsidered. Head Start (for > > pregnant women and for children under 6) applies, but that's fairly > > limited. The other benefit that I can think of them losing is the > > earned income tax credit. If no one says that they've already > > calculated this in an hour or two, I'll go to last year's copy of > > TurboTax to make a calculation. > > Head Start is a preschool program for low-income children. > > The program you're thinking of is WIC - Women, Infants and Children. It > helps pay for certain sorts of foods at the grocery store. (I've bought > cheese with "WIC Approved" stickers for years. Just happened to be the > sort of cheese I wanted to be buying, but it was nice to know that it was > considered nutritionally sound enough to be covered by that program.) > > Julia > > see, I *am* following the thread :) It's actually now called Healthy Start... http://www.legalaction.org/medicaid2.htm from looking at the website to writing it, I transposed it to something I remembered for years. :-) Dan M. see we were _both wrong ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
Actually there may be some points of agreement among us. I like private accounts, just not to replace Social Security which serves a different function. I like 401Ks in which some percentage of income is removed from taxation and used to promote retirement savings. Let us look at what this crisis is and what needs to be fixed. The Social Security Report by it's Trustees which has been accused of using too conservative of assumptions, does show some relatively minor adjustments have to be made. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5530&sequence=6 A median income male with median earnings and a median lifetime born in the 50's will have a median scheduled annual SS benefit of $17,200 in current dollars. They foresee only a minor underfunding of some long lived beneficiaries resulting in a lifetime median net present value benefit of $151,400, about $100 less than regulated. Someone born in the 80's should have a scheduled annual SS first year benefit of $22,900 in current dollars but because of the SS income shortfall it would be reduced $1,000. Instead of a net present value of lifetime benefit of $218,400 it would be reduced to $183,200. Someone who is born this decade, say this year, should have a SS first year benefit of $29,500 when they retire at age 67 under current regulations and assumptions but it will have to be reduced to $22,300 to make payments out of the SS fund. The NPV of their median lifetime SS payments would be $208,900 instead of the scheduled $290,900. This indexing of benefits to inflation instead of wages may help as does a guaranteed median federal benefit of $29,500 65 years from now seem necessary? BTW, I am most concerned about low income retirees as doing nothing to change the formulas doesn't and running SS off of the diminished trust payments doesn't seem particularly harmful 50 years from now except for that group. There are ways of fixing Social Security by a combination of reduction in the growth of benefits, raising the retirement age, a small raise in the tax and raising the cap that would fix this program but that is not Bush's objective. Some intelligent observations are at Talking Points memo. "Your payroll taxes and the whole edifice of the Social Security Administration [over the objections of the SSA] is being joined to Karl Rove's outside astroturf groups pushing the Social Security phase-out. Or, I guess you could say that your payroll taxes are being used to cheat you out of what you've spent the last decade or two or three paying them for." http://talkingpointsmemo.com/ And some more factual information at MSNBC, which I am not normally a fan of., http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6827519/ "In 14 of the past 47 years, including 1975 to 1983, Social Security paid out more in benefits than the government collected in payroll, with the gap reaching $10 billion in 1983. So the projected "crossover" point in 2018 is a relatively meaningless milestone, say opponents of Bush's privatization plans, even as they acknowledge the system faces long-term problems "The emphasis on 2018 by Bush and other officials relies on "either an implication or very often an explicit statement" that the Social Security trust funds have no real assets, Greenstein said. Try telling that to the Social Security trustees, including Treasury Secretary John Snow, who offer a detailed list of government securities they hold, paying up to 9.25 percent interest and totaling more than $1.6 trillion "John Rother, AARP's point man on the subject, suggested raising the wage cap on Social Security payroll taxes, currently at $90,000, and bringing into the system some of the few employees not covered by it. Raising the wage cap alone could close 40 percent of the financing gap, he said." The reason this is being pushed into crisis mode is that the federal government will be required to raise taxes on the rich by raising the wage cap to improve SS and to raise income tax rates to meet the federal debt starting in ten years or so and the more they attack the problem now the less the higher incomes will have to pay in the next decade. It is a crisis because they cannot continue to cut taxes for the wealthy. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
>This indexing of benefits to inflation instead of wages may help as does a guaranteed median federal benefit of $29,500 65 years from now seem necessary? BTW, I am most concerned about low income retirees as doing nothing to change the formulas doesn't and running SS off of the diminished trust payments doesn't seem particularly harmful 50 years from now except for that group. Let me try that again: The indexing of benefits to inflation instead of wages could be considered in a new plan as the median benefit several decades from now does seem to be high. Simply reducing benefits so that SS does not run a deficit, as shown in the SS projections, ends of with a SS system which yields benefits much better than recipients are receiving now - except for some low income recipients. Krugman argues the President's plan will be worse for nearly all recipients than simply cutting benefits to match cash flow as shown in the SS projections That seem much clearer. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 1:21 PM Subject: Re: Social Security > If no one says that they've already calculated this in an hour or > two, I'll go to last year's copy of TurboTax to make a calculation. I calculated the earned income tax credit at: http://apps.irs.gov/app/eitc/SetLanguage.do?lang=en because TurboTax wasn't as quick as I thought. At 20k/year it is $3250. At $39k & 40k it is 0. That is a 6.5% addition to dR/dE .-6.5% change for dB/dE. Also, I used the wrong number in an earlier post. > 15.3%, but half of the tax can be deducted from one's income if one is self > employed. If one is in the 25% bracket, that comes to a net rate of about > 13.4%. I should know that, I'm self employed. :-) But, the example we were considering was a family in the 15% bracket at the end, so it is really 14.2%. Anyways, let me add things up. My original guess ~ 26.2%. We've now have included the loss of food stamps and the earned income tax credit, which is a decrease of benefits of 16.3%...this gets us above 40% at 42.5%. Now, we add 7.65% to both the numerator and denominator and obtain about 46.5% as dR/dE. That's much higher than I had before, but still below 50%. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:20:38 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 01:53 PM 1/14/2005 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: > > FAIR-L > > Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting > >Media analysis, critiques and activism > > > >http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-socialsecurity.html > > Does it really contribute to the debate here to repost propaganda talking > points? I mean, I can understand reposting arguments from partisan > sources, but outright propaganda? ROTFL > > >On World News Tonight, anchor Peter Jennings started off the distortions > >in the show's "A Closer Look" segment. Having allowed that there is "some > >argument" about whether Social Security would, as Bush argued recently, > >"go bankrupt" without congressional intervention, Jennings continued: "But > >there's no question that baby boomers will place great strain on Social > >Security as they retire. And by 2042, by some measures, the system may not > >have enough cash to pay full benefits." > > > >Actually, there's plenty of question about the notion that baby boomers > >will strain the system; > > If you don't understand that when baby boomers retire that the average > number of workers per retiree will decrease dramatically, then you simply > aren't trying to be an honest participant in the debate. That is a fairly ignorant talking point. The point is not the number of workers per retirees but how long the retirees live which has been going up very slowly. > > >Even if the system does need more cash four or five decades from now, it's > >not clear that this should be characterized as a "great strain." The > >amount of money necessary to keep paying full benefits could be raised by > >a tax increase that was about one-fourth the size of the Bush tax cuts > >(Washington Post, 1/12/05). > > I snipped quotes attribute to mysterious sources like "The Political > Animal."The above quote seems *highly* suspicious. That is not the > sort of analysis The Washington Post would publish unattributed, I don't > think Political Animal is the nickname of the Washington Monthly daily blog.. > >The IOU argument is a favorite of pro-privatizers, but it has little basis > >in reality. Those trust fund "IOUs" exist in the form of U.S. government > >bonds, just like those held by private investors and foreign countries > >like Japan and China. > > There is a lot of question as to whether or not those bonds have economic > meaning.Since they aren't traded, it isn't clear if they really have > "value."In this sense, they are much more akin to an IOU than a "bond." >At any rate, one sure way to find out is to have the SSA suddenly start > cashing all of those bonds all at once. that would certainly put strain > on the system. Not only would it effectively cause revenues available > to fund general US expenses to go down, but if the SSA starts flooding the > market with bonds, the value of US bonds will go down as well, making it > even harder for the US government to borrow money. Should I point you to the Constitution or federal law about how real these obligations are? Or should I simply point out so far there have been a total of over a dozen years in the past when Social Security was taking in less than it was paying out. Or maybe you could just go talk to Federal employees who have to do all the bookkeeping for these bonds that have varying interest rates and payout rates. > > I guess we're all liberals now on brin-l, so we can forward leftist action > items to all of us, right? We can hope, glad to have you aboard! Gary "optimistic" Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:13:16 -0600, Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:20:38 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 01:53 PM 1/14/2005 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: > Should I point you to the Constitution or federal law about how real > these obligations are? > > Or should I simply point out so far there have been a total of over a > dozen years in the past when Social Security was taking in less than > it was paying out. Or maybe you could just go talk to Federal > employees who have to do all the bookkeeping for these bonds that have > varying interest rates and payout rates. ^dates. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: attn: wtg, MUD to Holocene Chat
> Well, I ain't talkin' nude. But I'll give Holocene a try. I used to always be online here in the nude before I moved a few months ago. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
At 04:13 PM 1/15/2005 -0600 Gary Denton wrote: >That is a fairly ignorant talking point. The point is not the number >of workers per retirees Shirley, you can't be serious. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:17:21 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 04:13 PM 1/15/2005 -0600 Gary Denton wrote: > >That is a fairly ignorant talking point. The point is not the number > >of workers per retirees > > Shirley, you can't be serious. ... and my name is not Shirley, but if it was just the number of workers that mattered the reduction from 35 to 3 would have killed the system instead of simply adjustments being made. There is an argument to be made for raising the retirement age. I normally disagree with Netter but he laid out the false claims of Bush here: http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/archivedStory.asp?archive=true&dist=ArchiveSplash&siteid=mktw&guid=%7B6D56656B%2DD357%2D4082%2DBD70%2D35F6E6D0AA71%7D&returnURL=%2Fnews%2Fstory%2Easp%3Fguid%3D%7B6D56656B%2DD357%2D4082%2DBD70%2D35F6E6D0AA71%7D%26siteid%3Dmktw%26dist%3D%26archive%3Dtrue%26param%3Darchive%26garden%3D%26minisite%3D . way too long, try this http://tinyurl.com/3vb2q Gary "Airplane" Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
"You can't handle the truth"
>From Financial Times: "According to Chas Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and head of the independent Middle East Policy Council, Mr Bush recently asked Mr Powell for his view on the progress of the war. "We're losing," Mr Powell was quoted as saying. Mr Freeman said Mr Bush then asked the secretary of state to leave." I guess now that he is leaving Powell feels he can speak up. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:08:04 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the cite, Gary. > So if you argue that the experts disagree on the exact figure, then that > is a reasonable argument. But to say that the range is 0 to $3 or $4 > trillion instead of $3 to $7 or $3 to $10 trillion, then you are being > even more misleading than the AAASIC is accusing the SS Trustees of > being. You seem to keep confusing the infinite deficit of SS with the 75 year deficit. The sources you cite use a $7 to $10 trillion PV of an infinite series. The sources I cite have a 75 year deficit of $0 to just over $3 trillion. We may be not as far apart as you think. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: "You can't handle the truth"
On Jan 15, 2005, at 3:40 PM, Gary Denton wrote: From Financial Times: "According to Chas Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and head of the independent Middle East Policy Council, Mr Bush recently asked Mr Powell for his view on the progress of the war. "We're losing," Mr Powell was quoted as saying. Mr Freeman said Mr Bush then asked the secretary of state to leave." I guess now that he is leaving Powell feels he can speak up. At least he didn't have Powell shot, which is what Hussein reportedly used to do when advisers told him he couldn't possibly win a war against the US. Of course that was Bush I. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:26:51 -0600, Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:17:21 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 04:13 PM 1/15/2005 -0600 Gary Denton wrote: > I normally disagree with Netter but he laid out the false claims of Bush here: > http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/archivedStory.asp?archive=true&dist=ArchiveSplash&siteid=mktw&guid=%7B6D56656B%2DD357%2D4082%2DBD70%2D35F6E6D0AA71%7D&returnURL=%2Fnews%2Fstory%2Easp%3Fguid%3D%7B6D56656B%2DD357%2D4082%2DBD70%2D35F6E6D0AA71%7D%26siteid%3Dmktw%26dist%3D%26archive%3Dtrue%26param%3Darchive%26garden%3D%26minisite%3D >. way too long, try this > http://tinyurl.com/3vb2q If you don't want to register at CBS Market Watch or go to a liberal blog the google cache is here http://tinyurl.com/52grn ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I found the web link for the article which was the source of the table I posted from the book (the book didn't give the URL, but a web search turned it up). I'm still working through it: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st260/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
Rolling Stone on the Non-Social Security Criisis They interview Krugman to fact-check W. Actually very clear and informative. http://tinyurl.com/5pwlm The Economic Policy Institute also referencing economists at Goldman Sach also fact check the likely replacement plan in more clear writing and charts. http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_1004 Their conclusion: the appeal of private accounts is being used to cover deep cuts even with the return from overly optimistic private accounts. Economists at Goldman Sachs project total benefits including the private accounts would be cut 42% because the personal accounts would only make up half what the new plan is projecting. Goldman Sachs "economists have estimated a more realistic risk-adjusted return of 2.7% on personal accounts, far less than the 4.6% used by the commission. They find that a medium income, one-earner couple in 2075 would receive $600 a month in annuity income from a personal saving account-barely half as much as the $1,167 projected by the commission. When added to the $1,156 guaranteed benefit proposed by the President's commission, that generates a monthly total of $1,755â42% less than the $3,009 anticipated under Social Security current law. That's a much larger reduction than the 23% cut under the commission's overly optimistic assumptions." Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:00:32 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I found the web link for the article which was the source of the table > I posted from the book (the book didn't give the URL, but a web search > turned it up). I'm still working through it: > > http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st260/ NCPA is a well funded tax-free institution dedicated to dismantling the federal government. They make the libertarian CATO look moderate. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:00:32 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > I found the web link for the article which was the source of the table > > I posted from the book (the book didn't give the URL, but a web search > > turned it up). I'm still working through it: > > > > http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st260/ > > NCPA is a well funded tax-free institution dedicated to dismantling > the federal government. They make the libertarian CATO look moderate. Gary Denton is an analytically challenged, shrill liberal who doesn't know the difference between $10 billion and $10 trillion and has a great deal of trouble with most facts. He makes Bush look intelligent. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:41:59 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:00:32 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > > I found the web link for the article which was the source of the table > > > I posted from the book (the book didn't give the URL, but a web search > > > turned it up). I'm still working through it: > > > > > > http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st260/ > > > > NCPA is a well funded tax-free institution dedicated to dismantling > > the federal government. They make the libertarian CATO look moderate. > > Gary Denton is an analytically challenged, shrill liberal who doesn't > know the difference between $10 billion and $10 trillion and has a great > deal of trouble with most facts. He makes Bush look intelligent. I believe that qualifies for a warning about civil discourse on this list. Of course, your shrill rants and insults about other members of this list are well known. Gary D PS, in looking at the SS trustee reports again I am struck by what seems a bit optimistic assumption in increasing life expectancy. In the last 35 years life expectancy after 65 has only gone up 2 years. Just looking at this chart and comparing past and future seems a tad optismistic for their median. http://angrybear.blogspot.com/ConditionalLE.jpg Of course, the current GOP appointed trustees have slanted this last report to make the situation more dire. If you go back to the last report in 1997 the optimist case had the economy growing atr 2.2% a year. The new optimistic scenario is a growth of 1.7%. If you plug the 2.2% number back in under the SS numbers there is no deficit. Could these numbers have been chosen for political reasons? Did they not want any case shown where there is not a shortfall? Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: "You can't handle the truth"
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:54:30 -0700, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 15, 2005, at 3:40 PM, Gary Denton wrote: > > >> From Financial Times: > > > > "According to Chas Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and > > head of the independent Middle East Policy Council, Mr Bush recently > > asked Mr Powell for his view on the progress of the war. "We're > > losing," Mr Powell was quoted as saying. Mr Freeman said Mr Bush then > > asked the secretary of state to leave." > > > > I guess now that he is leaving Powell feels he can speak up. > > At least he didn't have Powell shot, which is what Hussein reportedly > used to do when advisers told him he couldn't possibly win a war > against the US. Curious. He lives up to your low expectations of not being a mad dictator? Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Of course, the current GOP appointed trustees have slanted this last > report to make the situation more dire. If you go back to the last > report in 1997 the optimist case had the economy growing atr 2.2% a > year. The new optimistic scenario is a growth of 1.7%. If you plug > the 2.2% number back in under the SS numbers there is no deficit. > Could these numbers have been chosen for political reasons? Did they > not want any case shown where there is not a shortfall? Rather than making silly partisan insinuations, and rapidly quoting sound-bites without studying and thinking about them, it is useful to actually look at facts and numbers. Since 1789, real GDP per capita in the US has grown at an average annualized rate of 1.64%, with a standard deviation of 5.02%. For a seventy five year period, the standard deviation is reduced by the square root of 75, which comes out to be 0.58%. Source data for GDP is at: http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/ The SS Trustees assume for their intermediate productivity growth number 1.6%, exactly equal to the longer term growth in GDP per capita for the longest time series available. And for their high and low cost scenarios, they add and subtract half of the 75 year standard deviation, so that is 1.6% +/- 0.29% = 1.3% and 1.9% The SS projection assumptions are at: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_assump.html#wp94905 It is hard to imagine anyone familiar with economic statistics calling their assumed productivity growth numbers unjustified or unreasonable. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
Generational warfare - from the Boston Globe By Ben Hubbard | January 14, 2005 IF THERE'S one voice conspicuously absent in the debate over replacing Social Security with private investment accounts, it is young people -- the ones with the most to lose. Young people don't typically share a strong interest in issues like Social Security -- issues best discussed with two aspirin and a glass of water -- but the absence of young voices is peculiar. Listen to any argument for privatization and one thing is clear -- it's all in the name of young Americans. In a recently leaked White House memorandum, a top aide to Karl Rove, Peter Wehner, outlined the president's initial plan to privatize Social Security. The memo ends with a warning to his conservative colleagues: It is their "responsibility" and "duty" to ensure that they "do not create an inter-generational conflict." Retaining strong ties between the generations, Wehner writes, is "a deeply conservative belief." But, in fact, this administration's record reflects a deep disregard for the interests of young Americans. Recently, new federal rules eliminated Pell Grants for nearly 90,000 students nationwide and cut financial aid for an additional 1.2 million students. This even as family incomes keep falling and school tuitions keep rising. [GD - I would like to interject here that in accepting the GOP nomination in 2000 Bush promised to increase the amount in Pell Grants. In accepting the GOP nomination in 2004 he promised to increase Pell Grants again which he hadn't increased in his four years. After reducing financial aid last year he anounced he will propose more money this year. It would not make up for his cuts and considering his record will not likely even be requested] As for creating strong ties between generations, this administration has harnessed every American under the age of 30 to an enormous national debt -- much of it accumulated in order to give tax breaks to the ultra-rich. And remember, young people are one of the largest and fastest-growing groups without health insurance. They will breathe dirtier air, inherit degraded public lands and national parks, and bear the burdens of our continued dependence on foreign oil -- all thanks to policies advanced by this administration. And don't forget the Iraq war, where thousands of young people are fighting and dying far from their families. Despite these policies, young Americans are susceptible to the privatization argument. Conservatives point to polls showing young workers are willing to consider an experiment with private accounts. Given the misleading scare campaign designed to convince young workers of a cataclysmic crisis, the polls aren't surprising. Once you get past the hype and scare, though, Social Security privatization is an empty promise. The issue is complex, but young people trying to decide where they stand on it ought to remember three things. First, the system is not in crisis. The amount of money needed to make Social Security solvent into the next century is less than what we're spending each year fighting in Iraq. That amount is equal to about 20 percent of the revenue lost each year because of the president's tax cuts. In other words, if we repeal some of the tax breaks given to the richest Americans since 2001, we could easily shore up Social Security. Second, transitioning to private accounts will cost approximately $2 trillion [GD - to start, even opponents haven't carefully looked at that.] without doing anything to improve Social Security's long-term finances. Since the government is already running a record deficit, that extra money must come from cutting federal spending, raising taxes, or borrowing more. There's little room to cut spending -- unless they cut more programs like college aid. But after four years of slashing taxes, the president isn't likely to raise taxes for any reason. This leaves just one option: more borrowing and more debt for young Americans. Worse still, Wehner's internal memo makes it clear that privatization won't solve the Social Security problem. In addition to trillions in transition costs, the president's plan will include drastic cuts in benefits for future retirees -- today's young people. Without these cuts, he writes, "we'll face serious economic risks." Third, with no changes to the current system, workers can expect higher benefits from Social Security than from a system of private investment accounts, according to a study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. That means today's twenty-somethings will be better off when they retire even if nothing is done to "fix" Social Security. Private investment accounts are a tempting idea for young people, and conservatives know it. But just like much of this administration's ideological agenda, support for privatization rests on fear mongering, flawed economic assumptions, and a willingness to put faith in "the market" above facts and ahead of fiscal responsibil
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate] > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:17:21 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 04:13 PM 1/15/2005 -0600 Gary Denton wrote: > > >That is a fairly ignorant talking point. The point is not the number > > >of workers per retirees > > > > Shirley, you can't be serious. > > ... and my name is not Shirley, but if it was just the number of > workers that mattered the reduction from 35 to 3 would have killed the > system instead of simply adjustments being made. The adjustments were not _that_ simple. The rate for employees/employers went from 2% until '50 to 14.4 percent after '90. And, the maximum income covered went from $3000 in '50 to $9 in '05. (The $3000 in '50 is about $2 in 2005 dollars.) That is not a minor change...especially since part of social security went to disability pay...and I'd bet that the the percentage of Americans unable to work due to disability has not gone up. > There is an argument to be made for raising the retirement age. Sure, but the ratio of workers to retirees was given as the basis for raising taxes in the '80s in order to have a cushion for the baby boomers. >From 1950 to 2002, the life expectancy at 65 changed from 13.9 to 18.2 years. From 1980 to 2002, it only changed from 16.4 to 18.2 years. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus04trend.pdf#027 page 77 according to Acrobat. The aging of the population has been modest and matching the increase in life expectancy so far (the ratio of >65/(20-65) has risen from about 14% to about 22%. But, by ~2033, when the baby boomers hit the hardest, it will be near 40%. http://dallasfedreview.org/pdfs/v01_n04_a01.pdf Dan M. Thus, the baby boomer population bulge does matter. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
A little sprinkling of pixie fear dust
SUBJECT TO DEBATE by Katha Pollitt ...Sometimes I think America is becoming another place, unrecognizable. David Harvey, the great geographer, tells the story of a friend who returned to the United States last spring after seven years away and could not believe the transformation. "It was as if everyone had been sprinkled with idiot dust!" Some kind of mysterious national dumb-down would explain the ease with which the Republicans have managed to get so many people agitated about the nonexistent Social Security crisis--at 82 percent ranked way above poverty and homelessness (71 percent) and racial justice (47 percent) in a list of urgent issues in a recent poll--or about gay marriage, whose threat to heterosexual unions nobody so far has been able to articulate. Mass mental deterioration would explain, too, how so many Americans still believe the discredited premises of the Iraq War--Saddam Hussein had WMD, was Osama's best friend, was behind 9/11. But even as a joke it doesn't explain the way we have come to accept as normal, or at least plausible, things that would have shocked us to our core only a little while ago. Michelle Malkin, a far-right absurdity, writes a book defending the internment of the Japanese in World War II, and before you know it Daniel Pipes, Middle East scholar and frequent op-ed commentator, is citing Malkin to support his proposals for racial profiling of Muslims. And he's got lots of company--in a recent poll almost half of respondents agreed that the civil liberties of Muslims should be curtailed. Pipes's proposals in turn seem mild compared with the plans being floated by the Pentagon and the CIA for lifetime detention of terrorist suspects--without charges, without lawyers, in a network of secret prisons around the globe. Kafkaesque doesn't begin to describe it--at least Joseph K. had an attorney and the prisoner of "In the Penal Colony" got a sentence. As I write, the Senate is preparing to take up the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to replace John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Despicable as Ashcroft proved to be, and much as the Senate should have foreseen that and rejected him, he had not at the time of his nomination been responsible for memos justifying torture. He hadn't argued that the President stood above the law and could pretty much do whatever he wanted. He had not been in the center of months and months of revelations about the horrific doings at Abu Ghraib, in detention centers in Afghanistan, or, even as you are reading this, Guantánamo. How can it be that the smart money is on Gonzales being confirmed? That Charles Schumer, a popular blue-state Democrat with a war chest bigger than Alexander the Great's, is already talking sagely about the presumption that the President gets the Cabinet members he wants? ... you don't need a high IQ or a PhD to believe in law and human rights and the Golden Rule. The problem is fear. The media are afraid of looking too "liberal," intellectuals are afraid of being called "anti-American"--and they will be if they challenge too vigorously the crimes being committed in America's name--Democrats are afraid of having their remaining bits of turf plowed under and sown with salt by the Republicans, the left is afraid of looking too "secular" and not "supporting the troops," and ordinary people are afraid of being blown up by the terrorist next door. Fear dust. That's what it is. Fear dust. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050124&s=pollitt Via http://www.pacificviews.org/ Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: "You can't handle the truth"
On Jan 15, 2005, at 4:59 PM, Gary Denton wrote: At least he didn't have Powell shot, which is what Hussein reportedly used to do when advisers told him he couldn't possibly win a war against the US. Curious. He lives up to your low expectations of not being a mad dictator? :D He's managed to live down to my expectations so far (and, in some cases, done even *worse* than I thought possible). I was just pointing out that it could have been worse. Instead of murdering Powell, he only made him commit career suicide. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
* Erik Reuter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I found the web link for the article which was the source of the table > I posted from the book (the book didn't give the URL, but a web search > turned it up). I'm still working through it: > > http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st260/ Dan, As I've been reading through that article and the references, I'm finding that the tax, welfare, and SS system is even more complicated than I had realized. I'm not going to be done studying it this weekend, I'm afraid. I still intend to work through it, but it is probably going to be a couple weeks until I finish, since I have several other higher priority items also. As I go through it, whenever I see something relevant to our discussion, I will post it, in case you are working on it also. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 7:07 PM Subject: Re: Social Security > * Erik Reuter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > I found the web link for the article which was the source of the table > > I posted from the book (the book didn't give the URL, but a web search > > turned it up). I'm still working through it: > > > > http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st260/ > > Dan, > > As I've been reading through that article and the references, I'm > finding that the tax, welfare, and SS system is even more complicated > than I had realized. I'm not going to be done studying it this weekend, > I'm afraid. I still intend to work through it, but it is probably going > to be a couple weeks until I finish, since I have several other higher > priority items also. What? This list isn't your number one priority? I'm shocked, shocked. :-) > As I go through it, whenever I see something relevant to our discussion, > I will post it, in case you are working on it also. I probably will be, and I'll do the same. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:23:03 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Of course, the current GOP appointed trustees have slanted this last > > report to make the situation more dire. If you go back to the last > > report in 1997 the optimist case had the economy growing atr 2.2% a > > year. The new optimistic scenario is a growth of 1.7%. If you plug > > the 2.2% number back in under the SS numbers there is no deficit. > > Could these numbers have been chosen for political reasons? Did they > > not want any case shown where there is not a shortfall? > > Rather than making silly partisan insinuations, and rapidly quoting > sound-bites without studying and thinking about them, it is useful to > actually look at facts and numbers. > > Since 1789, real GDP per capita in the US has grown at an average > annualized rate of 1.64%, with a standard deviation of 5.02%. For a > seventy five year period, the standard deviation is reduced by the > square root of 75, which comes out to be 0.58%. Source data for GDP is > at: > > http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/ > > The SS Trustees assume for their intermediate productivity growth number > 1.6%, exactly equal to the longer term growth in GDP per capita for > the longest time series available. And for their high and low cost > scenarios, they add and subtract half of the 75 year standard deviation, > so that is 1.6% +/- 0.29% = 1.3% and 1.9% The SS projection assumptions > are at: > > http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_assump.html#wp94905 > > It is hard to imagine anyone familiar with economic statistics calling > their assumed productivity growth numbers unjustified or unreasonable. It is hard to imigine someone going back ovfer 200 years to get their economic growth projection and then narrowing to half of a standard deviation. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/V_economic.html#wp159107 High Cost 1.3% Intermediate Cost 1.6% Low Cost 1.9% 1997 report: High Cost .3% Intermediate Cost 1.3% Low Cost 2.2% Some discussion and links to trust fund reports here: http://bruceweb.blogspot.com/2004/11/trust-fund-ratios-under-three.html "The 1996 Report shows it running dry in 2030 under the Intermediate Cost alternative, the 2004 Report sometime in 2041. "There is a word for a problem that improves itself eleven years over a nine year period after being neglected. That word is not "Crisis"." Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:40:31 -0600, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure, but the ratio of workers to retirees was given as the basis for > raising taxes in the '80s in order to have a cushion for the baby boomers. > >From 1950 to 2002, the life expectancy at 65 changed from 13.9 to 18.2 > years. From 1980 to 2002, it only changed from 16.4 to 18.2 years. > > http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus04trend.pdf#027 > > page 77 according to Acrobat. > > The aging of the population has been modest and matching the increase in > life expectancy so far (the ratio of >65/(20-65) has risen from about 14% > to about 22%. But, by ~2033, when the baby boomers hit the hardest, it > will be near 40%. > > http://dallasfedreview.org/pdfs/v01_n04_a01.pdf > > Dan M. > > Thus, the baby boomer population bulge does matter. Yes, but is suspect the real nature of the "crisis" is the GOP not being able to even consider more upper-income tax cuts soon and even requiring those cuts to be rolled back and the SS wage cap raised. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:23:03 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rather than making silly partisan insinuations, and rapidly quoting > > sound-bites without studying and thinking about them, it is useful to > > actually look at facts and numbers. > > > > Since 1789, real GDP per capita in the US has grown at an average > > annualized rate of 1.64%, with a standard deviation of 5.02%. For a > > seventy five year period, the standard deviation is reduced by the > > square root of 75, which comes out to be 0.58%. Source data for GDP is > > at: > > > > http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/ > > > > The SS Trustees assume for their intermediate productivity growth number > > 1.6%, exactly equal to the longer term growth in GDP per capita for > > the longest time series available. And for their high and low cost > > scenarios, they add and subtract half of the 75 year standard deviation, > > so that is 1.6% +/- 0.29% = 1.3% and 1.9% The SS projection assumptions > > are at: > > > > http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_assump.html#wp94905 > > > > It is hard to imagine anyone familiar with economic statistics calling > > their assumed productivity growth numbers unjustified or unreasonable. > > It is hard to imigine someone going back ovfer 200 years to get their > economic growth projection and then narrowing to half of a standard > deviation. In other words, you don't have a clue about what you are writing, and are just playing Eliza again, repeating sound bites randomly instead of giving an analytical basis for your argument. If this is the kind of thing that is coming to pass for cogent discussion as a result of the expansion in internet blogging in the last few years, then I despair for the future. It seems that attention spans are rapidly approaching 30 seconds and that people think that sound bites are better than detailed knowledge and careful study. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
Social Security Enlisted to Push Its Own Demise New York Times WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 - Over the objections of many of its own employees, the Social Security Administration is gearing up for a major effort to publicize the financial problems of Social Security and to convince the public that private accounts are needed as part of any solution. The agency's plans are set forth in internal documents, including a "tactical plan" for communications and marketing of the idea that Social Security faces dire financial problems requiring immediate action. Social Security officials say the agency is carrying out its mission to educate the public, including more than 47 million beneficiaries, and to support President Bush's agenda. "The system is broken, and promises are being made that Social Security cannot keep," Mr. Bush said in his Saturday radio address. He is expected to address the issue in his Inaugural Address. [Story, Page 20] But agency employees have complained to Social Security officials that they are being conscripted into a political battle over the future of the program. They question the accuracy of recent statements by the agency, and they say that money from the Social Security trust fund should not be used for such advocacy. "Trust fund dollars should not be used to promote a political agenda," said Dana C. Duggins, a vice president of the Social Security Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents more than 50,000 of the agency's 64,000 workers and has opposed private accounts. more... http://tinyurl.com/5gzdl also Social Security Bashing: A Historical Perspective ...Social Security inspired alarm and heated rhetoric in the 1930's because it involved a fundamental reordering of a portion of the economy and a basic change in the compact between the government and its citizens. Seventy years later, President Bush's desire to transform Social Security from a government-provided guaranteed income to a self-directed savings program also betokens far-reaching changes. As such, it is likely to generate its share of far-reaching claims, both for and against. One often-sounded warning about Social Security did materialize. Critics and supporters alike argued that the government might be tempted to spend the reserve funds that would pile up. Indeed, in the last four fiscal years, some $634 billion ostensibly collected to ensure the long-term viability of Social Security has been spent on current programs, according to figures from the Office of Management and Budget. As Mr. Epstein wrote nearly 70 years ago: "Experience everywhere indicates that politicians will hardly be able to keep their hands off such money." http://tinyurl.com/57tze I am not sure how politicians won't also yield to taxpayer requests to have access to 'their' own privatized retirement account money as they did to 401Ks, taking a little off the top of course. Despite his attacks on myself and others Erik and I share some of the same concerns and distrust of politicians. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
On Jan 15, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: In other words, you don't have a clue about what you are writing, and are just playing Eliza again, repeating sound bites randomly instead of giving an analytical basis for your argument. Which of these items is the foregoing an example of? Free-thinking, tolerance, rationality, humor, compassion, forgiveness, honesty, courageousness, adventurousness, pragmatism, curiosity, cleverness, creativity, inventiveness, imagination, cooperation, altruism ...? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:37:23 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is hard to imigine someone going back ovfer 200 years to get their > > economic growth projection and then narrowing to half of a standard > > deviation. > > In other words, you don't have a clue about what you are writing, and > are just playing Eliza again, repeating sound bites randomly instead of > giving an analytical basis for your argument. > > If this is the kind of thing that is coming to pass for cogent > discussion as a result of the expansion in internet blogging in the last > few years, then I despair for the future. It seems that attention spans > are rapidly approaching 30 seconds and that people think that sound > bites are better than detailed knowledge and careful study. I don't why I try to respond to these repeated ad hominem sound bites accusing me of repeating sound bites randomly. To repeat it in words even a half-educated engineer can understand the 200+ year GDP is flawed because it assumes they can accurately measure GDP that far back - that historical GDP has its own set of assumptions. Anyone who does a long-term future projection and uses only a half of a standard deviation for their upper and lower bounds doesn't know economics or statistics unless they have some agenda. My last marketing project was analyzing 70,000 FEDEX locations that implemented various changes in hours and procedures on a random basis with no controls to determine which measures improved profitability. Gary "random sound bites" Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:16:59 -0600, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What? This list isn't your number one priority? I'm shocked, shocked. :-) I was supposed to be doing something else this afternoon and evening but ended up on list and web surfing. A QUESTION OF NUMBERS Like other pension systems, Social Security was designed to replace a fixed portion of a retiree's previous earnings. For a single person with average earnings, initial benefits were intended to replace about 40 percent of income. They are still pegged to 40 percent of income. Since wages generally rise faster than inflation, retirees in each generation get more in real dollars than those in previous ones. Contemporary critics, like Kasich and the Bush council, would slow the rate of future increases by linking benefits only to inflation. Though this would save a lot of money, its effect on retirees should be understood. Seniors now get an initial benefit that is tied to a fixed portion of their pre-retirement wages. If the index was changed, their pensions would be pegged to a fixed portion of a previous generation's income. If this standard had been in force since the beginning, retirees today would be living like those in the 1940's -- like Ida Fuller, which would mean $300 a month in today's dollars, as opposed to roughly $1,200 a month. One way or another, societies with more old people have to devote more resources to them. Right now, benefits amount to 4.3 percent of G.D.P. The trustees' most likely projection assumes that over the next 75 years that figure will rise to 6.6 percent. In the more optimistic case, benefits will rise to 5.2 percent. Given the substantial increase in the elderly population, neither of these figures seems rash or out of proportion. The increased cost would be on a par with that of making Bush's first-term tax cuts permanent, which is projected to be about 2 percent of G.D.P. .. Ultimately, every 75-year forecast is just a guess, and therefore every approach must accommodate a range of possible outcomes. Plans that link worker benefits to the stock market automatically adjust -- if the economy underperforms, then workers get lower benefits. This enhances, rather than mitigates, whatever is the trend in people's private savings. As Thompson says, ''The default adjustment is you eat less.'' This could be brutal and also unfair, especially to the post-1983 generation of workers that, on the say-so of Greenspan and Reagan that the trust fund would be honored, has paid a sacrifice in both reduced benefits and higher taxes. [A very good point.] What other solution is there? Ball, who joined the system in 1939 as a $1,620-a-year district officer in Newark, has thought of one. He starts from two premises: it would be reckless not to make some adjustments now, but foolish to make too much of 75-year prophecies. ''In 1928, there was no way to forecast the Depression, World War II, the birth-control pill. We have to stop acting as if 75-year estimates were absolute,'' he told me. Nonetheless, Ball would tweak the system in several modest ways to reduce the projected deficit. For instance, he would very gradually raise the cap on income subject to the payroll tax, now at $90,000. This would reverse a recent regressive trend. Income distribution in America has become more skewed, thus upper-income folks have earned more money that has escaped the tax. Ball would also add three other, smaller fixes to further tighten benefits and raise taxes. (There are many variations of these fixes floating around the Beltway.) After Ball's prescription, how much of a deficit would then remain? Possibly a fraction of a percent of the payroll, possibly zero. The answer would depend on the net effects of future birth rates, wars, diseases, inventions and so forth. Enter now Ball's little accommodation to uncertainty. It is that Congress simply resolve now to impose, 50 years hence, a payroll tax increase sufficient to close whatever gap exists over the ensuing quarter-century. This could not be enforced now, of course, but that is Ball's point. He wants to free the Congress, and the rest of us, from the annual game of insisting on an exact and illusory far-off balance; to diminish the perception that we must urgently adjust to economic and demographic developments too distant to be forecast. .. Prudence dictates taking steps now to minimize the possible shortfall. This could include raising the cap, some modest cuts and tax increases and a gradual redeployment of the trust fund into assets that may not be tapped, willy-nilly, for whatever legislative purpose. But only a real crisis would dictate undoing an institution that has provided a safety net for retirees, that has helped to preserve in the social fabric some minimum of shared responsibility and that has been supported by workers in good faith. And, in looking at Social Security today, the crisis is yet to be found. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/magazi
Re: Social Security
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > To repeat it in words even a half-educated engineer can understand > the 200+ year GDP is flawed because it assumes they can accurately > measure GDP that far back - that historical GDP has its own set of > assumptions. How would you decide which data is accurate? What year does the measurement of GDP begin to meet your standards of accuracy? There is another useful data set that economic statisticians frequently refer to. It was compiled by Dimson, Marsh, and Staunton in _The Triumph of the Optimists_ and it covers all of the twentieth century for 16 differenet countries. For Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, UK, US, Australia, S. Africa, and Sweden (countries that did not have their capital stock destroyed during the World Wars), the average growth in real GDP per capita over the twentieth century for those 8 countries was 1.77%. So, going out-of-sample from the data I referenced before to include 7 other countries, and limiting the time period to the twentieth century (to address you accuracy of older data objection), we have a change from 1.64% to 1.77%. Not a big difference. Looks like the SS trustees figures for productivity growth are reasonable. > Anyone who does a long-term future projection and uses only a half > of a standard deviation for their upper and lower bounds doesn't know > economics or statistics unless they have some agenda. We were discussion the SS Trustees multi-factor model, of which productivity growth is only one factor. On the reference I gave, they list 8 other key factors in their model. They don't give the relative importance of each factor. Anyone familiar with variability analysis in such a model knows that when you have a multi-factor model and each factor has a random variation, you should not simultaneously assign large variations in the same direction to all the parameters simultaneously. Otherwise you end up with tiny probabilities very quickly. This is easy to see by checking some numbers. Consider a multi-factor model with only 3 parameters (much fewer than the SS model, and so this example favors useing even larger variations in the individual parameters than the SS model) In a model with 3 parameters, each having a standard normal distribution uncorrelated with the others, assume that we choose all three parameters to have a value one-half a standard deviation above the mean. For a single normally-distributed parameter, the probability of it being found at greater than one-half standard deviation above the mean is 30.9%. The probability that all 3 parameters are at least one-half standard deviation above the mean is (30.9%)^3 = 2.9%. So, in this example, the "extreme" case is worse than all but 2.9% of the possibilities. If we added a lower extreme case, that would also be 2.9%, so there would be a chance of 100% - 2 x 2.9% = 94.1% chance that the parameters would fall within the range of our two extreme cases. A typical rule of thumb in statistical hypothesis testing is to use 2-sigma confidence intervals. A 2-sigma confidence interval is equivalent to 95.4% probability of being correct. So a simple 3-factor model with half standard deviation variations in the parameters gives us nearly 2-sigma confidence. Now the SS model is a lot more complicated -- it has many more than 3 factors, and there will likely be some correlations, but it is clear that we are in the ballpark of something that is reasonable and not unjustified by mainstream statistical analysis. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 9:17 PM Subject: Re: Social Security > Now the SS model is a lot more complicated > -- it has many more than 3 factors, and there will likely be some > correlations, but it is clear that we are in the ballpark of something > that is reasonable and not unjustified by mainstream statistical > analysis. An interesting sidebar on this. I tend to like to use Monte Carlo analysis. It is a very simple way to do fairly complicated statistics, and it is easier to see assumptions when one sets them up in a Monte Carlo than if one makes approximations in statistical analysis. A friend of Amy's (who've we've known for about 10 years) received an honors BA in math and is now in Stanford's PhD program in economics. She was talking about the complex statistical analysis that was needed. I asked her why Monte Carlo analysis isn't done more. I was curious to see if there was some problem I missed. Her answer was, basically, inertia...that it is being done a lot more by the younger scholars. With the price and speed of computers, one can do a one day run of billions of cases of fairly complex multivariable models and obtain results. One can find subtle combinations that aren't intuitively obvious this way. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > With the price and speed of computers, one can do a one day run of > billions of cases of fairly complex multivariable models and obtain > results. One can find subtle combinations that aren't intuitively > obvious this way. i agree completely. I also like Monte Carlo analysis. You might enjoy the book "Fooled by Randomness" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. He is an options trader who does a lot of Monte Carlo analysis in his work. _FBR_ is a popular account and does not get into the details of his techniques. Anyway, at least some finance guys are doing Monte Carlo. http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/ -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 7:24 PM Subject: Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate] > > Thus, the baby boomer population bulge does matter. > > Yes, but is suspect the real nature of the "crisis" is the GOP not > being able to even consider more upper-income tax cuts soon and even > requiring those cuts to be rolled back and the SS wage cap raised. While I am suspect of the figures coming out of the White House, I'm also very keen on obtaining my own good understanding. It's important to know that the demographic shift is a world wide problem that needs addressing. As Gautam said a couple of years ago, the US is one of the few countries (with GB and Australia) that is in decent position to address this. I have written that this can be addressed with fairly modest cuts in the increase in the real social security. Erik has argued that a floor needs to be provided by SS. In short, Gary, while I agree with you that Erik can be more tactful in expressing his viewpoint, I also see some things from Erik's point of view (or at least I think I do...Erik is obviously free to correct me here). Both Erik and I are very interested in what the facts are. I think he has done more legwork than me, but I've done at least some analysis to try to understand things. I try hard to lay out my assumptions, so someone can correct them, when I was questioning the 80%+ marginal net tax rate. I'd bet a beer that this figure involves some funny math, that in a practical sense the marginal tax rate is not close to this high between 20k/year and 40k/year, but I am more interested in seeing the actual facts than winning this bet. So, I am grateful to Erik for the work he promises to do. In short, I see this discussion as an opportunity for a group effort at self-education between a number of folks. I appreciate Erik's work in helping me develop my understanding. I'm pretty sure he also appreciate my desire to get at what's really going on...and the bit of leg work that I've done. Even though we may end up with different opinions on what the best course of action is, I feel that we can help each other learn. I think you could help too. I interpret Erik's post as criticism that you are not adding to our basis for understanding...that your posts contain more partisan rhetoric and reference to partisan websites than analysis that advances our common understanding. I'll have to say that I think there may be some basis for thiseven when I tend to agree with you on a point, I don't see your posts advancing those points in an analytical sense. Your reference to your work indicates that you can provide useful thought on this issue. I would find that helpful. Obviously this is a YMMV issue, not everyone wishes to take a busman's holiday and do analysis on a mailing list. If you just enjoy making rhetorical points, then that's OKI just, from a selfish perspective, want to learn things from you. I'm guessing that Erik would actually be very happy if, by reading your posts, he learned something. So, as a result, Erik may bluntly tell you he sees no use in your posts and I may try to push you into giving me some information. For example, I think that, by running just a few numbers, you could have strengthened this post so that it had a good deal of meat on it. You could even quote Erik to make your point, I think. :-) Finally, Erik and I don't need to like your posts any more than you need to like mine. I appreciate the fact that you haven't been rude in replying to my posts...so they don't really upset me. I guess I'm just greedy and want more. Dan M. I hope this post is more informative than rude soundingthat it gives you a bit more information which you can either choose to ignore or apply. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > If you just enjoy making rhetorical points, then that's OK Here's one: "We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system. We have a great opportunity now to be able to tell all these young people who are shadowing their Cabinet and administration leaders that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. We have a great opportunity, those of us in the baby boom generation, to tell our own children that when we retire and start drawing Social Security, it isn't going to bankrupt them to take care of us and undermine their ability to take care of their own children. We need to do this." -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:22:37 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > If you just enjoy making rhetorical points, then that's OK > > Here's one: > > "We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis > in the Social Security system. We have a great opportunity now to be > able to tell all these young people who are shadowing their Cabinet > and administration leaders that Social Security will be there for them > when they retire. We have a great opportunity, those of us in the baby > boom generation, to tell our own children that when we retire and start > drawing Social Security, it isn't going to bankrupt them to take care of > us and undermine their ability to take care of their own children. We > need to do this." > Interesting quote from Clinton as he presented a balanced budget in 98. Should I insert a rhetorical point here about the GOP? Gary D. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Interesting quote from Clinton as he presented a balanced budget in > 98. Should I insert a rhetorical point here about the GOP? If you like, but I probably won't be reading it. My post was just testing a hypothesis about whether you would make a cogent reply to Dan's excellent post, or if you would choose to play with sound bites. Since the theory just got some confirmation, I will probably be skipping most of your stuff in the future. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
Hmm... Reasonable yes. But, isn't that assuming that the survivorship bias continues to favor the US? For a 75 year, or infinite horizon projection, the chances that it won't can't be neglected. ~Maru Erik Reuter wrote: ... For Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, UK, US, Australia, S. Africa, and Sweden (countries that did not have their capital stock destroyed during the World Wars), the average growth in real GDP per capita over the twentieth century for those 8 countries was 1.77%. So, going out-of-sample from the data I referenced before to include 7 other countries, and limiting the time period to the twentieth century (to address you accuracy of older data objection), we have a change from 1.64% to 1.77%. Not a big difference. Looks like the SS trustees figures for productivity growth are reasonable. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: attn: wtg, MUD to Holocene Chat
> If you are interested please, reply to Brin-L. (Effectively > this is a blank-check form of RSVP.) Count me in. Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
