Re: Social Security
* maru dubshinki ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 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. Your argument is that since the US could cease to exist in the future, then we should adjust our estimate of productivity growthhow? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A little sprinkling of pixie fear dust
It was as if everyone had been sprinkled with idiot dust! Maybe it was: generations where natural selection has worked to select foot-ball players and cheerleaders as alpha reproducers can't go unpunished :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 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. Sure, I was pointing out that you might NOT be using the right marginal rate. You said you chose 15% initially (although I see you using 25% below). If Kotlikoff's and Gokhale's assumptions about the additional income are different than yours or they are calculating with a different year tax laws, the marginal rate could easily be different. This is one thing I am looking to clarify in their calculation. 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): Okay, let's make this a bit easier. Massachusetts has a flat tax of 5.3%. (There are other states where it could be even higher, so it is not like I picked the outlier here) Let's use Massachusetts, okay? http://www.taxfoundation.org/individualincometaxrates.html 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 I think you are assuming that this couple will be itemizing their deductions. Did you check to see if they really would be better itemizing than taking the standard deduction? 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%. That is debatable -- I can see it going either way. It all depends on how you define income. If Kotlikoff was talking about pre-tax income where pre-tax REALLY means before ALL tax, then you don't add that to the denominator. You are defining the $20K income in a certain way (after some taxes), but it is not the only reasonable way. Anyway, rather than arguing about definitions, I propose we take what I think is the simplest definition: the income we will discuss in our calculation is before ALL taxes. So, if we say someone has a $20K income, then we mean that in a zero tax world, their income would be $20K. After taxes, their income would be much less than $20K. If we do this, it may be that we will be calculating for a lower income family than you had initially assumed. 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 But, why do you make this assumption? The tax law looks very complicated to me in this regard. Have you studied it carefully? Kotlikoff specifically mentions Medicaid and housing assistance (in addition to food stamps and EITC that you already included), so I'd bet it can be significant at certain income levels. Again, it depends on the income assumptions, obviously. If the family being examined is lower-income than you are assuming, then more of these benefits could become important. If you have already carefully studied this, then I'd certainly like to see your notes or references showing what benefits such a family does and does not receive at what income levels. If you don't know, then I'll just have to continue my reading, and I will post my notes on it eventually. Also, if anyone else can think of federal benefits that go away when family income rises from 20k/year to 40k/year, I'd be interested in seeing some numbers. If you don't have the inclination to do the numbers, just mention it and I'll see what I can do. If you have a ready reference, how about checking on Medicaid and housing assistance? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 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. Here is another paper of theirs that I am reading. It gives a lot of details about their methodology: http://econ.bu.edu/kotlikoff/Worktax11-25-02.pdf -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
Here's a recent article by Kotlikoff on his plan to replace SS. http://econ.bu.edu/kotlikoff/Globe%20Op%20Ed%2011-21-04.pdf The end of Social Security? Don't reform it, replace it By Laurence J. Kotlikoff | November 21, 2004 After a long campaign season of spin, smear, and slogan, we're finally having a serious debate over domestic policy. President Bush has set the agenda -- Social Security's privatization and tax reform. The president wants to cut Social Security's payroll tax and have workers invest their tax cut in stocks and bonds within private accounts. And he wants to replace the federal income tax with a tax on consumption. Both proposals drive Democrats nuts. In their view, Social Security and the income tax are the only things keeping the elderly out of the poor house and the rich from gaining all the spoils. But Social Security is broke, and the income tax is a mess. So the Democrats must engage and stop treating these institutions like sacred cows. In his quest to privatize Social Security, the president is poised to support one of three plans developed by his 2001 Commission to Strengthen Social Security. The plans differ in important ways, but each diverts payroll taxes to private accounts. Obviously, this limits Social Security's ability to meet its benefit obligations. The trillion-dollar question is, thus, how to finance this tax cut, particularly given Social Security's dire financial position. As things now stand, Social Security doesn't need an immediate and permanent tax cut ranging, depending on the plan, from 16 to 33 percent. Instead, it needs an immediate and permanent 28 percent tax hike to cover its short- and long-term benefit commitments. One way to make up for the loss in revenue from privatization as well as cover the existing revenue shortfall is dramatically but gradually to cut Social Security benefits. Such cuts are part of each of the commission's plans. The commission's report uses artful language to hide this fact. But the proposed cuts are huge. The second plan, for example, indexes the initial receipt of retirement benefits to prices, rather than wages, as is currently the case. Over time, this means that Social Security benefits would replace an ever smaller share of workers' pre-tax wages. In the long run, Social Security would protect those in abject poverty, but that's it. Because they cut long-run benefits so deeply, the plans are actually fiscally quite conservative. But in the short run, their adoption would significantly raise the already massive federal deficit. This could drive up interest rates and trigger a recession. Another concern is transactions costs. On a per person basis, the proposed accounts are small. Indeed, they're so modest as to suggest that the commission's real goal is eliminating not just the existing Social Security system, but compulsory saving in general. Take a household with $50,000 in income. The maximum annual contribution under all three plans would be only 2 percent or $1,000. This is hardly worthwhile when you consider how much Wall Street will charge to help workers keep track of and manage this money. Moreover, many workers won't properly invest their account balances and end up at retirement with little to show for years of contributing. Those workers who invest well will find themselves at the mercy of rapacious insurance companies when they try to convert their balances into retirement annuities (pensions). Finally, the plans are generationally inequitable. Social Security has a $10.4 trillion unfunded liability, and well-heeled current and near-term retirees should be asked to help pay it. But the commission's plans force today's young and future generations to bear essentially the entire burden. The method is simple -- eliminate most of their future Social Security benefits while maintaining most of their future Social Security taxes. The president's second initiative, tax reform, has lots to recommend it. The income tax is enormously complex, engendering major compliance and collection costs. But fixing the income tax doesn't require shifting the tax base or reducing progressivity -- the requirement that the rich pay proportionately more than the poor. We can and should keep the income tax, but also broaden its base and lower its rates, while maintaining the share of taxes paid by the rich. Rather than substitute consumption for income taxation, I favor substituting consumption for payroll taxation. We should do this as one of nine steps needed to properly reform Social Security, albeit in ways that are very different from those the commission proposes. My plan, which has been endorsed by 150 of the nation's leading economists, is called the Personal Security System. Step 1 shuts down, at the margin, the retirement (Old Age Insurance, or OAI) portion of Social Security. Current retirees continue to receive their full retirement benefits, and current workers receive all the retirement benefits now owed to
Re: attn: wtg, MUD to Holocene Chat
Trent Shipley invited: If you are interested please, reply to Brin-L. (Effectively this is a blank-check form of RSVP.) I can see one problem: the regular chatters are Mac or Linux users, and I imagine that the holochat software is Windoze-based. We may be killing the old chat and _not_ creating a new one. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Economist on Bush's pension and tax reform plans
http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3559860 The revolution comes home Jan 13th 2005 | WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition MOST two-term American presidents lose steam in their second four years. If scandal doesn't get them (Watergate, Iran-contra, Monica Lewinsky), weariness does. Sitting presidents rarely campaign on a revolutionary agenda, just feel-good blather: Ronald Reagan's Morning in America, or Bill Clinton's Bridge to the 21st century. And a re-elected president is a lame-duck long before his second term ends, leaving little time to get much done. George Bush seems determined to be different. He has laid out a second-term domestic agenda more ambitious than anything seen in the first term, and that was hardly a lull. It brought the biggest tax cuts since 1981, the broadest education reform in a generation and the costliest expansion of Medicare, the state health system for the elderly, since it was set up in 1965. If the first-term legacy is largely a deficit, the second term promises to shake some of the country's economic pillars. At the Republican convention last September, Mr Bush spoke of transforming America's fundamental economic institutions for the 21st century, and offered two broad organising themes. The first was to make the United States the best place in the world to do business. That covered changes from tort reform (fewer burdensome lawsuits) to a simpler tax code, spurring more economic growth. The second theme was to foster an ownership society, by giving individuals greater control over, and responsibility for, their own health care and pensions. In particular, it meant restructuring Social Security, America's public pension system, by basing it partly on private accounts. Empty campaign promises? Not so. At his post-election press conference, the president left no doubt that he regarded his victory as a mandate for reform. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, he said, and now I intend to spend it. In recent weeks, priorities have been set. Tort reform is top of the list of first-term left-overs. In early January Mr Bush gave three speeches pushing laws to curb frivolous lawsuits. Top of the new list of second-term priorities is Social Security reform. Tax reform has been put off until a bipartisan presidential commission under two ex-senators, John Breaux and Connie Mack, has studied the issue; they have been asked to report by the end of July. No one expects much action on tax until 2006. In contrast, the White House has hinted that it wants to move on pension reform within the next few months. There is more, though the other topics may be even more contentious. Judicial appointments are a top priority for Mr Bush's conservative base, but are certain to create a poisonous battle in the Senate. Immigration reform, particularly the creation of a guest-worker programme, will cause painful divisions within Republican ranks. Mr Bush may attempt them, all the same. The president's ambition, coupled with increased Republican majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, makes for heady expectations. Right-wing activists talk of a conservative New Deal, with Mr Bush changing America as profoundly as Franklin Roosevelt did in the 1930s. Democrats, equally exercised, accuse Mr Bush of fabricating a crisis in the pensions system, in particular, in order to destroy the fabric of modern America. But just as the scale of the project has emerged, so the political landscape has become more difficult. According to Gallup polls, Mr Bush has the weakest job-approval rating of any newly re-elected president since 1948. High casualties in Iraq are the main reason, but the public also seems uninspired by much of this reform agenda. The Democrats are also surprisingly united in their opposition, particularly to Social Security reform. In the case of tax cuts, in the first term, several Democrats switched sides early on; but virtually none has defected in favour of private retirement accounts. Even centrist Democratic groups have come out against them. At the same time, congressional Republicans are both nervous about supporting pension reform and divided on how to go about it. As a result, Washington's punditocracy has been whispering about over-reach even before the inauguration. Nasty comparisons are being made between Mr Bush's Social Security plan and Bill Clinton's disastrous efforts to overhaul America's health-care system in 1993. And Cassandras are crowing that Mr Bush's second term will be a spectacular failure. The hyberbole on both sides is misplaced. Mr Bush's agenda combines the incremental and the radical, the sensible and the reckless, the politically doable and the impossible. Even under the most favourable circumstances, not everything will get done: Mr Bush has simply put too much on the table. But unless the White House loses its political touch entirely, some reforms will be pushed through. Of torts
Re: Social Security
I was talking about the survivorship bias Erik, which simply says our extrapolations from past performance have a small, but nonetheless real chance, of being in error because of the historically advantageous position of our country means that it will have higher performance, and the data from which to extrapolate, whereas the less fortunate countries will do poorly, and also not have the records that would allow us to integrate their true economic data into our estimates, leading to a over-optimism, an inadvertent cherry picking if you will . Which means, it could be so that one of our many wars will destroy, significantly reduce our financial centers and our economy, and the chances of this is underestimated. Its relevance to this debate is such: imagine Germany c. 1899 or so, had engaged in 75-year or infinite horizon forcasts of *their* productivity growth rate and its applicabilility to their own social security style program Bismarck set up. They fell afoul of the survivorship from bias. I said, nor implied, nothing about the US 'cease to exist..'. Except maybe hypothetically in a corporate legal sorta way. ~Maru Selection bias effects, yay! Erik Reuter wrote: * maru dubshinki ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 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. Your argument is that since the US could cease to exist in the future, then we should adjust our estimate of productivity growthhow? -- 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
* maru dubshinki ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I was talking about the survivorship bias Erik, which simply So you are arguing that we should use a lower productivity growth forecast than 1.77% ? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
Erik Reuter wrote: ... But Social Security is broke, Pretty hard to continue reading after that sentence. Unless, of course, I hear that all the Social Security checks are bouncing and find out that it's true. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
Possibly. Was that bias taken into account? If then, I will shut the heck up about this; if not, I'd suggest that the proper statistical treatment would be to widen the margin of error. I think ~Maru IANAS Erik Reuter wrote: * maru dubshinki ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I was talking about the survivorship bias Erik, which simply So you are arguing that we should use a lower productivity growth forecast than 1.77% ? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: ... But Social Security is broke, Pretty hard to continue reading after that sentence. Unless, of course, I hear that all the Social Security checks are bouncing and find out that it's true. If you want a more detailed description of what he means, you can read about it at http://www.aei.org/docLib/20030723_SmettersFinalCC.pdf Briefly, Kotlikoff is referring to the fact that the present value of scheduled SS benefits exceed the present value of future SS payroll tax income. He could equivalently have said the system is broken. The forecast is that SS will not be able to pay scheduled benefits in the future without an increase in funding. A similar situation would be a person with a life expectancy of 20 years who today is earning $10K more per year than he is spending, but who currently owes $250,000 on his mortgage. The present value of this person's future savings is $194,500 [1]. So the present value of this assets are less than liabilities. That is a good definition of bankrupt, even if the day of reckoning may be years off. Now, SS is of course different than this person's situation. SS benefits are an implicit obligation -- there is no exact analogy to the mortgage holder above. So, what might happen is that in 2042 benefits would be cut to 73% of what is currently scheduled (if Congress does nothing to increase funding for SS, essentially Congress would be defaulting on an implicit SS obligation). Reducing benefits to 73% of scheduled in 2042 makes the present value of scheduled SS obligations equal to the present value of future SS taxes. [1] Assuming an annual real growth rate of earnings and spending of 1.7% and a real discount rate of 2% -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
* maru dubshinki ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Possibly. Was that bias taken into account? If then, I will shut the heck up about this; if not, I'd suggest that the proper statistical treatment would be to widen the margin of error. I think No, if it is a significant effect which lowers the productivity growth, then you don't widen the margin of error. You would lower the productivity growth estimate across the board. Which puts SS in worse financial shape. Unless you are arguing that the countries that were left out actually had higher productivity growth than the ones that were included. Personally, I don't think it is a big effect. The usual way to guard against survivorship bias is to use all relevant data. In this case, you would choose your samples at the beginning of the period, rather than the end of the period. To see how one expects productivity to grow in a country with a well-developed economy and free market, one should start by going back to, say 1900, and identifying all of the countries in existence at that time which had a well developed free market economy. Then include all of them in the model. If you think there is significant survivorship bias in the study I referenced, then you should be able to point to a number of countries with well developed free markets in 1900 that were not included. -- 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 brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 8:03 AM Subject: Re: Social Security * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 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. Sure, I was pointing out that you might NOT be using the right marginal rate. You said you chose 15% initially (although I see you using 25% below). (which I corrected back to 15% a bit later.) If Kotlikoff's and Gokhale's assumptions about the additional income are different than yours or they are calculating with a different year tax laws, the marginal rate could easily be different. This is one thing I am looking to clarify in their calculation. OKI've looked at recent tax rates. For example, the pivit point from 15% to 25% is at ~57k of taxable income, well above 40kand taxable income is after at least the standard deduction and allowance for each member of the familywhich pushes the 40k to below 30k for a family of 4. Okay, let's make this a bit easier. Massachusetts has a flat tax of 5.3%. (There are other states where it could be even higher, so it is not like I picked the outlier here) Let's use Massachusetts, okay? Agreed. 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 I think you are assuming that this couple will be itemizing their deductions. Did you check to see if they really would be better itemizing than taking the standard deduction? No, since that involves a number of unknowns. That's a fair point, so we can use the 5.3% for the state income tax rate for computations. 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%. That is debatable -- I can see it going either way. It all depends on how you define income. If Kotlikoff was talking about pre-tax income where pre-tax REALLY means before ALL tax, then you don't add that to the denominator. You are defining the $20K income in a certain way (after some taxes), but it is not the only reasonable way. That's true. The reason I defined it this way is that wages and salaries are almost always described this way. Income tax tables, minimum wage law, wage limits for various benefits, etc. are all given assuming the definition I used. Anyways, what I was getting at is that, when the marginal net tax rate is high (in the 70% range), the difference between including the employers SS tax payment as both income and tax, and including it as neither income or tax is only a couple percent...because, in transforming from one way of analyzing the data to another, one adds/subtracts that tax from both the numerator and the denomenator. In short instead of If Kotlikoff was talking about pre-tax income where pre-tax REALLY means before ALL tax, then you don't add that to the denominator. I'd say If Kotlikoff was talking about pre-tax income where pre-tax REALLY means before ALL tax, then he already has added that to the denominator. Anyway, rather than arguing about definitions, I propose we take what I think is the simplest definition: the income we will discuss in our calculation is before ALL taxes. So, if we say someone has a $20K income, then we mean that in a zero tax world, their income would be $20K. After taxes, their income would be much less than $20K. If we do this, it may be that we will be calculating for a lower income family than you had initially assumed. OK, we can go ahead and put that through. But, the only tax on pay that I can think of is the SS and Medicare tax on wages paid by the employer. That would lower 20k to about 18.5k, doing quick mental math. 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 But, why do you make this assumption? The tax law looks very complicated to me in this regard. Have you studied it carefully? I'd say that I've been following this moderately carefully for the last 25 or so years. Part of at the Federal budget, I know that Medicaid is, by far, the largest need based aid expenditure..roughly 120 billion according to
Re: [Fwd: ABC Muddles the Social Security Debate]
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:02:57 -0600, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I have avoided this part of the discussion as it starts with the wrong assumptions. You get the high marginal tax rates by assuming SS is something it is not. Does the lesser earning person in a marriage get less out of SS. Of course. Can you correct this? Sure, reduce benefits 25% or raise taxes 25% if you thought that was the plan you want. Do you want this? Should males who support their families be penalized? Should those women who raised kids be penalized? Perhaps you can kick those freeloading wives who never worked off of SS and cut that to a 10% reduction in benefits. You are changing SS into something it isn't - a defined benefit retirement plan that only benefits those who fully contribute to it - not a social welfare program for old age. 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 cannot quite agree with this. Erik references to websites I would have to linked to Marxist economists to find a comparable extreme positions and you seem to be blaming me for linking to partisan sites. 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. You could even quote Erik to make your point, I think. :-) Erik continues to confuse time frames in his rhetoric, has replies to every post of mine by only addressing portions of my posts, selected quotes that I am selectedly parroting him and is seems to be mostly parroting some economists that were too extreme for a previous GOP administration. Now, is this rhetoric - yes, is it factually accurate - yes. 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. I occasionally like Erik posts, ROTF, has not only been rhetoric. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I've given some income limits. It appears that a far better arguement could be made for lower income examples than the range the authors were discussing. Which indicates to me that their fundamental point probably stands (that there are very high marginal rates for low income households), but that there are some details in their assumptions that differ slightly from yours. It seems to me that if we scaled the income labels 10 or 20% lower in the chart, that you wouldn't have an argument with it. [By the way, I am still intending to finish going through all the numbers and references over the next week or two -- thanks for the URL's] -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: attn: wtg, MUD to Holocene Chat
Gary Nunn wrote: If you are interested please, reply to Brin-L. (Effectively this is a blank-check form of RSVP.) Count me in. Me too! xponent One Line Response Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
As far as I can see Social Security is a distraction for people on this list. According to Republicans, the fund will not go negative for more than 30 years, unless someone changes or violates the Constitution of the United States. (I am not suggesting that no one should look at Social Security, only that people on this list should focus differently.) Of more immediate concern is the trade deficit, which is happening now. To shift to a positive trade balance, so people in the US loan money abroad instead of borrow it, * which industries in the US should increase employment and production? And by how many and how much? * Which should lay people off? * How much of an additional dollar devaluation would be needed, if any? Dan Minette and others, please tell us what you have figured out. Thank you. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: attn: wtg, MUD to Holocene Chat
I can see one problem: the regular chatters are Mac or Linux users, and I imagine that the holochat software is Windoze-based. We may be killing the old chat and _not_ creating a new one. Alberto Monteiro Maybe. I must admit that as much as I like chatting with all of you, I get frustrated with the MUD interface and have trouble following conversations. I guess that I am lazy and am used to the more standard instant message interface. Maybe there is a more intuitive interface available for MUD? Honestly, I would participate more if I used a different interface. I was just reading over the Holocene website again looking for a few things. Will this require client software or it is strictly a web based interface? I just glanced over the site, so I probably missed it. For one of the options, the term Meetingware implies an actual software client. Just curious. Even if it does require client software, I can't imagine that they won't create a Mac compatible version, if they haven't already. I assume that we have been using MUD because of compatibility between different O/S's and browsers? Is anyone here still using a text based browser? Before anyone gets defensive or offended, I am genuinely curious - not being critical :-) Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
* maru dubshinki ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The studies I've read seem to indicate that global growth is overestimated by about 1% because of this. I don't think that you'd lower the productivity growth, because it is accurate *assuming* no freak events occur like WWIII, or a war which took out the US as a sovereign entity- just increase the margin in which you have confidence. That's absurd. Doubly so. First, global growth is almost certainly NOT overestimated by 1%. The fact that comparing the growth rates of various countries over the last 200 or so years, INCLUDING THOSE DEVASTATED BY WAR, has almost all of the free-market economies coming in at about 1.5 - 2% long term real GDP per capita growth is a good clue that we are not off by 1%. The economic history of Germany obviously will have uncertainties during the World War and hyperinflation. But since we know how GDP was growing before and after the World Wars, missing a chunk of data in between is not a serious problem. Now, if you were to argue that there will be the occasional black swan event that will devastate an economy, and that this should lower our productivity growth estimate, then that would be reasonable, although it would naturally be difficult to come up with an exact number since black swan events are, by definition, rare and difficult to predict. But it is absurd to say that this possibility increases the probability of having ABOVE trend GDP growth. It obviously does not. It increases the probability of having GDP rapidly reduced by, say, an order of magnitude in a short time, which would annualize out to a much lower GDP growth rate. If you think there is say, a 1 in 10 chance of this happening in the next 75 years, and you want to put it in your model, you would either use a lower growth rate in your forecasts, or if you are doing Monte Carlo as Dan suggested, you would have some scenarios where the whole economy goes to hell, and this would average out to a bigger deficit for SS. Alternatively, you might model it by making your high-cost (low productivity growth) case have a lower productivity growth than 1.3%. But one thing you would certainly NOT do is INCREASE your productivity growth estimate on the upside. Incidentally, if you are not willing to discuss in good faith by signing your real name, I'm not inclined to converse with you anymore. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: attn: wtg, MUD to Holocene Chat
Alberto wrote I can see one problem: the regular chatters are Mac or Linux users, and I imagine that the holochat software is Windoze-based. We may be killing the old chat and _not_ creating a new one. I asked... Will this require client software or it is strictly a web based interface? I just glanced over the site, so I probably missed it. I just answered my own question... According to the Guided Tour, it is accessible by any browser. So in theory, there shouldn't be any O/S compatibility issues, although I am assuming that it would require a graphical browser instead of a text browser. Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
* Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: As far as I can see Social Security is a distraction for people on this list. According to Republicans, the fund will not go negative for more than 30 years, unless someone changes or violates the Constitution of the United States. (I am not suggesting that no one should look at Social Security, only that people on this list should focus differently.) Of more immediate concern is the trade deficit, which is happening now. To shift to a positive trade balance, so people in the US loan money abroad instead of borrow it, Spoken like a true boomer. The boomers are going to collect almost all of their benefits before 2042 when benefits would be cut to 73%. Those 30 and younger workers will then get to take the cut to 73%, and in the meantime get to pay for the boomers retirement. Or else those younger workers do the same as boomers and screw the next generation being born now. By all means, let's keep playing screw the next generation. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
Erik Reuter wrote: That's absurd. Doubly so. First, global growth is almost certainly NOT overestimated by 1%. The fact that comparing the growth rates of various countries over the last 200 or so years, INCLUDING THOSE DEVASTATED BY WAR, has almost all of the free-market economies coming in at about 1.5 - 2% long term real GDP per capita growth is a good clue that we are not off by 1%. Erik, where did I say that it was 'real' growth? I didn't, and didn't for a reason. I was not talking about growth adjusted for inflation. Does that make it a little less absurd? The economic history of Germany obviously will have uncertainties during the World War and hyperinflation. But since we know how GDP was growing before and after the World Wars, missing a chunk of data in between is not a serious problem. It is: If you want to know the annualized rate, not knowing whether, or how fast the GDP dropped during WWII in germany would throw it off. Now, if you were to argue that there will be the occasional black swan event that will devastate an economy, and that this should lower our productivity growth estimate, then that would be reasonable, although it would naturally be difficult to come up with an exact number since black swan events are, by definition, rare and difficult to predict. That's closer; but we have (v.) rough estimates from the fragmentary evidence of collpasing economies by war or disaster. But it is absurd to say that this possibility increases the probability of having ABOVE trend GDP growth. It obviously does not. It increases the probability of having GDP rapidly reduced by, say, an order of magnitude in a short time, which would annualize out to a much lower GDP growth rate. If you think there is say, a 1 in 10 chance of this happening in the next 75 years, and you want to put it in your model, you would either use a lower growth rate in your forecasts, or if you are doing Monte Carlo as Dan suggested, you would have some scenarios where the whole economy goes to hell, and this would average out to a bigger deficit for SS. A valid point. Fine, I hereby amend my suggestion that the error margin have a larger negative than postive. Sure, it ruins the symmetry of the +/- sign but... Alternatively, you might model it by making your high-cost (low productivity growth) case have a lower productivity growth than 1.3%. But one thing you would certainly NOT do is INCREASE your productivity growth estimate on the upside. Incidentally, if you are not willing to discuss in good faith by signing your real name, I'm not inclined to converse with you anymore. !! What the deuce does my real name have to do with anything?! I am conversing in good faith here; or thought I was. People, please chime in if I am wrong. If you insist on discussing only with people willing to give out their name freely online, go ahead. But if you suspect I am some old foe, or new adversary, out to entrap you or that I intend some other nefarious practising on you, just ask me. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ~Maru Pseudonymous Been singin' them anonymity blues... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
* maru dubshinki ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: But if you suspect I am some old foe, or new adversary, out to entrap you or that I intend some other nefarious practising on you, just ask me. If you were not posting nonsense, I might be willing to converse without knowing your name (out of selfishness, I like a good discussion). But I am not inclined to discuss nonsense with an anonymous email address. End of discussion. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
* Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: To shift to a positive trade balance, so people in the US loan money abroad instead of borrow it, * which industries in the US should increase employment and production? And by how many and how much? * Which should lay people off? * How much of an additional dollar devaluation would be needed, if any? If only it were that simple. The fundamental problem is that Americans aren't saving enough to support the investment needed to keep the economy growing briskly, and much of the rest of the world, especially Asia-Pacific, are saving more than they are investing in their own countries. The result is America is borrowing money from abroad in order to buy foreign goods. The governments of many of the Asia-Pacific countries believe that they can only keep their economies growing briskly if they continue to export large amounts of goods to America. And America will only buy large amounts of foreign goods if they aren't too expensive. So several Asia-Pacific countries' central banks, especially Japan and China, have been buying US Treasuries in order to keep the dollar from falling too much, thus keeping up demand for their countries' exports and simultaneously keeping American long-term interest rates low. Another component of the current account is investment income. Right now, even though the US is a net debtor nation (about 28% of GDP = 280% of exports), our investment income balance is slightly positive, since we are earning a much higher rate on our foreign investments than foreigners are earning on their US investments. The current account deficit in 2004 will be about 5.7% of GDP, almost all of it due to the trade deficit trade deficit (5.2% of GDP). This is not sustainable. Even if investment income balance stayed near 0, the trade deficit cannot be sustained if it is higher than real GDP growth. Long term real GDP growth in the US has been about 3.5%. So that is an extreme upper limit for sustainable trade deficit. Actually, it is much worse than it sounds, because in order to get the deficit under control, we either have to reduce imports or increase exports. Increasing exports enough to make a significant dent is not really possible -- as the US has switched to a service-oriented economy over the past two decades, our manufacturing capabilities have deteriorated, and worse, the rest of the world just havn't been consuming anywhere near as much as Americans. So, if we can't increase exports, we will need to reduce imports. And to do that, we need to get the American consumer to decrease consumption and increase savings, and cut unproductive government spending. To do that we have to raise long-term interest rates and probably raise taxes. Since the American consumer has been financing the spending spree of the past couple years through asset appreciation (primarily home price appreciation and refinancing), higher interest rates will cut down on consumption and reduce imports (and probably cause home prices and the stock market to fall). If US interest rates rise, then we will no longer have a surplus on investment income. If the US net foreign debt reaches 50% of GDP at a real interest rate of 2%, then the trade deficit will have to fall to 2% of GDP or lower to be sustainable (Setser and Roubini say it will need to go to 1%). For the trade deficit to fall from over 5% to 2%, long term interest rates have to rise and the dollar has to fall. This is only likely to happen in the near term if the foreign central banks stop their buying of US Treasuries to support the dollar. And of course they have two reasons not to do that: they want to keep their currencies weak so their exports are cheaper, and since they currently holder hundreds of billions of dollars, they will lose money if the dollar falls. On the other hand, the current situation is not sustainable. If the current account deficit stays at 6% of GDP (it is projected to exceed 6% in 2005), then the US net foreign debt as a percentage of GDP will grow indefinitely, until something blows up, at which point there will be a severe US and global recession as the dollars plummets, interest rates soar, and the US struggles to keep its growth rate up without foreign savings to finance domestic investment. The only hope is that the dollar can continue a steady decline and that long-term interest rates start to go up (although short-term rates rose more than 1.25% during 2004, long term rates were virtually unchanged). This is the best scenario for everyone, including Japan and China, but will they be willing to endure long, slow pain now in order to prevent a severe recession later? Let's hope so. There is a great paper about the sustainability of the US current account by Nouriel Roubini and Brad Setser that I referenced here some time ago: http://www.stern.nyu.edu/globalmacro/Roubini-Setser-US-External-Imbalances.pdf -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
Brin: HC: (was Re: attn: wtg, MUD to Holocene Chat)
David Brin filters the list so that he only sees subject lines containing Brin:. To get Dr. Brin uptodate seven regulars have contributed to the thread so far. Steve Sloan, Vilyem/Medievalbk, Gary Nunn, and Robert Seeberger have all expressed interest in participating. They have not specified whether they are interested in the demo or using HC as the platform for the weekly chat. I am assuming that everyone implicitly understands that the order would be demo first, then discussion of the demo on the list, then (assuming concensus) going to an HC chat basis. Gary Denton, Alberto Montiero, and Trent Shipley have contributed to the thread, but have not expressed any _per se_ interest in participating. On Saturday 2005-01-15 12:19, Steve Sloan wrote: Trent Shipley wrote: 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/ 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. I do not know the answer to this. The basic idea is that the HC principals are not willing to put any more substantial resources of their own into the project at this time. (NOT a good sign.) So the basic idea is to generate a) proof of concept (See! see, you really can use it because these people do, every week. And what's more they LIKE it. Now please invest some money or sign a development contract.) b) Buzz (OHHH! you should see the chat interface we use at the Brin chat. Scoop up some quotes like this and have investors eating out of your hand.) 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. Given that they regularly demo the program without NDA, and their goal of weak viral marketing, I would be very surprised if we have to sign NDAs. They WANT all the (good) disclosure they can get. (On the other hand, there is an implicit agreement that if you have nothing nice to say, you will take precautions to keep potential customers or investors from hearing about it.) Also, the no new investment rule could put us in a pickle. The current version of HC is promising, but there remain SERIOUS user interface issues. A good programmer conversant in whatever it is they are programmed in could have them put away inside a week, but the no more resources rule means we could well find ourselves in a catch-22. If we decide either the core code (read server-side code) gets hacked or we leave, the HC folks are likely to counter with hack the code yourself, for free, to our benefit. If someone takes them up on it then they will surely be looking at an NDA. 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. What IRC server that we discussed? Who be this we? On Sunday 2005-01-16 14:10, Gary Nunn wrote: I can see one problem: the regular chatters are Mac or Linux users, and I imagine that the holochat software is Windoze-based. We may be killing the old chat and _not_ creating a new one. Alberto Monteiro I am using SuSE Pro 9.1, Mozilla 1.7.5, and Shockwave Flash 7.0 r25. During the demo on Tuesday I had to switch from Linux to Windows XP to get logged in. (Note that Mozilla and Flash are very recent releases.) Last I heard, DB uses Mac, so it should work with Mac OS-X. But yes, because of the Linux issue (and poverty), I will not be participating if the chat moves to HC. (Low desktop market share for Linux combined with the no new resources rule implies that there will be no efforts made to accommodate Linux. The culprit is probably in the Flash programming.) Maybe. I must admit that as much as I like chatting with all of you, I get frustrated with the MUD interface and have trouble following conversations. I guess that I am lazy and am used to the more standard instant message interface. Maybe there is a more intuitive interface available for MUD? Honestly, I would participate more if I used a different interface. If we go to Brin Chat, maybe we should go to a real IRC system so that we can compare HC with IRC? (We could do HC one week, then IRC the next. This might be particularly helpful if HC ever goes back into development.) I was just reading over the Holocene website again looking for a few things. Will this require client software or it is strictly a web based interface? I just glanced over the site, so I probably missed it. For one of the options, the term Meetingware implies an actual software client. Just curious. No. The only application you need to have resident client-side to use HC is a Flash Player.
Re: Social Security
* Erik Reuter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If US interest rates rise, then we will no longer have a surplus on investment income. If the US net foreign debt reaches 50% of GDP at a real interest rate of 2%, then the trade deficit will have to fall to 2% of GDP or lower to be sustainable (Setser and Roubini say it will need to go to 1%). Actually, I should have said ...current account deficit will have to fall to 2% of GDP or lower... My number was the approximate sustainable current account deficit, Setser's 1% number is for the trade deficit. The formula for a constant foreign net debt to GDP ratio is (approximately, it neglects unilateral transfers and other small flows) g = i + (M-X)/Y / (NFD/Y) Real GDP growth is the sum of the real interest rate on net foreign debt and the ratio of the trade deficit as a fraction of GDP to the net foreign debt as a fraction of GDP. As an example: 3.5% = 2% + 0.75% / 50% A real GDP growth rate of 3.5% per year can indefinitely sustain a net foreign debt of 50% of GDP with a real interest rate of 2% and a trade deficit of 0.75% of GDP. The corresponding sustainable current account deficit would be 1.75% of GDP. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
How Would the Bush Plan Work?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1018065,00.html The Bush Administration has not yet offered details of its plan for Social Security, but it's expected to follow the contours of a proposal spelled out by a 2001 commission on Social Security: a combination of scaled-back guaranteed benefits and private investment accounts. This controversial proposal would divert a portion of your payroll taxes to a private account, to invest as you choose. Participation would be voluntary, and there would be a ceiling on how much you could put in. You would not be able to draw on the money until retirement, when it would be paid out as an annuity with your Social Security check. The benefit cuts are meant to address Social Security's long-term financial health; the private accounts are meant to deal with your future. Would you be better off? THE PROS 1 Control. Under the current system, each generation of workers pays for the retirees ahead of it. With a private account, some of the money you put in would be there for you alone rather than fund someone else's golden years. 2 Better Returns. With Social Security, funds set aside for the future earn a minimal return over time, because the government invests them conservatively, in Treasury bonds. Investing in the stock and bond markets via private accounts could allow those dollars to grow faster. 3 Offset the Pain. Benefit cuts will probably be necessary to keep Social Security solvent as the number of retirees grows. The appeal of private accounts might persuade voters to accept the trade-off. 4 Encourage Savings. Private accounts reinforce a mind-set of saving. When you see a direct connection between what you put in now and how it can grow in the future, you may be motivated to save more elsewhere. 5 No New Taxes. The commission's plan, if adopted, avoids the unpleasant medicine of higher payroll taxes. Set at 12.4% of taxable wages, they already squeeze earners. THE CONS 1 Risk. Getting a good return on your private account is up to you. If you make poor choices, you can lose money, and your nest egg will suffer. Invest too conservatively, and you will not be able to make up for the cuts in benefits. 2 Debt. The costs of making the transition to a private-account system are estimated at up to $2 trillion. That burden will widen the government's already yawning budget deficit, and could put the economy at risk for higher interest rates. 3 Uncertainty. Private accounts on their own do nothing to solve Social Security's solvency challenge and may discourage people from supporting real solutions. 4 Undersaving. With private accounts in place, some people may be tempted to save less elsewhere. Americans' record of saving is not encouraging; two-thirds of retirees rely on Social Security as their primary income. 5 Delayed Reaction. By promising to preserve current benefits and funding the transition costs through borrowing, this plan shifts costs to future generations, who will have to pay off the debt. xponent Which Plan Is This? Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/index.htm l A federal judge in Atlanta, Georgia, has ruled that a suburban county school district's textbook stickers referring to evolution as a theory not a fact are unconstitutional. In ruling that the stickers violate the constitutionally mandated separation between church and state, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that labeling evolution a theory played on the popular definition of the word as a hunch and could confuse students. The stickers read, This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. The disclaimers were put in the books by school officials in 2002. Due to the manner in which the sticker refers to evolution as a theory, the sticker also has the effect of undermining evolution education to the benefit of those Cobb County citizens who would prefer that students maintain their religious beliefs regarding the origin of life, Cooper wrote in his ruling. Cooper said he was ruling on the narrow issue of the case, brought against the Cobb County School District and Board of Education by four parents of district students, was whether the district's stickers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. His conclusion, he said, is not that the school board should not have called evolution a theory or that the school board should have called evolution a fact. Rather, the distinction of evolution as a theory rather than a fact is the distinction that religiously motivated individuals have specifically asked school boards to make in the most recent anti-evolution movement, and that was exactly what parents in Cobb County did in this case, he wrote. By adopting this specific language, even if at the direction of counsel, the Cobb County School Board appears to have sided with these religiously motivated individuals. The sticker, he said, sends a message that the school board agrees with the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists and creationists. The school board has effectively improperly entangled itself with religion by appearing to take a position, Cooper wrote. Therefore, the sticker must be removed from all of the textbooks into which it has been placed. Five parents of students and the American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the stickers in court, arguing they violated the constitutional separation of church and state. The case was heard in federal court last November. The school system defended the warning stickers as a show of tolerance, not religious activism as some parents claimed. The Cobb County school board is doing more than accommodating religion, Michael Manely, an attorney for the parents, argued during the trial, according to a report from The Associated Press. They are promoting religious dogma to all students. Lawyers for Cobb County, however, argued in court that the school board had made a good-faith effort to address questions that inevitably arise during the teaching of evolution. Science and religion are related and they're not mutually exclusive, school district attorney Linwood Gunn said in an AP report. This sticker was an effort to get past that conflict and to teach good science. According to the AP, the schools placed the stickers after more than 2,000 parents complained the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life. xponent Darwin Rocks Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: HC: (was Re: attn: wtg, MUD to Holocene Chat)
I'd be interested in joining the chat, but I can't do it from work and the soonest I'd be able to join in on Wednesdays is 8 PM PST. I dropped in on one chat recently because I had the day off. Are there others besides Trent that even might be around that late? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
Erik wrote: We need to fix the system NOW by not promising any new benefits beyond what has already been promised . My favored way to do that was elaborated in the PSS system suggested by Kotlikoff that I summarized here earlier (basically, every dollar that anyone has already paid into the SS system will be paid out fairly in benefits, but no new benefits would be accrued and no new contributions would be made). Thus, no one is cheated out of their fair return for contributions already made, but we don't continue with the unfair system where current young workers are almost certain to pay in more than they ever receive in benefits. Even so. today's young taxpayers would still get a raw deal, because some sort of new tax would have to pay for the benefits of people 50 and over who are expecting benefits, but at least we can avoid sticking it to the generation being born now if we fix it now. OK, a few questions. I know that you may have answered these in one way or the other at some point in the discussion, but either I haven't understood the answers or I missed them. 1. How far would the tweaks I mentioned (and whatever other practical steps can be taken) do towards actually fixing the system as it now exists? 2. What is the advantage of having the Feds involved _at all_ in individual retirement savings that are not SS? 3. Why can't we take whatever excess money there is _now_ in the system (including money that the Fed owes SS) and invest it in some secure way in order to insure SS's solvency? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security
Julia wrote: I 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. :) 8^) I feel dense when I read some of these exchanges - especially between Erik and Dan. Its not a simple problem, but its one that concerns us all (even to some extent to those outside the U.S.) Normally economics bores me to tears. 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. We know you have highter priorities, though I'm sure you wish you had a bit more free time for list mail. Hope things level out soon for you. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
