Quote: Original post by Promit
Well no. Inventing it apparently creates a deficit, so we have to discontinue social security and declare war on Iran to counteract that. That's what I'm told, anyway.

Well, yes. To make more money, president needs to go to Federal reserve and take out a loan. This loan comes with interest that needs to be paid. The loan is paid back through gross income of the country. If there isn't enough economic growth, then the situation is similar to wage stagnation due to inflation - the 2.3% raise every year doesn't increase salary fast enough to compensate inflation, so the $500/month loan starts getting bigger.

The reason above scheme is employed is to prevent printing of money, which would lead to hyperinflation.


At least that is how economists explained the whole thing to me when I asked for "plain english" explanation. I imagine this is similar to when people ask computer folk "why is my facebook broken".

Quote: Social Security a pyramid scheme

In a way it is, or at least was. Most of these schemes started soon after WW2, at least in modern form, during the baby boom. All projections at that time showed that young will vastly exceed the old. So the scheme made sense, since many young would contribute, but old would die at large enough numbers for this to feed itself. Pyramid scheme made sense - since most of original investors would die before they would collect, and life span is limited, compared to pyramid schemes where original authors collect ad infinitum. The design made sense.

What they missed upon is that age structure would change so drastically. Today, majority of population is old and getting older. The original design hasn't been viable for a long time and was constantly adjusted.

This wasn't incompetence as such, but introduction of contraception. The pill was unexpected deus-ex machina while threw all valid projections out the window. Especially after social norms changed and it went from occasional control to the de facto norm.

Today, all such plans require economic growth above inflation levels to sustain themselves. This is probably the main reason why such immediate attention is paid to them right now. If economic growth lags for several years, they could collapse. Again, the "wage+loan" not catching up with inflation.

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Well that's great in theory, but the reality is that in today's world, we use money. Money is how we measure value for commodities, goods, and services. Trying to talk around that doesn't help. It's true that humans have used services (cooking, hunting, sex) and items (fur, shoes, wood) to get goods from others and to determine value. But money is the standard for that now.

No, I was pointing out that the idea of coming up with a number X, where X is how much 'money' one needs to live comfortably, is flawed and doesn't really work. Once you start trying to 'fix' prices to a stable level, you're going to start changing them.

Also, money isn't how we measure values, but rather it is something we use to make it easier to compare perceived values of commodities, goods, and services.

Oh come on, you really don't see what I was on about? First of all, money is used in our societies to buy goods and services, so that's what we're going to use. Theorerical ponderings about the 'value of money' is of no issue here, we're going to be pragmatists for once. You need money to buy food or heat or medicine, so that's what we'll deal with. Second, I never said to determine a 'fixed' value. The value will change with time, say every year or every semester, same thing. It's not that damn hard. Don't try to make the calculation of money needed for decent life as this enormously complex socioeconomicomathematical problem; 'oh if we increase the pay this way, the value of XYZ will go this way, and the value of SDFLSDF will go sideways, and the market is going to collapse and a butterfly at pejing will cause a blackhole in NYC". Enough with this bullcrap. This for food, this for heat, this for medicine, this for shelter, this for transport. Leave a small margin to account for 'errors'. Done. Every household does this calculation when it deals with bills and every day needs anyway. Employees are paid in money right now, aren't they? So just make that they paycheck covers these absolutely essential needs. Otherwise, if you can't do it, then what the hell are we even talking about? What exactly can an individual or a family man that works 8-12 hours a day can cut off; food, education for their kids, heat, medicine, a roof under their head at night? Enough with this 'ooohh don't touch the minimal wage, there's a BOMB attached to it!". Gah!

Quote: Original post by Promit

Quote: Original post by LessBread
So you're seeking applause? Sorry, all I've got for you is laughter.

I'm surprised and impressed you can maintain levity when this kind of person shows up. I'm never sure if I should try to explain, or just patiently cross my fingers and hope that there aren't too many voting Americans who are dumb enough to believe what he does.

Well, as moderators we should try to be moderate, right? [grin]

Honestly, my gut reaction was to respond to the hostility in his rant by demolishing his claims, but it was immediately clear to me that the superior tactical response would be to frame his rant in terms of a theatrical performance, seeking applause for the recitation of talking points or laughter for the preposterous nature of those talking points. I could not see the point in making a rational rebuttal to his inconsistent rant. Consider, on one hand he demanded the ruthless prosecution of the wars and the strict enforcement of border security, while on the other he railed against paying the taxes that fund those efforts. He wants a war machine and a police state, he just doesn't want to pay for it. He wants something for nothing and uses finger pointing to disguise it. So what else could I do but laugh?

Quote: Original post by EricRRichards

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by StarFoxNow
The democrats do it wrong from top to bottom.

They complain if civilians die in war, but have no problem when those civilians open up with an AK-47 from a rooftop on our soldiers. They are on the lookout for ways to crucify their own soldiers.

They want to increase tax to pay for services I don't want. I don't want to fund well-fare abusers. I don't want to participate in a pyramid scheme (social security), I'd rather keep the money I make, thank you. I don't want to give foreign countries billions in aid every year. If you want to be a part of those things be my guest, but don't forcibly tax MY money at the point of a gun with prison time.

They want a police state, but no guns for the citizens to protect themselves. They want people helpless to do anything for themselves and forced to pay out mafia style. Ironically the mafia gives people a better rate than most governments.

They want to have immigration reform to stop illegal immigration. Sounds good right? Not really. By "stop illegal" they mean changing the law so it's legal.... and allow people to freely pour over the border. Welcoming everyone with open arms as our country turns into a ghetto.

Are you seeking laughter or applause?

I don't know as you realize this, but this is essentially the opinion of that dying species, the American blue-collar working class. It always takes me a little time to readjust when I go home and watch the news with my (college-educated), bull-dozer mechanic father after a few weeks with the Fairfield County types I'm surrounded with here at school. Absurd as it may sound if you're steeped in the Marxist tradition, the American working class is the most absolutely conservative segment of the population

The phrase "Fairfield County types" doesn't mean anything to me. I do understand the absurdity of the American working class supporting the economic agenda of the plutocracy. It's not at all surprising that a dying species would be scared and susceptible to hucksters selling them down the river. A Marxist tradition isn't necessary to understand this. It's there in the American tradition.

The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation. -- Henry David Thoreau

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. -- Abraham Lincoln

The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows. -- Theodore Roosevelt

// replaced the last quote

[Edited by - LessBread on November 3, 2010 5:07:14 AM]

Quote: Original post by owl
How did, according to your understanding, the war on Iraq help the economy of the United States? Do you have the numbers?

Maybe the answer can be found in this link dump.

"After taking into account taxes and transfers, like Social Security, the Gini index drops to 43. That puts us in the hardly more desirable neighborhood of Nicaragua, Cambodia, Kenya, Thailand, Russia, and Senegal, all with Gini indexes from 43 down to 41." (Measuring the Public Benefits From Taxes, Oct. 20, 2010)

"Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels." (So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?, Sep. 24, 2010).

"In calculating our $3 trillion estimate two years ago, we blamed the war for a $5-per-barrel oil price increase. We now believe that a more realistic (if still conservative) estimate of the war's impact on prices works out to at least $10 per barrel." (The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond, September 5, 2010).

"The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, ... a lost decade for American workers. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s." (Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers, January 2, 2010).

"The gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007" (Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show, June 25, 2010).

"Over the last 25 years, economic risk has been steadily shifted from the broad shoulders of business and government to the backs of working families." (If America Is Richer, Why Are Its Families So Much Less Secure?, October 10, 2004).

"There are now about 6 unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of "chronically unemployed" is absolutely soaring. There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone." (22 Statistics That Prove The Middle Class Is Being Systematically Wiped Out Of Existence In America, Jul. 15, 2010).

"For the 2010 fiscal year that ended on September 30, the government had a budget shortfall of 1.294 trillion dollars, down 122 billion dollars from the previous year's record-setting high." (US deficit shrinks but still tops one trillion, Oct 15, 2010)

Quote: Original post by LessBread
by demolishing his claims,

Try. I don't think you can.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Consider, on one hand he demanded the ruthless prosecution of the wars and the strict enforcement of border security, while on the other he railed against paying the taxes that fund those efforts.

I think you skipped several posts I made. Go back and read.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
He wants a war machine and a police state, he just doesn't want to pay for it.

I thought I was clearly against police state and the war? Are you making stuff up? Forgive me but english is my second language and I may not be clear in my writing.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
He wants something for nothing and uses finger pointing to disguise it.

I don't want any gifts at all. Can you be specific about what was finger pointing?

[Edited by - StarFoxNow on November 1, 2010 6:10:00 PM]

Quote: Original post by StarFoxNow

Quote: Original post by LessBread
by demolishing his claims,

Try. I don't think you can.

There's no point in refuting an inconsistent argument. I don't care what you think.

Quote: Original post by StarFoxNow

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Consider, on one hand he demanded the ruthless prosecution of the wars and the strict enforcement of border security, while on the other he railed against paying the taxes that fund those efforts.

I think you skipped several posts I made. Go back and read.

No, I skimmed them. You're an immigrant who hates other immigrants, you believe the Fox News spin on the origins of the real-estate bubble, you think that money is a commodity rather than a contract and you think socialism is the same as totalitarian communism.

Quote: Original post by StarFoxNow

Quote: Original post by LessBread
He wants a war machine and a police state, he just doesn't want to pay for it.

I thought I was clearly against police state and the war? Are you making stuff up? Forgive me but english is my second language and I may not be clear in my writing.

I'm responding to your initial post, not the backpeddling in subsequent posts. The "goons" you defend for killing civilian combatants are the same "goons" forcing you to pay taxes at gun point. If you're against the police state and the war, defending the thuggery used to prosecute war is a strange way of making the point.

Quote: Original post by StarFoxNow

Quote: Original post by LessBread
He wants something for nothing and uses finger pointing to disguise it.

I don't want any gifts at all.

You want border security without paying taxes.

Finger pointing: Identifying false causes of financial crisis, scapegoating other immigrants, and mischaracterizing social security ...

Quote: Original post by mikeman

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Well that's great in theory, but the reality is that in today's world, we use money. Money is how we measure value for commodities, goods, and services. Trying to talk around that doesn't help. It's true that humans have used services (cooking, hunting, sex) and items (fur, shoes, wood) to get goods from others and to determine value. But money is the standard for that now.

No, I was pointing out that the idea of coming up with a number X, where X is how much 'money' one needs to live comfortably, is flawed and doesn't really work. Once you start trying to 'fix' prices to a stable level, you're going to start changing them.

Also, money isn't how we measure values, but rather it is something we use to make it easier to compare perceived values of commodities, goods, and services.

Oh come on, you really don't see what I was on about? First of all, money is used in our societies to buy goods and services, so that's what we're going to use. Theorerical ponderings about the 'value of money' is of no issue here, we're going to be pragmatists for once. You need money to buy food or heat or medicine, so that's what we'll deal with. Second, I never said to determine a 'fixed' value. The value will change with time, say every year or every semester, same thing. It's not that damn hard. Don't try to make the calculation of money needed for decent life as this enormously complex socioeconomicomathematical problem; 'oh if we increase the pay this way, the value of XYZ will go this way, and the value of SDFLSDF will go sideways, and the market is going to collapse and a butterfly at pejing will cause a blackhole in NYC". Enough with this bullcrap. This for food, this for heat, this for medicine, this for shelter, this for transport. Leave a small margin to account for 'errors'. Done. Every household does this calculation when it deals with bills and every day needs anyway. Employees are paid in money right now, aren't they? So just make that they paycheck covers these absolutely essential needs. Otherwise, if you can't do it, then what the hell are we even talking about? What exactly can an individual or a family man that works 8-12 hours a day can cut off; food, education for their kids, heat, medicine, a roof under their head at night? Enough with this 'ooohh don't touch the minimal wage, there's a BOMB attached to it!". Gah!

The problem with trying to do something like that in a free market economy is that, to put it bluntly, people will do their best to screw with it for their own gain.

I corner the market in some 'essential resource'. I might not have 100% of it, but I control enough of the supply in a region that at least a sizable part of the population needs to come to up as the others can't supply the entire region. It is 'essential', I'm in a free market,... Cha-ching! Next month I need to raise my prices by 5%. Government adjusts things to ensure everyone can afford everything else plus my stuff. Next month I bump it 10%, and I start the cycle of destroying the system for my own fun and profit. I use 'creative accounting' to bury profits, hide them in expansion and development costs, and keep jacking up my prices.

Now I can keep doing this, because you declared my service 'essential', and as such you made sure every other employer has to pay their employees enough to pay me whatever I ask.

Congratulations, you crashed the markets because you failed to see that I'm human, and therefore have a high probability of being a selfish asshole.

As it is now, I couldn't do something like that as people would just struggle and possibly go without, causing my sales to drop. My sales drop, my profits drop, and then encourages other companies to expand into the void my company is leaving and the market self corrects.

If you want a system like you described to actually work, it means state run monopolies in those sectors. (AKA, communism! That big scary word, which when done right would actually make things better, but we can't do that because people are still scared of the Big Bad Reds!)

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There's no point in refuting an inconsistent argument. I don't care what you think.

Can you be specific on what is inconsistent?

You care enough to downplay my post with multiple choice, but do not refute as you claim you can.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
No, I skimmed them.

You make stuff up in your mind to fill in what you didn't read? Good idea. After I clearly denounce police state and compare it to mafia, you think I am in favor?

keep skimming and you will claim I am the emperor of Japan.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
You're an immigrant who hates other immigrants,

I am a legal immigrant. I do not come here to abuse hospital ER room then not pay. I do not come here to plop out a baby then collect money for it from the government. Yes I hate people who do this, not because they are immigrants (like me) but because they abuse the USA for their gain.

You consider me radical but to me someone who illegally enters a country and takes advantage is radical.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
you think that money is a commodity rather than a contract

Where do you form your opinion on my knowledge of money? More assumed thoughts go into your head from skimming?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I'm responding to your initial post, not the backpeddling in subsequent posts.

Can you be specific on back peddling? More assumed thought from skimming?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The "goons" you defend for killing civilian combatants are the same "goons" forcing you to pay taxes at gun point.

No, the military does not arrest me if I do not pay tax. You are exactly the democrat that I hate. You call the soliders "goons" for defending themselves. You ASSUME they are sport murdering. More thoughts democrates probably assume from skimming.

Do you know the fighting in Iraq is with civilians? They are armed with bolt action and AK rifles. They set up IEDs. They are "civilians" but not pacifist you have in your mind.

You have not provided your alternative solution on how to deal with civilians that are trying to kill you.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
If you're against the police state and the war, defending the thuggery used to prosecute war is a strange way of making the point.

I am against the purpose of the war yes. I am not against soldiers shooting people who are trying to shoot them.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Finger pointing: Identifying false causes of financial crisis,

So you are saying trillion dollar war, housing collapse did not affect economy? Or just disagreeing automatically with anything I say? Government DID sue banks to force them to loan to the poor. This is a fact, not opinion.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
scapegoating other immigrants,

see above about immigrants.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
and mischaracterizing social security ...

I believe I describe it very accurately. It is a pyramid scheme. It is not the same as putting the money in an investment like your house. There is no real asset, just people paying in in hopes that more will pay in below them.

It has worked time (pyramids work for a while) due to mandatory pay in, with young "pyramid bottom" in greater numbers than old "pyramid top", but now we see it fall apart as all pyramids do once there are too many people ready for the payout.

For a pyramid scheme to work forever there must be massive human growth forever to ensure the bottom is much larger than the top. Even if this massive human population growth is maintained for a while it cannot be maintained forever (or else exponential growth would cause entire universe to be flooded with people and food supply would give out). So destined to collapse no matter what.

Quote: Original post by StarFoxNow
For a pyramid scheme to work forever there must be massive human growth forever to ensure the bottom is much larger than the top. Even if this massive human population growth is maintained for a while it cannot be maintained forever (or else exponential growth would cause entire universe to be flooded with people and food supply would give out). So destined to collapse no matter what.

You may be correct about how a pyramid scheme works. But the one fact you're leaving out is that Social Security is NOT a pyramid scheme and it does not work how you describe. You only think that's how it works because you haven't bothered to check the facts; you've been duped by those who would see it privatized, those who are also ignorant of the facts, and your own "common sense." Social Security does not depend on always being more people paying in than taking out. We can foresee the increases and decreases of the population. The people taking care of the SS money take this into account when setting the contribution amounts. The problem that Social Security does have is that we're living longer, spending a larger amount of our lives in retirement.

And one thing kinda off topic. I'm tired of the people out there who are calling for a "common sense" solution to every problem. People: our problems are complex. If all we need is common sense to solve our problems, then we wouldn't have the issues we've got. Almost everyone's got this type of sense. That's why we call it common sense. I believe that if someone's trying to sell you a "common sense" solution to a complex and sophisticated issue, they're probably trying to pull the wool over your eyes.