* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
He said it perfectly correctly. Present value of liabilities exceeding
present value of income is as good a definition as I know of broke.
Do you consider "broke" to mean "insolvent?" That's what it means to you. Your formula means negative cash flow, not insolvency. It leads to being broke eventually if nothing is done, but it doesn't mean to me that there's a crisis today. If it did, there'd be a lot of companies frequently in crisis.
And I'm not sure why you are blaming Kotlikoff for Bush's ineptness. Kotlikoff is not in the Bush administration.
Blaming?
In my opinion, it is quite selfish and short-sighted to say that since the drop to 73% in 2042 is not going to affect you or anyone your age, then it is not a crisis. I know a number of 30 year olds who consider losing 27% of their expected money a crisis.
A *future* crisis. I think there's a big difference between saying "there is a crisis that we must deal with now" and "there will be a crisis if we don't make changes now." To me, it's like the difference between "he has weapons of mass destruction now" and "if he isn't stopped, he will build weapons of mass destruction." They don't call for the same response.
Nick
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
