direction to
me. The current Medicare all-you-can-eat system is the real problem.
When so many things are free, there is much less incentive to be thrifty
in one's medical consumption.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com
* JDG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Republicans pretty well kept that from happening.) Now, paying down
the national debt would only really have benefited Social Security to
the extent that the overall ratio of US debt to GDP might become so
overly burdensome in the near future as to prevent
that if it is on the table.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
that it cannot keep without very steep increases in future
taxes.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
faster than
cost of living] in the past. Dead wrong.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
(and prevented from
spending some of the SS money on non-SS items).
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
not net
effect has high cost. Try living in the real world, huh?
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
to fix it now,
and we should fix it now. Waiting twenty years with our head in the sand
will only make it worse.
Of course, it only makes it worse for future generations. No doubt that
means little to you.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
And you accuse me of living in a fantasy land?
Yes. You obviously have no clue of reality here, if you think there is
something clearly wrong with the statement you replied to.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
to get something done.
Yup.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
* Robert G. Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn13.html
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Here are three small news items from around the world you might have
missed:
1) An unemployed waitress in Berlin faces the loss of her welfare
in sea lanes that were
not fully charted.
So it wasn't that he had the bad luck to hit an uncharted undersea
mountain in an area that was supposed to be charted. Rather, he was
going at a reckless speed in uncharted waters?
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I didn't cherry-pick some crazy group that happened to be atheistic. I
Prove it. What percentage of people who are non-religious are Marxist?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
-
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I didn't cherry-pick some crazy group that happened to be atheistic. I
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
Wow, a lot of words, without answering
resources from
pie in the sky to oil in the ground?
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
the motherboard...)
Also, make sure that the cable connector is going into the drive in
the correct orientation. Some cheap cables are not keyed, and it is
possible to insert them backwards / upside down. Not all drives have
their connector in the same orientation.
--
Erik Reuter http
. Religion vs. Evolution and
Big Bang must not enter into your thoughts, eh, Nick? Just put your head
in the sand and have faith that religion isn't causing problems there...
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman
theory based on religion, not on science or rationality. That
is harmful, not to mention plain silly.
And you defend it.
Pathetic.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
be something worse like totalitarian communism.
I rather think that a society can get by without ANY ideologies.
Certainly England seems to be doing okay, and you Brits are much less
religious than Americans.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
shift -- to the future.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c5ed952a-6f06-11d9-94a8-0e2511c8.html
Don't rely on the dollar to reduce the deficit
By David Hale
Published: January 25 2005 20:31 | Last updated: January 25 2005 20:31
US economyThere is now a consensus in the financial markets that the
US dollar is headed for a
nothing at all.
You know, Nick, you don't have to beat your child to be a child abuser.
Negligence counts too. You can keep denying it if you like, but if the
shoe fits...
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
I've asked you before, and you have repeatedly failed to answer.
Our conversation on this topic ended when my perception was that you
were using abusive language.
Wrong, as usual. You posted twice in the thread without
say the peak is in the 90's. The peak is in the
early 80's.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
is
politically much easier than reducing scheduled benefits: whenever
taxes and benefits are simultaneously raised, the young have to pay the
higher taxes and the old get the higher benefits. The old are much more
powerful politically than the young.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
gains and dividends and replacing the revenues with a
higher sales tax (and also sending everyone a quarterly tax refund check
paid from sales tax revenues to make the system less regressive) but I
digress...that's enough for now!
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
don't recall previously disagreeing with you in a way that put you
in the same bucket as the administration. IIRC, our disagreements are
usually more interesting.
I'm sure you don't recall. Bush on the brain and all.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
that was a dead
give-away.
JDG - Who has found a place for [EMAIL PROTECTED] right alongisde The Fool
in his killfile.
Right idea guys, but wrong address.
The IP address of God is available in the headers.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
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.
If that's what he meant, then that's what he could have said
. No doubt the next generation will try to
continue the tradition, and so on until the unsustainable progression
finally cracks.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
difference whether YOU
have to pay for the crisis, or whether you can foist it off on someone
else by doing nothing now.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
champion this policy to your cohorts?
If not, then my point stands. If boomers say it is not a crisis, but
aren't willing to accept the same cut that will occur to the next
generation, then they are selfishly foisting the problem onto someone
else.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
am NOT going to screw the next
generation. The system needs to be fixed NOW.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
to be fixed now.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Those are the two choices, eh? Nothing or cut to 73 percent when?
If we make no changes, SS trustee's best estimate is that there will
only be money to pay 73% of scheduled benefits in 2042. Surely you knew
this? It is printed on the SS statement they
.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
http://www.andyfoulds.co.uk/amusement/economists.htm
[Shockwave/Flash required]
I don't usually click on these things, but I thought this one was
hilarious.
What Noise Traders look like.
Reminds me of cats, actually.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
.
How about this one [shows picture of a cat]
Bush!
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
on the Brain.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Jan 19, 2005, at 6:34 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I think it went more like this:
Think again. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a Bush
supporter. Kotlikoff, the person I was quoting originally (which
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It may be helpful to look at the fraction of SS tax going to paying
for the present generation (both retirement and disability) and for
future use. By decade the % of SS taxes being put away for the future
is:
I don't think it is so helpful. The most
right now.
The word is that tax reform will be on the table in 2006 or 2007. Now is
the time to work on SS.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
* Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Regarding the US trade or current account deficit, Erik Reuter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
... Americans aren't saving enough America is borrowing money
from abroad in order to buy foreign goods. The governments of many
of the Asia
to balance on capital
equipment and services. We are also (probably only temporarily, alas)
roughly in balance on investment income.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
the top end of your estimate somewhat.
Another possible way to address it (as suggested in Kotlikoff's PSS
plan) is to have the government match contributions of lower income
contributors on a progressive scale (which might be chosen to mirror the
current SS progression at the low end)
--
Erik
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
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/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
* 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
), 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
* 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/
* 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
their assumed productivity growth numbers unjustified or unreasonable.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
* 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
* 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
-- 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
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
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
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
long-working spouse.
But, I still don't see it getting above 40 %. Let's look at the last $1k
of earnings of the spouse looking at a 20k/year job. She's in the 15%
marginal income tax bracket, her SS tax is 7.65%, and she is working for
too few
breath. If the Feb plan looks bad, I will be a loud
critic.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
is the economic significance of the trust fund.
Brad knows very well that the government has not been a net saver since
the trust fund was started, and so the economic significance of the
trust fund is very much less than if an individual had actually saved
the same money.
--
Erik Reuter http
obligations.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
shape.
How do we keep from having the same kinds of problems that they're
having?
See the Kotlikoff PSS system that I posted in this thread. It is a very
well designed system. Both the UK and the US would be much better off in
the long term adopting such a system.
--
Erik Reuter http
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.
--
Erik Reuter http
show some credentials that
qualify you to give an expert opinion.
On the other hand, if you presented some specific problems with their
facts or methodology, then you could make a more persuasive argument.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
years
an extra 0.8% compounds to almost 50% of extra accumulated savings. So
we can partially compensate today's younger taxpayers for the raw deal
they've been given.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo
* Erik Reuter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
40% stock portfolio would be expected to return 2.8%, which is a premium
of only 2.8% over government bonds (the government can essentially
typo, should be 0.8% premium
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
else.
That's a reasonable argument. But I think it is premature. Bush said he
will release an actual plan in February. If the plan is bad, or if it
looks okay but still seems likely Bush will screw up the implementation
of the plan, then it would be reasonable to oppose it.
--
Erik Reuter http
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
But, I think they are doing funny math. Let me do a back of the envelope:
No, you are calculating a different quantity. As I said in my post, the
figures are lifetime net tax rate. Basically, the percentage of income
you pay in taxes net of the benefits
benefits increase very little until
the newly working spouse begins to make quite a bit more money than the
long-working spouse.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:30:05 -0500, Erik Reuter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When the government raised payroll taxes to create the SS trust
fund, it resulted in very little, if any, net increase in the
productive capital of the country. Mostly
privatization is (D - P) + P = D. The
same as it is now. No change. That should be simple enough that even a
chimp could understand.
You know, there are books written on this stuff. I referenced one of
them previously. It is not hard to understand.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
are quite confused. The SS deficit is somewhere between $3
trillion and $10 trillion, depending on how you measure. The $2 trillion
in borrowing is simply transferring $2 trillion of that deficit from an
implicit obligation to an explicit one on the books.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
in
the window title and never changes. So you don't have anything to worry
about now...
And I have prompts set to show me the cwd and user name, so I always
have a bit of orientation to who and where I am.
Of course. As I said.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
%.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
gambling debts), or would you
rather have your savings earning a market return and increasing the
national stock of productive capital so that you and future generations
will have an easier time and better standard of living?
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
since I have absolutely zero respect for you based on the absurd things
that you post? You literally have not posted one thing that I consider
worthwhile reading. So call me rude all you want. Knock yourself out. I
could not care less what you do or write.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
the biggest account.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
as everything being the
result of one's relationship with their mother. I'll leave you to your
psychoanalysis.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
work, how can we avoid doing some of the
drudge work ourselves?
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
comprehension. If you want to declare, accuse or insinuate that GD
advocated raising taxes, let alone advocated simply taxing the rich
as a systematic solution to the fiscal imbalance, please produce a
relevant passage.
See above.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net
and Warren are easy to confuse. Nonsense is
nonsense, Rob always says.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 08:04:33AM -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 06:45:44PM -0500, maru wrote:
But more importantly, were you running mutt as root, you naughty
person?
No, that is a bug in PuTTy.
And how come your cwd is etc?
Just curious
giving me a million bucks, 'cause I don't
feel like working anymore, and it isn't all that much.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
coming from the Bush Administration.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
plans.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 05:03:55AM -0600, Gary Denton wrote:
Not quite, as the numbers about balance now as long as the government
commits to making good on the bonds it ihas issued and will continue
to issue.
About add up? If you call a $10,000,000,000,000 present value deficit
negligible,
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 05:03:55AM -0600, Gary Denton wrote:
talking point lies it will remain almost unchanged. (Latest
unchalleged lie - a meaningless $10.4 billion SS deficit, based on SS
current system last for infinite years.
No, $10.4B is wrong by 3 orders of magnitude. And you sound a
101 - 200 of 1951 matches
Mail list logo
