Krugman opinion: "Yes, he could"

[Jroc]

He has been described by The Economist as "Britain's most famous 20th-century economist."

The IMF in Britain: Toothless truth tellers | The Economist

In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that: "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."

Weird how conservative policy ALWAYS fails, except for the 1%ers, how'd that 'austerity' hold up? lol


How about the 'free markets' (Banksters) AGAIN collapsing the worlds economy?

Sorry kid. Pinochet, Thatcher, Reagan and others made their respective economies shine, while lefty populists like Papandreou, Peron and today Obama and Hollande invariably bring economies to their knees. Past and present, socialism and communism are abject failures.

Misinformation and excuses are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not all Animal Farm sheep.

0h.. i dunno, "kid"... reagan raised taxes, mmm... eight times? and the debt ceiling something like 18? though it was interesting to watch a former union president destroy the air traffic controllers union. yeah, that did us a lot of good.

try again.

misinformation and propaganda are not going to make a bit of difference. We are not Animal Farm Sheep...

though i know the right likes the whole, 'all animals are created equal but some are more equal than others'.

and if you ever lived with socialism, you'd know that the president isn't a socialist.

The typical tactic is to say Reagan raised taxes 11 or 12 times (the exact number depends on whom you ask.) But it’s unhelpful — in fact, it’s a bit misleading — to talk about how many times Reagan raised taxes. That’s because (as noted earlier) tax increases are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. And many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions.

Overall, Reagan dramatically cut the most odious of taxes.

Read more: Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times? The real story | The Daily Caller

 

[Political Junky]

Chile prospers today BECAUSE they rolled back the right wings 'miracle'...

The main problem with that lame-ass theory is that they haven't rolled it back. Pinochet's reforms are still in place.

Sure they are

From an economic point of view, the era can be divided into two periods. The first, from 1973 to the Crisis of 1982, corresponds to the period when most of the reforms were implemented. The period ended with the international debt crisis and the collapse of the Chilean economy. At that point, unemployment was extremely high, above 20 percent, and a large proportion of the banking sector had become bankrupt. During that first period, an economic policy that emphasized export expansion was implemented. Some economists argue that the economic recovery of the second period, from 1982 to 1990, was due to an about-face turn around of Pinochet's free market policy and the fact that, in 1982, he nationalized many of the same industries that were nationalized under Allende


Valenzuela, Arturo (2002). A Nation of Enemies. New York: W. W. Norton. p. 197-8


One by one the economic crises of 1981 led to the replacement of all the Chicago Boys.


Pragmatic economists had to socialize the two biggest Chilean banks in 1982 and another seven collapsing banks in 1983. The Central Bank of Chile socialized much of the foreign debt.

Anil Hira, Ideas and Economic Policy in Latin America, Praeger Publishers, 1998



The public expenditure quota rose above 34%, even higher than during the presidency of socialist Salvador Allende. Critics mocked the situation as „Chicago way to socialism“


Robert G. Wesson: Politics, policies, and economic development in Latin America. Hoover Press, 1984



The percentage of Chilean population living in poverty had doubled from 1973 to 1990






lol



To save the nation's pension system, Pinochet nationalized banks and industry on a scale unimagined by Socialist Allende. The General expropriated at will, offering little or no compensation. While most of these businesses were eventually re-privatized, the state retained ownership of one industry: copper.

For nearly a century, copper has meant Chile and Chile copper. University of Montana metals expert Dr. Janet Finn notes, "It's absurd to describe a nation as a miracle of free enterprise when the engine of the economy remains in government hands." Copper has provided 30% to 70% of the nation's export earnings. This is the hard currency which has built today's Chile, the proceeds from the mines seized from Anaconda and Kennecott in 1973 - Allende's posthumous gift to his nation.

Greg Palast | Investigative Reporter

Right Wingers, like bri, think they can just make any statement and it will be accepted as fact. Sadly, for them, only others on the Right do.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Right Wingers, like bri, think they can just make any statement and it will be accepted as fact. Sadly, for them, only others on the Right do.

Irony warning!

 

[bripat9643]

Right Wingers, like bri, think they can just make any statement and it will be accepted as fact. Sadly, for them, only others on the Right do.

Irony warning!

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[bripat9643]

Got it, false premises, distortions and LIES, the ONLY thing right wingers have.

Western Europe is a real hellhole right?

Chile? Oh NOW, AFTER the Gov't took back Uncle Milties failed policies, lol


CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST



Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.

Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story.


Chile: the laboratory test



Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall in Private Plan (AGAIN) rescued by Big Gov't, weird right? lol


January 27, 2005


Nearly 25 years ago, Chile embarked on a sweeping experiment that has since been emulated, in one way or another, in a score of other countries. Rather than finance pensions through a system to which workers, employers and the government all contributed, millions of people began to pay 10 percent of their salaries to private investment accounts that they controlled.

Under the Chilean program - which President Bush has cited as a model for his plans to overhaul Social Security - the promise was that such investments, by helping to spur economic growth and generating higher returns, would deliver monthly pension benefits larger than what the traditional system could offer.

But now that the first generation of workers to depend on the new system is beginning to retire, Chileans are finding that it is falling far short of what was originally advertised under the authoritarian government of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

For all the program's success in economic terms, the government continues to direct billions of dollars to a safety net for those whose contributions were not large enough to ensure even a minimum pension approaching $140 a month. Many others - because they earned much of their income in the underground economy, are self-employed, or work only seasonally - remain outside the system altogether. Combined, those groups constitute roughly half the Chilean labor force. Only half of workers are captured by the system.

Even many middle-class workers who contributed regularly are finding that their private accounts - burdened with hidden fees that may have soaked up as much as a third of their original investment - are failing to deliver as much in benefits as they would have received if they had stayed in the old system.



lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27pension.html

What utter horseshit. The New York Times? Now there's a credible source. I'll bet you had to look high and low to find an article that had bad things to say about Chile's economic performance. The author obviously had to sift through a mountain of positive statistics to find something to complain about:

Chile?s Privatized Social Security Program is 30 Years Old, and Prospering

How well has the system performed? John Tierney, a writer for the New York Times, went to visit Pablo Serra, a former classmate and friend in Santiago a few years ago, and they compared notes on how well their respective retirement programs were doing. Tierney brought along his latest statement from Social Security, while his friend brought up his retirement plan on his computer. It turned out that they both had been contributing about the same amount of money, so the comparison was apt, and startling, said Tierney:

Pablo could retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age. OR

Pablo could retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would almost triple the $25,000 pension promised [to me] by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66. OR

Pablo could retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and [in addition receive] a one-time cash payment of $223,000.

Tierney wrote that Pablo said “I’m very happy with my account.” Tierney suggested that, upon retirement, Pablo could not only retire nicely, but be able to buy himself a vacation home at the shore or in the country. Pablo laughed it off, and Tierney wrote: “I’m trying to look on the bright side. Maybe my Social Security check will cover the airfare to visit him.”

According to Investors Business Daily, the average annual rate of return for Chilean workers over the last 30 years has exceeded 9% annually, after inflation, whereas “U. S. Social Security pays a 1% to 2% (theoretical) rate of return, and even less for new workers.”

As expected, the capital accumulated in these privatized accounts have generated substantial growth in Chile’s economy. As noted by Wikipedia, “Chile is one of South America’s most stable and prosperous nations, leading Latin American nations in human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.” [Emphases added.]

High domestic savings and investment rates helped propel Chile’s economy to average growth rates of 8% during the 1990s. The privatized national pension plan (AFP) has encouraged domestic investment and contributed to an estimated total domestic savings rate of approximately 21% of GDP.

Yeah, that pension system sure sucks. Chileans must find getting $70,000/yr instead of the measly $25,000/yr we can expect to get a real cross to bear. And then they have an estate to pass on to their children. What do we pass on to our children? We pass on a mountain of debt so they can work like galley slaves their entire lives to pay it off.

Yeah, that Chilean pension system just blows.

Now consider the economic statistics below. Anyone who claims Chile isn't doing better than every other country in Latin America is either a moron or a liar. I believe you are both.

Yeah, NYT isn'r crediblee *shaking head* lol

No, the NYT isn't credible. It has proven over and over again that it's a propaganda organ for the Democrat party. It has hired reporters who make-up the news.

New American? THE BIRCHERS? LOL

If you don't like that source, then how about Investors Business Daily?

Pensions: In Chile, a major study shows the nation's private retirement accounts provide workers pensions worth 87% of their salaries, 73% of that from profits on savings. So much for the canard about the perils of markets.

The story was front-page news in Chile's largest newspapers, El Mercurio and La Tercera, on Sept. 3, a powerful affirmation of what former Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain called "The Chilean Model" of private retirement accounts.

The study of 28,000 households by Dictuc, a consultancy affiliated with the Catholic University of Chile, showed that male workers who contributed just 10% of their salaries to their retirements for 40 years or more on average earned retirement checks worth about 87% of their top salaries. No 401(k) account needed.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Yes, Chile's Private Pension Model Works, Big Time - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Over the years, Chile made some major changes to its capitalization system, such as liberalizing investment rules and increasing the type and number of pension funds that a pension fund management company (AFP) must offer its account holders. However, despite these and other changes, a number of policy challenges remain unresolved including large groups of workers who are not covered and irregular worker participation rates, both of which could lead to inadequate retirement benefits. Also, according to international standards, the administrative fees the AFPs are charging account holders are high and could significantly decrease the size of a worker's pension.

Yeah, so? You mean it isn't perfect? Here's the bottom line. Chile's pension system gives a 9% return on the pensioner's investment. The supporters of SSI claim it returns 1% - 2%, at best. However, that's bullshit because the money is immediately used to pay out current benefits. Money spent on consumption does not give a return of any kind. SSI can't pay a "return" that doesn't come out of the hides of current or future taxpayers. It's "return" is therefore 0%.

If a pensioner pays in 10% of his income for 40 years of his working life, say $200/month, the value of his retirement savings will be $936,264.05 when he retires. A retirement fund of that amount can pay out $84,000/yr without consuming the principle. Furthermore, when the pensioner dies, his heirs will receive an inheritance of $1 million dollars. The heirs of SSI recipients recieve nothing.

All you petty attacks on the Chilean pension system don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the benefits of the system.

...If no changes were made to the system, most workers with an individual account who retired between 2020 and 2025 would not receive a benefit equal to about 75 percent of their pre-retirement earnings, the goal of the architects of the system.

Chile's Next Generation Pension Reform

Whatever the "goal," the fact is they were receive far more than they ever could have hoped for from the previous Chilean system or from our system. That's the bottom line.

Low participation

Although 7.1 million people are enrolled, only 3.8 million are actually able to contribute to their private accounts. The low contribution rate results from the instability of jobs, the frequent need to leave the workforce to care for children, and the lack of disposable income in a country where more than half of the workers earn little in part-time or off-the-books jobs.

Because of its obligation to retirees in the old system and its guarantee to make up the difference if earnings from private accounts left workers short of the minimum pension, the government continues to spend heavily on pensions. Since the privatized system was introduced, government pension expenditures have remained at 6 percent of the national economy. Pension spending makes up more than a quarter of the government budget, about the same as health care and education combined.

Low participation is not the fault of the system.The fact that some people are unemployed is not the fault of the system. In fact, many people owe their jobs to the pension system because the money invested to create their jobs come from the accounts of pensioners in the system. The fact that the Chilean government still have to cover the pensions of people who aren't in the new system is also not the fault of the system.

In short, your complaints are all totally groundless.

Plunged into poverty

Today, workers need $20,000 in their accounts to get the minimum pension — now about $100 a month. Most individual accounts only have $5,000, according to the Santiago-based Economy of Work Program (PET).

Originally, the Chilean government claimed that with private accounts, workers’ retirement benefits would be 70 percent of their salary. In fact, studies show they will get only 40 percent. “The earnings are insufficient to provide people with a dignified pension,” PET Director Carmen Espinoza told PEP.

PEP, July-August 2005: Chile: Social Security Failure. Privatization by bayonet

That's utter horseshit, and you have provided no support for your claim. The fact that not everyone has a huge next egg is to be expected. People who have only been working for 5 years aren't going to have anywhere near the amount that someone who has been working for 40 years would have. The math I did above would be for someone making $2,000/month, that is $24,000/yr. His retirement payout would be $86,000/yr, so your claim is obviously just pure hogwash. It's simply a lie that you were happy to quote without checking.

SO PERCENTAGE OF GDP, THE GOV'T SPENDS THE SAME AMOUNT TODAY SINCE THEY 'PRIVATIZED' IT? LOL

DUh . . . yeah! Did you think the government's obligation to all those who retired before they had been in the new system for 40 years would just disappear? When are the trillions we spend every year on SSI going to disappear? Duh . . . never!

More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. In Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. And that's a typical number for privatized systems.

Your claim is obvious horseshit. However, the bottom line is that the Chilean system gives pensioners a 9% return on their investment. SSI gives 0%

 

[Dad2three]

What utter horseshit. The New York Times? Now there's a credible source. I'll bet you had to look high and low to find an article that had bad things to say about Chile's economic performance. The author obviously had to sift through a mountain of positive statistics to find something to complain about:

Chile?s Privatized Social Security Program is 30 Years Old, and Prospering



Yeah, that pension system sure sucks. Chileans must find getting $70,000/yr instead of the measly $25,000/yr we can expect to get a real cross to bear. And then they have an estate to pass on to their children. What do we pass on to our children? We pass on a mountain of debt so they can work like galley slaves their entire lives to pay it off.

Yeah, that Chilean pension system just blows.

Now consider the economic statistics below. Anyone who claims Chile isn't doing better than every other country in Latin America is either a moron or a liar. I believe you are both.

Yeah, NYT isn'r crediblee *shaking head* lol

No, the NYT isn't credible. It has proven over and over again that it's a propaganda organ for the Democrat party. It has hired reporters who make-up the news.



If you don't like that source, then how about Investors Business Daily?

Yeah, so? You mean it isn't perfect? Here's the bottom line. Chile's pension system gives a 9% return on the pensioner's investment. The supporters of SSI claim it returns 1% - 2%, at best. However, that's bullshit because the money is immediately used to pay out current benefits. Money spent on consumption does not give a return of any kind. SSI can't pay a "return" that doesn't come out of the hides of current or future taxpayers. It's "return" is therefore 0%.

If a pensioner pays in 10% of his income for 40 years of his working life, say $200/month, the value of his retirement savings will be $936,264.05 when he retires. A retirement fund of that amount can pay out $84,000/yr without consuming the principle. Furthermore, when the pensioner dies, his heirs will receive an inheritance of $1 million dollars. The heirs of SSI recipients recieve nothing.

All you petty attacks on the Chilean pension system don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the benefits of the system.



Whatever the "goal," the fact is they were receive far more than they ever could have hoped for from the previous Chilean system or from our system. That's the bottom line.




Low participation is not the fault of the system.The fact that some people are unemployed is not the fault of the system. In fact, many people owe their jobs to the pension system because the money invested to create their jobs come from the accounts of pensioners in the system. The fact that the Chilean government still have to cover the pensions of people who aren't in the new system is also not the fault of the system.

In short, your complaints are all totally groundless.



That's utter horseshit, and you have provided no support for your claim. The fact that not everyone has a huge next egg is to be expected. People who have only been working for 5 years aren't going to have anywhere near the amount that someone who has been working for 40 years would have. The math I did above would be for someone making $2,000/month, that is $24,000/yr. His retirement payout would be $86,000/yr, so your claim is obviously just pure hogwash. It's simply a lie that you were happy to quote without checking.

SO PERCENTAGE OF GDP, THE GOV'T SPENDS THE SAME AMOUNT TODAY SINCE THEY 'PRIVATIZED' IT? LOL

DUh . . . yeah! Did you think the government's obligation to all those who retired before they had been in the new system for 40 years would just disappear? When are the trillions we spend every year on SSI going to disappear? Duh . . . never!

More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. In Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. And that's a typical number for privatized systems.

Your claim is obvious horseshit. However, the bottom line is that the Chilean system gives pensioners a 9% return on their investment. SSI gives 0%

LOL, Got it, you'll stick with right wing memes, distortions AND lies.

IBD? lol

First, like ALL things conservative, the privatization did NOTHING to stop the cost of Chile's costs, same percentage of GDP today as pre privatization AND Gov't has had to bail out with WELFARE AND it didn't work as conservatives promised, like EVERYTHING conservative policies does, it's NEVER working as promised, ever


NYT is bad huh? lol


KRUG:


Privatizers who laud the Chilean system never mention that it has yet to deliver on its promise to reduce government spending. More than 20 years after the system was created, the government is still pouring in money. Why? Because, as a Federal Reserve study puts it, the Chilean government must "provide subsidies for workers failing to accumulate enough capital to provide a minimum pension." In other words, privatization would have condemned many retirees to dire poverty, and the government stepped back in to save them.

The same thing is happening in Britain.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=0


In a 2004 report on human development in Chile, the United Nations Development Program found that: Half of Chile's six million workers will not qualify for any Social Security benefits when they retire. Another 25 percent will save so little, due to low salaries and high investment account fees, that they will only get the guaranteed poverty-level benefit. Chile's private pension companies collected $4.5 billion in fees between 1982 and 1988, "more than a fifth of net contributions to the system."



But a second study, by the Chilean brokerage firm CB Capitales, exposed that as a lie, finding: When fees are figured in, the real annual rate of return was just 5.1 percent since 1982. Workers would have done better putting money in 90-day certificates of deposit (CDs) in banks. A young worker just starting out would have lost 6.6 percent through 1998. The same worker's account would have gone up 42 percent in bank CDs. The private pension companies reaped $808 million in profits, making gains of 20 percent even in years when private accounts lost money.


Privatized Social Security a Failure in Chile: Ignoring Senior Poverty Crisis, Bush Calls Broken Chilean System a | Communications Workers of America


THIS EXPLAINS WHY CHILE FAILED

http://72.32.39.237:8080/Plone/commentary/pdfs/nc962/chilefactsheet.pdf

 

[Dad2three]

What utter horseshit. The New York Times? Now there's a credible source. I'll bet you had to look high and low to find an article that had bad things to say about Chile's economic performance. The author obviously had to sift through a mountain of positive statistics to find something to complain about:

Chile?s Privatized Social Security Program is 30 Years Old, and Prospering



Yeah, that pension system sure sucks. Chileans must find getting $70,000/yr instead of the measly $25,000/yr we can expect to get a real cross to bear. And then they have an estate to pass on to their children. What do we pass on to our children? We pass on a mountain of debt so they can work like galley slaves their entire lives to pay it off.

Yeah, that Chilean pension system just blows.

Now consider the economic statistics below. Anyone who claims Chile isn't doing better than every other country in Latin America is either a moron or a liar. I believe you are both.

Yeah, NYT isn'r crediblee *shaking head* lol

No, the NYT isn't credible. It has proven over and over again that it's a propaganda organ for the Democrat party. It has hired reporters who make-up the news.



If you don't like that source, then how about Investors Business Daily?

Yeah, so? You mean it isn't perfect? Here's the bottom line. Chile's pension system gives a 9% return on the pensioner's investment. The supporters of SSI claim it returns 1% - 2%, at best. However, that's bullshit because the money is immediately used to pay out current benefits. Money spent on consumption does not give a return of any kind. SSI can't pay a "return" that doesn't come out of the hides of current or future taxpayers. It's "return" is therefore 0%.

If a pensioner pays in 10% of his income for 40 years of his working life, say $200/month, the value of his retirement savings will be $936,264.05 when he retires. A retirement fund of that amount can pay out $84,000/yr without consuming the principle. Furthermore, when the pensioner dies, his heirs will receive an inheritance of $1 million dollars. The heirs of SSI recipients recieve nothing.

All you petty attacks on the Chilean pension system don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the benefits of the system.



Whatever the "goal," the fact is they were receive far more than they ever could have hoped for from the previous Chilean system or from our system. That's the bottom line.




Low participation is not the fault of the system.The fact that some people are unemployed is not the fault of the system. In fact, many people owe their jobs to the pension system because the money invested to create their jobs come from the accounts of pensioners in the system. The fact that the Chilean government still have to cover the pensions of people who aren't in the new system is also not the fault of the system.

In short, your complaints are all totally groundless.



That's utter horseshit, and you have provided no support for your claim. The fact that not everyone has a huge next egg is to be expected. People who have only been working for 5 years aren't going to have anywhere near the amount that someone who has been working for 40 years would have. The math I did above would be for someone making $2,000/month, that is $24,000/yr. His retirement payout would be $86,000/yr, so your claim is obviously just pure hogwash. It's simply a lie that you were happy to quote without checking.

SO PERCENTAGE OF GDP, THE GOV'T SPENDS THE SAME AMOUNT TODAY SINCE THEY 'PRIVATIZED' IT? LOL

DUh . . . yeah! Did you think the government's obligation to all those who retired before they had been in the new system for 40 years would just disappear? When are the trillions we spend every year on SSI going to disappear? Duh . . . never!

More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. In Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. And that's a typical number for privatized systems.

Your claim is obvious horseshit. However, the bottom line is that the Chilean system gives pensioners a 9% return on their investment. SSI gives 0%

9%? LOL, CONSERVATIVES 'MATH'


When Chile made that transition in 1981, it was being ruled by the brutally repressive Pinochet military dictatorship, which took the need for political compromise right out of the picture. The country also enjoyed a budget surplus at the time of more than 5 percent of its GDP, which is not exactly the financial situation we enjoy today.

Chile’s plan requires that workers deposit 13.3 percent of their monthly pay into private accounts, including 3.3 percent to cover mandatory purchase of private disability and life insurance. That’s right: I doubt he realizes it, because I doubt he’s actually looked at it seriously, but the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance.

To offset that additional cost to workers, private employers in Chile were ordered by the military junta to increase wages across the board by 18 percent. The Chilean government also went deeply into debt to finance the transition to the new system while trying to honor commitments under the previous system.

Math doesn?t work on privatizing Social Security | Jay Bookman



A report this year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile and most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.”

Other cautionary factoids from recent reports by Stephen J. Kay of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta about Chile’s experience:

• Investment accounts of retirees are much smaller than originally predicted—so low that 41 percent of those eligible to collect pensions continue to work.

Sharron Angle Calls for Social Security Privatization | FDL News Desk




LOL LIKE ALL THINGS CONSERVATIVE, THEIR POLICY NEVER WORKS AS PROMISED!

 

[Listening]

LOL LIKE ALL THINGS CONSERVATIVE, THEIR POLICY NEVER WORKS AS PROMISED!

But Obama's does....

You can keep your plan if you like it....

You can keep your doctor......

I'll save you 2,500/year.........

UE will not go over 8%.

 

[Bush92]

The original post quotes the NY Times Pual Krugman. That in of itself...based on the Times well known bias, makes it an unreliable source.

 

[Bush92]

NY TIMES

 

[Listening]

Yeah, NYT isn'r crediblee *shaking head* lol

No, the NYT isn't credible. It has proven over and over again that it's a propaganda organ for the Democrat party. It has hired reporters who make-up the news.



If you don't like that source, then how about Investors Business Daily?

Yeah, so? You mean it isn't perfect? Here's the bottom line. Chile's pension system gives a 9% return on the pensioner's investment. The supporters of SSI claim it returns 1% - 2%, at best. However, that's bullshit because the money is immediately used to pay out current benefits. Money spent on consumption does not give a return of any kind. SSI can't pay a "return" that doesn't come out of the hides of current or future taxpayers. It's "return" is therefore 0%.

If a pensioner pays in 10% of his income for 40 years of his working life, say $200/month, the value of his retirement savings will be $936,264.05 when he retires. A retirement fund of that amount can pay out $84,000/yr without consuming the principle. Furthermore, when the pensioner dies, his heirs will receive an inheritance of $1 million dollars. The heirs of SSI recipients recieve nothing.

All you petty attacks on the Chilean pension system don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the benefits of the system.



Whatever the "goal," the fact is they were receive far more than they ever could have hoped for from the previous Chilean system or from our system. That's the bottom line.




Low participation is not the fault of the system.The fact that some people are unemployed is not the fault of the system. In fact, many people owe their jobs to the pension system because the money invested to create their jobs come from the accounts of pensioners in the system. The fact that the Chilean government still have to cover the pensions of people who aren't in the new system is also not the fault of the system.

In short, your complaints are all totally groundless.



That's utter horseshit, and you have provided no support for your claim. The fact that not everyone has a huge next egg is to be expected. People who have only been working for 5 years aren't going to have anywhere near the amount that someone who has been working for 40 years would have. The math I did above would be for someone making $2,000/month, that is $24,000/yr. His retirement payout would be $86,000/yr, so your claim is obviously just pure hogwash. It's simply a lie that you were happy to quote without checking.



DUh . . . yeah! Did you think the government's obligation to all those who retired before they had been in the new system for 40 years would just disappear? When are the trillions we spend every year on SSI going to disappear? Duh . . . never!

More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. In Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. And that's a typical number for privatized systems.

Your claim is obvious horseshit. However, the bottom line is that the Chilean system gives pensioners a 9% return on their investment. SSI gives 0%

9%? LOL, CONSERVATIVES 'MATH'


When Chile made that transition in 1981, it was being ruled by the brutally repressive Pinochet military dictatorship, which took the need for political compromise right out of the picture. The country also enjoyed a budget surplus at the time of more than 5 percent of its GDP, which is not exactly the financial situation we enjoy today.

Chile’s plan requires that workers deposit 13.3 percent of their monthly pay into private accounts, including 3.3 percent to cover mandatory purchase of private disability and life insurance. That’s right: I doubt he realizes it, because I doubt he’s actually looked at it seriously, but the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance.

To offset that additional cost to workers, private employers in Chile were ordered by the military junta to increase wages across the board by 18 percent. The Chilean government also went deeply into debt to finance the transition to the new system while trying to honor commitments under the previous system.

Math doesn?t work on privatizing Social Security | Jay Bookman



A report this year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile and most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.”

Other cautionary factoids from recent reports by Stephen J. Kay of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta about Chile’s experience:

• Investment accounts of retirees are much smaller than originally predicted—so low that 41 percent of those eligible to collect pensions continue to work.

Sharron Angle Calls for Social Security Privatization | FDL News Desk




LOL LIKE ALL THINGS CONSERVATIVE, THEIR POLICY NEVER WORKS AS PROMISED!

Hey dumbass....

Looks to me like it worked for half of them.

How is it that you bunnyfarts can always justify such broad generalizations when you have no basis for them ?

 

[bripat9643]

MUCH lower on those 'job creators', the average person, higher. Why, did a top rate of 50% on the 'job creators' stop a boom? Or did lowering it to 28% create Poppy Bush's recession?

You're one of those "low information voters" people talk about, arentcha?

No, That would be MOST conservatives on this forum, the minority not represented by that are just ideologues (sociopaths)....

How ironic.

 

[Dad2three]

LOL LIKE ALL THINGS CONSERVATIVE, THEIR POLICY NEVER WORKS AS PROMISED!

But Obama's does....

You can keep your plan if you like it....

You can keep your doctor......

I'll save you 2,500/year.........

UE will not go over 8%.

That GOP plan from the 1990's that Obama adopted instead of going single payer?


:lol

"UE will not go over 8%."

CARE TO GIVE ME A LINK ON THAT 8% CRAP?

 

[Dad2three]

The original post quotes the NY Times Pual Krugman. That in of itself...based on the Times well known bias, makes it an unreliable source.

NYT is unrealiable???? lol

Conservative: One who admires radicals a century after they're dead.

Leo Rosten

 

[Dad2three]

No, the NYT isn't credible. It has proven over and over again that it's a propaganda organ for the Democrat party. It has hired reporters who make-up the news.



If you don't like that source, then how about Investors Business Daily?

Yeah, so? You mean it isn't perfect? Here's the bottom line. Chile's pension system gives a 9% return on the pensioner's investment. The supporters of SSI claim it returns 1% - 2%, at best. However, that's bullshit because the money is immediately used to pay out current benefits. Money spent on consumption does not give a return of any kind. SSI can't pay a "return" that doesn't come out of the hides of current or future taxpayers. It's "return" is therefore 0%.

If a pensioner pays in 10% of his income for 40 years of his working life, say $200/month, the value of his retirement savings will be $936,264.05 when he retires. A retirement fund of that amount can pay out $84,000/yr without consuming the principle. Furthermore, when the pensioner dies, his heirs will receive an inheritance of $1 million dollars. The heirs of SSI recipients recieve nothing.

All you petty attacks on the Chilean pension system don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the benefits of the system.



Whatever the "goal," the fact is they were receive far more than they ever could have hoped for from the previous Chilean system or from our system. That's the bottom line.




Low participation is not the fault of the system.The fact that some people are unemployed is not the fault of the system. In fact, many people owe their jobs to the pension system because the money invested to create their jobs come from the accounts of pensioners in the system. The fact that the Chilean government still have to cover the pensions of people who aren't in the new system is also not the fault of the system.

In short, your complaints are all totally groundless.



That's utter horseshit, and you have provided no support for your claim. The fact that not everyone has a huge next egg is to be expected. People who have only been working for 5 years aren't going to have anywhere near the amount that someone who has been working for 40 years would have. The math I did above would be for someone making $2,000/month, that is $24,000/yr. His retirement payout would be $86,000/yr, so your claim is obviously just pure hogwash. It's simply a lie that you were happy to quote without checking.



DUh . . . yeah! Did you think the government's obligation to all those who retired before they had been in the new system for 40 years would just disappear? When are the trillions we spend every year on SSI going to disappear? Duh . . . never!



Your claim is obvious horseshit. However, the bottom line is that the Chilean system gives pensioners a 9% return on their investment. SSI gives 0%

9%? LOL, CONSERVATIVES 'MATH'


When Chile made that transition in 1981, it was being ruled by the brutally repressive Pinochet military dictatorship, which took the need for political compromise right out of the picture. The country also enjoyed a budget surplus at the time of more than 5 percent of its GDP, which is not exactly the financial situation we enjoy today.

Chile’s plan requires that workers deposit 13.3 percent of their monthly pay into private accounts, including 3.3 percent to cover mandatory purchase of private disability and life insurance. That’s right: I doubt he realizes it, because I doubt he’s actually looked at it seriously, but the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance.

To offset that additional cost to workers, private employers in Chile were ordered by the military junta to increase wages across the board by 18 percent. The Chilean government also went deeply into debt to finance the transition to the new system while trying to honor commitments under the previous system.

Math doesn?t work on privatizing Social Security | Jay Bookman



A report this year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile and most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.”

Other cautionary factoids from recent reports by Stephen J. Kay of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta about Chile’s experience:

• Investment accounts of retirees are much smaller than originally predicted—so low that 41 percent of those eligible to collect pensions continue to work.

Sharron Angle Calls for Social Security Privatization | FDL News Desk




LOL LIKE ALL THINGS CONSERVATIVE, THEIR POLICY NEVER WORKS AS PROMISED!

Hey dumbass....

Looks to me like it worked for half of them.

How is it that you bunnyfarts can always justify such broad generalizations when you have no basis for them ?

HALF? So about the other half AND Gov't spending as much as they did BEFORE they 'privatized' it?

 

[Dad2three]

You're one of those "low information voters" people talk about, arentcha?

No, That would be MOST conservatives on this forum, the minority not represented by that are just ideologues (sociopaths)....

How ironic.

Apparently you don't know what that means. You must be that last part I mentioned (sociopath)....

 

[Listening]

LOL LIKE ALL THINGS CONSERVATIVE, THEIR POLICY NEVER WORKS AS PROMISED!

But Obama's does....

You can keep your plan if you like it....

You can keep your doctor......

I'll save you 2,500/year.........

UE will not go over 8%.

That GOP plan from the 1990's that Obama adopted instead of going single payer?


:lol

"UE will not go over 8%."

CARE TO GIVE ME A LINK ON THAT 8% CRAP?

ROTFLMAO.

The GOP plan......too much.

You mean the Heritage Foundation plan that nobody agreed with then.

But that was utilized as a smokescreen against Hillarycare ?

That plan ?

The one the GOP implemented right after the GOP took the house and senate in 1994 ? Oh wait.....

Or the one they implemented while they held the house, the senate and the WH ? That never happened.

That plan ???

Does Polly want a cracker ?

On UE at 8%...everyone knows that Christine Romer carried Obama's water. I loved this from Politifact............

Obama didn’t say that. Rather, his Council of Economic Advisers predicted that the stimulus would hold it to that level. Their report included heavy disclaimers that the projections had "significant margins of error" and a high degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is "unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

The sub-8 percent prediction did not hold true, but it’s still incorrect to characterize it as a promise or guarantee.

**************

Those who pushed the failed stimulus were all to quick to quote the number.

Failed Obama policies.

 

[Dad2three]

But Obama's does....

You can keep your plan if you like it....

You can keep your doctor......

I'll save you 2,500/year.........

UE will not go over 8%.

That GOP plan from the 1990's that Obama adopted instead of going single payer?


:lol

"UE will not go over 8%."

CARE TO GIVE ME A LINK ON THAT 8% CRAP?

ROTFLMAO.

The GOP plan......too much.

You mean the Heritage Foundation plan that nobody agreed with then.

But that was utilized as a smokescreen against Hillarycare ?

That plan ?

The one the GOP implemented right after the GOP took the house and senate in 1994 ? Oh wait.....

Or the one they implemented while they held the house, the senate and the WH ? That never happened.

That plan ???

Does Polly want a cracker ?

On UE at 8%...everyone knows that Christine Romer carried Obama's water. I loved this from Politifact............

Obama didn’t say that. Rather, his Council of Economic Advisers predicted that the stimulus would hold it to that level. Their report included heavy disclaimers that the projections had "significant margins of error" and a high degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is "unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

The sub-8 percent prediction did not hold true, but it’s still incorrect to characterize it as a promise or guarantee.

**************

Those who pushed the failed stimulus were all to quick to quote the number.

Failed Obama policies.

THAT GOP plan that stopped H/C reform under Clinton? YES.



ROMER PREDICTED? Got it

Now WHY did there NEED to be a stimulus after 8 years of Bush/GOP 'job creator' policies? lol

 

[The Rabbi]

There didnt need to be a stimulus. Over 100 economists placed an ad in the WSJ saying exactly that. And they were right. The stimulus was the biggest domestic policy flop until Obamacare came along.
Every policy of Obama is a failure. Why dont you get that?

 

[Dad2three]

There didnt need to be a stimulus. Over 100 economists placed an ad in the WSJ saying exactly that. And they were right. The stimulus was the biggest domestic policy flop until Obamacare came along.
Every policy of Obama is a failure. Why dont you get that?

Those economists from Heritage, AEI, CATO, etc who said Bush's tax cuts would lead to growth and jobs, and pay off the debt? lol

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

“Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”

Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - The Washington Post