Social Security Discussion

[Kimura]

Who said the FED is a cartel? Who said the FED is run for profit? Did you not take your meds? You keep hearing voices like this we're gonna need to send an ambulance. You appear to be having an episode.

You did, right here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/310675-social-security-discussion-16.html#post8136177

But I do like how I said they are independent and then you retort with no they are "independent." ROFL

Yeah, even though it gets its authority from the Congress, as a central bank, being independent, its decisions don't have to by the legislative branch, not does it receive any funding from Congress.

The reserve banks aren’t run for profit and the stock ownership is a requirement by law. They can’t sell them or use them as collateral for loans. Their dividends are six percent annually if I’m not mistaken.

ROFL it's not stock, but they receive "dividends." You are hilarious.

Another genius response. Uncle Same receives all the profits from the FED, minus a a six percent dividend on member banks' capital investment is paid out. This public information.

Consolidated government sector, you mean like energy, transportation, insurance, unions, community organizers, the DNC, and auto makers? ROFL

No, but as opposed to having to explain it for the umpteenth time, here's a good overview:

3spoken: The Consolidated Government SectorConsolidated Government Sector

Let me get this straight, to clear up my supposed confusion you back track 180 degrees from your earlier posts and finally agree with everything I said. ROFL Dude you could be a news caster on the comedy channel. Your dancing is just hilarious.

Anybody that can rub two brain cells together can see that I've not changed anything I said.

 

[Kimura]

You may be conflating public held debt with government held debt. Two different things.

Net private financial wealth equals public debt down to the last penny.

Private net worth is 74,820.94 Billions of Dollars, and total public debt is 16,738,319 Millions of Dollars.

I'm talking macroaccounting. I'll explain.

 

[Kimura]

You may be conflating public held debt with government held debt. Two different things.

Net private financial wealth equals public debt down to the last penny.

Well THERE'S something to be proud of... OOOOPS --- just checked a minute ago --- you're now wrong..

Basically, flows of spending accrue to stocks. For example, the private sector's (domestic) accumulation of $NFAs (net financial assets) over a year is only possible since it's spending less than its income over a year. This very savings has enabled the private sector to accumulate a stock of wealth over the duration of year in the form of financial assets. These $FAs (financial assets) of the domestic private sector and domestic government sector exist as financial liabilities on the other side of the ledger, which are held in the form of bonds and currency.

These government denominated IOUs can only accumulate when the government spends more than it receives from its citizens in the form of taxes. This is what we commonly refer to as a deficit, which then accrues to a stock of government debt equal, down to the last penny, of the domestic private sector's aggregate accumulation of financial assets over the same time period. These government sector IOUs can only be accumulated when the federal government spends more than it confiscates from us in taxes.

It's critical to realize that the $NFA (net financial assets) being held by the domestic private sector is identical, down to the last penny, to the financial liabilities being held by the government sector. In the event the government ran a balanced budget, quarter after quarter, where spending was equal to tax revenue, the domestic private sector's wealth would be at zero. If we ran a budget surplus, the domestic private sector's total net financial wealth would slide into the negative, because the domestic private sector would be indebted to government sector.

 

[william the wie]

You may be conflating public held debt with government held debt. Two different things.

Net private financial wealth equals public debt down to the last penny.

Private net worth is 74,820.94 Billions of Dollars, and total public debt is 16,738,319 Millions of Dollars.

Don't confuse the poor guy with facts.

 

[RKMBrown]

Who said the FED is a cartel? Who said the FED is run for profit? Did you not take your meds? You keep hearing voices like this we're gonna need to send an ambulance. You appear to be having an episode.

You did, right here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/310675-social-security-discussion-16.html#post8136177

But I do like how I said they are independent and then you retort with no they are "independent." ROFL

Yeah, even though it gets its authority from the Congress, as a central bank, being independent, its decisions don't have to by the legislative branch, not does it receive any funding from Congress.




Another genius response. Uncle Same receives all the profits from the FED, minus a a six percent dividend on member banks' capital investment is paid out. This public information.

Consolidated government sector, you mean like energy, transportation, insurance, unions, community organizers, the DNC, and auto makers? ROFL

No, but as opposed to having to explain it for the umpteenth time, here's a good overview:

3spoken: The Consolidated Government SectorConsolidated Government Sector

Let me get this straight, to clear up my supposed confusion you back track 180 degrees from your earlier posts and finally agree with everything I said. ROFL Dude you could be a news caster on the comedy channel. Your dancing is just hilarious.

Anybody that can rub two brain cells together can see that I've not changed anything I said.

I did not realize I was talking to a dumb ass raving lunatic that would quote out of context with every post, turn statements upside down, fail to realize when he was completely wrong on simple 3rd grade level subjects, and boldly lie about what other people have stated.

Are you on meth or just get a hard on by being a POS liar?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You may be conflating public held debt with government held debt. Two different things.

Net private financial wealth equals public debt down to the last penny.

FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 25, 2013

Really? I see net wealth as larger than public debt.

 

[william the wie]

See above. Also considering discounted consumable crops the CBOE appears to be pricing in a higher value on crops not yet harvested than the FRB. Also not all assets make it into the national accounts and there is no way to do check figures. So, while increases and decreases are like +\- 5% or less accurate actual magnitude is understated by some unknown amount.

 

[oldfart]

I'm sure that it is possible for two people of opposite political views to see the same policies and facts from two different perspectives. My politics are for liberty and limited style of government, yours presumably for authority and marxist style of government.

While I'm sure you and your ilk will use very different terms to describe the same thing, I assure you that I have no clue who this ed guy is nor do I know how to channel him. Perhaps you could give us all a sequence of steps we can used to channel this guy.

The Ed thing is an inside joke. Ed is famous for posts that recycle the same invective over and over while almost never making a comment appropriate to the discussion. Many of us feel a protective obligation for Ed; he is after all the board's official pet troll.

For myself, I regard my politics as first and foremost pragmatic. I have an ideology, but more than that I want the American economy to work well for everyone. Economics is not a zero sum game; good economic policy is a positive sum game and lots of bad policy is a decidedly negative sum game.

 

[william the wie]

I'm sure that it is possible for two people of opposite political views to see the same policies and facts from two different perspectives. My politics are for liberty and limited style of government, yours presumably for authority and marxist style of government.

While I'm sure you and your ilk will use very different terms to describe the same thing, I assure you that I have no clue who this ed guy is nor do I know how to channel him. Perhaps you could give us all a sequence of steps we can used to channel this guy.

The Ed thing is an inside joke. Ed is famous for posts that recycle the same invective over and over while almost never making a comment appropriate to the discussion. Many of us feel a protective obligation for Ed; he is after all the board's official pet troll.

For myself, I regard my politics as first and foremost pragmatic. I have an ideology, but more than that I want the American economy to work well for everyone. Economics is not a zero sum game; good economic policy is a positive sum game and lots of bad policy is a decidedly negative sum game.

That last paragraph sounds like a good thread. I'm stealing it.

 

[expat_panama]

...regard my politics as first and foremost pragmatic. I have an ideology, but more than that I want the American economy to work well for everyone. Economics is not a zero sum game; good economic policy is a positive sum game and lots of bad policy is a decidedly negative sum game.

That last paragraph sounds like a good thread. I'm stealing it.

This is the key idea, to have politics follow policy and not pick/choose/mold a mess of policies to fit some personality.

The hard facts of reality are all out there and we've got to be humble before the facts. Then we move forward trusting that the truth works. Considering that for thousands of years humankind has raised forth an ever-advancing civilization I think we consider ourselves blessed.

 

[RKMBrown]

For myself, I regard my politics as first and foremost pragmatic. I have an ideology, but more than that I want the American economy to work well for everyone. Economics is not a zero sum game; good economic policy is a positive sum game and lots of bad policy is a decidedly negative sum game.

There seem to be a lot of people claiming to be "pragmatists" is that some new spin on Independent or uncommitted?

I would argue that wanting the American economy to work well for everyone is a pipe dream best left for the likes of Ricardo Montalban on fantasy island. Well is one of those "fairness" words that one has to "feel" to understand. What one person might think of as working well might seem to be completely screwed up for the next guy.

If by well, you mean equal opportunity vs. forcing equal outcome then I might agree, if only disagreeing with the terminology.

 

[Kimura]

You may be conflating public held debt with government held debt. Two different things.

Net private financial wealth equals public debt down to the last penny.

FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 25, 2013

Really? I see net wealth as larger than public debt.

I'm talking about net financial assets. One's financial asset is offset by a another's financial liability. Bonds and currency are financial assets. In the aggregate, as a matter of accounting, net financial wealth must ultimately equal zero.

REAL assets aren't offset by another liability which means at the aggregate level net wealth would equal the value of real assets. For example, you may have purchased and automobile and went into debt. The car note (financial liability) would be offset by the financial asset held by the loan company. Since they ultimately net to zero, what we have left is the value of the real asset - the automobile.

Sorry about the confusion. I'm mostly concerned about with financial assets when discussing macro and monetary operations, but I will try to remember that real assets provide net wealth at aggregate and individual levels so to speak. If we subtract any and all financial liabilities from total assets - both financial and real - we're only left with real assets (aggregate net worth).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Net private financial wealth equals public debt down to the last penny.

FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 25, 2013

Really? I see net wealth as larger than public debt.

I'm talking about net financial assets. One's financial asset is offset by a another's financial liability. Bonds and currency are financial assets. In the aggregate, as a matter of accounting, net financial wealth must ultimately equal zero.

REAL assets aren't offset by another liability which means at the aggregate level net wealth would equal the value of real assets. For example, you may have purchased and automobile and went into debt. The car note (financial liability) would be offset by the financial asset held by the loan company. Since they ultimately net to zero, what we have left is the value of the real asset - the automobile.

Sorry about the confusion. I'm mostly concerned about with financial assets when discussing macro and monetary operations, but I will try to remember that real assets provide net wealth at aggregate and individual levels so to speak. If we subtract any and all financial liabilities from total assets - both financial and real - we're only left with real assets (aggregate net worth).

One's financial asset is offset by a another's financial liability.

So if I buy a new issue at $20, the issuing firm has a liability of $20.
Now the stock goes up to $30. I think financial assets are now larger than liabilities.
How am I wrong?

 

[william the wie]

...regard my politics as first and foremost pragmatic. I have an ideology, but more than that I want the American economy to work well for everyone. Economics is not a zero sum game; good economic policy is a positive sum game and lots of bad policy is a decidedly negative sum game.

That last paragraph sounds like a good thread. I'm stealing it.

This is the key idea, to have politics follow policy and not pick/choose/mold a mess of policies to fit some personality.

The hard facts of reality are all out there and we've got to be humble before the facts. Then we move forward trusting that the truth works. Considering that for thousands of years humankind has raised forth an ever-advancing civilization I think we consider ourselves blessed.

Yes but crashes are getting smaller proportionally in 1786 RI tax farmers couldn't find anyone economically employed to tax.

The death rates in the 1830s and to a lesser degree 1890s made the 1930s look like a tea party. Even allowing for the fact that the Jacksonian transportations were murderous those deaths were not counted in the census data but people literally starved to death in the streets despite the availability of dead horses discarded by Teamsters in most towns and cities. That was true in both the 1830s and 1890s. The current downturn is even milder.

 

[Rshermr]

Who said the FED is a cartel? Who said the FED is run for profit? Did you not take your meds? You keep hearing voices like this we're gonna need to send an ambulance. You appear to be having an episode.

You did, right here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/310675-social-security-discussion-16.html#post8136177



Yeah, even though it gets its authority from the Congress, as a central bank, being independent, its decisions don't have to by the legislative branch, not does it receive any funding from Congress.




Another genius response. Uncle Same receives all the profits from the FED, minus a a six percent dividend on member banks' capital investment is paid out. This public information.



No, but as opposed to having to explain it for the umpteenth time, here's a good overview:

3spoken: The Consolidated Government SectorConsolidated Government Sector

Let me get this straight, to clear up my supposed confusion you back track 180 degrees from your earlier posts and finally agree with everything I said. ROFL Dude you could be a news caster on the comedy channel. Your dancing is just hilarious.

Anybody that can rub two brain cells together can see that I've not changed anything I said.

I did not realize I was talking to a dumb ass raving lunatic that would quote out of context with every post, turn statements upside down, fail to realize when he was completely wrong on simple 3rd grade level subjects, and boldly lie about what other people have stated.

Are you on meth or just get a hard on by being a POS liar?

Stop talking to yourself, dipshit. Jesus. You ARE channeling ed.

 

[RKMBrown]

You did, right here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/310675-social-security-discussion-16.html#post8136177



Yeah, even though it gets its authority from the Congress, as a central bank, being independent, its decisions don't have to by the legislative branch, not does it receive any funding from Congress.




Another genius response. Uncle Same receives all the profits from the FED, minus a a six percent dividend on member banks' capital investment is paid out. This public information.



No, but as opposed to having to explain it for the umpteenth time, here's a good overview:

3spoken: The Consolidated Government SectorConsolidated Government Sector




Anybody that can rub two brain cells together can see that I've not changed anything I said.

I did not realize I was talking to a dumb ass raving lunatic that would quote out of context with every post, turn statements upside down, fail to realize when he was completely wrong on simple 3rd grade level subjects, and boldly lie about what other people have stated.

Are you on meth or just get a hard on by being a POS liar?

Stop talking to yourself, dipshit. Jesus. You ARE channeling ed.

My reply was to Kimura. What makes you think I'm Kimura? Are you hearing voices to? You, Kimura, and PMS need to get room.

 

[Politico]

what a bunch of crap....

Is that where Obama's brother lives?

No he lives here Obama's slumdog brother: Meet the hopeless drunk from a Nairobi shanty town who is the U.S. President's BROTHER | Mail Online

...Median household net worth: $68,828...

--and the median age is 34. The median saves enough, the average is very well off, and this is why the only way the loopylefites can "sell" SS is by force.

68K wow those are some lucky folks.

 

[SteadyMercury]

The median saves enough, the average is very well off

"For people 10 years away from retirement, the median savings is $12,000. "Of the people between 55 and 64, one third haven't saved anything for retirement"

Yeah.

nd this is why the only way the loopylefites can "sell" SS is by force.

You definitely belong in the politics forum with all the others who see the world in shades of left/right and try to use said labels as an insult.

 

[oldfart]

For myself, I regard my politics as first and foremost pragmatic. I have an ideology, but more than that I want the American economy to work well for everyone. Economics is not a zero sum game; good economic policy is a positive sum game and lots of bad policy is a decidedly negative sum game.

There seem to be a lot of people claiming to be "pragmatists" is that some new spin on Independent or uncommitted?

I only speak for myself, so if "a lot of people" claim to be pragmatists" you would have to check with them to see what they mean. For my self, pragmatism is based on my experience and training. For example, I believe that out of every ten great sounding ideas about eight will be failures. The problem is that the losers generally sound as good as the winners before you try them. So I don't bet the farm on the first idea. I design a fair trial, spend the money, and if it fails, I count it money well spent on information and move on. Every success looks obvious in retrospect.

The opposite of pragmatism is magical thinking. Magical thinking involves coming up with creative reasons for the failure of projects that were a flawed idea from the start. There is a difference between a bad concept and bad execution, but throwing more money at a flawed project does not cure the flaw.

If you don't like one of my arguments, I can be persuaded. Assuming we have compatible goals and values, I will happily abandon any proposal when I become convinced there is something better. In general I find that means that curbing monopoly power is generally good and that market solutions are preferable to command solutions.

I would argue that wanting the American economy to work well for everyone is a pipe dream best left for the likes of Ricardo Montalban on fantasy island. Well is one of those "fairness" words that one has to "feel" to understand. What one person might think of as working well might seem to be completely screwed up for the next guy.

You might want to read some about "Pareto optimality". It has nothing to do with "fairness" or "feelings". If a proposal can leave all members of society at least as well off (or if they can be made as well off with a suitable transfer that the gainers are willing to provide) and at least one member is better off; then society is better off. That's the defining axiom of welfare economics (which is a branch of general equilibrium theory and has nothing to do with government "welfare" programs. That's a pretty tough standard, and I for one would substitute "most" for "all" with the exceptions being skewed toward disadvantaging those who have reached their current state by use of illegal, forcible, or monopolistic methods. I see no reason a society must guarantee the gains of law breakers, for example. I realize these rules are pretty foreign to people who view public issues as morality plays or sports contests, which is what political views of public issues really boils down to, but I think Pareto, Hicks, Arrow, and Debreu et al make more sense than "Hurrah for our side!"

If by well, you mean equal opportunity vs. forcing equal outcome then I might agree, if only disagreeing with the terminology.

I believe in equal opportunity and not equal outcomes. But I also believe that society is better off if those outcomes and not wildly disparate and if the outcomes have a floor on the standard of living. How much of that floor is provided by government and how much by private actions is a matter of effectiveness, and I would support whatever works best. If the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and other such organizations could provide every needy American with minimal levels of food, clothing, shelter, and medical care; I would eschew government action. A society gets to choose how it carries out its responsibilities.

 

[RKMBrown]

For myself, I regard my politics as first and foremost pragmatic. I have an ideology, but more than that I want the American economy to work well for everyone. Economics is not a zero sum game; good economic policy is a positive sum game and lots of bad policy is a decidedly negative sum game.

There seem to be a lot of people claiming to be "pragmatists" is that some new spin on Independent or uncommitted?

I only speak for myself, so if "a lot of people" claim to be pragmatists" you would have to check with them to see what they mean. For my self, pragmatism is based on my experience and training. For example, I believe that out of every ten great sounding ideas about eight will be failures. The problem is that the losers generally sound as good as the winners before you try them. So I don't bet the farm on the first idea. I design a fair trial, spend the money, and if it fails, I count it money well spent on information and move on. Every success looks obvious in retrospect.

The opposite of pragmatism is magical thinking. Magical thinking involves coming up with creative reasons for the failure of projects that were a flawed idea from the start. There is a difference between a bad concept and bad execution, but throwing more money at a flawed project does not cure the flaw.

If you don't like one of my arguments, I can be persuaded. Assuming we have compatible goals and values, I will happily abandon any proposal when I become convinced there is something better. In general I find that means that curbing monopoly power is generally good and that market solutions are preferable to command solutions.

I would argue that wanting the American economy to work well for everyone is a pipe dream best left for the likes of Ricardo Montalban on fantasy island. Well is one of those "fairness" words that one has to "feel" to understand. What one person might think of as working well might seem to be completely screwed up for the next guy.

You might want to read some about "Pareto optimality". It has nothing to do with "fairness" or "feelings". If a proposal can leave all members of society at least as well off (or if they can be made as well off with a suitable transfer that the gainers are willing to provide) and at least one member is better off; then society is better off. That's the defining axiom of welfare economics (which is a branch of general equilibrium theory and has nothing to do with government "welfare" programs. That's a pretty tough standard, and I for one would substitute "most" for "all" with the exceptions being skewed toward disadvantaging those who have reached their current state by use of illegal, forcible, or monopolistic methods. I see no reason a society must guarantee the gains of law breakers, for example. I realize these rules are pretty foreign to people who view public issues as morality plays or sports contests, which is what political views of public issues really boils down to, but I think Pareto, Hicks, Arrow, and Debreu et al make more sense than "Hurrah for our side!"

If by well, you mean equal opportunity vs. forcing equal outcome then I might agree, if only disagreeing with the terminology.

I believe in equal opportunity and not equal outcomes. But I also believe that society is better off if those outcomes and not wildly disparate and if the outcomes have a floor on the standard of living. How much of that floor is provided by government and how much by private actions is a matter of effectiveness, and I would support whatever works best. If the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and other such organizations could provide every needy American with minimal levels of food, clothing, shelter, and medical care; I would eschew government action. A society gets to choose how it carries out its responsibilities.

Will respond to this treatise Thursday.

For today quick comments:
Government does not provide. It redistributes what it takes by force.

A floor on standard of living for otherwise capable workers, is the creation of a class of parasites. Or are you gonna create work quotas too?