Political Crossfire Forums

[limbaughfan]

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html

read the story,it shows you privatization is the way to go.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

I support ending Social Security altogether.

[gavnook]

Just end it. End it now.

[RueTheDay]

limbaughfan wrote: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html

read the story,it shows you privatization is the way to go.

First of all, this is a forum for discussion and debate. You can't just post a link and say "here everyone, read this". Please add some input of your own.

That having been said, I'm perfectly willing to listen to various ideas on Social Security Reform. However, they all must address a number of issues, none of which are addressed by the op-ed you posted.

1. If you advocate radical change, how do we transition from the current system to the new one? What are we to do with the millions of people who are currently retired or near retirement and paid into Social Security their entire lives? This is literally the trillion dollar question.

2. If you are going to invest retirement funds in equities and other potentially risky vehicles, how do you ensure that the program will be liquid enough to handle market downturns?

3. If you advocate a government managed program that invests in equities, you have, perhaps inadvertently, transferred ownership of a significant stake in corporate America to the federal government.

There is one other thing that perturbs me about this issue and it's the tendency of propaganda pieces like the one you posted to talk of an impending crisis, of Social Security going bankrupt, of the system imploding in on itself. That's nonsense.

The reality is that Social Security will be fully liquid for the next 30 years or so, and then after that point, will need to implement some combination of benefit cuts and/or tax increases to remain liquid. These changes need not be direct - instead of a tax increase, the income base subject to the tax can be increased slightly; instead of a benefit cut, the retirement age can be increased by a couple of years. Hell, if they indexed Social Security increases to the inflation rate rather than the average wage increase rate, that alone would eliminate 100% of any funding problems with Social Security and effectively fix it forever. It would negatively impact the poorest workers, but that could be addressed separately with some combination of the above.

[RueTheDay]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: I support ending Social Security altogether.

Granted, I've always considered anarcho-capitalism to be an idiotic, logically incoherent political philosophy primarily espoused by middle class high school students incapable of actually addressing any real world concerns, but what do you propose to do about the millions of retired people who paid into the system their entire working lives?

[Roy L]

limbaughfan wrote: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html

read the story,it shows you privatization is the way to go.
No, it doesn't. It is a joke. Just off the top of my head, there are at least three reasons this article is bogus:

1. It does not address the issue of diminishing returns on investment. It is one thing for a few thousand people to get a high return. It is quite another when hundreds of millions of people are chasing the same returns. Competition would drive the average return far below the level obtained by the Texas plans, a fact that privatization advocates invariably ignore.

2. These (probably unionized) municipal employees had very stable employment over many years, at good wages. SS has been tasked with also providing a safety net for millions of people who did not make very much, were intermittently employed, etc. Of course SS provides a lower return for those who have had the best and most stable incomes: it's a national safety net program, not a private pension plan.

3. The Texas plans' returns were not hobbled by the extremely high payout ratios obtained by the first cohorts of SS retirees. Yes, it is unfortunate that things were skewed so far in favor of the early retirees, but that cannot now be undone by privatization.

[LeopardPM]

Roy L wrote: limbaughfan wrote: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html

read the story,it shows you privatization is the way to go.
No, it doesn't. It is a joke. Just off the top of my head, there are at least three reasons this article is bogus:

1. It does not address the issue of diminishing returns on investment. It is one thing for a few thousand people to get a high return. It is quite another when hundreds of millions of people are chasing the same returns. Competition would drive the average return far below the level obtained by the Texas plans, a fact that privatization advocates invariably ignore.
'chasing the same returns'? you think there are a limited amount of profitable ventures available, a limited amount of desires to be catered to?

Quote: 2. These (probably unionized) municipal employees had very stable employment over many years, at good wages. SS has been tasked with also providing a safety net for millions of people who did not make very much, were intermittently employed, etc. Of course SS provides a lower return for those who have had the best and most stable incomes: it's a national safety net program, not a private pension plan.
...and a 'safety net' can better be provided for by individuals for themselves - it's THEIR safety, right?


Quote: 3. The Texas plans' returns were not hobbled by the extremely high payout ratios obtained by the first cohorts of SS retirees. Yes, it is unfortunate that things were skewed so far in favor of the early retirees, but that cannot now be undone by privatization.
it can ONLY be done through privatization

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: Roy L wrote: limbaughfan wrote: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html

read the story,it shows you privatization is the way to go.
No, it doesn't. It is a joke. Just off the top of my head, there are at least three reasons this article is bogus:

1. It does not address the issue of diminishing returns on investment. It is one thing for a few thousand people to get a high return. It is quite another when hundreds of millions of people are chasing the same returns. Competition would drive the average return far below the level obtained by the Texas plans, a fact that privatization advocates invariably ignore.
'chasing the same returns'? you think there are a limited amount of profitable ventures available, a limited amount of desires to be catered to?

Quote: 2. These (probably unionized) municipal employees had very stable employment over many years, at good wages. SS has been tasked with also providing a safety net for millions of people who did not make very much, were intermittently employed, etc. Of course SS provides a lower return for those who have had the best and most stable incomes: it's a national safety net program, not a private pension plan.
...and a 'safety net' can better be provided for by individuals for themselves - it's THEIR safety, right?


Quote: 3. The Texas plans' returns were not hobbled by the extremely high payout ratios obtained by the first cohorts of SS retirees. Yes, it is unfortunate that things were skewed so far in favor of the early retirees, but that cannot now be undone by privatization.
it can ONLY be done through privatization

I don't want to speak for Roy, but I think his point is this, and it's one that's been echoed by a number of prominent economists:

The fundamental problem being faced here is not a public retirement system versus a private one, it's a demographic problem. Fewer people working and producing than there are retired people not working and living off the product of those who are working. It doesn't matter if you privatize social security - you can't eat money, you can't eat stock and bond certificates, you can't eat real estate titles. The only "solution" is that one way or another, people are going to have to continue working longer as life expectancies increase.

[Roy L]

LeopardPM wrote: Roy L wrote: limbaughfan wrote: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html

read the story,it shows you privatization is the way to go.
No, it doesn't. It is a joke. Just off the top of my head, there are at least three reasons this article is bogus:

1. It does not address the issue of diminishing returns on investment. It is one thing for a few thousand people to get a high return. It is quite another when hundreds of millions of people are chasing the same returns. Competition would drive the average return far below the level obtained by the Texas plans, a fact that privatization advocates invariably ignore.
'chasing the same returns'? you think there are a limited amount of profitable ventures available, a limited amount of desires to be catered to? Yes, of course (at least, the desires that can be catered to profitably are limited), but it doesn't even matter. The point is that the most profitable ones generally attract money first, then the next most profitable, etc. The more money that is available to invest, the more dubious the average venture that gets funded, and the lower the average profit that will be made on all investments. This is entry level economics, and it refutes all arguments for SS privatization based on returns.
Quote:
Quote: 2. These (probably unionized) municipal employees had very stable employment over many years, at good wages. SS has been tasked with also providing a safety net for millions of people who did not make very much, were intermittently employed, etc. Of course SS provides a lower return for those who have had the best and most stable incomes: it's a national safety net program, not a private pension plan.
...and a 'safety net' can better be provided for by individuals for themselves - it's THEIR safety, right?
Wrong. There is no evidence that individuals do better at it than governments. The state of health care in the USA vs countries like Singapore, Japan, Iceland, etc. would indicate that the government does a better job of putting up a safety net than individuals do. Quote:
Quote: 3. The Texas plans' returns were not hobbled by the extremely high payout ratios obtained by the first cohorts of SS retirees. Yes, it is unfortunate that things were skewed so far in favor of the early retirees, but that cannot now be undone by privatization.
it can ONLY be done through privatization
??? No, the past cannot be changed at all.

Give your head a shake.

[ChuckBerry]

The example in the citied article shifts funds from OASDI (Social Security) to a private pension plan that is invested in annuities, which still does not give investors direct control over where their investments are placed. One of the best arguments for SS privatization is the potential to put billions and billions of dollars into the market rather than locking it away in government vaults, thereby tapping another raging river of capital to fund American business. Not only will it result in better earnings than government bonds, but it will also boost the economy immeasurably.

Those that argue for privatization because they say SS will be underfunded are like those who advocate marijuana legalization because it will help the sick. Both arguments mask the true intent, in the former to release more capital for private investment, and in the latter to make marijuana generally legal for personal consumption. In both cases, I would rather honesty, which might make the stances more believeable.

[LeopardPM]

RueTheDay wrote:
I don't want to speak for Roy, but I think his point is this, and it's one that's been echoed by a number of prominent economists:
thats a strange Appeal to Authority...

Quote: The fundamental problem being faced here is not a public retirement system versus a private one, it's a demographic problem. Fewer people working and producing than there are retired people not working and living off the product of those who are working. It doesn't matter if you privatize social security - you can't eat money, you can't eat stock and bond certificates, you can't eat real estate titles. The only "solution" is that one way or another, people are going to have to continue working longer as life expectancies increase.
well, of course, as life expectancies increase then the more resources one needs to sustain oneself, and working longer is ONE way to achieve this. But, there is also working 'better', or more efficient, or saving more, or spending less, etc. Even if the average life expectancy raises to 200 years, it would be possible for a person to earn enough in their first 40 years to sustain themselves the later 60 years. AND, it is possible for EVERYONE to do so as well! Just because one person is retired doesn't mean that there HAS to be another person (or group of persons) working to 'support' them... except through government social security which does not incorporate 'savings' at all and is just wealth redistribution from the working to the retired.

Quote: The point is that the most profitable ones generally attract money first, then the next most profitable, etc. The more money that is available to invest, the more dubious the average venture that gets funded, and the lower the average profit that will be made on all investments. This is entry level economics, and it refutes all arguments for SS privatization based on returns.
it does NOT refute any such thing! Unless you can show that a specific amount of money (the amount to be invested) will, due the the largess of the amount itself, will only produce a return LOWER than that obtained by 'social security', only THEN would such a statement come close to refuting. As it stands, it only alludes to a decrease in returns compared to the average return obtained without such an influx of capital. In addition, I would call into question this whole argument simplyt because if it were true, then wouldn't we see a steady drop in the average returns obtained since the stock markets inception - it has grown tremendously since it began (in regards to total capital invested) and, contrary to your statement, returns are not steadily decreasing.... so why would they decrease if even more money were added to the pot?

Quote: Wrong. There is no evidence that individuals do better at it than governments. The state of health care in the USA vs countries like Singapore, Japan, Iceland, etc. would indicate that the government does a better job of putting up a safety net than individuals do.
is it worth the cost? who can determine? It sure isn't worth it to the person who dies before retirement age, right? So how do you determine, for others, how much they should be saving for their retirement, or if at all? Is their some weird utilitarian equation which somehow suggests that 'on the net' government social security is a positive?

Quote: Quote: Quote: 3. The Texas plans' returns were not hobbled by the extremely high payout ratios obtained by the first cohorts of SS retirees. Yes, it is unfortunate that things were skewed so far in favor of the early retirees, but that cannot now be undone by privatization.

it can ONLY be done through privatization

??? No, the past cannot be changed at all.

Give your head a shake.
are you just plum loco? I never suggested 'changing the past' - YOU said 'it cannot be undone by privatization' which implies that privatization can provide no cures to the situation and only governmental solutions are possible... I disagree and state that governmental actions will NOT provide solutions, that solutions will only be found privately... then you go off on some weird 'changing the past' tangent? you are following this thread, right? wake up and follow along, please... perhaps it is you that requires the head shaking...

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
I don't want to speak for Roy, but I think his point is this, and it's one that's been echoed by a number of prominent economists:
thats a strange Appeal to Authority...

Nothing irritates me more than people who try to sound intelligent by throwing around the names of logical fallacies, when they have no idea what they mean.

An Appeal to Authority would be "Roy's position is correct because a number of prominent economists said the same thing." What I wrote is not an Appeal to Authority.

Quote:
Quote: The fundamental problem being faced here is not a public retirement system versus a private one, it's a demographic problem. Fewer people working and producing than there are retired people not working and living off the product of those who are working. It doesn't matter if you privatize social security - you can't eat money, you can't eat stock and bond certificates, you can't eat real estate titles. The only "solution" is that one way or another, people are going to have to continue working longer as life expectancies increase.
well, of course, as life expectancies increase then the more resources one needs to sustain oneself, and working longer is ONE way to achieve this. But, there is also working 'better', or more efficient, or saving more, or spending less, etc. Even if the average life expectancy raises to 200 years, it would be possible for a person to earn enough in their first 40 years to sustain themselves the later 60 years.

Ok, we have an island with 10 people. They use seashells as money. Some of the people fish, some gather coconuts, some distill seawater into fresh drinking water. Each focuses on doing what he does best and sells whatever he doesn't use to the others. It's a vibrant island economy. 40 years go by and each has a pile of seashells, more than enough to buy enough fish, coconuts, and fresh drinking water to last the rest of their lives. So they all retire.

Do you see the problem?

No one is producing, so their piles of seashells are irrelevant.

If 9 people retire, and one continues to work, the same problem still exists. If 8 retire and two continue to work, same problem. There is a limit to how much the working population can produce.

Quote:
AND, it is possible for EVERYONE to do so as well!

No, it's not. See above.

Quote:
Just because one person is retired doesn't mean that there HAS to be another person (or group of persons) working to 'support' them... except through government social security which does not incorporate 'savings' at all and is just wealth redistribution from the working to the retired.

Stop with your idiotic "government is the only problem, blah blah blah" banter and THINK for a solitary second. Someone HAS to produce the things that the retired people want to consume. The people producing also want to consume. When the people producing are outnumbered by the people consuming but not producing, there is a problem.

[Roy L]

RueTheDay wrote:
Nothing irritates me more than people who try to sound intelligent by throwing around the names of logical fallacies, when they have no idea what they mean.
Oooooh, how I envy you your sheltered life....

[LeopardPM]

RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
I don't want to speak for Roy, but I think his point is this, and it's one that's been echoed by a number of prominent economists:
thats a strange Appeal to Authority...

Nothing irritates me more than people who try to sound intelligent by throwing around the names of logical fallacies, when they have no idea what they mean.

An Appeal to Authority would be "Roy's position is correct because a number of prominent economists said the same thing." What I wrote is not an Appeal to Authority.
actually, it is an Appeal to Authority - why else even mention what 'a number of prominent economists' might think? sheesh, you are really over the top

Quote: Quote:
well, of course, as life expectancies increase then the more resources one needs to sustain oneself, and working longer is ONE way to achieve this. But, there is also working 'better', or more efficient, or saving more, or spending less, etc. Even if the average life expectancy raises to 200 years, it would be possible for a person to earn enough in their first 40 years to sustain themselves the later 60 years.

Ok, we have an island with 10 people. They use seashells as money. Some of the people fish, some gather coconuts, some distill seawater into fresh drinking water. Each focuses on doing what he does best and sells whatever he doesn't use to the others. It's a vibrant island economy. 40 years go by and each has a pile of seashells, more than enough to buy enough fish, coconuts, and fresh drinking water to last the rest of their lives. So they all retire.

Do you see the problem?

No one is producing, so their piles of seashells are irrelevant.

If 9 people retire, and one continues to work, the same problem still exists. If 8 retire and two continue to work, same problem. There is a limit to how much the working population can produce.
what I see is someone who is so stuck in their thinking that they have forgotten the fundamentals:

First, you forget that money is just a commodity, like any other - producing money only decreases its value relative to other commodities so if everyone had this pile of sea shells and not there was not a pile of goods to purchase, then there wouldn't be enough to retire as the money would have depreciated in value (they must have had a central bank to pass out sea shells to get this effect you describe...)

Let's get back to reality, and define your example along actual lines:
10 people living on an island, each producing whatever they do best, vibrant economy, yadda, yadda, yadda. Each person starts saving, not money, but goods. They each have saved up enough goods to sustain themselves for whatever their life expectancy might be. Viola! They all can retire, drawing down upon their saved capital (assets) until depleted. There would still probably be some trade as some folks might not have thought of everything they might need and so might trade with others to obtain. Now, could this 'really' happen? No, unless people had some way of preserving foodstuffs for extra-extended periods of time - but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. What keeps people from doing this same thing in today's world is that they have a higher time preference than required to achieve this level of savings - the future is unsure, and people would rather consume more today and work tomorrow than consume less now and live in leisure tomorrow.

Quote: Quote:
AND, it is possible for EVERYONE to do so as well!

No, it's not. See above.
take a good look

Quote: Quote:
Just because one person is retired doesn't mean that there HAS to be another person (or group of persons) working to 'support' them... except through government social security which does not incorporate 'savings' at all and is just wealth redistribution from the working to the retired.

Stop with your idiotic "government is the only problem, blah blah blah" banter and THINK for a solitary second.
if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... I just call it like it is - the government is a parasite on our ability to exist more successfully.

Quote: Someone HAS to produce the things that the retired people want to consume.
true - but you don't seem to understand that these things don't have to be produced at the moment of consumption - they can be produced before, and saved, then consumed while in retirement - same as retirement today.

Quote: The people producing also want to consume. When the people producing are outnumbered by the people consuming but not producing, there is a problem.
no problem if there is a store of pre-produced goods waiting to be consumed upon retirement - its called savings. Surely you, someone mildly experienced in economics, understand this concept, right? Perhaps you should consult with Roy on this subject before your next post. Thanks.

[Roy L]

LeopardPM wrote:
Quote: The point is that the most profitable ones generally attract money first, then the next most profitable, etc. The more money that is available to invest, the more dubious the average venture that gets funded, and the lower the average profit that will be made on all investments. This is entry level economics, and it refutes all arguments for SS privatization based on returns.
it does NOT refute any such thing! Unless you can show that a specific amount of money (the amount to be invested) will, due the the largess of the amount itself, will only produce a return LOWER than that obtained by 'social security', only THEN would such a statement come close to refuting. Wrong. The very fact that such-and-such being claimed as the average return on stocks is used to justify optimistic expected returns on privatized SS schemes is enough to make my argument: the advocates of such schemes have no way of knowing if the huge influx of former SS money would result in yields better than SS or not.
Quote: As it stands, it only alludes to a decrease in returns compared to the average return obtained without such an influx of capital. In addition, I would call into question this whole argument simplyt because if it were true, then wouldn't we see a steady drop in the average returns obtained since the stock markets inception - it has grown tremendously since it began (in regards to total capital invested) and, contrary to your statement, returns are not steadily decreasing.... so why would they decrease if even more money were added to the pot? Because the addition of money has been roughly in time with the growth of the economy, and thus of profit opportunities. We've seen what happens when too much additional money goes into stocks, though.
Quote:
Quote: Quote: Quote: 3. The Texas plans' returns were not hobbled by the extremely high payout ratios obtained by the first cohorts of SS retirees. Yes, it is unfortunate that things were skewed so far in favor of the early retirees, but that cannot now be undone by privatization.

it can ONLY be done through privatization

??? No, the past cannot be changed at all.

Give your head a shake.
are you just plum loco? I never suggested 'changing the past' - YOU said 'it cannot be undone by privatization' which implies that privatization can provide no cures to the situation and only governmental solutions are possible...

No solution to that particular issue is possible, private or government. That money is gone. That is why it is dishonest to claim that privatization is a solution (which is what I assumed you meant by, "it can ONLY be done through privatization").

[LeopardPM]

Roy L wrote: LeopardPM wrote:
Quote: The point is that the most profitable ones generally attract money first, then the next most profitable, etc. The more money that is available to invest, the more dubious the average venture that gets funded, and the lower the average profit that will be made on all investments. This is entry level economics, and it refutes all arguments for SS privatization based on returns.
it does NOT refute any such thing! Unless you can show that a specific amount of money (the amount to be invested) will, due the the largess of the amount itself, will only produce a return LOWER than that obtained by 'social security', only THEN would such a statement come close to refuting. Wrong. The very fact that such-and-such being claimed as the average return on stocks is used to justify optimistic expected returns on privatized SS schemes is enough to make my argument: the advocates of such schemes have no way of knowing if the huge influx of former SS money would result in yields better than SS or not.
Quote: As it stands, it only alludes to a decrease in returns compared to the average return obtained without such an influx of capital. In addition, I would call into question this whole argument simplyt because if it were true, then wouldn't we see a steady drop in the average returns obtained since the stock markets inception - it has grown tremendously since it began (in regards to total capital invested) and, contrary to your statement, returns are not steadily decreasing.... so why would they decrease if even more money were added to the pot? Because the addition of money has been roughly in time with the growth of the economy, and thus of profit opportunities. We've seen what happens when too much additional money goes into stocks, though.
there can't be a conclusion to this argument due to the variables involved.

Quote:
Quote:
are you just plum loco? I never suggested 'changing the past' - YOU said 'it cannot be undone by privatization' which implies that privatization can provide no cures to the situation and only governmental solutions are possible...

No solution to that particular issue is possible, private or government. That money is gone. That is why it is dishonest to claim that privatization is a solution (which is what I assumed you meant by, "it can ONLY be done through privatization").
well, to be more clear - what I meant is that the only 'solution' is to privatize, eat the loss, and forever more not get involved in such fraudelent schemes which create the awful mess to begin with - the actions of our parents and grandparents (in enacting such fraudelent legislation) directly harmed their offspring by stealing wealth from the future to pay for extravagances of their present. Theft on an inter-generational scale, and not possible without government + central bank. Yet another good reason to get rid of both.

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
I don't want to speak for Roy, but I think his point is this, and it's one that's been echoed by a number of prominent economists:
thats a strange Appeal to Authority...

Nothing irritates me more than people who try to sound intelligent by throwing around the names of logical fallacies, when they have no idea what they mean.

An Appeal to Authority would be "Roy's position is correct because a number of prominent economists said the same thing." What I wrote is not an Appeal to Authority.
actually, it is an Appeal to Authority - why else even mention what 'a number of prominent economists' might think? sheesh, you are really over the top

Actually, it's NOT, no matter how many times you claim that it is.

Quote:
Quote: Quote:
well, of course, as life expectancies increase then the more resources one needs to sustain oneself, and working longer is ONE way to achieve this. But, there is also working 'better', or more efficient, or saving more, or spending less, etc. Even if the average life expectancy raises to 200 years, it would be possible for a person to earn enough in their first 40 years to sustain themselves the later 60 years.

Ok, we have an island with 10 people. They use seashells as money. Some of the people fish, some gather coconuts, some distill seawater into fresh drinking water. Each focuses on doing what he does best and sells whatever he doesn't use to the others. It's a vibrant island economy. 40 years go by and each has a pile of seashells, more than enough to buy enough fish, coconuts, and fresh drinking water to last the rest of their lives. So they all retire.

Do you see the problem?

No one is producing, so their piles of seashells are irrelevant.

If 9 people retire, and one continues to work, the same problem still exists. If 8 retire and two continue to work, same problem. There is a limit to how much the working population can produce.
what I see is someone who is so stuck in their thinking that they have forgotten the fundamentals:

First, you forget that money is just a commodity, like any other - producing money only decreases its value relative to other commodities so if everyone had this pile of sea shells and not there was not a pile of goods to purchase, then there wouldn't be enough to retire as the money would have depreciated in value (they must have had a central bank to pass out sea shells to get this effect you describe...)

Umm....HELLO?????!!!!!! You are the one claiming that a private retirement system would solve the demographic problem and I'm the one saying that you can't eat money and stock certificates. In effect, it is MY argument that decreased production means a devaluation of what can be bought with the money and claims on assets. Thank you for making my argument for me and defeating yourself.

Quote:
Let's get back to reality, and define your example along actual lines:
10 people living on an island, each producing whatever they do best, vibrant economy, yadda, yadda, yadda. Each person starts saving, not money, but goods. They each have saved up enough goods to sustain themselves for whatever their life expectancy might be. Viola! They all can retire, drawing down upon their saved capital (assets) until depleted. There would still probably be some trade as some folks might not have thought of everything they might need and so might trade with others to obtain. Now, could this 'really' happen? No, unless people had some way of preserving foodstuffs for extra-extended periods of time - but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. What keeps people from doing this same thing in today's world is that they have a higher time preference than required to achieve this level of savings - the future is unsure, and people would rather consume more today and work tomorrow than consume less now and live in leisure tomorrow.

So not only do you imagine that we live in a barter economy rather than a monetary one, you also imagine that all goods are non-perishable. One of the primary reasons we have a monetary economy is because goods are perishable. But hey, don't let the facts of objective reality sway you.

Quote:
Quote: Someone HAS to produce the things that the retired people want to consume.
true - but you don't seem to understand that these things don't have to be produced at the moment of consumption - they can be produced before, and saved, then consumed while in retirement - same as retirement today.

Right, I have a couple of tons of hamburger meat from 1942 laying around myself. And a big battery with enough electricity to last the rest of my life. :lol:

Quote:
Quote: The people producing also want to consume. When the people producing are outnumbered by the people consuming but not producing, there is a problem.
no problem if there is a store of pre-produced goods waiting to be consumed upon retirement - its called savings. Surely you, someone mildly experienced in economics, understand this concept, right? Perhaps you should consult with Roy on this subject before your next post. Thanks.

Except that there isn't a store of pre-produced goods waiting to be consumed upon retirement. At least not a sufficient one. Next.

[Free Thinkr]

RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: true - but you don't seem to understand that these things don't have to be produced at the moment of consumption - they can be produced before, and saved, then consumed while in retirement - same as retirement today.

Right, I have a couple of tons of hamburger meat from 1942 laying around myself. And a big battery with enough electricity to last the rest of my life. :lol:
This is a very important point, and a point that I think most people miss due to the use of money. Wealth is a very temporary thing. Most of what we regard as wealth decays in a matter of a few years without active preservation, which is really itself labor (maintenance). Money is preserved through interest by being invested into some enterprise where it's value is held or increased with the increased success of that enterprise; there must be constant labor to hold the value of the money, just as there must be constant labor to preserve wealth. Wealth is generally difficult to save, simply because it decays. It's always about the here and now.

[LeopardPM]

RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
I don't want to speak for Roy, but I think his point is this, and it's one that's been echoed by a number of prominent economists:
thats a strange Appeal to Authority...

Nothing irritates me more than people who try to sound intelligent by throwing around the names of logical fallacies, when they have no idea what they mean.

An Appeal to Authority would be "Roy's position is correct because a number of prominent economists said the same thing." What I wrote is not an Appeal to Authority.
actually, it is an Appeal to Authority - why else even mention what 'a number of prominent economists' might think? sheesh, you are really over the top

Actually, it's NOT, no matter how many times you claim that it is.
really? then answer my question instead of avoiding it: "why else even mention what 'a number of prominent economists' might think?"

Quote: Quote: First, you forget that money is just a commodity, like any other - producing money only decreases its value relative to other commodities so if everyone had this pile of sea shells and not there was not a pile of goods to purchase, then there wouldn't be enough to retire as the money would have depreciated in value (they must have had a central bank to pass out sea shells to get this effect you describe...)

Umm....HELLO?????!!!!!! You are the one claiming that a private retirement system would solve the demographic problem and I'm the one saying that you can't eat money and stock certificates. In effect, it is MY argument that decreased production means a devaluation of what can be bought with the money and claims on assets. Thank you for making my argument for me and defeating yourself.
yes, it would solve the demographic problem as it would not matter if everyone were responsible for their own retirement. The demographic problem is the result of the current system relying on a GUARANTEED income to retirees which must be paid for (extracted/stolen from) current income earners. There is no such guarantee in a private system - those more successful at saving/investing/etc would have more goods to retire upon, and those less thoughtful/successful/or thrifty would have less to retire upon. Retirement is NOT a 'right'! It is a priviledge and a benefit to working hard and saving. There is nothing wrong with a person making the choice to NOT save his money, to spend it as it comes in, and continue working until death (or until someone, probably family/friends or possibly a mutual aid society, agrees to care for them). There is nothing immoral/unfair/unequal/etc about some people having a retirement because they provided for it themselves, and some people not because they didn't provide it for themselves.


Quote: Quote:
Let's get back to reality, and define your example along actual lines:
10 people living on an island, each producing whatever they do best, vibrant economy, yadda, yadda, yadda. Each person starts saving, not money, but goods. They each have saved up enough goods to sustain themselves for whatever their life expectancy might be. Viola! They all can retire, drawing down upon their saved capital (assets) until depleted. There would still probably be some trade as some folks might not have thought of everything they might need and so might trade with others to obtain. Now, could this 'really' happen? No, unless people had some way of preserving foodstuffs for extra-extended periods of time - but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. What keeps people from doing this same thing in today's world is that they have a higher time preference than required to achieve this level of savings - the future is unsure, and people would rather consume more today and work tomorrow than consume less now and live in leisure tomorrow.

So not only do you imagine that we live in a barter economy rather than a monetary one, you also imagine that all goods are non-perishable. One of the primary reasons we have a monetary economy is because goods are perishable. But hey, don't let the facts of objective reality sway you.
Using money IS just a more efficient method of barter - money IS a commodity, no matter if you refuse to believe it or not. Claiming that I think that all goods are non-perishable is just a plain lie, I even stated that food was obviously perishable above!

Quote: Quote:
Quote: Someone HAS to produce the things that the retired people want to consume.
true - but you don't seem to understand that these things don't have to be produced at the moment of consumption - they can be produced before, and saved, then consumed while in retirement - same as retirement today.

Right, I have a couple of tons of hamburger meat from 1942 laying around myself. And a big battery with enough electricity to last the rest of my life. :lol:

gee, what limited minds we have here - and I had thought you had some insight...Since you can't think beyond being a contrarian, let me help you out with this one:
Do I have to save up enough meat to have meat in the future? No, I could save up NON-PERISHABLE goods to trade with in the future, like cars, or houses, or whatever. Instead of your 'big battery' idea, maybe I 'save up' via purchasing 'future energy' via a windmill - large initial purchase, very little maintenance/upkeep, long life of electricity. In regards to perishable goods like food, robotics has spread into agriculture to the point that entire machine driven greenhouses are available today (though expensive and not very efficient yet)... but, we are off point due to my single comment about 'everyone being able to retire'. As you well know, there will always be a new generation which will work and produce and they will be more than happy to sell their perishable products to aging retirees.

Quote: Except that there isn't a store of pre-produced goods waiting to be consumed upon retirement. At least not a sufficient one. Next.
next?! lol! what a laugh you are! That is what savings are, in whatever form (of course I wouldn't reccomend having a store of fiat cash...), houses are a decent store of value as are other non-perishable goods - the more people that decide they want to retire privately, then the more goods will be produced to effect this, right?

Take a simple Robinson Crusoe example (I know you love these!):
Mr. Crusoe on his island, decides we wants to retire (or in the case of such a limited economy and technology, take an extended vacation). So, he determines the least persihable food stuffs available, works extra hard or restricts his consumption so that he can save and create a cache of goodies. He might even beef up his living arrangements some, like dig out a cave instead of a wimpy hut so that his shelter might have a longer life without maintenance. Then when he is satisfied with having what he thinks is enough stuff to sustain himself, he stops working and starts his life of leisure while consuming his aquired assets (retirement fund). Is this unrealistic, not at all except that given the technology etc, he probably won't be able to sustain his supply of perishables for very long, maybe a month or so - but THAT is just a matter of technology and stuff, not an insurmountable problem. So, it works for Mr. Crusoe... couldn't another Crusoe on a different part of the island do the same, without affecting the first, is there a limit besides the resources available to how many folks could 'retire' at the same time? no, there is no limit. The same thing applies to our wonderful modern world, except it is much easier for us to do so due to our wonderful free market and trade benefits: we have freezers, we can purchase 'future' perishables, we can use non-perishables or even money itself to trade in the future to sustain ourselves (see how money is just a commodity, yet again?).

Government social security yet another wealth distribution scheme which has overall net losses to those poor saps involved (read:citizens) - there are many better ways to provide for oneself privately, more efficiently, and without government coercion.

[The Stars and Stripes]

Umm YES. I want to actually be able to have access to the money I earn.