Sorry if it may sound cynical, but that's a serious question: is there an increase of the suicide rate over the last five or so months in the U.S. of A.?
coogee
Well-known
The Government Pension Fund of Norway was what immediately sprung to mind reading Corran's simple-minded 'retort'. Honestly, this thread is full of fail. Try an Investment forum?
Brian Legge
Mentor
johnf04, thats my point. Its difficult to talk the topic without getting in to the peoples specific situations.
Ranchu, I agree that something will have to change in the long run. Automation is nothing new but in the long run, the need for human labor in general will continue to decline at a rate that will cause problems for a growing portion of the population. At the same time, many resources are fundamentally scarce which means some form of distribution/consumption limiting always be required. I don't know if this leads to universal basic income or something else, but its going to get more complex in the next 50 years.
To the wider topics - the least useful thing we can do at this point is call names, disparage others and not listen to ideas. In all likelihood, no ones ideas about economics or social policy will change here.
Ranchu, I agree that something will have to change in the long run. Automation is nothing new but in the long run, the need for human labor in general will continue to decline at a rate that will cause problems for a growing portion of the population. At the same time, many resources are fundamentally scarce which means some form of distribution/consumption limiting always be required. I don't know if this leads to universal basic income or something else, but its going to get more complex in the next 50 years.
To the wider topics - the least useful thing we can do at this point is call names, disparage others and not listen to ideas. In all likelihood, no ones ideas about economics or social policy will change here.
Ranchu
-
Not "the government", Reagan and Greenspan.
"Like other U.S. government debt obligations, the government bonds held by the trust funds are guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government. To escape paying either principal or interest on the "special" bonds held by the trust funds, the government would have to default on these obligations. This cannot be done by executive order or by the Social Security Administration. Congress would have to pass legislation to repudiate these particular government bonds. This action by Congress could involve some political risk and, because it involves the financial security of older Americans, seems unlikely.
An alternative to repudiating these bonds would be for Congress to simply cap Social Security spending at a level below that which would require the bonds to be redeemed. Again, this would be politically risky, but would not require a "default" on the bonds."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
Sorry, you're probably mixing up social insurance, and social security. Two quite different things in the U.S. of A., even skilled jurists often get it wrong in comparative law analysis since in other countries the same words mean again something different.
Corran
Well-known
Welfare/Pension plans don't really equate to owning the means of production. Does Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have free-market economies?
The list of Marxist-Leninist socialist countries on Wikipedia is pretty short. It includes Venezuela but apparently not N. Korea, my bad (it was in the past, I guess now it is just classified as a dictatorship). None of the above 3 mentioned countries are included.
The list of Marxist-Leninist socialist countries on Wikipedia is pretty short. It includes Venezuela but apparently not N. Korea, my bad (it was in the past, I guess now it is just classified as a dictatorship). None of the above 3 mentioned countries are included.
Brian Legge
Mentor
radi(c)al_cam, my comment was about the long run - the challenges in the US are systemic and not party specific. I don't see any reason to get in to polarizing arguments about current political environment here.
Ranchu
-
An insane situation, simply because of capitalism..that less work being required of people is a 'problem' that will kill them.
johnf04
Well-known
You were trying to get away with what's called "the excluded middle". There are many countries with far more humane systems than the United States.
Corran
Well-known
More specifically I was pointing out examples of failed states that were more purely socialist, as an alternative. Where a country should be on a spectrum between two disparate paradigms is a different topic. My personal beliefs as a very small business owner is much more slanted towards pure capitalism. "More humane" is not specific and probably debatable.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
You know, capitalism has wrecked a number of countries too.
This is all beside the point though, and of course it's the first reply in the thread that derails the whole thing - oh look who made it... :angel:
valdas
Mentor
Exactly. For me "socialism vs capitalism" it's the wrong terminology to begin with. I am pro market economy, but with the regulation and strong social security. Regulation is needed to protect weaker members of a society. Taking care only for yourself without caring for the society as a whole sounds to me so selfish, savage and ultimately leads to all kinds of revolutions/self destruction. And we should not confuse the regulation (which is mostly directed towards limiting the power of monopolies and protecting consumers/workers) with the lack of choice or lack of personal freedom. We actually see the opposite - look at the Nordic countries - societies with the strong regulations but also the most advanced in terms of various civil liberties and protection of minority rights.
Being said that - we never know how our countries will change, how people will vote.... Just recent examples. So yes - I think that not relying fully on social security (even in the countries with the strong protection) is a prudent thing. But then again - there is no 100% security. We've seen what happened in Russia in 1917...
johnf04
Well-known
An example of what might be called socialism. In New Zealand, prescription pharmaceuticals are subsidised by the government - A family pays $5 per item, until 20 items are collected, in any year; after 20, most drugs are free. To ensure the government gets value for money, all pharmaceuticals are bought though a central agency, which negotiates bulk prices.
Ranchu
-
Hi there, I was hoping the capitalists would be able to talk about their parasitic rent seeking after I took my small exception. I really wasn't trying to derail it, but I did feel it was important to be counted, so as not to give a one sided impression. Thank you.
Brian it sounds like you've done your homework!
After military service I had an engineering job at Boeing. After a while I moved from an apartment to a rental house that had an option to buy at very attractive terms. When the option came up I looked around for alternatives, such as getting a duplex where I could make expenses by renting out the other half. Well, I found a good deal on 9 units and took over the existing contract. Lot of work and learning the ropes...
After few years I took a voluntary layoff at Boeing, sold the apartments and used the proceeds to fund a 25 unit apartment bldg. I took a real-estate contract on the previous apts and earned interest for 20 years... which helped at the new apartments as it gradually became more profitable. Large fixed costs, substantial variable costs for maintenance and replacements, steadily increasing income.
Also, shortly thereafter, I started an investment program by taking Money Magazine's suggestion of 10 best investments to start with, going with small amounts of each suggested issue. That was fun and interesting, and the investment grew. After 35 years I sold the 25 unit building and put the proceeds, along with the older investments, into a managed investment account at a financial institution. I concentrated that conversion toward income-generating investments that provide a steady reliable income.
One thing to consider is keeping large debt, like a house or new car, rather than paying them off even when easily possible. Once the apartments were sold we bought a house at about 4% interest. It would be nice to pay it off, right? Yes, in a way, but the investments that we would cash in to pay off the mortgage provide around 7% return. We'd be losing the ~3% difference if we did that. Not too smart! Just need to keep the debt manageable... and pay off credit cards every month, etc....
Best of luck and good fortune!
After military service I had an engineering job at Boeing. After a while I moved from an apartment to a rental house that had an option to buy at very attractive terms. When the option came up I looked around for alternatives, such as getting a duplex where I could make expenses by renting out the other half. Well, I found a good deal on 9 units and took over the existing contract. Lot of work and learning the ropes...
After few years I took a voluntary layoff at Boeing, sold the apartments and used the proceeds to fund a 25 unit apartment bldg. I took a real-estate contract on the previous apts and earned interest for 20 years... which helped at the new apartments as it gradually became more profitable. Large fixed costs, substantial variable costs for maintenance and replacements, steadily increasing income.
Also, shortly thereafter, I started an investment program by taking Money Magazine's suggestion of 10 best investments to start with, going with small amounts of each suggested issue. That was fun and interesting, and the investment grew. After 35 years I sold the 25 unit building and put the proceeds, along with the older investments, into a managed investment account at a financial institution. I concentrated that conversion toward income-generating investments that provide a steady reliable income.
One thing to consider is keeping large debt, like a house or new car, rather than paying them off even when easily possible. Once the apartments were sold we bought a house at about 4% interest. It would be nice to pay it off, right? Yes, in a way, but the investments that we would cash in to pay off the mortgage provide around 7% return. We'd be losing the ~3% difference if we did that. Not too smart! Just need to keep the debt manageable... and pay off credit cards every month, etc....
Best of luck and good fortune!
Wait, US citizen will misunderstand you completely: in their terminology, social security is mere «public welfare» (paid from general taxes), and not something for that you (individually) were paying (mandatory) contributions (that would be: social insurance).
valdas
Mentor
Well, that's their problem
Generally (or should I say outside US) - social security is ANY kind of security (unemployment, health, some type of pensions etc) that state provides to the citizens, regardless of how it is financed - general taxes or social contributions.Well, that's their problem
Not necessarily the state: in Europe, in many cases, there are independent «social insurance carriers» (agencies), some of them already implemented in the medieval times — wait, US citizen (except the native Americans) weren't in America, then