If Social Security Had Been In Private Accounts The Stock Market Drop Could Have Been A Disaster

[David_42]

Capitalism is what got us out of the Great Depression.

I don't agree.

A war economy got us out of the great depression. This is based on two factors, we removed a significant portion of the available labor pool and sent it off to fight and we increased production to meet the needs of the war effort.

Neither of these factors can be attributed to the market and are hardly Laissez Faire.

It was government intervention, that caused the GD to begin with.

Particularly the manipulation of monetary policy to benefit the well connected. Wall Street gets blamed, but the banks and money changers were the real culprits. The stock market was reactive to the credit markets.

In countries with mixed socialism and capitalism, including our own, the problems are always the Socialized parts. Never the Capitalist parts. Our own country, it's the heavily socialized areas that have problems... public education, health care, and banking.

Same is true around the world.

While I don't disagree, I caution you that the Fabians will attempt to cast law as socialism. Regulation of actions is not the distribution of the means of production. I think Sarbains Oxley is the most destructive law we have passed since 1913 - but it isn't socialist, merely stupid.

Progressive, doesn't always mean too high. I never said "progressive taxation" anywhere. I said that socialism results in ever growing taxes, and eventually people refuse to pay those taxes, resulting in a crash.

Greece is proof of this. No one is going to pay 58% of their income in taxes. So they don't.

And the experience in the US, is proof of this. When the tax rate was high, in the 70s to 90s... the rich hid their income, and collected non-cash benefits.

During the halcyon days of the leftists dream 90% tax rate, the top 1% paid a lower effective rate than they do today. High tax rates are a means of selling deductions and shelters. This is why the tax code typed out could circle the globe.

Warren Buffet is a perfect example. His yearly income is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 99%, and he wouldn't pay an extra penny in taxes. You could raise the Social Security limit, and he wouldn't pay a dime more.

Yes, there are other economies that have higher tax burdens than the US. And most have much larger "shadow economies" than the US. Shadow economies, is as the name suggests, the economic activities that are underground, and untaxed. Germany 16% of the economy is under ground. Brazil, 40%. Denmark 17%. France, 15%.
The US, only 8%.

As tax rates go up overall, so does the shadow economy, for exactly the reasons I pointed out.

Buffet is indeed a great example. He is no capitalist and depends on the corruption of government to fund his wealth. Capital gains are meant to close the gap for those who gain wealth through investment, but these tend to hurt small investors and retard economic growth.

Our founding fathers were brilliant men. They originally prohibited direct taxation. Any time there is direct taxation, favors WILL be sold to the elite. Only through indirect taxes, where the payer of the tax is anonymous is it possible for fair and honest taxation to exist. When a person buys a pack of gum, the sales tax paid will be there regardless of who the person is. Warren Buffet cannot defer his sales tax to next year so that an arranged "loss" will consume the tax. Corruption is difficult with indirect taxation - which is why democrats fight it so stringently.

If we ever want honest government - and few actually do - get rid of income and property taxes so that the ability to sell favors is removed from taxation.

I respect your position, because you at least understand some of the factors.

But to claim that shipping people off the war improved the economy, is ridiculous. Yes, logically if you ship people off to war, the unemployment rate will drop. That's not proof the economy improved. One Economist was on a talk show saying, by that logic, if we just round up all the unemployed, and toss them in prison, that would also lower unemployment, and "improve" the economy.

Further manufacturing improved, but not in economically beneficial ways. Yeah, you build a Tank for $500,000 a pop. On paper that's a vast increase in gross domestic production. But what value does a tank have in the real economy? Answer, none. Nor do army boots sell at the local women's fashion store. Aside from some crack pots in Montana, these productions have no real world value.

The economy is improved when there is naturally jobs available, and people choose to work, and when productions has natural value in the real economy.

By any measurement, the standard of living fell during World War 2. Yes, more people worked, but wages were held down by price controls. Automobiles were in short supply, meat, sugar, and eggs, as well as clothing and other things were all rationed. People lived more meager lives during the war.

Without focusing on a single data point of "unemployment dropped", I don't know how anyone can take a look at how life changed during the war years, and say the economy improved. It would be the one time in all human history, where the economy "improved" by everyone being worse off.

The real end to the depression, was after world war 2 ended, and the government controls and rationing ended. That's why we call it the roaring 50s. Not the roaring 40s.

Actually, the theory that banks and credit lenders caused the Stock Market crash, has been proven false. There is absolutely no evidence that the market was over valued at the time. Even the Federal Reserve commissioned research to determine the truth of that situation, and their own reports showed the market was not over valued.

Markets change value. When government policy changes the economic realities, the values on the market change. This is what happened.

I personally subscribe to the more loose version of "Socialism".

If you believe that Socialism is exclusively "Ownership of the means of production and distribution", then you are correct, it is not by that strict definition, Socialized.

socialism | a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

The key is "controlled" by the government.

People give money to their kids, and then their kid wants to blow it on something, and the parents say 'no no you can't buy that...'. Who really owns that money?

If I give you $20, but I tell when you can spend it, and when you can't.... who you can spend it on, and who you can't.... what you can buy with it, and what you can't.... If I put regulations on every aspect of what you do with that $20..... who owns the $20? Technically... legally... it might be you, but in reality it's really me.

When you read about the Union Carbide accident in Bhopal India, what you find out is that the government of India controlled where they built (too close to a populated area), controlled the parts they used to build the industrial complex (low quality locally made parts), and who they hired (low skilled and often resentful local people).

But technically, it's not socialism, because the government didn't directly 'own' the plant.

Of course the universal question is, at what point in increasing regulation, does it become socialism?

That's really hard to tell, but I would suggest that banking and health care, are both heavily socialized.

I've actually read where if a bank attempted to follow every single law on the books right now, in all agencies of the government, and in all states, that no bank in the country would remain open. The entire country would collapse. That's Socialized in my book, because the banks know, and the government knows, that if the bank does not do exactly what the government says (like make sub-prime loans), they can easily find a reason to punish them, or shut them down.

That's how it should be, banks need to be heavily regulated. Remember the GD?

Which was created by government regulations and controls. No amount of regulations would have prevented the Great Depression.

And all of the controls and regulations dragged out the Depression for over a decade.

Straight out of your ass. What a load of dehydrated bullshit, back it up you idiot.

 

[David_42]

Capitalism is what got us out of the Great Depression.

I don't agree.

A war economy got us out of the great depression. This is based on two factors, we removed a significant portion of the available labor pool and sent it off to fight and we increased production to meet the needs of the war effort.

Neither of these factors can be attributed to the market and are hardly Laissez Faire.

It was government intervention, that caused the GD to begin with.

Particularly the manipulation of monetary policy to benefit the well connected. Wall Street gets blamed, but the banks and money changers were the real culprits. The stock market was reactive to the credit markets.

In countries with mixed socialism and capitalism, including our own, the problems are always the Socialized parts. Never the Capitalist parts. Our own country, it's the heavily socialized areas that have problems... public education, health care, and banking.

Same is true around the world.

While I don't disagree, I caution you that the Fabians will attempt to cast law as socialism. Regulation of actions is not the distribution of the means of production. I think Sarbains Oxley is the most destructive law we have passed since 1913 - but it isn't socialist, merely stupid.

Progressive, doesn't always mean too high. I never said "progressive taxation" anywhere. I said that socialism results in ever growing taxes, and eventually people refuse to pay those taxes, resulting in a crash.

Greece is proof of this. No one is going to pay 58% of their income in taxes. So they don't.

And the experience in the US, is proof of this. When the tax rate was high, in the 70s to 90s... the rich hid their income, and collected non-cash benefits.

During the halcyon days of the leftists dream 90% tax rate, the top 1% paid a lower effective rate than they do today. High tax rates are a means of selling deductions and shelters. This is why the tax code typed out could circle the globe.

Warren Buffet is a perfect example. His yearly income is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 99%, and he wouldn't pay an extra penny in taxes. You could raise the Social Security limit, and he wouldn't pay a dime more.

Yes, there are other economies that have higher tax burdens than the US. And most have much larger "shadow economies" than the US. Shadow economies, is as the name suggests, the economic activities that are underground, and untaxed. Germany 16% of the economy is under ground. Brazil, 40%. Denmark 17%. France, 15%.
The US, only 8%.

As tax rates go up overall, so does the shadow economy, for exactly the reasons I pointed out.

Buffet is indeed a great example. He is no capitalist and depends on the corruption of government to fund his wealth. Capital gains are meant to close the gap for those who gain wealth through investment, but these tend to hurt small investors and retard economic growth.

Our founding fathers were brilliant men. They originally prohibited direct taxation. Any time there is direct taxation, favors WILL be sold to the elite. Only through indirect taxes, where the payer of the tax is anonymous is it possible for fair and honest taxation to exist. When a person buys a pack of gum, the sales tax paid will be there regardless of who the person is. Warren Buffet cannot defer his sales tax to next year so that an arranged "loss" will consume the tax. Corruption is difficult with indirect taxation - which is why democrats fight it so stringently.

If we ever want honest government - and few actually do - get rid of income and property taxes so that the ability to sell favors is removed from taxation.

I respect your position, because you at least understand some of the factors.

But to claim that shipping people off the war improved the economy, is ridiculous. Yes, logically if you ship people off to war, the unemployment rate will drop. That's not proof the economy improved. One Economist was on a talk show saying, by that logic, if we just round up all the unemployed, and toss them in prison, that would also lower unemployment, and "improve" the economy.

Further manufacturing improved, but not in economically beneficial ways. Yeah, you build a Tank for $500,000 a pop. On paper that's a vast increase in gross domestic production. But what value does a tank have in the real economy? Answer, none. Nor do army boots sell at the local women's fashion store. Aside from some crack pots in Montana, these productions have no real world value.

The economy is improved when there is naturally jobs available, and people choose to work, and when productions has natural value in the real economy.

By any measurement, the standard of living fell during World War 2. Yes, more people worked, but wages were held down by price controls. Automobiles were in short supply, meat, sugar, and eggs, as well as clothing and other things were all rationed. People lived more meager lives during the war.

Without focusing on a single data point of "unemployment dropped", I don't know how anyone can take a look at how life changed during the war years, and say the economy improved. It would be the one time in all human history, where the economy "improved" by everyone being worse off.

The real end to the depression, was after world war 2 ended, and the government controls and rationing ended. That's why we call it the roaring 50s. Not the roaring 40s.

Actually, the theory that banks and credit lenders caused the Stock Market crash, has been proven false. There is absolutely no evidence that the market was over valued at the time. Even the Federal Reserve commissioned research to determine the truth of that situation, and their own reports showed the market was not over valued.

Markets change value. When government policy changes the economic realities, the values on the market change. This is what happened.

I personally subscribe to the more loose version of "Socialism".

If you believe that Socialism is exclusively "Ownership of the means of production and distribution", then you are correct, it is not by that strict definition, Socialized.

socialism | a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

The key is "controlled" by the government.

People give money to their kids, and then their kid wants to blow it on something, and the parents say 'no no you can't buy that...'. Who really owns that money?

If I give you $20, but I tell when you can spend it, and when you can't.... who you can spend it on, and who you can't.... what you can buy with it, and what you can't.... If I put regulations on every aspect of what you do with that $20..... who owns the $20? Technically... legally... it might be you, but in reality it's really me.

When you read about the Union Carbide accident in Bhopal India, what you find out is that the government of India controlled where they built (too close to a populated area), controlled the parts they used to build the industrial complex (low quality locally made parts), and who they hired (low skilled and often resentful local people).

But technically, it's not socialism, because the government didn't directly 'own' the plant.

Of course the universal question is, at what point in increasing regulation, does it become socialism?

That's really hard to tell, but I would suggest that banking and health care, are both heavily socialized.

I've actually read where if a bank attempted to follow every single law on the books right now, in all agencies of the government, and in all states, that no bank in the country would remain open. The entire country would collapse. That's Socialized in my book, because the banks know, and the government knows, that if the bank does not do exactly what the government says (like make sub-prime loans), they can easily find a reason to punish them, or shut them down.

That's how it should be, banks need to be heavily regulated. Remember the GD?

Which was created by government regulations and controls. No amount of regulations would have prevented the Great Depression.

And all of the controls and regulations dragged out the Depression for over a decade.

Sorry for ad hom, but your posts are just ridiculous, revisionist history galore..

 

[Andylusion]

Please point to the countries you think are doing amazingly well.

I am not saying that they are not....I'd just like to see the list.

And you can also describe, in terms of measurable parameters, what "amazingly well" means.

Actually you should do your own work....if you dare.

No doubt the US has the largest GDP than any other country on the planet......But you'd be surprised as to what countries have better standards of living when it comes to LONGEVITY, WORK-LIFE, MORBIDITY, and HAPPINESS.

When you take out car accidents and homicide, the US has the longest life expectancy in the world.

Car accidents are a sign of our wealth. More people are able to drive more miles, than in other countries. In the UK the price of Fuel is nearly 3 times or more what we pay. When it's $2 a gallon here, it's over $6 there.

So they can't afford to drive anywhere, and then your shocked life-expectancy is higher?

And we have a huge crime problem, although it has improved by mass incarceration. Homicides are still way higher than most other countries.

Happiness is not a function of the economic system. It's more a function of a homogeneous society. We have become a more divided society, because of race baiting, and people demanding to be offended, and a loss of culture. This forum is evident of that. Just even attempt to discuss problems with Obama, and instantly 20 people accuse you of being racist. Then you complain people are not as happy in the US? Got a mirror? There's the problem.

 

[nat4900]

When you take out car accidents and homicide, the US has the longest life expectancy in the world.

Nah.......given our substandard health care system, our poor diet, our lack of exercise, our pollution, our gun-loving climate.....we are 34th in the world on life expectancy....somewhere between Columbia and Kuwait.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I respect your position, because you at least understand some of the factors.

But to claim that shipping people off the war improved the economy, is ridiculous. Yes, logically if you ship people off to war, the unemployment rate will drop. That's not proof the economy improved. One Economist was on a talk show saying, by that logic, if we just round up all the unemployed, and toss them in prison, that would also lower unemployment, and "improve" the economy.

A market economy operates on two factors, supply and demand. To boost availability of goods to consumers, two possible avenues exist; increase supply, or reduce demand. In the labor market of the late depression, the war greatly reduced the demand for available jobs by removing a significant portion of the workforce.

Further manufacturing improved, but not in economically beneficial ways. Yeah, you build a Tank for $500,000 a pop. On paper that's a vast increase in gross domestic production. But what value does a tank have in the real economy? Answer, none. Nor do army boots sell at the local women's fashion store. Aside from some crack pots in Montana, these productions have no real world value.

All true, and a solid observation that refutes a significant portion of Keynesian nonsense. However, the production had two side effects that did benefit the economy. First was the ancillary support mechanisms. While a tanks would not benefit the domestic economy, the steel used did benefit the mining industry, the machines tools, the textile mills, etc. The second effect is that those who had jobs were getting paychecks, which then were spent on goods and services.

The economy is improved when there is naturally jobs available, and people choose to work, and when productions has natural value in the real economy.

By any measurement, the standard of living fell during World War 2. Yes, more people worked, but wages were held down by price controls. Automobiles were in short supply, meat, sugar, and eggs, as well as clothing and other things were all rationed. People lived more meager lives during the war.

Without focusing on a single data point of "unemployment dropped", I don't know how anyone can take a look at how life changed during the war years, and say the economy improved. It would be the one time in all human history, where the economy "improved" by everyone being worse off.

True enough, yet the business cycle finally moved away from the stagnant trough of the New Deal era.

The real end to the depression, was after world war 2 ended, and the government controls and rationing ended. That's why we call it the roaring 50s. Not the roaring 40s.

Actually, the theory that banks and credit lenders caused the Stock Market crash, has been proven false. There is absolutely no evidence that the market was over valued at the time. Even the Federal Reserve commissioned research to determine the truth of that situation, and their own reports showed the market was not over valued.

Ah, so the fed found themselves blameless and flawless! :thup;

Markets change value. When government policy changes the economic realities, the values on the market change. This is what happened.

I personally subscribe to the more loose version of "Socialism".

If you believe that Socialism is exclusively "Ownership of the means of production and distribution", then you are correct, it is not by that strict definition, Socialized.

socialism | a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

The key is "controlled" by the government.

Control of the means of production means to determine what goods and services are provided to which market segments. Regulation does not do this.

People give money to their kids, and then their kid wants to blow it on something, and the parents say 'no no you can't buy that...'. Who really owns that money?

Outside of drug prohibition, in what way does the U.S. government dictate what people can spend their money on?

If I give you $20, but I tell when you can spend it, and when you can't.... who you can spend it on, and who you can't.... what you can buy with it, and what you can't.... If I put regulations on every aspect of what you do with that $20..... who owns the $20? Technically... legally... it might be you, but in reality it's really me.

When you read about the Union Carbide accident in Bhopal India, what you find out is that the government of India controlled where they built (too close to a populated area), controlled the parts they used to build the industrial complex (low quality locally made parts), and who they hired (low skilled and often resentful local people).

But technically, it's not socialism, because the government didn't directly 'own' the plant.

Of course the universal question is, at what point in increasing regulation, does it become socialism?

That's really hard to tell, but I would suggest that banking and health care, are both heavily socialized.

I've actually read where if a bank attempted to follow every single law on the books right now, in all agencies of the government, and in all states, that no bank in the country would remain open. The entire country would collapse. That's Socialized in my book, because the banks know, and the government knows, that if the bank does not do exactly what the government says (like make sub-prime loans), they can easily find a reason to punish them, or shut them down.

I am not a fan of the U.S. banking system. If not obvious, I am a Rothbardian Laissez Faire Capitalist. The manipulation of monetary policy is rarely advantageous to the people of the nation. Ayn Rand referred to these manipulators as "looters,"which I believe to be an apt term.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Well, no shit.
If Social Security Had Been In Private Accounts The Stock Market Drop Could Have Been A Disaster

The stock market continued a period of volatility on Monday. Media reports sounded the alarm as the DOW opened 1,000 points down and other indexes took huge hits, only to climb back up a bit later in the day. While that performance, which had some people calling it black Monday, may have knocked a good deal of money out of people’s 401(k) retirement accounts, Social Security benefits remain by and large untouched by such fluctuations.

Some Republicans, however, are interested in changing that.

In June, presidential candidate Jeb Bush said that he thinks the next president will have to try to privatize Social Security. Others have gotten behind the idea as well: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) drafted a plan in 2013 that included partial privatization, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is in favor of using private accounts. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has included privatization in his budget blueprints.

The market drop, and ones before, expose the dangers of such a plan, which usually entails diverting some or all of the money workers contribute to Social Security through their paychecks into private investment accounts. That would put individuals in charge of making smart enough investment choices in the market to make big enough returns to support themselves in retirement.

But the reality is that’s not within reach for most individual people. During a market rout like Monday’s, many people will panic and sell. “We know a lot of people do what economists say is irrational, they sell at a low point,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center on Economic and Policy Research. Research shows that the best thing to do during a downturn is to hold out if possible. But that’s not how most people will react. “People see something like this and go, ‘I better get out,'” Baker said. “When they see the market start to go up, they say, ‘I better buy in,’ and then they’ve lost a lot.”

This is one of the big problems with privatizing Social Security: individual investors don’t tend to be that savvy in chasing higher returns. “A lot of people make wrong decisions,” Baker said. This is even true when it comes to retirement planning: Many people leave money on the table with their 401(k)s by not taking advantage of employer matches or cash out when they switch jobs and incur taxes. The point of Social Security contributions is to make saving for retirement mandatory, he pointed out. But “if you do that and then just tell people to do whatever you want [with the money], then a lot of people will make mistakes and end up with not very much in retirement.”

On a larger level, putting people’s Social Security contributions into private accounts makes them far more exposed to the irrationality of the market. “What’s beautiful about Social Security is that in the long the return workers get on contributions is linked to productivity growth and wage growth,” said Monique Morrissey, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute. “Whereas markets are notoriously volatile and often behave in ways that are not based on the fundamental strength and weakness of the economy.”

so what we have is a clown face that admits that obama's ponzi scheme suxx

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nah.......given our substandard health care system, our poor diet, our lack of exercise, our pollution, our gun-loving climate.....we are 34th in the world on life expectancy....somewhere between Columbia and Kuwait.

Substandard health care system?

Can you point to any place in the world with more advanced medical techniques, procedures, or technology?


The demagoguery you use on behalf or your party bears no resemblance to reality.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

When you take out car accidents and homicide, the US has the longest life expectancy in the world.

Nah.......given our substandard health care system, our poor diet, our lack of exercise, our pollution, our gun-loving climate.....we are 34th in the world on life expectancy....somewhere between Columbia and Kuwait.

Please point to the countries you think are doing amazingly well.

I am not saying that they are not....I'd just like to see the list.

And you can also describe, in terms of measurable parameters, what "amazingly well" means.

Actually you should do your own work....if you dare.

No doubt the US has the largest GDP than any other country on the planet......But you'd be surprised as to what countries have better standards of living when it comes to LONGEVITY, WORK-LIFE, MORBIDITY, and HAPPINESS.

When you take out car accidents and homicide, the US has the longest life expectancy in the world.

Car accidents are a sign of our wealth. More people are able to drive more miles, than in other countries. In the UK the price of Fuel is nearly 3 times or more what we pay. When it's $2 a gallon here, it's over $6 there.

So they can't afford to drive anywhere, and then your shocked life-expectancy is higher?

And we have a huge crime problem, although it has improved by mass incarceration. Homicides are still way higher than most other countries.

Happiness is not a function of the economic system. It's more a function of a homogeneous society. We have become a more divided society, because of race baiting, and people demanding to be offended, and a loss of culture. This forum is evident of that. Just even attempt to discuss problems with Obama, and instantly 20 people accuse you of being racist. Then you complain people are not as happy in the US? Got a mirror? There's the problem.

Do you have any links ?

 

[nat4900]

the war[/B] greatly reduced the demand for available jobs by removing a significant portion of the workforce.

You have it altogether backwards........Demand for certain products throughout the war was always there......but there was a lack of both workforce AND goods to meet the demand, such as rubber, coffee, sugar, etc.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Straight out of your ass. What a load of dehydrated bullshit, back it up you idiot.

The problem you have assclown, is that you have not a hint of a clue as to the principles and concepts under discussion. You have a net zero understanding of economics and market principles.

Andylousion does, which is why, despite disagreement on points, I respect his opinion and chose to debate the matter in serious fashion with him.

 

[nat4900]

Can you point to any place in the world with more advanced medical techniques, procedures, or technology?

Actually, we may have the best medical offerings, but they're ONLY available to those few who can afford such offerings.....PLUS, the US "steals" the best doctors from other countries with the lure of making tons of money with our run-away health care costs.

Ultimately, if we did have the best health care system delivery, the life expectancy in the US should be much higher than 34th in the world.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

From a recent email I received.......

The Department of Labor is completing rules to require retirement advisers to put clients' interests first. And Wall Street is mounting a last-ditch effort to preserve the status quo, which holds some advisers to that standard – known as a “fiduciary duty” – but lets others, including many brokers and insurance agents, recommend investments that generate more income for them, while saddling retirees with needlessly high costs, subpar returns, or inappropriate risks.

During four days of hearings in August, a procession of Wall Street witnesses insisted that they really do look out for the best interests of their clients; then, one after another, they came up with reasons why they should not be legally held to such a requirement. Their main argument (and the message of a campaign of fraudulent TV ads) is that if the new rules go through undiluted, millions of middle-income Americans will lose access to any financial advice.

That’s nonsense. Wall Street firms are asking us to believe that they would walk away from a multi-trillion dollar market if they had to abide by standards that already apply to financial professionals who oversee some $67 trillion in investments on behalf of 30 million people in this country. The opponents of this rule are looking out for themselves and their inflated profit margins, pure and simple.

The government is going to regulate our "interests" ?

That is freaking hysterical.

The market does just fine.

While I agree with government intervention in some things, they (and especially the recent and current administration) have gone way past what their collective intelligence can handle.

My broker, my insurance agent, my banker, and my gardener all look out for my interest.

My insurance company recently called me to answer some questions to LOWER my premium. Yep, I've known my agent for 20 years. She is helpful. Always has been.

I don't mind that you hate Wall Street. I am not a real fan of them either. I am also not a fan of congress.

You, on the other hand, will ascribe all kinds of negative attributes to one all the while extolling the altruistic virtues of the other and resisting any evidence to the contrary.

Stay out of our lives.

You are nowhere near as smart as what your parents have led you to believe.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Can you point to any place in the world with more advanced medical techniques, procedures, or technology?

Actually, we may have the best medical offerings, but they're ONLY available to those few who can afford such offerings.....PLUS, the US "steals" the best doctors from other countries with the lure of making tons of money with our run-away health care costs.

Ultimately, if we did have the best health care system delivery, the life expectancy in the US should be much higher than 34th in the world.

The two don't follow.

I think we need better teachers so people like you can get a better education.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have it altogether backwards........Demand for certain products throughout the war was always there......but there was a lack of both workforce AND goods to meet the demand, such as rubber, coffee, sugar, etc.

The question was what ended the depression. On the labor front, the reduction of available workforce was a huge factor. Simply put, the number of workers seeking to obtain jobs declined. Classic Keynes.

 

[Andylusion]

Capitalism is what got us out of the Great Depression.

I don't agree.

A war economy got us out of the great depression. This is based on two factors, we removed a significant portion of the available labor pool and sent it off to fight and we increased production to meet the needs of the war effort.

Neither of these factors can be attributed to the market and are hardly Laissez Faire.

It was government intervention, that caused the GD to begin with.

Particularly the manipulation of monetary policy to benefit the well connected. Wall Street gets blamed, but the banks and money changers were the real culprits. The stock market was reactive to the credit markets.

In countries with mixed socialism and capitalism, including our own, the problems are always the Socialized parts. Never the Capitalist parts. Our own country, it's the heavily socialized areas that have problems... public education, health care, and banking.

Same is true around the world.

While I don't disagree, I caution you that the Fabians will attempt to cast law as socialism. Regulation of actions is not the distribution of the means of production. I think Sarbains Oxley is the most destructive law we have passed since 1913 - but it isn't socialist, merely stupid.

Progressive, doesn't always mean too high. I never said "progressive taxation" anywhere. I said that socialism results in ever growing taxes, and eventually people refuse to pay those taxes, resulting in a crash.

Greece is proof of this. No one is going to pay 58% of their income in taxes. So they don't.

And the experience in the US, is proof of this. When the tax rate was high, in the 70s to 90s... the rich hid their income, and collected non-cash benefits.

During the halcyon days of the leftists dream 90% tax rate, the top 1% paid a lower effective rate than they do today. High tax rates are a means of selling deductions and shelters. This is why the tax code typed out could circle the globe.

Warren Buffet is a perfect example. His yearly income is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 99%, and he wouldn't pay an extra penny in taxes. You could raise the Social Security limit, and he wouldn't pay a dime more.

Yes, there are other economies that have higher tax burdens than the US. And most have much larger "shadow economies" than the US. Shadow economies, is as the name suggests, the economic activities that are underground, and untaxed. Germany 16% of the economy is under ground. Brazil, 40%. Denmark 17%. France, 15%.
The US, only 8%.

As tax rates go up overall, so does the shadow economy, for exactly the reasons I pointed out.

Buffet is indeed a great example. He is no capitalist and depends on the corruption of government to fund his wealth. Capital gains are meant to close the gap for those who gain wealth through investment, but these tend to hurt small investors and retard economic growth.

Our founding fathers were brilliant men. They originally prohibited direct taxation. Any time there is direct taxation, favors WILL be sold to the elite. Only through indirect taxes, where the payer of the tax is anonymous is it possible for fair and honest taxation to exist. When a person buys a pack of gum, the sales tax paid will be there regardless of who the person is. Warren Buffet cannot defer his sales tax to next year so that an arranged "loss" will consume the tax. Corruption is difficult with indirect taxation - which is why democrats fight it so stringently.

If we ever want honest government - and few actually do - get rid of income and property taxes so that the ability to sell favors is removed from taxation.

I respect your position, because you at least understand some of the factors.

But to claim that shipping people off the war improved the economy, is ridiculous. Yes, logically if you ship people off to war, the unemployment rate will drop. That's not proof the economy improved. One Economist was on a talk show saying, by that logic, if we just round up all the unemployed, and toss them in prison, that would also lower unemployment, and "improve" the economy.

Further manufacturing improved, but not in economically beneficial ways. Yeah, you build a Tank for $500,000 a pop. On paper that's a vast increase in gross domestic production. But what value does a tank have in the real economy? Answer, none. Nor do army boots sell at the local women's fashion store. Aside from some crack pots in Montana, these productions have no real world value.

The economy is improved when there is naturally jobs available, and people choose to work, and when productions has natural value in the real economy.

By any measurement, the standard of living fell during World War 2. Yes, more people worked, but wages were held down by price controls. Automobiles were in short supply, meat, sugar, and eggs, as well as clothing and other things were all rationed. People lived more meager lives during the war.

Without focusing on a single data point of "unemployment dropped", I don't know how anyone can take a look at how life changed during the war years, and say the economy improved. It would be the one time in all human history, where the economy "improved" by everyone being worse off.

The real end to the depression, was after world war 2 ended, and the government controls and rationing ended. That's why we call it the roaring 50s. Not the roaring 40s.

Actually, the theory that banks and credit lenders caused the Stock Market crash, has been proven false. There is absolutely no evidence that the market was over valued at the time. Even the Federal Reserve commissioned research to determine the truth of that situation, and their own reports showed the market was not over valued.

Markets change value. When government policy changes the economic realities, the values on the market change. This is what happened.

I personally subscribe to the more loose version of "Socialism".

If you believe that Socialism is exclusively "Ownership of the means of production and distribution", then you are correct, it is not by that strict definition, Socialized.

socialism | a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

The key is "controlled" by the government.

People give money to their kids, and then their kid wants to blow it on something, and the parents say 'no no you can't buy that...'. Who really owns that money?

If I give you $20, but I tell when you can spend it, and when you can't.... who you can spend it on, and who you can't.... what you can buy with it, and what you can't.... If I put regulations on every aspect of what you do with that $20..... who owns the $20? Technically... legally... it might be you, but in reality it's really me.

When you read about the Union Carbide accident in Bhopal India, what you find out is that the government of India controlled where they built (too close to a populated area), controlled the parts they used to build the industrial complex (low quality locally made parts), and who they hired (low skilled and often resentful local people).

But technically, it's not socialism, because the government didn't directly 'own' the plant.

Of course the universal question is, at what point in increasing regulation, does it become socialism?

That's really hard to tell, but I would suggest that banking and health care, are both heavily socialized.

I've actually read where if a bank attempted to follow every single law on the books right now, in all agencies of the government, and in all states, that no bank in the country would remain open. The entire country would collapse. That's Socialized in my book, because the banks know, and the government knows, that if the bank does not do exactly what the government says (like make sub-prime loans), they can easily find a reason to punish them, or shut them down.

That's how it should be, banks need to be heavily regulated. Remember the GD?

Which was created by government regulations and controls. No amount of regulations would have prevented the Great Depression.

And all of the controls and regulations dragged out the Depression for over a decade.

Straight out of your ass. What a load of dehydrated bullshit, back it up you idiot.

Wow... ok. So you really don't know. I guess my expectations were too high.

Well.... where to start...

default

Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

So there are several sources, but Rustici does a great job compiling the information.

Mythologie des crises

Use google translate.

In 1928, Hoover win the election on a platform of protectionism. The House is already protectionist, and the Senate is mildly free-trade.

All during 1929, the debate over protectionism rages. The Senate stonewalled the tariff until October 21st, 16 Senators flipped sides. They rejected a proposal to limit the tariffs. On October 23rd, the Senate sends a note to Hoover appealing to pass the Tariff.

October 24th, the stock market begins to slide down, with of course the crash of October 29th.

But it doesn't end there.....

They passed the bill, but when they attempted to reconcile the bill between the House version, and the Senate version, they couldn't agree. The New York Time even sold headlines Smoot-Hawley Tariff was dead.

Between November when the bill looked like it was dead, and June of 1930, the market had actually recovered almost half of its lost value.

In May 1038 professors of economics sent a signed petition to Hoover, stating that the Tariff would have drastic economic and monetary consequences. Hoover ignored them.

In June of 1930, Congress managed to reconcile the bill, and pass it to Hoover.

And from June of 1930, until mid-1932 the stock market continued to slide downward.

Hoover, also passed many economic policies and controls throughout the economy, that were later picked up by FDR... all of which failed to improve anything, and continued the economic slide.

Bank failures were more a function of the economic policies that hammered the businesses those banks were built on.

For example the first bank failures were in the mid-west. The tariff had been sold as helping farmers, when in fact, the first thing countries did, was raise tariffs on exported farm products. You tariff our farm products, we'll tariff yours. US mid-west farmers went broke, and the banks reflected that.

Another example was tariffs on imported Iron Ore from Canada. So Canada put tariffs on Steel imported from the US. As a result the Steel industry found supplies of Iron Ore more expensive, at the same time Steel sales to Canada drastically fell. Exactly 17 months after the Tariffs were put in place, 11 Banks in Pittsburgh all went insolvent and closed.

The evidence goes on and one, and I could also add in international effects, how the tariffs effected other countries.

But I for one, after having considered numerous sources on the topic, am convinced now that it absolutely was the government that caused the Great Depression. The bank failures, was a symptom, not a cause.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, we may have the best medical offerings, but they're ONLY available to those few who can afford such offerings.....

So we start with the fact that your claim was blatantly false. Then we move into other talking points. The people who can afford the offerings are the vast majority of Americans, - hardly "few."

In fact, the United States has nearly 15 MILLION cancer survivors. Not only are treatments highly successful, but also widely available to virtually all Americans.

http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@research/documents/document/acspc-042801.pdf

PLUS, the US "steals" the best doctors from other countries with the lure of making tons of money with our run-away health care costs.

Is that a new talking point?

So the contention of the left is that health care costs are driven by doctors making too much money? Maybe a $15 an hour living wage should be the limit for heart surgeons?

Ultimately, if we did have the best health care system delivery, the life expectancy in the US should be much higher than 34th in the world.

The average life expectancy in the USA is 79 years.. This highest in the world - Japan, is 81 years. Your talking point is disingenuous on it's face

Also, what happens if African American males, with a life expectancy of 73 years are removed from the equation? Ah yes, the USA then has the highest on the planet.

USA Life Expectancy

This is the biggest issue I have with you of the left, what you claim is rarely true.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

This thread is about Social Security.

Not Obamacare.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Right wingers should simply realize that SS is HERE TO STAY, period. Yes modify it but only idiots on here would presume that everybody....every worker should rely on the whims of a casino-like stock market.....

You want to gamble with your money for retirement? Fine....do it with what money you deem discretionary.....but leave SS alone.

In some ways, I hope you never change it.

Those of us who have buying power will want all the cheap help that will be available as baby boomers realize that SS isn't enough to live on.

I'll be looking for gardners, housekeepers, cooks, & mechanics. I know who will be applying for those jobs.

 

[bripat9643]

Yep. The liberal model of compassion is a thug who gives some of his loot away to his accomplices.

Taxes are the price we all pay in a civilized first world society.

Nope, taxes are theft. they don't purchase anything anybody wants any more than being mugged by the local toughs "purchases" anything they have to offer.

Then take up arms and shoot the elderly collecting SS. They robbed you after all. LOL.

While there is some unintended truth in you comment.... The elderly screwed themselves.

My plan would involve phasing out SS, in favor of privatizing the system. This would require that we accept what is already true...... SS is simply a welfare system paid for by current taxes.... so.... phase it out. Pay for SS with taxes, but have the next generation of retirees move to a privatized system, that won't have never ending tax hikes and benefit cuts.

They didn't screw themselves, right wing nuts like you screwed them. Your plan will never exist, you're a lone raving "Christian capitalist" on an Internet board.

Nope, seniors screwed themselves. They voted in all the politicians who kept this Ponzi scheme going. If they aren't responsible, then who is? Don't you believe in majority rule?

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism is what got us out of the Great Depression.

I don't agree.

A war economy got us out of the great depression. This is based on two factors, we removed a significant portion of the available labor pool and sent it off to fight and we increased production to meet the needs of the war effort.

Neither of these factors can be attributed to the market and are hardly Laissez Faire.

It was government intervention, that caused the GD to begin with.

Particularly the manipulation of monetary policy to benefit the well connected. Wall Street gets blamed, but the banks and money changers were the real culprits. The stock market was reactive to the credit markets.

In countries with mixed socialism and capitalism, including our own, the problems are always the Socialized parts. Never the Capitalist parts. Our own country, it's the heavily socialized areas that have problems... public education, health care, and banking.

Same is true around the world.

While I don't disagree, I caution you that the Fabians will attempt to cast law as socialism. Regulation of actions is not the distribution of the means of production. I think Sarbains Oxley is the most destructive law we have passed since 1913 - but it isn't socialist, merely stupid.

Progressive, doesn't always mean too high. I never said "progressive taxation" anywhere. I said that socialism results in ever growing taxes, and eventually people refuse to pay those taxes, resulting in a crash.

Greece is proof of this. No one is going to pay 58% of their income in taxes. So they don't.

And the experience in the US, is proof of this. When the tax rate was high, in the 70s to 90s... the rich hid their income, and collected non-cash benefits.

During the halcyon days of the leftists dream 90% tax rate, the top 1% paid a lower effective rate than they do today. High tax rates are a means of selling deductions and shelters. This is why the tax code typed out could circle the globe.

Warren Buffet is a perfect example. His yearly income is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 99%, and he wouldn't pay an extra penny in taxes. You could raise the Social Security limit, and he wouldn't pay a dime more.

Yes, there are other economies that have higher tax burdens than the US. And most have much larger "shadow economies" than the US. Shadow economies, is as the name suggests, the economic activities that are underground, and untaxed. Germany 16% of the economy is under ground. Brazil, 40%. Denmark 17%. France, 15%.
The US, only 8%.

As tax rates go up overall, so does the shadow economy, for exactly the reasons I pointed out.

Buffet is indeed a great example. He is no capitalist and depends on the corruption of government to fund his wealth. Capital gains are meant to close the gap for those who gain wealth through investment, but these tend to hurt small investors and retard economic growth.

Our founding fathers were brilliant men. They originally prohibited direct taxation. Any time there is direct taxation, favors WILL be sold to the elite. Only through indirect taxes, where the payer of the tax is anonymous is it possible for fair and honest taxation to exist. When a person buys a pack of gum, the sales tax paid will be there regardless of who the person is. Warren Buffet cannot defer his sales tax to next year so that an arranged "loss" will consume the tax. Corruption is difficult with indirect taxation - which is why democrats fight it so stringently.

If we ever want honest government - and few actually do - get rid of income and property taxes so that the ability to sell favors is removed from taxation.

I respect your position, because you at least understand some of the factors.

But to claim that shipping people off the war improved the economy, is ridiculous. Yes, logically if you ship people off to war, the unemployment rate will drop. That's not proof the economy improved. One Economist was on a talk show saying, by that logic, if we just round up all the unemployed, and toss them in prison, that would also lower unemployment, and "improve" the economy.

Further manufacturing improved, but not in economically beneficial ways. Yeah, you build a Tank for $500,000 a pop. On paper that's a vast increase in gross domestic production. But what value does a tank have in the real economy? Answer, none. Nor do army boots sell at the local women's fashion store. Aside from some crack pots in Montana, these productions have no real world value.

The economy is improved when there is naturally jobs available, and people choose to work, and when productions has natural value in the real economy.

By any measurement, the standard of living fell during World War 2. Yes, more people worked, but wages were held down by price controls. Automobiles were in short supply, meat, sugar, and eggs, as well as clothing and other things were all rationed. People lived more meager lives during the war.

Without focusing on a single data point of "unemployment dropped", I don't know how anyone can take a look at how life changed during the war years, and say the economy improved. It would be the one time in all human history, where the economy "improved" by everyone being worse off.

The real end to the depression, was after world war 2 ended, and the government controls and rationing ended. That's why we call it the roaring 50s. Not the roaring 40s.

Actually, the theory that banks and credit lenders caused the Stock Market crash, has been proven false. There is absolutely no evidence that the market was over valued at the time. Even the Federal Reserve commissioned research to determine the truth of that situation, and their own reports showed the market was not over valued.

Markets change value. When government policy changes the economic realities, the values on the market change. This is what happened.

I personally subscribe to the more loose version of "Socialism".

If you believe that Socialism is exclusively "Ownership of the means of production and distribution", then you are correct, it is not by that strict definition, Socialized.

socialism | a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

The key is "controlled" by the government.

People give money to their kids, and then their kid wants to blow it on something, and the parents say 'no no you can't buy that...'. Who really owns that money?

If I give you $20, but I tell when you can spend it, and when you can't.... who you can spend it on, and who you can't.... what you can buy with it, and what you can't.... If I put regulations on every aspect of what you do with that $20..... who owns the $20? Technically... legally... it might be you, but in reality it's really me.

When you read about the Union Carbide accident in Bhopal India, what you find out is that the government of India controlled where they built (too close to a populated area), controlled the parts they used to build the industrial complex (low quality locally made parts), and who they hired (low skilled and often resentful local people).

But technically, it's not socialism, because the government didn't directly 'own' the plant.

Of course the universal question is, at what point in increasing regulation, does it become socialism?

That's really hard to tell, but I would suggest that banking and health care, are both heavily socialized.

I've actually read where if a bank attempted to follow every single law on the books right now, in all agencies of the government, and in all states, that no bank in the country would remain open. The entire country would collapse. That's Socialized in my book, because the banks know, and the government knows, that if the bank does not do exactly what the government says (like make sub-prime loans), they can easily find a reason to punish them, or shut them down.

That's how it should be, banks need to be heavily regulated. Remember the GD?

The Great Depression was cause by the Federal Reserve, a government run bank, inflating the credit market. You're barking up the wrong tree if you're looking to the government to prevent banking panics.