Re: thank you (n/m)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't stated a position on spending, other than that it doesnt belong in this discussion, because (other than the policy decision to have a national retirement system and that spending) spending has nothing to do with Social Security.<font color="red"> Except you called it an investment. You compared it to taking money out of a savings account and putting it in a better investment. Your words, not mine. If you take money out of your savings account and spend it on hookers and blow, but write yourself IOUs, the only way to pay for those IOUs in the future is to increase your revenue to meet your typical obligations along with paying back your IOUs.</font>
On the parenthetical I disagree that spending on a national retirement system is analagous to "hookers and blow", any more than your IRA or 401(k) plan is.<font color="red">I never compared the retirement system to hookers and blow, I compared it to the government spending the money taken frmo the SS Trust Fund to it.</font> (And if youre still spending your money on hookers and blow in retirement age, more power to you!)
With regard to the Government investing, I don't think the Federal Government should have any net financial assets other than short term cash flow needs. Introduction of financial assets to the government of a capitalist country creates a myriad of issues with regard to how to allocate those investments so it doesnt distort the markets, issues with regard to risky assets and the inter-generational transfer of risk, fiscal and monetary issues that overlap with the Federal Reserve policy decisions and may in fact be in conflict with good fiscal and monetary policy etc.<font color="red"> So how is this an investment? You really are claiming its an investment, but its just a way to postpone the repayments that the funds are used for into the future. (Hookers and blow + IOUs)</font>
Of course once you believe that the Government should have no net financial assets, the only way to deal with a cash flow surplus such as Social Security generates is to have Social Security invest in Treasury issues (ie have the government "borrow from itself"). Of course the alternative of making Social Security completely pay as you go, and have no surplus whatsoever would eliminate the investment problems. However that violates basic accounting principles in that you are deferring the entire cost of current worker's benefits to future generations, that are not directly benefiting from those workers' efforts. <font color="red">So the IOUs are an Asset or not? You can't make up your mind. Normally when I buy a bond, I would consider it an asset. But when you buy bonds against yourself, you aren't doing a damn thing.</font>
And of course the cries of "scam, Pyramid scheme, Ponzi scheme" would be even louder, to compensate for the rhetoric of "there is no Social Security Trust Fund". <font color="red">Have they fooled you, or would your consulting business go away if the real way it was run became more well known and it was all accounting shenanigans.</font>
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay I honestly didn't read any of the content in here (because who would ever read something so painful to human eye balls) but this is hilarious.
Seriously, I don't want Copernicus banned, but Tom makes an excellent, satirical point here that should be addressed - someone needs to start threatening Copernicus with temp bans if he continues to respond to posts by using red text within a quote box. Can this happen? Iron, someone, anyone, please?
I really don't support banning anyone, and I'm not talking about perma-bans, but I'm willing to violate my own standards and support temp banning Copernicus until he stops.
|