• Steve H. Hanke
    05/04/2016 - 08:00
    Authored by Steve H. Hanke of The Johns Hopkins University. Follow him on Twitter @Steve_Hanke. A few weeks ago, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) sprang a surprise. It announced that a...

Morgan Stanley On America's Biggest Challenge: Entitlement Spending

Tyler Durden's picture




 
0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 06/09/2010 - 00:20 | 403059 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

Warlord has already figured it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGxBizeiL3s

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 00:45 | 403092 Heavy
Heavy's picture

Very nice.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 00:50 | 403094 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

 - yes it is, I could feel it.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:16 | 403105 Heavy
Heavy's picture

Really gets the old brain fired up with all those strands tied together so intricately.  Funny too: "the curr she fed well" "I wondered where I could find another".  Outstanding.  Solution found, to action! "And this would be a glorious day"

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 05:45 | 403352 Popo
Popo's picture

Slightly OT:  But 2 Million Protesting in Spain right now due to cuts in entitlement spending...  

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/09/2922107.htm

 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 06:16 | 403365 nmewn
nmewn's picture

You know the end is near when a DECREASE in the amounts extorted from the productive is met with protests from the unproductive...LOL.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:06 | 403585 Missing_Link
Missing_Link's picture

Very near indeed.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:37 | 403674 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Despite the controversy the New Black Panther Party continues to grow and expand. The National Black Power Conventions impressive lineup of guests and organizations is a testimony that the New Black Panthers Leadership has support in wide circles in the Black Community, particularly amongst grassroots organizers and entertainers.

 

“With the rise of the Tea Party, the white-right and other racist forces. With gun sales nationwide at an all time high amongst whites, with a mood that is more anti-Black than any time recent, it is imperative that we organize our forces, pool our resources and prepare for war!” Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Esq. Convention Convener and Party Chairman.

 

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/05/prweb4040824.htm

Now we're talkin'!!! We're HuffGlue when you need 'em! Shoot the racists that want to take our money!

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:55 | 403740 Zina
Zina's picture

With the growth of the nazi Tea Party, blacks have reason to be concerned...

Tea Party will lead the US to a civil war.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 15:04 | 403997 Greyzone
Greyzone's picture

And massive deficit spending won't? The New Black Panther Party won't?

There will be war, Zina, but it won't be because of the Tea Party. The Tea Party is a symptom, not a cause. If you don't understand that, then you're hopeless.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 19:14 | 404734 Geoff-UK
Geoff-UK's picture

First person to use "Nazi" to characterize the other side automatically loses. 

 

Also, you made what is called an assertion without evidence.  Or do none of your friends ever disagree with you and ask you to explain yourself?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:32 | 403662 Zina
Zina's picture

By "the productive" I think you mean owners of "pet spas", "pet daycare", "dog boarding and grooming", or some kind of business as "chocolate massage" or similar...

By "the unproductive" I think you mean teachers and doctors from the public sector.

Your concept of "productivity" is surely funny.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 15:46 | 404140 Zerozen
Zerozen's picture

productive = people who work jobs and pay income taxes from their wages.

unproductive = on the dole, pay no income taxes (and there's plenty of those in Spain).

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 19:18 | 404744 Geoff-UK
Geoff-UK's picture

"Productive" = you generate income that is taxed

"Unproductive" = you are paid out of the money that was taken via taxation

 

I'm "unproductive" to the economy as a member of the military.  So don't take any of this personally, if you happen to be unproductive also.  Paying me to defend the nation is, economically speaking, nothing more than a necessary evil. 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 21:23 | 404944 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Socialists and communists are doomed to the abyss by their own lack of humor...poor babies. You are one of the most ignorant troll's on ZH...and that's saying something, your running neck and neck with "Harry Dangler" and some self identified "Indian" dude (the Sub-Continent Asian type) who regaled ZH recently with his hatred of the "white" race, apparently uninformed of what self loathing or a Caucasian actually is...LOL. Yeah...those "productive" teachers are doing a bang up job don't ya think ;-) And doctors from the "public sector"???...I've never been to a "free clinic" in my life, so tell me, do doctors really work for free in there???...do they buy those funky white coats themselves with their own money???...if not, with what???...chickens, goats, pigs???...is this where that mild "pandemic" swine flu started???...in FREE CLINICS???...reusing pig tongue depressors???...I knew it...LOL. You apparently believe money is just printed by governments and then given to teachers and free clinic "doctors" as needed...if this is the case, we have no need for a bond market do we???...no need to borrow...or have any concern about debt whatsoever...or any need to account for that debt...(your bean counting friends are not amused right now...LOL)...we simply print more...easy right??? Your a fool and most fools these days have no sense of humor...we'll see who laughs last.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:49 | 403717 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

agreed

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 00:32 | 403065 Ragnar D
Ragnar D's picture

I'm surprised to see them lay it out so simply like this.  I thought the game was to ignore it and not mention it, or at best speak vaguely about "challenges" to face or some other nonsense.

 

Actually handling the problem necessarily means cutting government back to size, which I can't see them being fans of.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 06:04 | 403362 chistletoe
chistletoe's picture

If it mainly consisted of "cutting the government" it would not be so difficult. Consider the tea partier in Kentucky who recently said, "Get the government off my back and keep their hands off my Social Security!"

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 12:42 | 403519 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

It's time to prepare the public for the reduction in entitlements.  Of course, the banks will continue to receive massive, limitless generosity and largesse from the public purse.  No expense will be spared when it comes to the goddamned precious fucking banksters.

Endless free money for the banks, austerity for the middle class.  Count on it.

What we have to do is figure out how to make the bulk of the austerity fall onto those less entitled; I mean people who never paid in, or who are receiving ridiculous public pensions.  I know that won't be enough, but in order for the middle class to be able to swallow this at all they must be certain that it is happening.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 00:25 | 403067 Apostate
Apostate's picture

Never fear.

Chairman Ben will make everything alright.

P-Krug & Jimmy G-braith will lay it all out for you. It's as simple as punching in a few extra digits. People who complain about "fiscal responsibility" are just small-minded fools.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 00:44 | 403091 snowjax
snowjax's picture

I love how it is called "Entitlement" - They took the money out of my paychecks for countless years and now I should feel as if I am receiving a reward.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:12 | 403125 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Isn't that the point:  you're ENTITLED to it, because you paid in.  

One easy solution to this phony crisis is to lift the salary cap on income paid into Social Security.  If Bill Gates and Lloyd Blankfein paid into the till on the basis of their income rather than the income of a Wal-Mart store manager, nobody would be talking about a crisis.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:57 | 403138 Ragnar D
Ragnar D's picture

No, the point is to get as large a constituency as possible conned into believing they're "Entitled" to receive something no matter what.  They become dependent on government handouts, and thug politicians never have to run for reelection again.

It's just like any other pyramid scheme.  You start it out with very low pay ins and generous benefits, so of course people go for it.  The first in pay next to nothing and cash out huge.  Then it starts to go bankrupt, but you can never get rid of it, so it's a ratchet stealing more and more from those who work for a living.

There aren't enough Bill Gates in the world to make a dent in the geometric growth.  But the cap will still be raised, and the middle class who're already losing half their earnings will get hit even harder to pay for someone else's been-uh-fits.

The Wal-Mart store manager will have that much less of his paycheck left, in exchange for the promise of negative returns for a few more years until even that collapses again.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 15:00 | 403969 Kali
Kali's picture

I would be happy if they just returned the money I paid in and get rid of SS.  SS was never meant as sole support in retirement anyway, it was supposed to be a supplement.  And no one likes to talk about the biggest "entitlement" of all, the Military budget. 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:40 | 403150 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."

- Margaret Thatcher

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:49 | 403160 EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

Thatcher and Churchill were the best PM's this country ever saw.

Brown's "elimination of boom and bust" (although those "wise" words were during his reign as Chancellor) will be up there with Chamberlain's "peace in our time".

 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 04:57 | 403335 quintago
quintago's picture

before you read any lower....take 6 shots of tequila.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:50 | 403162 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

The problem with Margaret Thatcher is that her asinine economic theorizing accelerated the terminal decay of the world capitalist system.

Outside of tea and crumpets, she's hardly an authority on anything.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:54 | 403170 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

You'd probably say the same thing for Von Mises or Hayek or anyone who doesn't ascribe to your obvious socialist bent.

BTW, the world has never been a capitalist system ... never.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:02 | 403184 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Von Mises and Hayek cannot explain how a growth-based system is sustainable in a finite universe.  

I suppose saying that capitalism (i.e., a specific, historically defined method of production and distribution in which labor is bought and sold for the purpose of generating surplus) isn't real makes it easier to justify the ghastly atrocities committed in the name of the market, doesn't it?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:09 | 403195 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Errr, what? Straw man much?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:10 | 403196 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

Actually Von Mises explains the theory of growth-based systems and sustainability in a finite universe very well ... you should read his work before making an idiotic comment like the one you just made.

You have an odd definition of capitalism ... probably the result of a U.S. education.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:13 | 403204 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Your definition of capitalism is a phantasm, totally and utterly disconnected from Capital.

Obviously you do so in order to keep your apologetics purely philosophical. 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:27 | 403214 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

You obviously don't understand what capital is, capital is labor, nothing else. Capitalism is the idea of having individual property rights ownership.

Whats your beef with capitalism?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:40 | 403229 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

+10000

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:41 | 403230 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Capital is not only labor, though the owner of labor-power most certainly has the most critical source of capital in her or his hands.

A lathe is capital, so long as it's used to make commodities for the market.

Land is capital, whenever the fruits it produces go to a market. 

This is Econ 101 stuff.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:43 | 403232 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

Thanks for another book definition.  Congrats you know how to read. 

Get back to us when you know how to think.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:10 | 403262 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

Your understanding is so silly because you tell me with your own words why you are so brainwashed. Your doublethink is very apparent in these lines.

A lathe is capital, so long as it's used to make commodities for the market.

Yes that is right, who do you suppose uses a lathe? Gee I wonder maybe a person? Someone had to use the lathe right? That is called LABOR. SAY IT WITH ME NOW... LABOR.

Land is capital, whenever the fruits it produces go to a market.

And who tills the land and carries the apples from the orchard to the market...santa clause?

This is Econ 101 stuff.

No shit!

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:24 | 403274 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

My labor isn't capital if I'm working in my garden.  My labor is capital if I'm producing something for the market.

Only an ignoramus thinks that all labor, all the time is capital.  The whole point of capitalism is to absorb all labor into the market that can be exploited.  And the way to most optimally exploit (not in a value sense, necessarily) labor is by combining it with other types of capital.

The name of the game is efficiency.  A worker with a needle and string is much less efficient than a worker with a loom.  Both workers are performing a type of labor, but their output is determined by the other categories of capital involved.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:33 | 403280 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

My point was that all capital is the product of Labor. And actually working in your garden does make an improvement relative to your desire, or at least should cause it would be pointless to create some effective change you didn't want. You are in fact also your own market as you can labor to create the things you need.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 04:00 | 403309 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

 

It's not about "desire" or any other fanciful thing.

It's about production, pure and simple:  who produces what for whom?

If I'm producing for the market, my labor is capital - something for use in the 'market'.  If not, it's not.  

What you're calling labor is actually 'life', our time not controlled by anyone or anything.  And as much as capitalism wants to own every space of existence, it doesn't own our life by fiat.   We have to "buy-in".

"Unfortunately", you add.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:36 | 403673 Zina
Zina's picture

Do not waste your time with people who believe in "marginal utility". They live in a fantasy universe.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:44 | 403233 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Like I said before, calling capitalism "an idea" (i.e., not real) exonerates it from the grotesque devastation of our planet is has wrought.

Capitalism is a specific mode of production and distribution that produces surplus for the possessor of capital - precisely the people FDR kept in charge.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:25 | 403275 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

What? Did you even read the new deal? FDR was all about having a controlled economy, that is not capitalistic at all.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:39 | 403288 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

What industries did FDR nationalize as part of the New Deal?

Of all those alphabet soup opiates he offered to a decaying corpse of a system, which ones took control over entire industries?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:59 | 403305 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

Money is capital as all things derived from capital can be used as money, it is why money is interchangable with a product. Most common forms of money are simply the most desirable forms of capital as they are the most liquid or exchangable. So when you end up controlling a large portion of the "money" within a market you direct the flow of capital and thus create imbalances. You don't need to nationalize a single industry when you control the flow of money because you become the market maker. Get it yet? When you control money you control capital, when you control capital flow you have a controlled economy.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:40 | 403291 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Shhh, he wants to play semantic games to demonize this thing called 'capitalism'...don't spoil his fun.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:55 | 403303 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Here's my trick, FB:

Associate capital with capitalism, and apply it to the real world.  

I know, I know:  I hear you already:

"Idiot".

"Ingrate"!

"So much better to play make believe."  

"Timothy Geithner doesn't work for Goldman Sachs!"

Get over yourself.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:41 | 403690 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Apply socialism to the real world. Now shoot yourself in the nape and fall in a ditch.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:48 | 403713 Zina
Zina's picture

Do not waste your time with people who say that capitalism has never existed in any country in the world.

Their "capitalism" is just an utopia wich does not exist in the real world.

If no country in the world was never capitalist at any time, then we have two options: either Feudalism continued to exist after the Industrial Revolution, or socialism dominates the world since the French Revolution. Lunacy...

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!