This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Social Security in violent transition?
Jackie Calmes at the NYT has a good summary regarding the last minute effort to get an extension of the 2% payroll tax reduction for 2012. (There is consideration this morning for a two month extension) There are some subtleties of the debate that are worth noting. Both sides agree that an extension should happen, but within both parties there is surprising opposition. The lovers of Social Security see the handwriting on the wall. They fear that a second year of a payroll tax break may be the last step leading to significant changes in America’s biggest social program.
However, that the payroll reduction hurts SS is a common misperception. That's not correct. Every month, the Treasury transfers cash to SS in order to make up for the shortfall. I follow this stuff; if these transfers had not been made, I (and a bunch of others) would have blown the whistle months ago.
As a result of these transfers, SS ends up unharmed by the tax break. Other taxpayers foot the bill. But since we have a deficit to begin with, this just adds to the countries red ink. Uncle Sam is digging into one pocket and transferring wealth to SS. This is the socialization of Social Security. What does it mean if SS becomes a ward of the state? Charles Blahous, an ex Bush advisor had this to say:
“The payroll-tax cut would take a major step toward transforming Social Security from what it has long been — an earned benefit, funded by separate worker payroll taxes — into an income-tax based system more akin to welfare.”
For years the SS defenders have pointed out that SS is self-funding and does not contribute to the deficit. That was not true in 2011 (to the tune of $115b). The on-budget expense/increase to public debt will be $120b in 2012. That’s real money.
It's an unfortunate fact that the US economy will flounder if workers pay only 2/3rd of the statutory rate in 2012. That’s how fragile the economy is. It’s not likely that things will be much different a year from now. Another “one time only" extension of the FICA tax breaks will be on the table twelve months from today. From the Times:
Robert Reischauer, Ex CBO and SSA.
“Imagine that next December the unemployment rate is 8 percent and a year later it’s 7.4 percent. We’ll still be trying to stimulate employment and terminating the payroll tax holiday will be a big hit on most families, one that will hurt job growth.”
Reischauer is right, we will not revert to the statutory rates, much less the 1% increase that is require to stabilize SSA. I think he's also correct with his projection of a huge fight:
“The nightmare that I have is that when it comes time to raise the tax back up to 6.2 percent, conservatives are going to propose that these two percentage points of payroll tax be devoted to individual accounts. That will precipitate a huge fight and could change Social Security in a fundamental way.”
There is a huge brawl in front of the country on this issue. Folks on both sides are deeply entrenched. The following is an exchange I saw on Angry Bear blog. It's an example of the rhetoric we will get, The fellow who wrote this, Dale Coberly, is a fairly well-know contributor to the SS debate. Dale loves SS and hates anyone who thinks that changes are required. If you have any doubts how visceral a fight we're in for, consider this bit of fluff:
rjsjust a heads up...Bruce Krasting says Social Security 2011 - Another Bad Year...he concludes: The current thinking is that SS is a problem that can be worried about in another ten years or so. That's simply not true.12/08/2011, 13:00:51– Reply
coberly
rjsthere are bigger liars than Krasting writing about SS. I can't keep up with them all, and with Obama killing SS outright with the permanent payroll tax holiday, and the Democrats and Progressives rallying behind him, there is nothing more I can do.
Maybe Krasting will be out of a job soon.
The stalwarts of SS recognize that the program is now vulnerable. They want bad things to happen to those who believe changes are essential. We're going to have a fight. A big one. Think, “Age Warfare”.
.
»
- advertisements -
I follow this stuff too.
Social security is going to end up dying as we know it for one reason only, now less than half of national wages is even subjected to payroll taxes. Only the earned income from wages on mostly poor and middle class workers is being taxed to fund the system, income from dividends is not taxed, interest income is not taxed, landlords rents are not taxed, and the wages of the wealthy are taxed but capped at a ridiculously low 1972 era level. As the wealthy upper half pay in vanishingly small proportions of their income to the system the system is starved for funds.
There was a very small blurb on network TV yesterday that was reported on only one network, no real story to go with it, just a staement of fact; 1 in 2 of all Americans are now considered poor or low income. Yet they are the ones that have to fund SS. But the wealtier half want it this way, with most on welfare rather than being "entitled" to anything, if the poorer half (the slaves) get out of line you can simply cut their benefits, easy to do, just do not give them a COLA for a few years in a row and see how uppity they are then! That will shut those poor fuckers up eh?
You are an economic idiot. Social Security is in theory a retirement benefit. It is a fixed benefit with ceiling. Once you reach the maximum benefit you don't pay any more. That's why the rich only pay up to the point of the maximum benefit. It's like selling a $500k insurance policy to everyone. It doesn't matter how much you make. The price is the same for everyone. A rich person will pay the same rate as a "poor" person. In SS a poor person actually gets a slightly better benefit compared to what they put in compared to the top end of the scale. I have noted that the top end of SS is increasing faster than the rate of inflation, as well. It is a hidden tax increase and represents an increasing wealth redistribution which I suspect is what you favor.
So the "slaves" you refer to are slaves because they have become wards of the State. They cleverly voted their own slavery through their elected representatives. Had they kept and invested their own money they would have much more, an inheritance for their kids and virtuallly no need of other government benefits at retirement. With the State plan they become proles.
Why people that cannot conceivably collect on a benefits should pay anything in the program?
This is wrong on so many levels. If you pay in you can conceivably collect, maybe you had a reason for saying you cannot collect, if so why not tell us?
Or, how about this, I never had kids and I promise you I never will, so why do I pay for public schools? Daycare? Welfare moms? School lunch programs? Student atheletic programs? Universities? Childhood healthcare and immunizations? Family courts? County child services programs? Sudsidized healthcare for people who want to pump out babies on the cheap? After all the year surrounding birth and death eat 80% of every healthcare dollar, make those responsible for these events liable for them right?
Government is only coercive to the extent that some of you are just greedy enough to prefer not to pay to live in a civilized society, and since you have no fucking clue just how bad living WITHOUT government is you bitch endlessly about it. Newsflash kiddies, life with government might have a major downside, but life without it is a stinking cesspool, don't agree? Move to Haiti or Tijuana or Somalia for a few years and see what a paradise low taxes and regulation brings you. Humanity has one thing in common, without government people are savages living in chaos.
You really are a moron. "Without government people are savages living in chaos." Really? How can savages then form a government better than themselves? You give rise to the old saying, "Men must be ruled." That has been the foundation of all despots over time. Actually, Haiti, Tijuana and Somalia all have governments you idiot. It is the local drug lord, the tribal chief and the despot. Frankly, it is the guy with the most guns or most guys with the best guns. It is not based on any rule of law, property rights or pluralistic system of any sort. In fact, they produce societies and levels of government consistent with their own cultures. I submit to you that you could destroy the US government tomorrow and some sort of reasonable self government would appear starting the next day. Odds are it would be better than what we have.
The proper purpose of government is essentially to protect you from coercion, whether it is the local mafia or a foreign invader. Unfortunately, throughout history, governments become the prime oppressor.
I bet you are one who agrees with the Wall Street occupiers against the banksters, Wall Street finance houses and rich in general that loot the treasury for their own preservation and benefit right? How do you suppose they do that? How do they get access to that money in your pocket and force you to serve their purposes? Hmmm? They do it through the government you love! That's why you are all truly worthless morons...or more accurately the "useful idiots" that always support some sort of collectivist government up to marxist. Let's try liberty for a change.
Nothing wrong on any level.
Or, how about this, I never had kids and I promise you I never will, so why do I pay for public schools? etc.
Maybe nobody should. If somebody needs something he/she pays, goes without, or use charity. Government provides only minimal services: security, reasonable protection from fraud, justice.
My point was not about bean counting of tax money. My point is that all these programs are ways too excessive and went too much astray therefore major re-examining/cutting is necessary. Besides, in any redistribution program, common-sense fairness is necessary. For example, you proposed to collect FICA taxes from all sorts of non-wage income (interest, dividends, rent, etc.), but you do not provision for redistributions if these incomes are involuntary lost (i.e., equivalent of a job loss without your fault: that is how employment insurance is pedaled), and what would be reasonable pretext to collecting a benefit for people that receive such income? NONE. You do not plan on paying a landlord if his/her tenant ran-away, defaulted, or something of that sort, do you?
There is another point that is usually missed in the debate on all kind of "do-good" entitlements from government. These entitlements provide an excuse to collect large taxes and gives them to cronies. That is the main reason why governments are in the business of helping the poor. Government collects $10 of taxes, takes $2 to themselves (pay civil servants wages), gives $1-2 to "poor", and spent rest on the favorite past times (war, subsidies to cronies, etc.). Therefore, government must not do any "charity" or do absolute bare minimum, so it will not have pretext for high taxes and will not have money for corruption.
I asked WHY you said you could not collect, you say that, or should I say you implied that you could never ever collect because you think the system cannot be viable over the long term. Thus you should not have to contribute to it. Is that right?
I am asking in all sincerity. Because I had teachers in high school in 1973 that used to say the same thing, SS will not be there when you get old. Well, I got hurt on the job and can no longer work. My disability from SS is a vast and princely sum of $932 per month. Hell, I only had a bachelor degree in finance, former stockbroker, financial analyst, mid fifties, and I am so FUCKING tired of the Nazi right in this nation portraying anyone hurt or old or poor as leeches on their god given right to live in a top notch first world nation with all the clean streets and pure tap water and fine schools and healthy justice system and weekly curbside garbage pick-up and a totally harmless utopian drug free Wisteria Lane existence protected by trillions of dollars worth of police and military because I the rat JOOOO loving leech wants to soak you for all of $932 per month, as if I never paid in since 1975. Every one of the posters here on that side of the class war would have been MORE than happy in South Africa 40 years ago, Germany 80 years ago, the deep south 100 years ago. What do they all have in common? Acceptable racism, classism, sexism, the white man ruled as long as he was a property owner.
You think you will not collect, try getting disabled tomorrow and see if you do not collect. See if you LIKE being disabled. It can happen to me so it sure as shit can happen to any of you. I get no SNAP, I get no HUD, I get no other assistance. And you all wonder why I say boil the rich? Boil them so they have time to think about the horrors they inflict on millions every day before they die.
In transition. Individual Accounts. ETFs.
The only questions I have are:
1. Which of the TBTFs will be given the keys to the Kingdom and become the contractor-stewards of SS?
2. Who already knows that answer and what is their Twitter handle?
They used to say 'nothing so permanent as a temporary tax increase' but, to which we must also add the 'temporary tax cut'!
I would want to protect pure social security, old age pensions, but I suspect there is enough fraud and abuse in disability insurance and the Food Stamp program to make up for the employee tax cut. OK the 'disabled' person may not be employable as a steeplejack or hod carrier but operating a keyboard or cash register is not a strenous task. As to 'Food Stamps', make available properly portioned and nutritious meals at our public school cafeterias for any hungry citizen. If they can't walk or bicycle to the school ( good exercise for our increasingly obese underclass) deploy unemployed teenagers to deliver boxed meals to the indigent.
Paid for by....?
It is beyond me why the republicans don't stand up to this extension and simply say why are you trying to bankrupt social security with this stupid tax argument. The shameful ways are government continues to mislead know no bounds.
How do con men operate? They always have the same MO. They promise that if you give them your hard earned cash today they will return much more tomorrow. Isn't that the story behind Social Security?
Well, not exactly. It's a "contribution" at the point of a gun.
Since the P/R tax reduction only affects the employee portion and does not affect the company match, the the reason not passing the reduction is it will have a negative effect job creation is because we assume it will affect total consumer spending. I would think, then, we could get a similar effect by returning the Social Security tax to 6.2% and reducing the income tax on the lower income rates appropiately. All this says to me is, one way or another, Social Security will become a general fund obligation and the whole "Social Security as we know it" is in the process of disappearing. It will just be a long tough slog (to quote Rumsfeld), but Social Security is in its death throes.
In a way, Obama has taken the Lenninist path that things must get worse before they get better. They are purposefully crippling SS in order to transform it. The left frequently complains about the regressive nature of the payroll tax. Using general revenues to fund this shortfall is the first step towards making SS funding more progressive.
Abolish Social Security, Medicare and Food stamps NOW!
So you can punish the old and poor for being old and poor?
Your day will come.
"So you can punish the old and poor for being old and poor?"
So you want to punish those of us that are working, paying a shitload of taxes, attempting to be prudent and plannning for the future.
It's high time for some baby boomer austerity.
So I'm assuming you think that helping them is both moral and something you would voluntarily do yourself. Therefore I would also guess that you believe that a fair amount of people agree with you. (You're not the only one who wants to help the old and poor, right?)
My question is this. If a large proportion of society believes that it is good and proper to help the old and poor by giving them money, why the need for coercive violence? Why the need to point guns at people? Are you saying that even though millions of people want to help the old and poor, that they will only do so if threatened with violent coercion?
I just don't get people like you.
Why always the need to pull out a gun to solve all of your perceived problems.
"My question is this. If a large proportion of society believes that it is good and proper to help the old and poor by giving them money, why the need for coercive violence? Why the need to point guns at people? Are you saying that even though millions of people want to help the old and poor, that they will only do so if threatened with violent coercion?"
......................................
Exactly what does any government accomplish without the threat of violence or imprisonment or confiscation of property?
Do you believe in the fairy tale of a 'social contract' between the people and the government?
A 'contract' indicates that there exists agreement between two or more parties, with each party having certain responsibilities to fulfill. Have you been contacted by a representative of your government, requesting that you enter into a contract with your government?
It's very simple... Without the threat of violence or imprisonment or confiscation of property, no government could govern a large population. Some governments use a soft glove, some use an iron fist, but they all use the same threats.
Bingo.
You are correct, but that authority is granted with the CONSENT of the governed. What you have today is a government that exercises this authority towards accomplishing actions which it has NO constitutional authority to pursue. There is no permission in the Constitution for government to implement 'social security', 'welfare', 'food stamps', or even the 'income tax'*.
When you make a souless entity like government the arbiter of charity, don't be surprised when it chooses to charitably kick you out of your house and into prison, for not paying what IT has decided is your fair share.
*The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, and for a reason. It would have never received 3/4 majorities from the state legislatures as required to legally ratify an Amendment to the Constitution. Never ones to be stymied by such things as the law, the banskter's puppet in play at the time (Knox?) simply declared the Amendment ratified anyway.
Therein lies the implicit evil of government.
" Every month, borrowing by the Treasury transfers cash to SS in order to make up for the shortfall."
fixed it for ya.
Funny, the treasury has "borrowed" $4,658,088,781,127.92 from the social security trust fund over the last 35-40 years and now that the time has come for the treasury to start repaying some of that because of a bogus "temporary" payroll tax decrease people are now refering to SS as a welfare program. It will be a welfare program when every dime of that money has been returned to the fund and then real transfers have to be made.
Briliiliant analysis thank you Bruce.
Age Warfare has a racial dimension also. The older folks are +/- 80% white, whereas the younger cohort is over fifty percent brown.
Nice classy way, Bruce, you deal with the fool calling you a 'liar' on social security ... just quoting him and letting him look foolish.
When certainly your extensive article history shows you to be quite open-minded to new facts and perspectives other than your own ... the 'liar' epithet is clearly absurd. If the guy's position was stronger he'd be content with saying you were 'wrong'.
Got a laugh out of that 'Krasting will be out of a job soon' ... ha! ... Like you need a 'job' now ... or like there is a chance Tyler will sell ZeroHedge to CNBC and they will 'fire' you. Ha!
'Sell ZeroHedge to CNBC'? BLASPHEMY!
But I could see CNBC being sold to ZeroHedge.
And all the idiot talking heads being replaced with Guy Fawkes masks.
Reality TV, biTcheZ!
Wow, you morons in Warshington District of Criminals actually think like this, huh? IF socialist insecurity becomes a "ward of the state"??!??!? IF socialist insecurity BECOMES a welfare pogrom?!?!? SERIOUSLY!?!?
Do you Warshington fantasists get all bent out of shape discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin?
We're going to have a fight. A big one. Think, “Age Warfare”.
The most essential thing of all is to remember that it is the status quo political class who created this mess, and did so at the behest of the status quo financial class. Those two groups would love to see us fighting among ourselves, villifying and even killing each other. That is a game I do not intend to let them get away with.
The simple truth is this: the thing that makes a society able to take care of its elderly, infirm, and less able, is excess production. In order to have excess production, we must produce. The financialized economy produces nothing, it just shuffles money around, cashes out on leverage, and then fucks everyone else. The things that must be eliminated are the barriers to production. Like regulation, the destruction of confidence in the financial / banking system by so many means (the venality of the political class, unwillingness to investigate and prosecute fraud and corruption, phony balance sheets, even phonier off-balance sheet gaming, etc etc), price-distorting market interventions (the list is long and we all know it).
Finally, a truly productive economy means slow, steady deflation in the prices of real goods. In order to prevent this, for some reason, we have a central bank that uses inflation to steal the productivity gains. SO, ending the Fed is an essential element of re-establishing a productive economy that is capable of producing excess wealth. We have to be smart enopugh to remember to save and reinvest some of this excess wealth, which is otherwise known as "capital."
As far as regulations go--you may need to do a little more "in depth". Some regulation is necessary in the modern business climate-- for an example I remind you of suspended "rule 157 of GAAP" (aka mark to market).
SWRichmond, thanks for the comment, well done. So many of the things you mention have been so twisted for soundbite use that its very hard to see clearly let alone make proper economically beneficial decisions for ourselves.....capital and investment. The easy way out for a politician is to abuse the value of Everyones holding through inflation rather than take their medicine. Absolutely pathetic and sick.
"The most essential thing of all is to remember that it is the status quo political class who created this mess, and did so at the behest of the status quo financial class. Those two groups would love to see us fighting among ourselves, vilifying and even killing each other. That is a game I do not intend to let them get away with. "
Worth repeating. This is the "product" that "your" political class brings you. They are worth less than nothing.
I'm agnostic on the SS issue, don't think I'll see any of it. With that said, I think Bruce also needs to acknowledge some of the other facts that the other side points to and is relevant:
The congress raised SS taxes in the 80's to ABOVE what was needed to service the year to year obligations. So for years the SS surplus went into the general budget where it was spent by profigate politicians. This was done INTENTIONALLY. There was a movement to take SS off budget back then and I think it was Tip O'Neil who was in the thick of that fight, it was defeated. Oh sure, there are some special treasuries in some cabinet that is supposed to represent this SPENT money, but any shortfall from current SS revenues has to be made up from the treasury, as Bruce points out.
The above point is the reference for the follow on point which is that congress can not and will not regulate their spending. It doesn't matter how much money we give them in taxes, they spend more. So now it comes down to what their priorities should be and this is where it gets interesting to me.
The young folks who are pissed off that they are being taxed to pay for what they view as welfare for older folks don't seem to make the connection that ALL services/programs are related in that the budget for any program is limited by what congress will spend on it which is somewhat limited by what congress is spending on OTHER programs.
So, while I'm not a liberal by any means and have voted Ron Paul even in the last election (wrote him in), I would rather see congress limit spending on DHS, Military bases overseas, backstopping banks and most of the other useless federal programs that have been born into existence over the past few decades than to see them start cutting the safety net from under the old folks.
See, the gov't wants you to view this issue exactly like Bruce is conveying it, a matter of fairnessf to you the young person and affordability to them the congress. The problem is that it is not that issue at all but one of spending priority of the Federal gov't. They can cut hundreds of billions out of the current spending plan and redirect that into any social program they want. The problem is they don't want to because it hurts the MIC (military industrial complex) and the status of the U.S. as a superpower. Basically, the gov't wants to cut SS because they have MILKED it for all its excess revenue via excess payroll taxes and now it has become something they don't like, a program that takes money away from building and exerting their power internationally.
As a young person (anyone who responded), would you rather the U.S. continue to start wars (which you will probably get to fight), build bases overseas, finance DHS to spy on you, TSA to strip search you, viper teams to stop you and check your papers OR would you rather insist that the gov't start redirecting that spending back to the promises that were made to the people of this country and for which they were taxed?
It is not an unrelated matter, particularly if as Bruce indicates, these SS payments are now made from the same budget that has to support those other endeavors. Please be careful of the redirection that gov't is trying to pull here in this regard.
Chubbar, I respect your view, but I point out that these promises (e.g. social security) are themselves part of congressional profligacy. People collecting social security are getting out way more than the fair value of what they put in (e.g. principal plus reasonable return). All of this spending has led us to Odius Debt that needs to be repudiated.
Thisson, thanks for your polite response and I completely agree that these social programs probably will have to be adjusted/curtailed. BUT, we have to start with the premise that those cuts should be at the back of the line with regard to all the other ill-advised pet projects, military endeavors, et al that I noted earlier. Because if we don't then what we end up with is exactly the opposite of what most of us would like to see as a nation. Smaller, fairer, less intrusive gov't that has a VIABLE safety net FOR THE POOREST and INFIRMED among us (and I have an open mind on how this is accomplished as well). Not the clusterfuck generational welfare system we currently have (although we were talking about SS). I only mention this not because it is likely, but because AFTER this abortion of a monetary system comes crashing down and our current system is obliterated I think it is important for us to have an idea what we would prefer to come next. That is why we can't let the gov't frame the argument around payroll taxes or intergenerational transfer payments but instead around gov't spending priorities.
I'm not smart enough to figure out what will work so I'll leave that to the likes of Ron Paul and company. I just know that if we allow the current leadership to impose their ideas on us then we end up in Pottersville without a pot to piss in. Which, given the recent legislation coming from D.C., is exactly where both parties would like us.
I see that some of the commenters on ZH can think better than some of the writers.
SWR, the meat of your assertions is this:
The things that must be eliminated are the barriers to production. Like regulation, the destruction of confidence in the financial / banking system by so many means (the venality of the political class, unwillingness to investigate and prosecute fraud and corruption, phony balance sheets, even phonier off-balance sheet gaming, etc etc), price-distorting market interventions (the list is long and we all know it).
Do you not see the problem with what you said? You list "regulation" as if it was in and of itself inherently destructive in the same sentence with several other barriers to production all of which have come about because of the dismantling of regulation.
I contend regulation by itself done intelligently is not only not a bad thing but absolutely essential to thriving business, it protects many businesses from unfair competition, it protects the environment from those who would and did simply dump toxic byproducts anyplace they please. It used to prevent accounting frauds that do indeed destroy the viability of business at it's very core.
Regulation can and should be done at a simple level, common sense applied, and stop lashing out at things that are NOT the real problem. Last summer a cantaloupe farmer in Colorado bought a machine made to wash potatoes for washing his melons, he sidestepped regulations because the FDA under republican mandates enacted under the BushCo Administration made inspections self administered. The result was that people in 26 states were sickened by listeria, at least 30 died, many others were severely damaged and will need medical care for life, others had to have organ transplants.
The food industry increasingly has come to rely on what it calls third-party audits of farms or processing plants to ensure the safety of food. But the auditors are hired by the companies being inspected, and their procedures are largely unregulated.
In some industries regulation has become a burden and should be rationalized, but in anything to do with banking or finance there is no regulation at all because there is no enforcement for the violators. I see people on both sides of the political divide worried about illegal immigration for example, it is lack of enforcement of laws already on the books that allows this, we need no new laws, only enforcement of current laws. But we can't do that lest we risk pissing off a few wealthy elite "job producers?"
If you are ethical, relatively intelligent, and competent in your business you should have little to worry about from regulation, those that bitch the most are the ones that want to make ever more profits at the expense of all others and damn the consequences if the public is harmed. By the way, most regulation is in place to protect OTHER businesses from unfair business practices so that smaller firms CAN compete. The root of our problems may have sprouted some absurd regulatory oddities that should be trimmed, but in reality regulation is just a scapegoat for the death of the economy thanks to the raping class of overlords and Fed banksters.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! There can be no discussion with such a naive POV
Really?
I would say that the naive POV is believing in 'self regulation'.
We have several rivers and many bays in the U.S. where you can't eat the fish or drink from it. We also have a few aquifers. You can thank self regulation for that.
In our banking system we have regulations. Unfortunately we have allowed the regulated to over see the regulators so as to render the regulations as if they were unregulated. *snicker*
And please, if you want to continue living in your paradigm, DO NOT look into your food supply.
Rivers are polluted because they are public property and so no one has either the interest or the power to keep them clean. This is the tragedy of the commons. Private property can be much better protected from pollution because the owners have the interest and inclination to stop their investment from being degraded by the actions of others.
Do you breath air, drink water, eat food?
You have no idea what this world would look like without basic environmental regulation. You are the naive one.
The predator class would (and did try to) foul everthing...left unchecked.
Twenty million Americans took part in the first US Earth Day in 1970. That was almost 10% of the total population. They were alarmed by what they were seeing.
There were good reasons for the Clean Air and Clean Water Act.
At least our rivers don't catch fire anymore on a regular basis.
Boil and SWR both have good points.
Government has harmed the environment far more that it has helped the environment. Former military bases and production facilities are the most polluted places in our country. The government has released far more radiation through atomic testing, atomic bombing and indiscriminate use of DU than private nuclear power plants ever have. The list goes on and on.
Why do you believe that the world's greatest polluter -- the government -- should be charged with making sure that the rest of us stop our evil polluting ways?
Hey Junior,
I think you are likely too young to remember what private corporations did to the environment, unchecked for decades.
If you want to engage is some libertarian fantasy that if we sell our rivers and lakes to corporations because they will keep them clean, be my guest.
Corps will laugh all the way to the bank while you and yours die of thirst.
Look at what happened in some countires where the gov sold the drinking water rights to a private company, because it is happening there.
Get a clue. Do some homework.
I stopped reading at "Hey Junior." If you expect me to consider your "thoughts" I suggest that you present them in a more respectful manner.
No, the meat of my assertion is that we need production. But nice try. Let's argue about one of the supporting assertions I made rather than the assertion itself.
What we are witnessing right now is the collapse of the financialized economy. That collapse, to anyone who is more than a casual observer, has a lot to do with fraud, fraud which has been exposed publicly in great detail but which remains un-prosecuted. So please, as a tribute to your vaunted regulatory state, name all of the high level campaign contrinutor co-conspirators who have been prosecuted for fraud in just the mortgage-backed securities and mortgage arena.
I will wait, at first patiently, and then with growing impatience.
If you are ethical, relatively intelligent, and competent in your business you should have little to worry about from regulation
This is absolutely, positively the most ridiculous thing I've read today. You are the only one making this assertion anywhere.
Edit: let's be clear, I do not intend to engage in a long and purposefully-distracting diatribe with you, Mr. Troll.
Fine, short and sweet, you are a shit for brains republican that can shove deregulation up your ass. Short enough? Regulation is not going to go away just because it would help you to make more money by hurting others, so it is you that posits a strawman distraction not I. At any rate production by economic law goes to those nations and companies with a productive advantage, you do not change that by gutting fair and APPROPRIATE regulation, you do it by addressing fundamental imbalances in wealth distribution and foreign competition which is based in manipulated currencies and lack of fair wages and environmental laws.
As to who may or may not be a troll around here go look in a mirror asshole, and do not even attempt to claim to be a responsible poster when you resort to name calling rather than cogent argument which YOU do not have! Reread my post and point out please where I called anybody a name, read any post I ever made at ZH and point out where I ever called someone a name except in direct response to ad homonym attacks using schoolyard bullying such as what you rely upon. You are uneducated and pathetic.
Boil the rich, Heres an article for you to view on regulations and how they effect business and specifically entrance to business.
http://www.newsmax.com/DougWead/Protesters-Bank-Bailouts-Wall/2011/10/03/id/413113
Your premise is false. Comparative advantage is not a necessary precondition for production. A lazy farmer and a diligent one can both produce, albeit in different quantities. In fact, in 2008 Paul Krugman won the nobel prize in economics based on work that showed that nations primarily trade goods in which they lack comparative advantage, to wit:
"Traditional trade theory assumes that countries are different and will exchange different kinds of goods with each other; Mr. Krugman’s theories have explained why worldwide trade is dominated by a few countries that are similar to each other, and why some countries might import the same kinds of goods that it exports. "
Source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/paul-krugman-wins-economics-nobel/