This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Blast From Paul Krugman's Past: "Social Security Is A Ponzi Scheme And Will Soon Be Over"
It is one thing (what thing that is we are not sure, but we have heard others say it, so like all good lemmings we will say it too) for Rick Perry to call Social Security a ponzi scheme. After all he is some crazy, foaming in the mouth conservative, as uber-Keynesian liberal Paul Krugman may call him. And that's fine. What confuses us, however, is why Social Security would be called a ponzi by the same liberal noted previously: none other than Paul Krugman himself.
Exhibit A, from a distant 1997, which perhaps one would have expected to remain buried (source):
Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).
This coming from the same person who a year ago said the following much anticipated truism, and has in the interim become a caricature of himself:
So where do claims of crisis come from? To a large extent they rely on bad-faith accounting. In particular, they rely on an exercise in three-card monte in which the surpluses Social Security has been running for a quarter-century don’t count — because hey, the program doesn’t have any independent existence; it’s just part of the general federal budget — while future Social Security deficits are unacceptable — because hey, the program has to stand on its own.
It would be easy to dismiss this bait-and-switch as obvious nonsense, except for one thing: many influential people — including Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the president’s deficit commission — are peddling this nonsense.
And having invented a crisis, what do Social Security’s attackers want to do? They don’t propose cutting benefits to current retirees; invariably the plan is, instead, to cut benefits many years in the future. So think about it this way: In order to avoid the possibility of future benefit cuts, we must cut future benefits. O.K.
What’s really going on here? Conservatives hate Social Security for ideological reasons: its success undermines their claim that government is always the problem, never the solution. But they receive crucial support from Washington insiders, for whom a declared willingness to cut Social Security has long served as a badge of fiscal seriousness, never mind the arithmetic.
And neither wing of the anti-Social-Security coalition seems to know or care about the hardship its favorite proposals would cause.
The only question we have for the Nobelist: is some form of affective disorder a necessary and sufficient condition to espouse the virtues of government dumping endless capital in what said Nobelist himself calls a Ponzi scheme, and just how would the overlord, John M. Keynes, fell about this?
h/t John Poehling
»
- 38551 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Show me one article, op/ed or uttering of Krugman whereby he criticizes The Federal Reserve for running monetary policy the way they have, criticizes ZIRP (he loves ZIRP - LOVES it), or criticizes the flawed tabulation of inflation statistical data (he is now calling for 3x the current rate of inflation, in an open endorsement).
You can't. He hasn't.
He's a fucking liar and sociopath.
<blockquote>Show me one article, op/ed or uttering of Krugman whereby he criticizes The Federal Reserve for running monetary policy the way they have...
I already did. See above.
Yes Yes, when a liberal speaks out of both sides of their mouth, they are being "complex, open to new data, sophisticated". Bullshit! There is nothing to rethink on Social Security. It has been a failed idea almost from the start and there hasn't been any change in the data in 40 years to make it otherwise. The only 'extend and pretend' game has been to raise the tax, raise the income level needed to stop the tax, raise the age benefits accrue, and reduce the benefits via CPI manipulation.
You fellow travellers need to get a new playbook - the old one is turning yellow - like Krugman's lecture notes
We're just not smart enough to understand the supra genius "nuance."
Krugman needs to rethink his position on his own existance and with the new facts (i.e., that he is a complete and utter f moron) pull the plug on his own existance. I would allow for that possibility.
The problem with your complaint, Northern Soul, is that the facts have not changed one bit in the last 25 years.
The people who have opposed Social Security from the beginning have pointed out that it was a Ponzi scheme that had to fail. Krugman evidently has lost his ability to cypher since the earlier piece of honesty was written. It is the Krugmeister who is playing the "cheap ass" politics.
... meanwhile gin tonic anyone?
Yes! [Cdad ends dry spell, realizing that he actually has all the makings of gin and tonic in the house]
You were missed...
Might as well start sipping on Knob Creek now and get comfortable before I break the popcorn out and see if Asia is going to keep buying into the US' and Europe's messes before they deal with their own problems. I know one of these nights Asia will stop playing games and turn the tables. It will be fun watching the panic in Europe and the US ensue when they learn the rest of the world has the same problems they do and will no longer bail everyone else out first.
Fat chance that China will do anything other than what it's been doing. They're just as complicit in this as are the Western countries that they sell too. They just talk a better game while they're printing up all those Yuan to buy the dollars form their exporters, that they then turn around and plow into US treasuries, so the US government can keep deficit spending, so that Americans can keep buying Chinese exports.
Dothe math and you'll see that we really do have a golbal economy. And no one -- especially the Chinese -- is going to get off the merry-go-round.
Or else the gig is up.
The ig is up. Face it. Gold is now moving at a 100% clip YoY, Europe needs another bailout, the US needs another bailout, BAC is bankrupt and that is a much bigger deal than Bear and Lehman, China is tethered to the ponzi, Africa and the Middle East are now tied up in a war conflict, oil production has peaked....the gig is up.
Re: <i>"The gis is up. Face it."</i>
You might be right there. It shall indeed be interesting to see how this all plays out.
My point, though, was that China is every bit a complicit in what's gone down as anyone else. They printed $trillions in Yuan to soak up $trillions in (similarly printed) dollars from their exporters, which maintained a favorable exchange rate. They used the soaked-up dollars to buy US Treasuries, that essentially recycled the dollars back to the US, so they could be used to buy yet more Chinese exports. 'Round and 'round and 'round she goes....
It's a game that both sides understood perfectly well. It's easy to see why China played the game. They essentially used US dollars to develop their economy. But why did the US play the game? And whose decision was it to play?
As always, the question is: "who benefits?"
sure count me in, but fuck the tonic.
awesome avatar!
that was janus's fall back; and it was my fall-back username (the fluer de lis).
but, janus i am, and the giant-cocked-ikon tis here to stay.
and the trains run like snakes/
through the pentacostal pines/
filled up with cotton/
and dime store gin,
janus
"the giant-cocked-ikon " - maybe you should change your name to Priapus......
wise one...good show.
yeah, i understand the confusion. but, janus's "essence" is the theme i'm huntin.
when janus is facing the other direction, you'll know something BIG's about to happen (or already has)...bigger than priapus.
gotta keep the other face secret for now.
the ikon is similar to one i saw of janus drawn on some ancient grecian cave (saw a pic, wasn't 'there') -- but, truth be known, i culled it from one of my favorite movies.
see if you can guess what it's from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFcJ3IHFGqQ&feature=related
really, i thought one of you would get it by now.
they peed on the dude's rug,
janus
The Dude: My rug.
Walter Sobchak: Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element!
The Dude: Walter, the chinaman who peed on my rug, I can't go give him a bill, so what the fuck are you talking about?
Walter Sobchak: What the fuck are you talking about? The chinaman is not the issue here, Dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.
The Dude: Walter, this isn't a guy who built the railroads here. This is a guy...
Walter Sobchak: What the fuck are you...?
The Dude: Walter, he peed on my rug!
Donny: He peed on the Dude's rug.
Walter Sobchak: Donny you're out of your element! Dude, the Chinaman is not the issue here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2PPgcNjols
the dude abides,
janus
Only if you've got Schweppes...nothing else will do.
... you would pass on Tanqueray, Seagrams & slice of lime ... (what about that thing with the gift horse...?)
hendrick's is good with a cucumber slice
Krugman Who?
Is your monkey doing something....inappropriate?
Let's just look at the actual comment:
I like Freeman's idea of providing each individual with a trust fund when young rather than retirement benefits when old, but we had better realize that this is a significant change in the character of the social insurance system. Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).
Freeman's scheme, however, will necessarily be frankly redistributionist, because the trust fund you receive when young cannot be based on what you will actually pay into the system over the rest of your life. Presumably the size of the trust fund will be the same for everyone-which means that some people will receive much more than the present value of the trust-fund taxes they pay over the rest of their lives, others much less. Now I don't have any problem with that kind of redistribution, but I think we had better realize that it will face intense opposition, that its "capitalistic" aspects will probably not buy off many of the critics.
Put it this way: Freeman may think that it is a shared value that everyone should have an equal chance at the start of life; but it isn't. On the contrary, recent news reports tell us that the next big push by tax-cutters will be a drive to eliminate the inheritance tax-that is, what the right wants more than anything else is to allow the wealthy to pass on their status to their children.
The slow unraveling of ....everything. I'm glad that people don't see the uncoming train barreling down the track. I'm glad that most people are unprepared
That's cold.
Caviar and vodka are best served cold.
Maybe that was a bit harsh. Ok. But would anyone listen if I served it up warm? I ask you
That was very harsh and insensitive.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Love they neighbor as thyself.
Or just love your sister.
Janus thinks he knows whose mother has passed.
Janus, loving this stranger as he does, is in absolute solidarity with him.
Janus wants this MOST SPECIAL (frankly, the best) ZH contributor to know that janus is all his fault.
Janus hunted for the 'right place' to do what i'm doing on line for a LONG time; and it was the work of this particular individual who sealed the deal. So, again, special one, janus is ALL your fault.
Also, janus is hard at work, as we speak, composing something special for this family bereaved.
Special One, know that there is a LOT of Love headed your way from the heart of alabama.
you, special one, are at the TOP of janus's prayer list -- and there you will remain until i start seeing that special name again.
I'll have it ready soon, my brother.
Love,
peachy
"......there is a LOT of Love headed your way from the heart of alabama."
Sounds almost like an odd threat.
Odd threat...
What else is one to expect from a couple dozen mulit-generational inbred genetically diseased mutants?
Normal threats?
good one, knukles.
you got em janus pretty good.
almost of janus quality -- i'm impressed.
what's worse, it's TRUE.
MANY generations back, it was fairly common in the janus geneology for cousins (third, forth usually) to wed...and i''m embarrased to say it was more common than i'd like to admit.
so, you'd have thought my family would take it with a couple grains of salt -- i mean, janus marry's his first cousin and everybody's all atwitter...like it's the end of the world or something.
hell, everybody's okay. my kids have been deemed 'adequately functional' by the state of alabama -- holla!
good to see ya again, knuks
janus
Failed wit or psychosis?
ponzi, my dear boy. explain yourself. the two above had some salt...something to salute.
now, are you tryin to be my buddy; tryin to be clevah; or just fucking stupid?
you're gonna need to help ole janus out with this one.
i could see a callow hater tryin to tighten up his sentences to their tersest minimum (tryin not to give janus any weapons; too smart by half, my boy), but 'this', this shit you've slopped above, won't do...it will not do.
this aggression will not stand.
come to janus.
Krugman deserves all the shiity press that comes his way. If he fucked a sheep back in 1962 in the bushes at Yale campus and has since became a nobel award winning sheep loving farmer, I would still expose him as a fucking sheep killing mountain man!
Ha ha ha thats great!
Social Security is the only program in DC with a dedicated tax to fund itself. It did not cause the deficit, just the opposite. Thr taxes were raised back in the 80's exactly because we saw the age wave coming. The problem is we loaned the money to CONgress and they spent it. How's that "lock Box" idea looking now??
No one asked me or anyone else if it was ok to loan it to congress, probably is better to say they stole it.
The tax is not dedicated. At least not in this sense: a guy sued to get his "account" and the case ended up in the Supreme Court, who ruled that the SS program is just like any other. It's just an annual appropriation.
Great find John Poehling!!
John's just jealous that he can't produce mathematically and arithmetically stable prices over long periods of time by simply employing endless variations of the ponzi scheme on large scales.
That's why you want centralization and central control and huge projects. Lots of slaves are needed for big projects and you get to make these little puzzlers.
He calls it a "ponzi scheme" but he doesn't seem to be describing it as such. Perhaps a "hyper-active moment." Does seem to be complaining about raising the age limit. If it was a ponzi you would think he would be for that...a true "extend and pretend" plan. I like the idea of lowering the age--and think the President would be far better (self) served if he had said that rather than a payroll tax cut which is the height of irresponsibility on all sides.
How the fuck would you know? You are impervious to logic. Don't you have some puppies to torture? Fuck off.
Your avatar always reminds me of a one-eyed trouser snake.
Come to think of it, so does your attitude.
If you were older than 15, you would know where that avatar comes from. I enjoy poking you because you are a fascist fuckhead with mush for brains.
The Day the Earth Stood Still
1951.
Hated it.
I can't stand preachy scifi.
How will it begin? What will become of the Exchange Stabilization Fund? Who will replace the existing process? When will this transition begin?
http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed14.html
BIS/World Bank/IMF are spinning new visions of false hope. Back in 1999, the charter stated, " We will create a crisis so enormous, everyone will accept our new plan."
Enjoy your popcorn, winks.
I stood and read the FBI definition of Ponzi (below) at a SS forum held by my congressman in 2006 +/-, when Bush was proposing reform. The point re: Ponzi and SS is that it would be illegal if the government weren't the ones doing it. I made some other choice comments and got stunned silence from the "expert" panel and applause from few people in the upper rafters--the other 2,000 unemployed or union folks bused in were silent. (The forum was held at 2:00 pm when productive people were at work.)
Finally, one panelist talked about the trust fund. The very one thing you can be sure of is, if someone talks about the SS trust fund, THEY ARE A FUCKING IDIOT. Then, one guy rose to say his family was saved by SS when his father became disabled. I stood to respond--Bush, nor anyone else was proposing to mess with survivor benefits. The reforms are for the retirement piece only. Well, my microphone had been turned off.
On the way out, I bumped into the guy with the disabled father and tried to explain the difference between survivor/disability and retirement. He would have none of it, saying: "There's more of us who will vote you down." I replied, "That is stealing."
Take away: The problem is not Washington. The American people are not in agreement as to the role of government. Is it to protect our freedoms, or to give us stuff?
=======
From the FBI website:
“Ponzi” schemes promise high financial returns or dividends not available through traditional investments. Instead of investing the funds of victims, however, the con artist pays "dividends" to initial investors using the funds of subsequent investors. The scheme generally falls apart when the operator flees with all of the proceeds or when a sufficient number of new investors cannot be found to allow the continued payment of "dividends."
This type of fraud is named after its creator—Charles Ponzi of Boston, Massachusetts. In the early 1900s, Ponzi launched a scheme that guaranteed investors a 50 percent return on their investment in postal coupons. Although he was able to pay his initial backers, the scheme dissolved when he was unable to pay later investors.
This type of fraud is named after its creator—Charles Ponzi of Boston, Massachusetts.
Meanwhile in massachewzits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAvxetFHBQA
Of couse fema is broke. They went into texas told all the volunteer firefighters to fuck off and proceeded to let texas burn. This is becasue they are abandoning the citizens and want the citizens to think everybody is abandonging them. This is what they did at new orleans and what they will do with irene.
So if you want to be a good samaritan you are going to have to slaughter up some fema peope first. And I'm willing to bet federal marshalls and atf won't like that.
But no matter Obama says "Win the future". He just doesn't say how hard that is going to be from a logical perspective.
Perry / Krugnuts pissing contest aside, does anyone out there think the 401K ponzi is a better ponzi than the social security ponzi?
If you're already rich, you should support ending SS because it will bolster your already inflated self-esteem. If you're not, I strongly suggest you check your math if you think the 401K ponzi works, so it's OK to deep 6 SS.
Shhh. Mark, the republic monkeys are going to start throwing poop at you now because you've used that unfair argument....facts. Watch out!
He said 'its success undermines...' -- he meant Social Security right?
Wow I am fucking speechless.
"Oft before I swore but was I sober when I swore."
Mr. Krugman can twist the ( NYT) into a tight FUnnell... and shove it where< the sun doesn't shine>
Nobel Prize frekizoid.
Wow! I've always regarded Krugman as an idiot who never got anything right. So he really once said something that was actually correct? I am stunned! What's next? Will the sun rise in the west?
I hadn't thought of it that way. Great point.
If a broken watch is right twice a day does it mean that;
a) Krugman probably said something else of import correctly at some other past moment which remains yet hidden or,
b) he's significantly less useful than a broken clock?
Most of the time he does sound a lot like a broken record.
Krugman is an iodiot of an exceptionally high level. Plus, like virtually all regressives, dishonest at the core.
Remember he had to shut down the comments on his NYT blog because the commenters ROUTINELY kicked his ass? Yeah, dumb ass.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html
economics is a crappy science and needs an overhaul. Like when scientific determinism got taken out by the chaos theory late 1960's i.e shit happens and usually it starts from the source and moves out causing a shit storm.
Keynesians think everything happens form the outside thus effecting the internal dynamics...something like that...anyway f*ck em all they are 100% wrong.
whoa...AUD 1.30 handle is looking tasty, somthing is up
China Wen talking global slowdown which means China slowdown/stagflation = forget China bailout EZ.
Risk aversion about to hit like a freight train.
ding, ding, ding.
As a partly trained economist, I'd take the position that it is not in any way shape or form a "science". Years ago when I was study in the UK, some folks in the then "social studies" areas wished to give more credence to their efforts and coined the term, "social sciences". (You know the old trick, call it something different and it's all new and improved, revolutionary, advanced and a perfect solution.)
And Nobody Wants To Be Associated Intellectually with Sociologists, the other social studies/scientists... and they're at the top of the social science heap, out ranking Community Organizers, Social Workers and Care Givers.
ROTFL. Krugman in 1996/1997 sounds like a fucking Republican. He even thinks that protectionism is a bad idea. ROTFL. But the real gem in that Boston Review article is this:
BREAKING STORY - PAUL KRUGMAN NEVER WON A NOBEL PRIZE FOR ECONOMICS
It was for ERGONOMICS - He invented the foot rest on the Barcalounger.
"It was my dream to put the ottoman industry out of business. Having done that, some goober from NPR thought it was "economics".
What could I do? I admit it. I don't know the first thing about economics. I have been living a lie".
Muahahahah!
Muahahahah!
Muahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaah!!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^THIS
Keynesian crazies = the volatility kings.
Can't wait for their next bailout/money printing plan. Also can't wait when they bury this antiquated economic theory.
Who cares what Krugman thinks? It is laughable that he took that stance. A trip to the woodshed is definitely called for.
Apparently Rick Perry would now agree. This from the Guardian:
"Perry moved quickly to pull back from his earlier claims that social security, which includes pensions, is a "monstrous lie" and a "Ponzi scheme".
He said: "The people who are on social security today need to understand something: slam dunk guaranteed that programme is going to be there in place for those."
Maybe if Krugman wandered out of his ivory tower, the American citizenry could convince him of his error. I'd like to see the videotape of that.
To whoever junked me. Perry ran from 'ponzi' like a frightened little girl. Just like I said he would. I didn't say it would be the very next day. LOL.
Face it. You got fed a shitburger. Bon Appetite.
NFIB small Biz confidence index crashes in Sept:
Optimism Index Now in Decline for Six Months RunningConfidence in the future of the economy crashed in August, taking the Small Business Optimism Index down 1.8 points to 88.1. This was the sixth monthly decline in a row. The expansion is officially two years and two months old, but the small business half of the economy is still in the “tank”. Expectations for real sales growth and business conditions were the major contributors to the decline for the second month in a row.
http://www.nfib.com/research-foundation/surveys/small-business-economic-...
Poor sales cited as #1 problem
I made the rounds at GraphExpo in McCormack Place here in Chicago this week. The concensus of very senior sales guys I know who lead the major manufacturers in the print industry is that commercial printing is sliding off the cliff. Packaging printing is doing OK. Cap Ex is so bad the press companies didn't even bother to send in presses to show. Several firms with plans to attend ditched the show in order to save the travel expenses and cost of erecting a booth.
Small business and businesses that serve them are tanking hard. Everywhere, small businesses are answering the phone via voice mail. There is no inside personnel to answer the phone. Small businesses are letting their insurance lapse.
These seem like less robust "fundamentals" for the economy.
You are deliberately misreading Krugman's comment.
Pretty sure it stands on its own. Here: let's try it again:
pwned
*high five*
This is so tiring. If I saw a single post going after the idiot "Laugher Curve" retards, I might give you some props. Otherwise, it's pretty easy to pick on Krugman. Yes, he is almost always wrong, but I'm fucking sick of your coddling of the fascist party. Yeah, let's kick the retarded kid so more so we'll be in with the cool kid fascists. Sad.
Can I see the math? (Not saying not true but I want to see the model which would include some past interest payments and future gains).
Edit: And what year and how many will enter the Ponzi scheme
Again not doubting (well maybe a bit) .....
Krugman's post was in 1997. He said that at that time SS had a "ponzi game aspect" in that the then current recipients were getting more than they had put in - not that it was a Ponzi scheme. He says the Ponzi game aspect would soon (as of 1997) be over because "typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in" (contributions had been increased and some benefits had become taxable).
Krugman is one of the smartest and clearest commentators on current affairs. You may disagree with him but he always deserves a careful and fair minded read.
not a model
"Krugman is one of the smartest and clearest commentators on current affairs."
ROTFLMAO!!!...thanks, I needed that to start my day!!! ;-)
As I understand it, congress went to a "unified budget" in the early 70s, although the SS receipts were first tapped in 1968, in part because of "Johnson's War" and "Great Society" spending - the budget was a mess.
What would be interesting (I guess), when/was the change effected to investing the surplus to non-marketable Ts? I doubt this was always the case.
Another interesting development in 1968, apparently little known, or at least little mentioned, Fannie Mae was spun off from the federal government, having been created in 1938.
Vietnam bankrupted the nation. Involvement lasted nearly 15 years and at peak involved over 500,000 combat troops, plus millions of logistcal personel. Money needed to be printed. Inflation was already roaring by 1969-71 prompting Nixon's wage and price freeze and causing doubt about America's ability to finance its debt and trade deficit. This doubt caused the UK, France and others to demand gold. And that provoked Nixon's famous 1971 slamming of the gold window plus devaluation of the dollar against gold in December, 1971. Post-Vietnam Inflation also provoked the 'opening of China' aka outsourcing US manufacturing and industry to cheap sources to fight inflation
It was a Reagan deal. He "fixed" Social Security and de boyz, e.g. Cheney, Rummie, Weinburger and the rest of the criminal bastards quickly spent the huge excess of money in the trust fund on all sorts of bodacious new weapons systems, like star wars. And then he was credited by all sorts of stupid motherfuckers as having defeated the Soviet Union (as it was dying on its own accord).
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_sarasohn/index.ssf/2011/0...
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/how-ronald-reagan-and-alan-greenspan-p...
(I don't agree that it was the greatest fraud, but it was one hell of a rip off.)
The architects are banking on complete chaos during default phases in different parts of the world. Quite the opposite will happen, if fact the serfs will realize the puppets are responsible for this failed attempt to divide. Sure, there will be isolated cases of killings amongst racially divided. However, 90% of the global community will bond. The end game will not play out the way planners expected. Oops!
Save this post. You will not be disappointed to review the future in present terms.
OECD Composite Leading Indicators signal widespread slowdown in economic activity
12/09/2011 - Composite leading indicators (CLIs) for July 2011, designed to anticipate turning points in economic activity relative to trend, continue to point to a slowdown in economic activity in most OECD countries and major non-member economies. The CLI for the OECD area fell 0.5 point in July; the fourth consecutive monthly decline.
Compared to last month’s assessment, the CLIs for Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Brazil, China and India are pointing more strongly to a slowdown in economic activity. The CLIs for the United States and Russia are now also pointing more clearly to a slowdown in economic activity than in last month’s assessment.
http://www.oecd.org/document/31/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_48659039_1_1...
it's sad when academics turn into political talking heads that just spew sh1t out of their liberal left party orifices
This has been bugging the shit out of me -
The real economy produces all our food, clothing, shelter, transportation, energy & health care. And the commercial banks & fed produce all the paper money used to purchase all these things.
Why can't we let the real economy produce the money, in whatever form, also?
Check your agro / commodity speculation / real world food wealth against this news:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-02/monsanto-corn-is-showing-illino...
Game Changer!
Yes, of course, SS is a Ponzi scheme.
Unfortunately, most Americans don't know it's a Ponzi scheme.
Now the topic has made it to the MSM. Folks are hearing it for the first time. Here's the shocker. Most of those hearing the discussion on MSM STILL don't care or deny the truth altogether as election-cycle rhetoric.
The truth is terribly frightening and painful.
Unfortunately, the truth will come to light eventually, deny it or not.
Krugman from 1997 NY Times:
''How will a Europe with the euro deal with regional recessions?'' asked Paul Krugman, a professor of economics at M.I.T. ''I would put the odds of a collapse at one in four.''
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/18/world/clinging-to-its-past-europe-is-w...
Ron Paul - give me a break. He has been sucking on the Federal teat for 22 years - salary, perks, health care and eventually retirement benefits. This asshole cracks me up. According to Ron, the government can't do much of anything right except mail out his pay check in time and regulate the female reproductive system. Just another POS
And why can't the US join the rest of the developed world and deliver a universal health care plan. I like some of Ron Paul's ideas but letting the church take care of me if I ever was without healthcare - no.
It does not matter what you call it.There is no dedicated money to pay for it,thus it is a pay as you go system just like Medicare.The main trouble with it is that the ratio of workers/retirees has and will continue to go down precipitously in the future.And the revenues from SS taxes are just being siphoned into general revenues.Siphoning off these revenues is the first shot in the bow to dismantling it entirely.The only way to preserve it is 1.place any revenues in a 'lock box"invested in other than special purpose Tresuries.2.raise the retirement age by 2 months /year starting today.3 means test and not just million dollar income.the level for means testing is going to have to be much lower ,probably around $ 20,000 4. require all state and federal workers to contribute to it 5. raise the retirement age of all federal workers to the exact same as SS.
Medicare is actually more easily fixed .Just institute a triage system.No expensive procedures to anyone over a certain age and/or who have certain underlying conditions..No procedures which extend life by a small period of time.Also the use of technology needs to be limited.These are not cruel ,unethical or immoral suggestions.If we continue on the track that we are currently on,the cost of the system will ration these services in a much more arbitrary way.Spending less than the current projections is an absolute sure bet.The question is are we going to try to do it in a humane way or will it be forced on us?
If Medicare is triaged, then life expectancy will go down, and the cost of Social Security will go down, because they stop paying you when you die. If they also raise the age of eligibility every year, you could quickly get to a point where Social Security is self-sustaining, even without raising SS payroll deductions. In the limit, the age of eligibility would eventually become equal to the average age of death, and SS would cost almost nothing.
everything nominally quantified in debt based fiat
currency lent at interest in a fractional reserve system
with no limit on the leverage would have to be,
in some aspect, ponzi related. no? free madoff !
he's a patsy !
the reason s.s. is being lit up is the payouts are for
the retirees. if it is deemed flawed it will be easier,
regarding public opinion, to "reform"(steal) it.
if the payouts were to be to the bankers it would just be
a safe long term under performing bond fund.
UK CPI rose to 4.5% in August, nearly matching the August 2008 pre-crash high of 4.7%
http://www.ftadviser.com/InvestmentAdviser/Investments/News/article/2011...
And with all the advances in
pfft, never mind.
.
Peak Self Absorption.
'splains it all.
.
Crank up the Humility.
Demand it, even.
It is the planet's greatest under-mined resource.
21 August 2011
The US Deficit In One Picture
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2011/08/us-deficit-in-one-pictu...
..
.
"So to somehow suggest that Social Security is bankrupt now because the government spent the funds on general obligations is to assert a violation of Trust, a fraud, and a selective default on the sovereign US debt.
And do not think that the world would view it any other way, despite the spin put on it by faux economists, useful idiots, and mainstream propagandists for the money men.
Where would you think they would put a Trust Fund of this size? In a passbook savings deposit account? Federal Reserve Notes? The stock market? It was given to the government to be invested in bonds that were judged to be the least risky form of storing that wealth.
No, the real problem is that the US has malinvested too much of its revenue in too many fruitless and unfunded projects like wars, overseas military bases, and other subsides to oil companies, banks, and multinational corporations. The partnership between the money men, their corporations, and the government has allowed corruption to grow and prosper.
The money men and their cronies directed the peace dividend into their own pockets. And now that hard times have come, they wish to not only keep their gains but multiply them, and visit hardships on the very people whom they have defrauded. Their greed and hypocrisy knows no bounds.
"Adversity makes men; prosperity makes monsters."
Victor Hugo
"
It's almost unbelievable that there are intelligent readers here that are so insensitive as to junk your post.
How is it possible for anyone to not be able to understand that default on the Social Security trust bonds is anything but an default on the sovereign debt of the country?
I prefer to believe that anyone that disagrees with this is either stupid or, more likely, is a thief that is sharing in the loot from this fund.
i just wish they would use their words
instead of the red troll button.
someday.
I agree it's a Ponzi. Rick Perry isn't a very smart politician though - that kind of talk will never get him elected. Who cares what Krugman thinks.
I say let folks take out now what they have put in to date - seems like a fair option. Doubt most people take that deal because they expect to get more in return than they ever paid in.
Ron Paul is the conservative and Rick Perry is the fraud. I saw a cartoon of Perry where he is answering questions, while holding a halo attached to a stick up over his head; the great pretender. Sure jobs went up in Texas under Perry, but they were primarily government jobs, and so did the taxes.
Cheap Oil, Cheap Money And Our Culture Of Debt And Speculation
Charles Hugh Smith, Of Two Minds
.
Read more: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/google/RzFQ/~3/42G-ldkjLh4/cheap-oil-chea...
http://www.businessinsider.com/cheap-oil-cheap-money-and-our-culture-of-...
.
here be a ponzi.
...
"And, when one does that, it doesn't come for free - there are winners and losers. When the US prints dollars, it effectively taxes savings to make this happen. What that does is encourage debt, and discourage savings. The 1970s trashed savers, and encouraged all sorts of debt and speculation to stay ahead of inflation. So perhaps we can say, a direct result of losing our oil superpower status was stripmined savings. This educated a generation of Americans formerly used to saving that saving is wrong and accumulating debt is the right strategy since debts are inflated away.
Perhaps one can say today's casino ridden debt-laden society came directly from the end of domestic cheap oil and our decision to print money instead of downsize our energy usage?"
Read more: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/google/RzFQ/~3/42G-ldkjLh4/cheap-oil-chea...
Good post, blindman. Denninger has a rant worth the read in which he says: “There is no "safe place." Here’s the gist of it (emphasis his):
The problem is that zero interest rates have destroyed capital formation, destroyed reasonable returns for prudent people who have actually saved their entire life and thus collapsed their income, and as a consequence spending from surplus output and new business formation has collapsed, transferring the only remaining factor for consumer spending to Ponzi-style government deficit spending and credit used for consumption and speculation, none of which is capable of producing prosperity.
Those of you who don't get this damned well need to wake the ____ up. A prudent middle-income individual who saved $500,000 over their 45 year working life (about $10k/year) and had it in CDs @ 5% had a nice $25,000 a year safe income.
Now that same CD earns 1% or less, under the rate of inflation, and as a consequence that prudent person has less than $5,000 a year in income to spend and a deteriorating cash position in purchasing-power adjusted terms. In addition those who are not in retirement but have amassed similar amounts of money no longer have any meaningful risk:reward incentive to use those funds to form capital and start new businesses as their wealth is being serially and intentionally destroyed. This leaves them with only one path available that makes sense - speculation or "going Galt" and telling the business world and government to go screw a pig.
Bernanke's claim that this outcome is "good" because it made the stock market go up has been exposed as a bald Ponzi lie. Yeah, it went up (from last fall to this summer) for a while, just as did Charles Ponzi's returns.
How's that working out for you now, suckers? ALL pyramid schemes eventually collapse as you always run out of suckers. It is just a matter of figuring out when.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=193772
thank you jr,
the only problem i have with denninger
is his attitude toward government. we need
to take it back, not turn away from it.
if the people don't take it back it will remain
the toy of the bankers and serial thieves and
killers. it that is the nature of the people
then we deserve the hell that is coming. so,
educate a politician, bark the simple truth
repeatedly till it sinks in. it's all about the
nature of the money at this point. see the bruce lipton
stuff on you tube if you can, very relevant. imo
It’s known as the Obama-Goldman Sachs-Robert Rubin road map for social security “reform.”
Just as baby boomers start retiring to collect on their Social Security, there stand Blankfein, Rubin, and Peter Orszag with pals Jeffrey Liebman and Jason Furman backed by The New York Times next to an empty treasury, all with their ties to the Hamilton Project and Goldman Sachs, seeking entitlement cuts. Why? Because the pot of gold at the end of the retirement rainbow is empty. Explains The NY Times: Social security is “the likeliest source of the sort of large savings needed to bring projected annual deficits to sustainable levels.”
IOW, thanks, old folks, for those bonuses and trillion dollar bailouts.
Recall that the Hamilton Project is the “think tank” sponsored by Goldman Sachs and ex-Goldman Sachs chief, Robert Rubin, and cleverly embedded in the Brookings Institution. Obama, in April, 2006, as a young, Democratic senator spoke at the inauguration of the Hamilton Project and while praising his “friend Bob” (Rubin) proclaimed the U.S. needs more NAFTA-type agreements and needs to cut entitlements (like social security). wink wink
The Banker-controlled socialist government trick, of course, is to lump contract entitlements for people who’ve paid into forced “savings” such as Social Security with giveaway welfare programs for their voting support groups such as Medicaid, food stamps, 3% or 0% down mortgages, and IRS earned income tax credit (EITC) benefits up to $5751 designed to help low-income families even if they don’t have earnings and pay no taxes.
At the same time, across all demographic groups, Americans 65 and older sustained the largest increases in poverty under the revised poverty formula — nearly doubling to 16.1 percent, according to CBSNews.
“Under the official poverty rate, only about 8.9 percent lived in poverty, mostly because they benefit from Social Security cash payments. But when taking into account out-of-pocket medical expenses and other factors, that number rises to 16.1 percent.”
The International Business Times says the census shows poverty in the 65+ Crowd is expanding rapidly: “Many are entering the golden years with little to nothing. Where once many had their mortgage paid off by the time they retired... many still have the mortgage to worry about even at age 70+. There are many other factors... i.e. the move from pensions to do it yourself savings... the disaster that is the 401k system...” And, of course, savers and pensioners live under a regime where they earn negative interest on their deteriorating life’s savings after they retire, in order to accommodate Benny and the billionaires.In my neighborhood, a lot of retirees are living in large, expensive houses that could easily shelter a large family. And many of them still have mortgages. So they have screwed themselves by their lifestyle choice. And now they can't sell, so their poor decision is cast in stone.
the main fraud and usury of the money system itself
overshadows the minor ponzi aspect of social security,
but no one wants to fix any real problems anyway, not
if it interferes with the systematic stealing in broad
daylight
.
you can judge a Nation, by the way they treat their own kind: the sick, the weak, the old, the homeless ,the unemployed and the disadvantaged. You can judge a Nation by health-care, free and equal education of their children, care for the elderly and weak and the tolerance of various religious, ethnic groups, refugees and other cultural minorities.
You can judge a Nation by how much they spend on military hardware and armed conflicts versus health and education as well as Social security for those people who lost their Jobs, often after years of service and paying taxes. History shows us: When the going get's tough, the tough get going (as Hitler got going in Germany after the Great Depression).
No doubt America will get the leader they deserve.
Man, you guys are on a roll. Well, I guess there is not much love for Krugman. Can't say I blame you. I have a question, which has an obvious answer.
Do you not find it interesting, but obvious why, that not 1 Congressman has advised of pay cuts, expense account reductions and health care and retirement reductions for themselves. It appears everything is on the table except for the politicians that we elected to run the country.
Not one reporter, not one MSM has asked any crony that they interview why they do not reduce the expenses of govt. Now obviously reducing the pay of 535 semi intelligent individuals would not do much for the soon to be 16+ trillion we will owe and never pay back, but it would send a message, a signal that govt. is ready to join in and share the burden to help bring our country back from the brink. It would show the country that we too are ready to sacrifice for the good of the nation.
Sorry, what an absurd post I just did. Harry Reid share in the burden. What a joke. I must be losing it. Oh well. I tried.
SCUMBAG
And you can judge a nation as to how they treat their elderly. Almost every civilization until recently has looked to the older folks as a source of wisdom. Oh well.
Not that I'm putting Krugman in that camp. Not at all. He is the generation before that. But, I would really like some solid numbers on social security and medicare before raising an issue - not opinion and not ideology. Any ideas?
Here is an antidote to Pete Peterson and his reactionary Tea Bagger think tank operation. Unlike Pete Peterson I majored in Accounting. When Pete Peterson talks about 100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities he forgets that unfunded liabilities are also future streams of income: high velocity money that will stimulate economic growth for generations. In accounting a liability always also stands for someone else asset. And this asset is yours and only yours, Social Security is not a liability: it is your right,
Resist the reactionary TEA BAG movement and their think tank propaganda war waged on Social Security.
I'm just an observer and I am not swayed by teabagger, democrat or republican.
poverty is turning into a fad... really krugman is on board... whos next palin
...awe Krugman, guy just seems so ...so umm, alien. lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX7vDI7D89M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=XSluwC6p_J4&feature=fvwp
poverty industrial complex.
.
some may have figured out that as the debts
in the system grow, as they must by systemic
design, the ownership of all assets, property
and rights to govern accrue to the legal
lender of legal tender. if you do not object
to this system there is really nothing anyone
can say or do to help you. there is no problem
that you solve, no good influence you can have,
no place to run and no place to hide.
you will be the enemy
of the people or you will be destroyed by the system.
and this is by prerogative of "leadership". they
have intentionally turned the human experience into
a virtual war game for fortune and sadistic fun.
just look at the sick games they sell the children
at christmas, could it be more obvious?
we are all about the poverty industrial complex,
the disease management industrial complex, etc..
rather than just solving the problem. the level of malicious
indicates something more harmful than just idiocy. imo
I once was appalled by the nightmare now known as our social welfare programs. I had a change of heart when a baby boomer physician explained the sick actuarial mechanics of the current situation. In short it is not designed to succeed. The future satus quo is one in which there are fewer and fewer healthcare providers,because their nominal income is flat since circa 1995. This is of course the tip of the iceberg. To further complicate the situation there has been an extension of life expectancy over the last 3 decades. This is not surprising; what is shocking is that this increase in longevity has not been accompanied by a increase in providers. Which leads to the next point, in the future there will not be enough doctors, nurses etc... to go around; this is not an accident, it is simply rationing as the "market"((tongue firmly in cheek) provides it. So it is basically baked in to the cake at this pint that life expectantcy for the majority of the population will decrease due to the following, lack of access to care, lack of $ for high quality food and drugs, lack of purpose for the elderly.
Make no mistake about it, healthcare and pension rationing are on the way and in one of the worst forms imaginable. This should not be a surprise to anyone because it has been the longstanding policy of the US FedGov to take the path of least resistance and maximum callousness. Thank you Technocrats!!!!
The problem is less a matter of Keynes v Hayek or repub v dem, than one of organized crime on a staggering scale, of criminal oligarchy that flouts the best intentions of any system. The arguments in this and other threads on zh refer to models meant to operate under far different circumstances than the totalitarian horrorshow unfolding in great lashes of cognitive dissonance before our eyes.
Yup. And the only solution for a world overrun by predators is mass extermination of the predators. Period.
holla!
start whettin that appetite for destruction, gentlemen! seems the games are near a beginning; or at least the end of their beginnings.
tptb,
a lil dedication, with all due affection and sincerity!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr8-E8may2Y
welcome to the jungle/
we got fun and games/
we got everything ya want/
and, honey, we know YOUR names/
we are the people where ya find/
whatever you may need/
if you got the money, honey/
we got yer disease/
....wha, i wanna watch ya bleed/
....wha, i wanna hear you scream!,
janus
Yeah, great! Unfortunately people like me who have paid into that system all their working life, and now are on the brink of retirement will get crushed. How's society going to deal with a flood of aged citizens that are now deemed useless, and that stand at the rear of the employment line: The Zylon B solution perhaps now being deemed "humane" in order to rid society of the now totally "useless eaters"?
Fuck me...just give me the back the money that I paid into this system and I will willingly cut myself free.
You might very well get that chance. If they DO blow up SS, they will certainly do something like what you suggest - simply print up umpteen trillion dollars in new fiat, fake, fraud, fiction, fantasy, fractional-reserve toilet-paper debt and give a "one time pay back" of every cent that everyone "contributed".
That will shaft you big-time, because some of the "money" you "contributed" was years ago, when "money" was worth a lot more. Nonetheless, IF you are smart enough to immediately convert every penny of the check you receive into physical gold and/or silver in your own possession, you will do "okay". Not great, but "okay".
That's the best you can hope for. And BTW, if you were honest with yourself over the years, you would have been expecting this to happen all along.
At some point in the near future, the SSA will institute it's own Lottery called the 'Mega Bux Dux'. Only current Social Security benefit recipients will be allowed to play. There will be a weekly winner, and oh yeah,... it will be mandatory that all recipients play. The weekly drawing tickets will be priced at $50. Good luck to everyone!
You lose credibility with posts like this. I often disagree with Krugman, but the this post's headline and 'reasoning' are misleading. I guess Krugman haters can just gloss over it and not even realize that the Krugman excerpts don't support the article's assertions.
Krugman state "Social Security... has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect... Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over..."
Krugman is very clear that the program has an aspect that is "ponzi" and that this aspect leads to a redistributionist component. He does not state that the program is a ponzi scheme.
Krugman actually makes a good point: It was favorable demographics that led to a system in which benefits were greater than contributions. But so what? This is obvious and it is obvious that the favorable demographics eventually turn unfavorable unless you've got ever increasing population growth rates.
Social security is a ponzi scheme in the way a traditional family structure is a ponzi scheme. The healthy younger generation takes care of the children and the elderly family members. The children grow up and product more children and take care of the elderly who once cared for them. If a generation has no children, then there is nobody to take care of them when they're old. That's the kind of "ponzi scheme" social security is.