smoke & mirrors
 

No, but it means that "privatization" isn't really a reform of what we're doing now -- it's completely different, apart from the "private" aspect, in that individuals are saving for themselves instead of paying for the retirement of others.

It's a much bigger cost than the shortfall Social Security is expected to face down the road, although of course that depends on how much revenue is diverted.

Drum's posts suggest that they are hardy being super-conservative, so that's where we appear to differ. And that 11% figure is only for certain periods, I think. Read Drum's posts. How do you explain stock market returns over time that outpace economic growth by so much?

This is the promise of privatization: Everyone's investment grows faster than the economy as a whole! It's like Lake Wobegone -- we'll all be above average.

Well, no kidding. I'm certainly doing that for my retirement. But then who's paying for our parents' retirement? Because the social compact we inherited, borne of the Great Depression, is that we pay for current retirees, and anothe generation will pay for us.

[/QUOTE]
What I don't get is the dogmatic democratic committment to the current system. I certainly don't believe that social security should be removed as a safety net. But I absolutely believe that people would be better off, and the system would be more sustainable, if people were investing the funds instead of loaning them to the government to pay for current expenses. [/QUOTE]

It's not a loan.

We inherited this obligation to our parents. No one is suggesting that we shirk the duty. So the question, in essence, is whether the government should borrow a lot of money now to invest in the stock market. It's hard to believe that so-called "conservatives" want to do this, but there it is.

Post-FoxNews Conservative Media Bias Strikes Again
 

You mean residential, or have you been talking to my wife?

Post-FoxNews Conservative Media Bias Strikes Again
 

She said she always makes you do the mopping. That's so sweet.

smoke & mirrors
 

Yup.


Yup.

You mean, acccepting your assumption as true, how can I disagree?

And the 11% (10.4, to be precise) number is the S&P since 1926.

I am too lazy to google it right now, but what has the annual growth in GDP been over that period?

Because we made a mistake then, and chose the more expensive and less sustainable system means we should be continually wed to it?

In your own words, its a Ponzi scheme. Isn't that reason enough to change it?

smoke & mirrors
 

You don't have to accept my assumption, but since I'm talking about a pair of Drum posts that you apparently haven't bothered to read, why not read them and respond to what they say?

And why 1926 as a starting point? And what about the observation in his posts about PE ratios?

In the midst of the Great Depression, one can see why the idea of betting government money on the stock market seemed like a bad idea. Would you explain to me why you think markets can be expected to outpace the growth of the economy as a whole over time?

I don't object to changing Social Security. For example, people live much longer now than they did back then. But that doesn't mean we should incur massive deficits to bet government money on the stock market.

people who see the world like Ty does
 

Until now, I thought you were just obssessed.

smoke & mirrors
 

Because it was the first number I found, and it was suitably long ago to capture the very worst years of stock returns. Would you prefer that I begin after the Depression?


A PE ratio is essentially a meaningless number. To the extent that it should be relied on at all, it is a useful shorthand whether a give stock is over or under valued in the market.

But it should surprise no one that PE ratios are higher than ever in times when there is more money than ever invested in stocks (i.e. people will pay more for scarce commodities). Indeed, this phenomenon alone suggests that stock prices (and returns) can increase faster than GDP growth (i.e. they already have).

As for the Drum posts, to the extent that they even oppose privatization, they argue only that Social Security may not really need to be fixed. Which is something you and I are not discussing. (in other words, don't take anything I am saying to be specifically support the President's or anyone else's, plan)

Further, Drum says, "However, lower population growth means lower GDP growth. No way around that," which I am not sure is true.


Yup. Totally understandable mistake, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake.

people who see the world like Ty does
 

his records show you have a small cavity in your top left canine, and that was 34 years ago.

Post-FoxNews Conservative Media Bias Strikes Again
 

That's pretty low coming from a patent lawyer sitting on a well-padded rear in a Detroit-area office building.

S_A_M

Post-FoxNews Conservative Media Bias Strikes Again
 

One- I'm buff.
Two- what I was referring to was people in the National guard complaining because they had to spend time in the National guard.

I fully sympathize about armor or whatever, but people complaining that the National guard actually required them to put in time after they had been paid for years, for the off chance they might do time? I'm cool with what I said.

Nice
 

Post-FoxNews Conservative Media Bias Strikes Again
 

People who say that never are.
If you get to make up what people are saying, its easy to come up with clever putdowns.

S_A_M

Post-FoxNews Conservative Media Bias Strikes Again
 

Huh? We give Ty plenty of leash on the first part of that, and he still doesn't come through on the second part.

With all the dirt coming out about Kerik now,* I feel a lot better knowing that the guy who vetted him is going to be the next Attorney General.

* If you don't know what I'm talking about and think it's just about this nanny, check out the coverage in Newsweek and Newsday, as discussed by Josh.

You're aware the Bush administration is sucessfully performing combat surgery daily in Iraq, right? You've got to start giving up some credit.