Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4481|London, England

Superior Mind wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

As I began earlier: if the elderly could rely on their kin to care and provide for them there may be less of an issue in trying to eliminate or reorganize social security and medicade. I think one of the reasons the American family is a fragile and mostly imagined entity is because our business making paradigm coerces children to move far from their parents to seek out work. If people had a reason to stay in "Springfield" as much as they do to move to a New York or LA, we might see people giving a shit about things like hyper-local infrastructure. Instead rural and agrarian towns dry up in the face of farming giants along with a lack of industry to support infastructure. Basically, we ought to be more self reliant. People with land should be encouraged to grow on it and sell in local-only vendor markets. Let big farmers sell out of state and out of country. Make the local small scale farmers sell amongst each other.
Move out of Brooklyn. Seriously.
What do mean by that?
Because you started off ok but then you just devolved into hipsterthink

I agree with you about retirees. I think we as a culture waste a fantastic resource with the way we treat out elderly. It would be awesome if instead of moving to Florida as soon as they retired they instead came to live with their children, even if only part time. Why? Because who better to teach your kids while you're off working than your retired parents? My grandparents did it for me when I was a kid and they had me doing multiplication before I even started kindergarten. Way better than day care.

But, and this is a big but, it's free will man. Those retirees have earned whatever lifestyle they wish to live once they retire. If they want to retire to Florida so be it. I've told my mom that I would love for her to live with me and my fiancee when she's ready to retire but she's had her heart set on moving to Arizona for the past twenty years.

And no, the business paradigm doesn't dictate that kids move away, people move to the coast because it's exciting and new and interesting. The midwest is utterly boring unless you're into county fairs with butter sculptures and shit. Cows suck. Besides, they're adults, why should they continue to be reliant on their parents for the rest of their lives?

And then you go on about consuming local food blah blah blah. I'm sure you're a cool dude man, but the entire paragraph read like something a stoner came up with one night while he was baked. THAT's what I meant about moving out of Brooklyn. There's a lot of stupid ideas being peddled there.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|5816
Yeah I know what it sounds like. I meant that those people who have the means to subsidise their diets with foods they actually grow on their own land should and should be encouraged to by the government. People don't need to be shopping at walmart for every convience.

I know the Midwest is boring, I've been to Kansas a few times, but there is potential for there to be fun and culturally stimulating things to do. Folks just need to create them... Instead youth is wasted in the great halls of the nation's malls.

Last edited by Superior Mind (2011-03-07 15:37:02)

FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|5534|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yes, they're related, but the largest portion of our annual budget is still entitlement programs.
You mean like the 'defence' budget?
Not an entitlement program. That falls under discretionary spending. Entitlement programs are "must pays" in the budget.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|4596|Ventura, California
@OP

Not necessarily, but Theadore Roosevelts, Ronald Reagons (and George W. Bushes ~) don't get elected every day unfortunately.

Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2011-03-07 23:16:16)

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,757|5229|eXtreme to the maX

[email protected] wrote:

Pug wrote:

Dood, as long as the gdp is positive, debt doesn't matter.  Of course, if you are projecting gdp to be negative, then it's a different story
This. Its just a number that doesnt really mean anything. Same with trade deficits. They're simplistic ideas that the media pushes because they're easy to understand by your average moron. If you are basing your arguments on either it makes you look uneducated.
In the short term you're right.
In the long term you're wrong.

Just because I don't swallow a particular economic theory without thinking or blinking doesn't mean I'm uneducated.
Just because a lot of people swallow a particular economic theory without thinking or blinking doesn't mean its right either.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-07 23:26:24)

#Freed Britney !
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|5665|Texas - Bigger than France
Sure, makes sense if you think GDP will be negative in the long run.  But if true, I'd like to know how you came up with that conclusion since obviously this would be a complete reversal from historical trends.

Since you are apparently educated and follow a different particular economic theory, feel free to share it with us to support your argument.
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|4360|Cleveland, Ohio

Pug wrote:

Sure, makes sense if you think GDP will be negative in the long run.  But if true, I'd like to know how you came up with that conclusion since obviously this would be a complete reversal from historical trends.

Since you are apparently educated and follow a different particular economic theory, feel free to share it with us to support your argument.
not gonna happen mate
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5122|...
The playing field is going to be levelled a bit with the rise of powers such as the EU and China + the (slower) emerging ones like Russia and India, it would probably mark the end of US dominance around the globe, but the "best days" won't be going any time soon.

Unless of course, you categorize best days as the amount of influence you have in foreign affairs. The US will probably still be a very relevant player for the coming 50-100 years, but not as controlling as in the '90s - now. I also anticipate the US to regress to a more isolationist stance on world affairs as its actions around the globe have become largely unpopular both internationally and domestically.
inane little opines
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4481|London, England

dayarath wrote:

The playing field is going to be levelled a bit with the rise of powers such as the EU and China + the (slower) emerging ones like Russia and India, it would probably mark the end of US dominance around the globe, but the "best days" won't be going any time soon.

Unless of course, you categorize best days as the amount of influence you have in foreign affairs. The US will probably still be a very relevant player for the coming 50-100 years, but not as controlling as in the '90s - now. I also anticipate the US to regress to a more isolationist stance on world affairs as its actions around the globe have become largely unpopular both internationally and domestically.
Right but there's a huge difference between releasing our grasp on economic dominance and sliding into decline. China et al probably will catch up at some point but it's not like it matters. The end result of globalization is that everyone who plays the game sees their assets leveled off over time. If wealth were zero sum, this would mean that America and other first world nations would lose wealth over time and that it would be gained by China, India etc. Wealth is not zero sum, however, so it doesn't work like this. Globalization simply means that eventually every worker will have the means to purchase a flat screen tv or whatever the mark of luxury is when that time comes.

The only naysayers should be those who feel that the economic power of their own country is somehow translatable to the size of their own penis. "Ohnoez, Chinaman is just as wealthy as me now, it must mean I'm poor." Please.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5122|...
Pretty much... which is why I didn't address the economic side of things, think it's still a good 30-40 years to go till your average Chinese citizen has living conditions similar to that of the US / north Europe though. What'll be interesting to see is if their form of government lasts and yields better results than ours in the long run.

At the moment it's more like the entire western world is 'in decline' if anything. In Europe the different welfare states are exposed as being very fragile and extremely expensive, in the US that living on credit isn't the best of ideas.

What you reckon the US will look like in about 20-40 years from now?
inane little opines
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4481|London, England

dayarath wrote:

Pretty much... which is why I didn't address the economic side of things, think it's still a good 30-40 years to go till your average Chinese citizen has living conditions similar to that of the US / north Europe though. What'll be interesting to see is if their form of government lasts and yields better results than ours in the long run.

At the moment it's more like the entire western world is 'in decline' if anything. In Europe the different welfare states are exposed as being very fragile and extremely expensive, in the US that living on credit isn't the best of ideas.

What you reckon the US will look like in about 20-40 years from now?
I think we're about to get crushed by the retirement of the baby boomers. Either taxes are going to get jacked up to ridiculous proportions, baby boomers will have their benefits cut drastically, or we're going to go even further into debt. Our baby boomer generation hasn't been a fan of paying taxes so they've kicked the can down the road for the past thirty or so years that they've been in power. They've been keeping it propped up just long enough for them to reach retirement, and then they're going to slam it shut behind themselves. I'll take care of my own parents, but I'll be voting to send the rest of them off to the gas chambers in the next decade or so. I despise the baby boomers.

So, aside from having our old people dying in the streets because they refused to plan for their own retirement, I don't see much difference between America now, and America in 20-40 years.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5797|Canberra, AUS
Love our super system here.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5122|...
you can still cut quite a bit on the military budget though.

Us not so much, people expect free healthcare, free education and a state funded retirement..... something's gotta go
inane little opines
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4481|London, England

Spark wrote:

Love our super system here.
Yeah well isn't it just a giant ponzi scheme too?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4481|London, England

dayarath wrote:

you can still cut quite a bit on the military budget though.

Us not so much, people expect free healthcare, free education and a state funded retirement..... something's gotta go
We could cut our military to the bone and it wouldn't matter. We're about to have more than half our workforce retire in the next thirty years. More than half the tax base disappears, and entitlement spending rises exponentially. Somethings gotta give.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5122|...
most of them die off in between 65-75 though, unless we keep trying to lengthen people's lifespans without attempting to make them useful beyond 65 the impact shouldn't be that bad.

Last edited by dayarath (2011-03-08 17:10:22)

inane little opines
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4481|London, England

dayarath wrote:

most of them die off in between 65-75 though, unless we keep trying to lengthen people's lifespans without attempting to make them useful beyond 65 the impact shouldn't be that bad.
Yes, it really will be that bad.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5797|Canberra, AUS

[email protected] wrote:

Spark wrote:

Love our super system here.
Yeah well isn't it just a giant ponzi scheme too?
Hmmm, not really. It just basically makes people invest in their own retirement - or rather, employers invest your salary for you.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5122|...
insurance companies are going to get fucked by the retiring baby boomers
inane little opines
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4481|London, England

Spark wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Spark wrote:

Love our super system here.
Yeah well isn't it just a giant ponzi scheme too?
Hmmm, not really. It just basically makes people invest in their own retirement - or rather, employers invest your salary for you.
Does everyone get individual accounts or is it all just tossed in a giant pot?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4481|London, England

dayarath wrote:

insurance companies are going to get fucked by the retiring baby boomers
Not really. Medicare covers retirees. Also, they don't stop paying for their premiums once they retire. They do however, by definition, stop collecting income and thus do not pay income tax.

Last edited by [email protected] (2011-03-08 18:01:44)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5122|...
don't know much about the whole retirement system, but doesn't a big pile of money open up once you retire (assuming you built one up in the first place) and you buy your retirement using it?
inane little opines
13/f/taiwan
Member
+940|4821
sounds like a good time to be a lawyer innit.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5797|Canberra, AUS

[email protected] wrote:

Spark wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Yeah well isn't it just a giant ponzi scheme too?
Hmmm, not really. It just basically makes people invest in their own retirement - or rather, employers invest your salary for you.
Does everyone get individual accounts or is it all just tossed in a giant pot?
Inidividual accounts I believe, but you sign up with one of any number of super funds, who basically invest.

http://ato.gov.au/individuals/content.a … 250233.htm

Last edited by Spark (2011-03-08 18:15:39)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5797|Canberra, AUS
One very good side-effect is that most people are actually reasonably educated about money and finance etc.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard