You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Sorry that should read...
"Where does the money come from? Do fairies leave it under the pillows of treasury officials at midnight each night? Because the way you talk and argue you seem believe somewhere deep down like that is exactly what happens."
Where do you think the money comes from?
I think it comes from either the government, or government cronies in the banking sector (which the government controls through interest rates).
And no, I don't "agree to disagree" because where money comes from is a matter of fact rather thn opinion.
So where does money come from?
Moggsy, the government have a magic money tree.
The government have a magic money tree.
They don't have a horn of plenty, but money can be created by the government - just changing the numbers on a computer screen.
Where does the money come from? Do fairies leave it under the pillows of treasury officials at midnight each night? Because the way you talk and argue you seem believe somewhere deep down like that is exactly what happens.
And no, I don't "agree to disagree" because where money comes from is a matter of fact rather thn opinion.
So where does money come from?
Mark, Nothing is really "funded by the governemnt" like they have this magic money tree or horn of plenty.
It is funded by all who are not exclusively living off state benefit and that is a much smaller number then the figures suggest. Even some of that "benfit" finds it's way back into the government's pocket.
The UK government pension scheme is not "funded by the government" as was mentioned.
It is funded by people currently working and innocently believing they are paying towards their pension.
The government takes that money and uses it to pay current pensioners. It is flawed. It needs at least a stable or better increasing birthrate forever for it to work. Remember, without more investors the Ponzie scheme falls over.
The government could run a pension scheme based on sound and honest pinciples, like a building society. When it set the system up it chose not to do that, maybe (being nice here) because the people doing it were economically illiterate.
"If I am saying peopele must save for themselves"?
What do you think they are doing already?
Where does the money come from? Do fairies leave it under the pillows of treasury officials at midnight each night? Because the way you talk and argue you seem believe somewhere deep down like that is exactly what happens.
"Save for themselves" - Except they have to give it to the government to look after, they don't get to choose, and the government are not looking after their contributions properly.
Non Governemnt world? I can't see it will ever be possble to have that, much more limited government might, but the government has it's hands all over stuff it should never go near in the way it does and it is expanding all the time like some cancer.
I think this conversation has no natural stop you will just come back with something else looks like self deception or perpetual motion to me so maybe we should just agree to disagree...
Yeah, think you're having a different argument there Tom - TomSmith is claiming that there is some kind of method by which natural property can be established without reference to individual opinion - I assumed this was because of some natural moral system... but apparently he claims that any logical human would support his programme. I disagree.
So yes, morality and pragmatism are important, but what I'm trying to do here is disagree with his libertarianism is the only logical conclusion argument.
"...while it is logical for the rich to oppose redistribution, it would be entirely logical for the poor to favour it - however will we solve this disagreement?..."
Firstly, you might as well say that burglary is "entirely logical" - does morality not enter into your thinking at all? Secondly, the "poor" (to the extent that Britain has any) should be capable of learning from history that redistribution impoverishes all, that the force required to prevent inequality returning will result in mass murder and famine and that undermining property rights is the surest way to kill economic growth.
IE
"Universal rules are of course the ones freely choosing people choose...People with more than x or the ability to generate more than x (or even the hope that they might one day get more than x) will never rationally choose that everyone should be furnished with x by force. To give everyone x you must take from people with more than x against their will. What do "natural" principles have to do with anything?"
There was me thinking that your objection was based on some highfalutin laser logic, when in fact, it was based on a pretty stupid assumption. Namely, that while the poor will be able to imagine that they will someday be rich, the rich will never imagine that someday they might be poor - and never imagine that someday someone they care about might be poor.
Furthermore, this doesn't even address the actual question as to whether your two chosen systems, communism and "natural property" rights also require force to be established. In fact, even from your own (silly) ideas, they clearly would - since while it is logical for the rich to oppose redistribution, it would be entirely logical for the poor to favour it - however will we solve this disagreement?
You then went into some bizarre aside about having me live in your dog house. I think that you are forgetting that I am the one saying that all social systems require a degree of force, as I have said many times now - all social systems require force to the degree that some people disagree and others insist... which is why we should try and build the system with which the least number of people disagree with the least passion.
I happen to think that a system which results in people's families dieing unnecessarily, or starvation, or homelessness, is likely to provoke more passionate disagreement than one in which there is taxation. It is the nature of what we are being forced to do which is important, not the fact that there is force.
I tend to agree, but that is NOT the system we are discussing, for better-or-worse welfare has been institutionalized and bureaucratized by the least capable money managers (government).
No, I don't agree - just because something is funded by government doesn't mean that it has to be centrally run - the UK has a bit of an odd system in that respect. I don't see why the government should be so incompetent at providing funding to make the achievement of its aims impossible.
If you are saying that people must save money to save themselves - doesn't that mean that those without money will not be able to save themselves? What do you propose for people without money, in your non-government world?
*Yawn*
I think we've established on the other thread that your definition of what can constitute rightful property depends entirely upon a lack of imagination regarding people's desires.
"the only possible explanation beyond ignorance is that the rich hope it will give them greater power over the poor"
Acting to stop property being taken by force and given to someone else does not constitute power of the rightful property owners over that someone else, i.e. your explanation is meaningless.
A far better explanation is that the supposed representatives of those people currently paying for welfare would prefer those they represent to kept more of their rightfully owned property. If only the whole fairytale were true.
"the welfare system has been undermined by freeloaders and compliant government"
Welfare is not undermined. There is not good welfare and bad welfare. Welfare recipients are not divided into deserving and non-deserving groups. Welfare is simply wrong. Charity is the voluntary alternative. What is a gift unless freely given? Stolen property is not a gift
Acting to stop property being taken by force and given to someone else does not constitute power of the rightful property owners over that someone else.
Mark, I just got through explaining real clearly that while it might be impossible for "us" if you mean the state there by "us"? like the royal "we", it does not have to be a problem. I already went over why the state set up has issues. Maybe re read it?
Not an issue with "resources", or only in the same way as if I didn't get in enough groceries for the week I would run out before the end of the week - unless I went shopping for more.
You seem to twist stuff and change definitions almost playing with words to do it. Maybe making jokes?
I agree government _could_ achieve much better. Just maybe not with the economically dishonest/illiterate systems they have. Problems are chickens coming home to roost. They would need to change things. Pensions they _could_ make honest and it would not be too visible to the public.
I figure with health there are too many powerful vested interests and too much dogma and inertia to really get a proper handle on it. If anyone tried anything some fool would start on about privatising the health service and inequality. It's not like it isn't all rationed by post code now.
Don’t you make up stuff about what I said. I didn't say anything about letting people die - that is _you_ making it up. Is that how it works? The state is greater than the individual and sacrifices must me made for the greater good?
So a kid dies of leukaemia for lack of treatment? Sad but necessary? one death is a tragedy a thousand is a statistic?
What makes me sick is reading how people try to pay for something the state refuses and gets cut out of funding for the rest of their treatment as punishment.
If you are talking pensions I am saying if the money taken for pensions were properly invested instead of being used it to cover current pensions being paid out then there would have been enough.
No, no no... It is you and your balanced budget, austerity mad compatriots who are causing that particular problem.
The welfare system is being undermined, just as the economy is.. and the only possible explanation beyond ignorance is that the rich hope it will give them greater power over the poor.
Even by your standards Mark, that comment is astoundingly ignorant.
People in Greece, Portugal and Spain are riotting today in the streets, people are commiting suicide when the bailiffs arrive to repossess their home. They thought they had a welfare system to fall back on in times of economic stress, but it is gone, pissed away by socialists redistributing taxes to freeloaders and chasing impossible dreams of green projects.
Yes, ok, but I am being told that it will be an impossibility for us to provide old people with healthcare and pensions - that we simply won't have the resources to cope. If that is the case, by saving lots of money and investing in other things, all we will achieve is an increase in the price of healthcare or food, or whatever it is we don't have.
Obviously, the idea that we won't be able to provide old people with these things is pretty stupid - but if it were impossible, saving money wouldn't make any difference, because... well.. it is impossible.
And if it is possible, then the same thing could be achieved by government.
"He let him afford to live" - you make a big point of this, as if to say that government involvement in this matter is somehow immoral because it would interfere with freedom. But if we look at the other side to this, you are saying that you will let some people die, if they don't have enough money.
You go to work every day at the beck and call of your boss, doing something, probably more or less pointless and if you aren't able to find a job, if you can't find a boss, you will die a horrible death? You are completely dependent upon societies approval for your life.
Sounds more like slavery than freedom to me.
Or am I not quite getting what you are saying with all the ... in there? I do have a problem with this thinking it is ok, or even the only way, to just take my money and give me hobson's choice. The state's way or the highway. The state is not competent.
Mark, “How will saving money help” not sure if you are being ironic here? How will saving money towards your old age help?
You being what you are naturally think in terms of the state confiscating the cash, your idea of “saving”? But even then if it was done by someone who could count over ten without taking their shoes off it might work.
Well here is how it ought to work. Well call him Bill. He is young, he finds work and instead of spending all he earns he puts a little bit away each week out of his pay check.
He does not just put it under his mattress he puts it into a managed fund he chose where it is put to work along with lots of other people’s money to earn more money. The earnings the money he has in the fund are ploughed back into it to earn still more money.
By the time he is old and can’t work the money he has put away has turned into quite a little nest egg, provided the government didn’t pick his pocket. That money spread out over the years he has left lets him afford to live without working. He let him afford to live without working not you or the authoritarian “we” You don’t get to “let” him, to hold your power over him and treat him like dirt. It is already covered.
What I said above is the simple version. Some schemes work on averaging life expectancy with all the members.
That's how it helps and is absolutely not nonsensical. I expect it will slide off teflon coated your mind but I made the effort.
The problem with the NHS is that is was set up by bozos the wrong way and is a whole other story.
Well, I suppose because I expect governments who forcibly set up schemes and extract exhorbitant taxes should actually provide the services that they promised to the taxpayers and not fraudulently distribute the funds to the freeloaders who contribute nothing and never will.
It might also be that I despise misuse of the language, wherein people like Tom are called greedy because they have provided for their family and can afford to own luxury goods, while the freeloaders extract welfare for a lifetime of leisure and bemoan the fact they cannot afford luxury goods too.
It seems awfully perverse to allow full-time welfarists the vote so that they can continue their parasitic lifestyle.
Which brings us back to:
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"....Benjamin Franklin.
The great experiment succumbs to greed. Democracy does not work when too many want a free ride.
OK, but it isn't unrealistic to provide people with something in old age plus healthcare, if it is - if there is no way in which we can afford for old people to live without working... no way we can provide their healthcare... how will saving money help?
Far from being preferable or necessary, it is completely nonsensical for the government to tax us now in order to finance future spending.
Mark, As far as the UK government pension scheme goes, it really works like something called a Ponzie scheme, where the crook uses current investment to finance promises of unrealistic returns for a while. The con collapses when there are not enough new investors to fund the returns. Of course everyone looses their money because what they put into it in the past has basically been spent..
Any private individual tried it they would be locked up. Pension schemes need to have cash invested in them. If the British government at the time had been economically literate and honest they would have set the state pension scheme up more like a real pension scheme.
Thank goodness although the British government insists on forcing you to invest in it’s Ponzie scheme it does still also allow people to invest in pensions of their own. The bad news is Gordon Brown gutted those previously well managed successful schemes by raiding them for money.
The thing is, until the next raid, if people are sensible, make their own provision… and don’t rely on the state, they may have enough to see them ok-ish in their old age.
But with interest rates so low and the inflation pump being primed with QE we will probably all be grateful for the state sponsored Liverpool care pathway…
The amazing thing is that even when ithas been clearly demonstrated that someone is talking complete rubbish, they continue saying exactly the same thing.
But that doesn't make sense. Why would we have to "deposit the money" now?
The question is whether the economy will have the capacity to support these people - whether it will be possible to provide them all with healthcare and pensions. If it will, there are no problems and if it won't then it doesn't matter what we save - it simply won't happen.
The chart you quote with the figure of 60trillon is not the NPV of the US - it is the net worth of US households. Seeing as the GDP of the US is 15 trillion, this figure seems ridiculously low. I'm not sure why this is.
If the USA is fucked, if itis impossible for them to provide healthcare and pensions then a lot of people are going to die horrible deaths. Nothing we do in terms of saving will change that. Fortunately, what you are saying isn't true.
The unfunded liabilities of the federal government are enormous, dwarfing everything else. They arise from promises made to citizens, primarily with respect to Social Security and Medicare. Government maintains that it has no legal liability to honor these promises and hence does not recognize them as debt. For seniors or near-to-be seniors counting on what they have paid all these years, that attitude is not comforting.It is unlikely that these programs will be canceled, although they will eventually be modified. Even so, there is likelihood that the promises will not be kept.
1.Estimates of the present value of these obligations range from $50 trillion to over $200 trillion, depending upon the actuarial assumptions made. Gary North uses Laurence Kotlifkoff's figures and explains the calculation (my italics):
The total obligation of the federal government to voters that is not funded at the present time is now $222 trillion. 2.This does not mean that, over the entire life of the program, the government will be short $220 trillion. It means that the present value of the unfunded liability is $220 trillion. This means that the government would have to set aside $220 trillion immediately, invest this money in non-government projects that will pay a positive rate of return, and will therefore fund the amortization of this debt. I have written about the estimate here.
This estimate is 14 times what government reports as debt ($16 trillion). The number is unfathomable. 3.To put it into perspective, the entire net worth of the U.S. is estimated to be only $60 trillion, as shown in this chart:
According to Kotlikoff's calculations, 4.the U.S. government has promised its citizens almost four times the entire net worth of the nation. If the government confiscated everyone's net worth, people would be left penniless, and the government would still be unable to fund these promises.
So for clarity the USA is f*cked, and yet they vote themselves more freebies.
bolded comment 1.Is the point I tried to make above about how much is required to be deposited to payoff future liabilities.
bolded comment 2.PV of those liabilities could be as much as $220T in todays money.Nobody really knows, it depends on a LOT of assumptions.
bolded comment 3.Makes an estimate of the PV of the entire USA not just the government, the number you were trying to get at.
bolded comment 4. Confirmation-the USA is f*cked,even if they confiscate everybodies wealth.
No, we're not talking at cross purposes - the original point, that the debt is "more than all the money in the world" or "700 times GDP" may be comparing apples with oranges (stock and flow), but it is also comparing the liabilities of government with the production of the entire economy.
So, you two, in order to make your alarmist point already put all current earnings up against future liabilities, which is just silly.
Whether or not those liabilities are a good thing is an entirely different argument.
That's already happening. On death, 45% of net assets in excess of £325,000 are confiscated by the state. These are assets acquired from taxed income. How does that respect property rights?
You are correct, but let's be clear Mark and his cohort is in the ascendency and represent a majority of the voters.
While that divide is still close in the USA something like 52%-48%, in the UK the divide is closer to 70%-30%.
Can it be long before the state starts siezing personal assets? I would expect that a liebour-limpdem coalition would be very amenable to asset seizures.
Yes, but you and Mark are at cross purposes. He does not distinguish between the state and the people, so he's prepared to put all private assets and future earnings into the balance against the debts politicians have run up over the past decades to bribe economic illiterates.
Shake your head Moggsy, there are plenty of free lunches and the people who get them have the vote too! The free lunch is paid by the government with freshly printed debased currency.
It's all an academic exercise because nobody can reliably predict future interest rates least of all government.
If you want to scare yourself plant an interest rate of 0% (which is todays effective rate) into the formula.
Bottom line, future pensions can only be paid by financial malpractice or massive expansion of the economy. Which do you think the government can manage?
Being clearer, it’s like if I take out a mortgage and say OMG! That’s more money than I own in all the world, way more than I could earn in 10 years!! (yes ignoring the asset)
But I don’t have to pay it all just now. I will be paying it out of my lifetime’s earnings and who knows what that will be? Even if you average a million people’s lifetime earnings it is still uncertain. Just allowing for inflation (that you can just bet will not exactly be held back any by quantitative easing)
The thing is, can I afford to pay the capital + interest and all my other bills? If can't then it will be tears before bed time.
Mark/Cascadian, Surely not all the assets, there is future value added seems to be left out. Shouldn't it involve future earnings?
If you are say looking at a pension due to start paying out in 10 years time then you need to factor 10 years contributions, maybe compounded or maybe returns from investments the contribution is used for.
Cascadian, I guess I don’t really mind if someone does not actually contribute to “society”, not as long as they don’t expect to get anything much from "society" if they don’t. Mark sounds awfully like he does.
I am so glad he is “willing” to continue to work. I of course get so much pleasure from working, and contributing to the less than willing, it’s practically indecent – not. ^_^
No such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to cover it.
Fair enough.
I agree that if noone wanted to do anything, iw would be the end of democracy, but I don't think that is the situation now, I don't think democratic governments are more lkely to get into debt and I don't think that the NHS is as bad as war (even if it is, it needn't be).
Sorry that should read...
"Where does the money come from? Do fairies leave it under the pillows of treasury officials at midnight each night? Because the way you talk and argue you seem believe somewhere deep down like that is exactly what happens."
Where do you think the money comes from?
I think it comes from either the government, or government cronies in the banking sector (which the government controls through interest rates).
And no, I don't "agree to disagree" because where money comes from is a matter of fact rather thn opinion.
So where does money come from?
Posted by: Mark | Friday, November 16, 2012 at 01:27 PM
Moggsy, the government have a magic money tree.
The government have a magic money tree.
They don't have a horn of plenty, but money can be created by the government - just changing the numbers on a computer screen.
Where does the money come from? Do fairies leave it under the pillows of treasury officials at midnight each night? Because the way you talk and argue you seem believe somewhere deep down like that is exactly what happens.
And no, I don't "agree to disagree" because where money comes from is a matter of fact rather thn opinion.
So where does money come from?
Posted by: Mark | Friday, November 16, 2012 at 01:25 PM
Mark, Nothing is really "funded by the governemnt" like they have this magic money tree or horn of plenty.
It is funded by all who are not exclusively living off state benefit and that is a much smaller number then the figures suggest. Even some of that "benfit" finds it's way back into the government's pocket.
The UK government pension scheme is not "funded by the government" as was mentioned.
It is funded by people currently working and innocently believing they are paying towards their pension.
The government takes that money and uses it to pay current pensioners. It is flawed. It needs at least a stable or better increasing birthrate forever for it to work. Remember, without more investors the Ponzie scheme falls over.
The government could run a pension scheme based on sound and honest pinciples, like a building society. When it set the system up it chose not to do that, maybe (being nice here) because the people doing it were economically illiterate.
"If I am saying peopele must save for themselves"?
What do you think they are doing already?
Where does the money come from? Do fairies leave it under the pillows of treasury officials at midnight each night? Because the way you talk and argue you seem believe somewhere deep down like that is exactly what happens.
"Save for themselves" - Except they have to give it to the government to look after, they don't get to choose, and the government are not looking after their contributions properly.
Non Governemnt world? I can't see it will ever be possble to have that, much more limited government might, but the government has it's hands all over stuff it should never go near in the way it does and it is expanding all the time like some cancer.
I think this conversation has no natural stop you will just come back with something else looks like self deception or perpetual motion to me so maybe we should just agree to disagree...
Posted by: Moggsy | Friday, November 16, 2012 at 08:46 AM
Yeah, think you're having a different argument there Tom - TomSmith is claiming that there is some kind of method by which natural property can be established without reference to individual opinion - I assumed this was because of some natural moral system... but apparently he claims that any logical human would support his programme. I disagree.
So yes, morality and pragmatism are important, but what I'm trying to do here is disagree with his libertarianism is the only logical conclusion argument.
Posted by: Mark | Friday, November 16, 2012 at 06:32 AM
?
Which rhetorical trick is this? Unfounded assertion?
Posted by: Mark | Friday, November 16, 2012 at 06:27 AM
No, we have merely established that you have no morality when you see something you desire, but lack the talent or industry to earn.
Posted by: Tom | Friday, November 16, 2012 at 05:46 AM
"...while it is logical for the rich to oppose redistribution, it would be entirely logical for the poor to favour it - however will we solve this disagreement?..."
Firstly, you might as well say that burglary is "entirely logical" - does morality not enter into your thinking at all? Secondly, the "poor" (to the extent that Britain has any) should be capable of learning from history that redistribution impoverishes all, that the force required to prevent inequality returning will result in mass murder and famine and that undermining property rights is the surest way to kill economic growth.
Posted by: Tom | Friday, November 16, 2012 at 05:44 AM
IE
"Universal rules are of course the ones freely choosing people choose...People with more than x or the ability to generate more than x (or even the hope that they might one day get more than x) will never rationally choose that everyone should be furnished with x by force. To give everyone x you must take from people with more than x against their will. What do "natural" principles have to do with anything?"
There was me thinking that your objection was based on some highfalutin laser logic, when in fact, it was based on a pretty stupid assumption. Namely, that while the poor will be able to imagine that they will someday be rich, the rich will never imagine that someday they might be poor - and never imagine that someday someone they care about might be poor.
Furthermore, this doesn't even address the actual question as to whether your two chosen systems, communism and "natural property" rights also require force to be established. In fact, even from your own (silly) ideas, they clearly would - since while it is logical for the rich to oppose redistribution, it would be entirely logical for the poor to favour it - however will we solve this disagreement?
You then went into some bizarre aside about having me live in your dog house. I think that you are forgetting that I am the one saying that all social systems require a degree of force, as I have said many times now - all social systems require force to the degree that some people disagree and others insist... which is why we should try and build the system with which the least number of people disagree with the least passion.
I happen to think that a system which results in people's families dieing unnecessarily, or starvation, or homelessness, is likely to provoke more passionate disagreement than one in which there is taxation. It is the nature of what we are being forced to do which is important, not the fact that there is force.
Posted by: Mark | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 11:09 PM
I tend to agree, but that is NOT the system we are discussing, for better-or-worse welfare has been institutionalized and bureaucratized by the least capable money managers (government).
Posted by: Cascadian | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 10:59 PM
No, I don't agree - just because something is funded by government doesn't mean that it has to be centrally run - the UK has a bit of an odd system in that respect. I don't see why the government should be so incompetent at providing funding to make the achievement of its aims impossible.
If you are saying that people must save money to save themselves - doesn't that mean that those without money will not be able to save themselves? What do you propose for people without money, in your non-government world?
Posted by: Mark | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 10:41 PM
*Yawn*
I think we've established on the other thread that your definition of what can constitute rightful property depends entirely upon a lack of imagination regarding people's desires.
Posted by: Mark | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 10:35 PM
The above is a response to this:
"the only possible explanation beyond ignorance is that the rich hope it will give them greater power over the poor"
Acting to stop property being taken by force and given to someone else does not constitute power of the rightful property owners over that someone else, i.e. your explanation is meaningless.
A far better explanation is that the supposed representatives of those people currently paying for welfare would prefer those they represent to kept more of their rightfully owned property. If only the whole fairytale were true.
Posted by: Tomsmith | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 09:17 PM
"the welfare system has been undermined by freeloaders and compliant government"
Welfare is not undermined. There is not good welfare and bad welfare. Welfare recipients are not divided into deserving and non-deserving groups. Welfare is simply wrong. Charity is the voluntary alternative. What is a gift unless freely given? Stolen property is not a gift
Posted by: Tomsmith | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 09:13 PM
Acting to stop property being taken by force and given to someone else does not constitute power of the rightful property owners over that someone else.
Posted by: Tomsmith | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 09:08 PM
"It doesn't really harm anyone though, does it, even if they aren't doing exactly what you want them to do."
Yes taking people's property that they own and giving it to other people does hurt the rightful owners.
Posted by: Tomsmith | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 09:06 PM
Mark, I just got through explaining real clearly that while it might be impossible for "us" if you mean the state there by "us"? like the royal "we", it does not have to be a problem. I already went over why the state set up has issues. Maybe re read it?
Not an issue with "resources", or only in the same way as if I didn't get in enough groceries for the week I would run out before the end of the week - unless I went shopping for more.
You seem to twist stuff and change definitions almost playing with words to do it. Maybe making jokes?
I agree government _could_ achieve much better. Just maybe not with the economically dishonest/illiterate systems they have. Problems are chickens coming home to roost. They would need to change things. Pensions they _could_ make honest and it would not be too visible to the public.
I figure with health there are too many powerful vested interests and too much dogma and inertia to really get a proper handle on it. If anyone tried anything some fool would start on about privatising the health service and inequality. It's not like it isn't all rationed by post code now.
Don’t you make up stuff about what I said. I didn't say anything about letting people die - that is _you_ making it up. Is that how it works? The state is greater than the individual and sacrifices must me made for the greater good?
So a kid dies of leukaemia for lack of treatment? Sad but necessary? one death is a tragedy a thousand is a statistic?
What makes me sick is reading how people try to pay for something the state refuses and gets cut out of funding for the rest of their treatment as punishment.
If you are talking pensions I am saying if the money taken for pensions were properly invested instead of being used it to cover current pensions being paid out then there would have been enough.
Posted by: Moggsy | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 09:19 AM
You have it backwards as usual, the welfare system has been undermined by freeloaders and compliant government.
In case it escaped your notice the riots are between the Unions (workers of sorts) and the government. Not the rich and poor.
Nice try, class-warrior.
Posted by: Cascadian | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 05:21 AM
No, no no... It is you and your balanced budget, austerity mad compatriots who are causing that particular problem.
The welfare system is being undermined, just as the economy is.. and the only possible explanation beyond ignorance is that the rich hope it will give them greater power over the poor.
Posted by: Mark | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 01:46 AM
Even by your standards Mark, that comment is astoundingly ignorant.
People in Greece, Portugal and Spain are riotting today in the streets, people are commiting suicide when the bailiffs arrive to repossess their home. They thought they had a welfare system to fall back on in times of economic stress, but it is gone, pissed away by socialists redistributing taxes to freeloaders and chasing impossible dreams of green projects.
Wake up!
Posted by: Cascadian | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:07 AM
It doesn't really harm anyone though, does it, even if they aren't doing exactly what you want them to do.
The same can't be said for wars however.
Posted by: Mark | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 11:05 PM
Yes, ok, but I am being told that it will be an impossibility for us to provide old people with healthcare and pensions - that we simply won't have the resources to cope. If that is the case, by saving lots of money and investing in other things, all we will achieve is an increase in the price of healthcare or food, or whatever it is we don't have.
Obviously, the idea that we won't be able to provide old people with these things is pretty stupid - but if it were impossible, saving money wouldn't make any difference, because... well.. it is impossible.
And if it is possible, then the same thing could be achieved by government.
"He let him afford to live" - you make a big point of this, as if to say that government involvement in this matter is somehow immoral because it would interfere with freedom. But if we look at the other side to this, you are saying that you will let some people die, if they don't have enough money.
You go to work every day at the beck and call of your boss, doing something, probably more or less pointless and if you aren't able to find a job, if you can't find a boss, you will die a horrible death? You are completely dependent upon societies approval for your life.
Sounds more like slavery than freedom to me.
Posted by: Mark | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 11:01 PM
Or am I not quite getting what you are saying with all the ... in there? I do have a problem with this thinking it is ok, or even the only way, to just take my money and give me hobson's choice. The state's way or the highway. The state is not competent.
Posted by: Moggsy | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 07:43 AM
Mark, “How will saving money help” not sure if you are being ironic here? How will saving money towards your old age help?
You being what you are naturally think in terms of the state confiscating the cash, your idea of “saving”? But even then if it was done by someone who could count over ten without taking their shoes off it might work.
Well here is how it ought to work. Well call him Bill. He is young, he finds work and instead of spending all he earns he puts a little bit away each week out of his pay check.
He does not just put it under his mattress he puts it into a managed fund he chose where it is put to work along with lots of other people’s money to earn more money. The earnings the money he has in the fund are ploughed back into it to earn still more money.
By the time he is old and can’t work the money he has put away has turned into quite a little nest egg, provided the government didn’t pick his pocket. That money spread out over the years he has left lets him afford to live without working. He let him afford to live without working not you or the authoritarian “we” You don’t get to “let” him, to hold your power over him and treat him like dirt. It is already covered.
What I said above is the simple version. Some schemes work on averaging life expectancy with all the members.
That's how it helps and is absolutely not nonsensical. I expect it will slide off teflon coated your mind but I made the effort.
The problem with the NHS is that is was set up by bozos the wrong way and is a whole other story.
Posted by: Moggsy | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 07:34 AM
Well, I suppose because I expect governments who forcibly set up schemes and extract exhorbitant taxes should actually provide the services that they promised to the taxpayers and not fraudulently distribute the funds to the freeloaders who contribute nothing and never will.
It might also be that I despise misuse of the language, wherein people like Tom are called greedy because they have provided for their family and can afford to own luxury goods, while the freeloaders extract welfare for a lifetime of leisure and bemoan the fact they cannot afford luxury goods too.
It seems awfully perverse to allow full-time welfarists the vote so that they can continue their parasitic lifestyle.
Which brings us back to:
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"....Benjamin Franklin.
The great experiment succumbs to greed. Democracy does not work when too many want a free ride.
Posted by: Cascadian | Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 06:38 PM
What are you actually worried about? That the freeloaders, who you obviously despise, won't receive what they are expecting?
Why?
Posted by: Mark | Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 01:07 PM
OK, but it isn't unrealistic to provide people with something in old age plus healthcare, if it is - if there is no way in which we can afford for old people to live without working... no way we can provide their healthcare... how will saving money help?
Far from being preferable or necessary, it is completely nonsensical for the government to tax us now in order to finance future spending.
Posted by: Mark | Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 01:05 PM
Mark, As far as the UK government pension scheme goes, it really works like something called a Ponzie scheme, where the crook uses current investment to finance promises of unrealistic returns for a while. The con collapses when there are not enough new investors to fund the returns. Of course everyone looses their money because what they put into it in the past has basically been spent..
Any private individual tried it they would be locked up. Pension schemes need to have cash invested in them. If the British government at the time had been economically literate and honest they would have set the state pension scheme up more like a real pension scheme.
Thank goodness although the British government insists on forcing you to invest in it’s Ponzie scheme it does still also allow people to invest in pensions of their own. The bad news is Gordon Brown gutted those previously well managed successful schemes by raiding them for money.
The thing is, until the next raid, if people are sensible, make their own provision… and don’t rely on the state, they may have enough to see them ok-ish in their old age.
But with interest rates so low and the inflation pump being primed with QE we will probably all be grateful for the state sponsored Liverpool care pathway…
Posted by: Moggsy | Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 07:38 AM
Lets be clear Mark, you demonstrated NOTHING, you provided an ill-informed opinion.
Posted by: Cascadian | Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 12:45 AM
The amazing thing is that even when ithas been clearly demonstrated that someone is talking complete rubbish, they continue saying exactly the same thing.
Posted by: Mark | Monday, November 12, 2012 at 11:08 PM
But that doesn't make sense. Why would we have to "deposit the money" now?
The question is whether the economy will have the capacity to support these people - whether it will be possible to provide them all with healthcare and pensions. If it will, there are no problems and if it won't then it doesn't matter what we save - it simply won't happen.
The chart you quote with the figure of 60trillon is not the NPV of the US - it is the net worth of US households. Seeing as the GDP of the US is 15 trillion, this figure seems ridiculously low. I'm not sure why this is.
If the USA is fucked, if itis impossible for them to provide healthcare and pensions then a lot of people are going to die horrible deaths. Nothing we do in terms of saving will change that. Fortunately, what you are saying isn't true.
Posted by: Mark | Monday, November 12, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Just in case you thought "Oh well, what those dumb yanks do does not affect me". We have this.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-12/uks-most-disturbing-number-total-unfunded-pension-obligations-321-gdp
There are three solutions left to government hyper-inflation, default or kill-off the pensioners.
Posted by: Cascadian | Monday, November 12, 2012 at 06:42 PM
Thats depressing, can you not get around it by buying art, stamp collections and fine shotguns and willing them?
Posted by: Cascadian | Monday, November 12, 2012 at 02:15 AM
Okay, one last time from a different source. The full article is here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/the_government_is_bankrupt_and_will_destroy_the_economy.html
Relevant part:
The unfunded liabilities of the federal government are enormous, dwarfing everything else. They arise from promises made to citizens, primarily with respect to Social Security and Medicare. Government maintains that it has no legal liability to honor these promises and hence does not recognize them as debt. For seniors or near-to-be seniors counting on what they have paid all these years, that attitude is not comforting.It is unlikely that these programs will be canceled, although they will eventually be modified. Even so, there is likelihood that the promises will not be kept.
1.Estimates of the present value of these obligations range from $50 trillion to over $200 trillion, depending upon the actuarial assumptions made. Gary North uses Laurence Kotlifkoff's figures and explains the calculation (my italics):
The total obligation of the federal government to voters that is not funded at the present time is now $222 trillion. 2.This does not mean that, over the entire life of the program, the government will be short $220 trillion. It means that the present value of the unfunded liability is $220 trillion. This means that the government would have to set aside $220 trillion immediately, invest this money in non-government projects that will pay a positive rate of return, and will therefore fund the amortization of this debt. I have written about the estimate here.
This estimate is 14 times what government reports as debt ($16 trillion). The number is unfathomable. 3.To put it into perspective, the entire net worth of the U.S. is estimated to be only $60 trillion, as shown in this chart:
According to Kotlikoff's calculations, 4.the U.S. government has promised its citizens almost four times the entire net worth of the nation. If the government confiscated everyone's net worth, people would be left penniless, and the government would still be unable to fund these promises.
So for clarity the USA is f*cked, and yet they vote themselves more freebies.
bolded comment 1.Is the point I tried to make above about how much is required to be deposited to payoff future liabilities.
bolded comment 2.PV of those liabilities could be as much as $220T in todays money.Nobody really knows, it depends on a LOT of assumptions.
bolded comment 3.Makes an estimate of the PV of the entire USA not just the government, the number you were trying to get at.
bolded comment 4. Confirmation-the USA is f*cked,even if they confiscate everybodies wealth.
Posted by: Cascadian | Monday, November 12, 2012 at 02:02 AM
Sorry 7 times GDP...
Posted by: Mark | Sunday, November 11, 2012 at 11:38 PM
No, we're not talking at cross purposes - the original point, that the debt is "more than all the money in the world" or "700 times GDP" may be comparing apples with oranges (stock and flow), but it is also comparing the liabilities of government with the production of the entire economy.
So, you two, in order to make your alarmist point already put all current earnings up against future liabilities, which is just silly.
Whether or not those liabilities are a good thing is an entirely different argument.
Posted by: Mark | Sunday, November 11, 2012 at 11:34 PM
That's already happening. On death, 45% of net assets in excess of £325,000 are confiscated by the state. These are assets acquired from taxed income. How does that respect property rights?
Posted by: Tom | Sunday, November 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM
You are correct, but let's be clear Mark and his cohort is in the ascendency and represent a majority of the voters.
While that divide is still close in the USA something like 52%-48%, in the UK the divide is closer to 70%-30%.
Can it be long before the state starts siezing personal assets? I would expect that a liebour-limpdem coalition would be very amenable to asset seizures.
Posted by: Cascadian | Sunday, November 11, 2012 at 09:01 PM
Yes, but you and Mark are at cross purposes. He does not distinguish between the state and the people, so he's prepared to put all private assets and future earnings into the balance against the debts politicians have run up over the past decades to bribe economic illiterates.
Posted by: Tom | Sunday, November 11, 2012 at 07:25 PM
Another gloomy analysis of the problem.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-06/it-doesnt-matter
Posted by: Cascadian | Sunday, November 11, 2012 at 03:53 AM
Shake your head Moggsy, there are plenty of free lunches and the people who get them have the vote too! The free lunch is paid by the government with freshly printed debased currency.
Result-trillion dollar per year deficits.
That in a nutshell is the problem.
Posted by: Cascadian | Friday, November 09, 2012 at 04:51 PM
It's all an academic exercise because nobody can reliably predict future interest rates least of all government.
If you want to scare yourself plant an interest rate of 0% (which is todays effective rate) into the formula.
Bottom line, future pensions can only be paid by financial malpractice or massive expansion of the economy. Which do you think the government can manage?
Posted by: Cascadian | Friday, November 09, 2012 at 04:42 PM
Their $84T unfunded liability does not correspond to the debt clock number so I'm having difficulty with this.
Posted by: Cascadian | Friday, November 09, 2012 at 04:35 PM
Nope, we are talking government liabilities to current and future pensioners.
A prudent government does not sell off its entire assets to pay these, but then again we are talking government so I see the confusion.
Posted by: Cascadian | Friday, November 09, 2012 at 04:33 PM
Being clearer, it’s like if I take out a mortgage and say OMG! That’s more money than I own in all the world, way more than I could earn in 10 years!! (yes ignoring the asset)
But I don’t have to pay it all just now. I will be paying it out of my lifetime’s earnings and who knows what that will be? Even if you average a million people’s lifetime earnings it is still uncertain. Just allowing for inflation (that you can just bet will not exactly be held back any by quantitative easing)
The thing is, can I afford to pay the capital + interest and all my other bills? If can't then it will be tears before bed time.
Posted by: Moggsy | Friday, November 09, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Mark/Cascadian, Surely not all the assets, there is future value added seems to be left out. Shouldn't it involve future earnings?
If you are say looking at a pension due to start paying out in 10 years time then you need to factor 10 years contributions, maybe compounded or maybe returns from investments the contribution is used for.
All basically guesses until they happen.
Posted by: Moggsy | Friday, November 09, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Cascadian, I guess I don’t really mind if someone does not actually contribute to “society”, not as long as they don’t expect to get anything much from "society" if they don’t. Mark sounds awfully like he does.
I am so glad he is “willing” to continue to work. I of course get so much pleasure from working, and contributing to the less than willing, it’s practically indecent – not. ^_^
No such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to cover it.
Posted by: Moggsy | Friday, November 09, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Fair enough.
I agree that if noone wanted to do anything, iw would be the end of democracy, but I don't think that is the situation now, I don't think democratic governments are more lkely to get into debt and I don't think that the NHS is as bad as war (even if it is, it needn't be).
Posted by: Mark | Friday, November 09, 2012 at 06:22 AM
Found it
“Overall, the fiscal imbalance is equal to 5.7 percent of the present value of all future GDP "
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/16/report-federal-unfunded-liabilities-total-84-trillion/#ixzz2BhepkmrZ
5.7 percent not quite as scary as 700...
Posted by: Mark | Friday, November 09, 2012 at 06:12 AM
Yes... I have...but in that case you should be comparing the unfunded liabilities to the value of all assets in the US, not its annual income.
What is the net present value of The US?
Posted by: Mark | Friday, November 09, 2012 at 06:00 AM
Ever heard of NPV of a series of future payments or how an annuity works?
It does not really matter if you don't because the British Government (and I suspect the US government too) is also illiterate on this concept.
Posted by: Cascadian | Friday, November 09, 2012 at 05:31 AM