Politics

[potownhero]

The largest economy in the world, too.




And yet Germany is one of the most socialist of the bunch at a local level, which is where I operate.



United States: 35 hrs/wk
Greece: 41 hrs/wk
Portugal: 34 hrs/wk
Italy: 35 hrs/wk
Ireland: 31 hrs/wk

Germany, "pro-capitalist" saver of Europe: 27 hrs/wk

https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2627/3797144896_e5abba1cd0_o.png



Not at all true across the board.



Strawman argument.

What matters is growth rate(dynamic) not size(static).

...and in germany, they do well because of the evil corporate automation which results in a more efficient worker (higher per capita output) - as a result, they have kept their manufacturing base.

The German question is: If or when the cost of regulation will catch up to the productivity gained.

Anyone know what the estimated cost of government regulation is in the US?

 

[irishpat183]

The problem with Social Security is that, IMO, it doesn't sufficiently accomplish what it was created for. FDR sold Social Security as a way to keep old people from living in penury in their declining years. That's a noble enough goal, and SS would be much more sustainable if it was limited to doing just that. But since everyone pays in, everyone feels entitled to a piece of the pie. So people are collecting benefits who absolutely don't need them. And that entitlement mindset is fueled by both politicians and private groups like AARP.

SS should be overhauled. Upping the eligibility age is a solution that gets mentioned, but it doesn't get at the real problem, which is means-testing. Warren Buffet could collect SS as long as he retired from active employment. That's ridiculous. SS is basically an elderly welfare program that has turned into a national pension system. But since almost everyone gets a piece of the pie come 65, the piece is small. That hurts those who need the benefit the most. For those who can retire comfortably, the SS check is basically fun money. But for those who truly need it, the benefit is pitifully small. You can't live on SS any more than you can live on minimum wage. And SS is structured so that holding a job penalizes your benefits, which causes the elderly poor to make tough choices which they shouldn't have to. But many senior organizations, like AARP, aren't geared towards helping the needy. They are speaking for their middle class dues payers, and those people want their check, whether they need the money or not.

I say turn SS into a true welfare program. Up the benefit pay out, but limit it to those who are truly in need. I would be on board with that, rather than the current system of wealth transfer from young to old that we currently have. A system that is not sustainable in its present form.

Good post.

I say do away with it. And you can't just force people to pay in and then not expect them to clalim. That's horseshit. One thing we MUST do...if you don't put in YOU SHOULDN"T GET ANYTHING. We have a real problem with this. There are more people claiming than contributing. Not to mention, have you looked into the circus rules about who can claim and how much? It's insane. (I work in retirement income planning, SS is a cluster).

Another reason it won't work is because our government borrows against it.

Allow people to opt out and invest their own money.

 

[Buster Bluth]

What matters is growth rate(dynamic) not size(static).

And if you objectively look at GDP growth/shrinkage (2007-2012), it varies. Which goes back to what I've said about looking at these EU countries being akin to American states, so diversity should be expected.

Some countries, in spite of just how socialist they might be, have done well: Luxemburg (11.8%), Switzerland (40%), Norway (27.4%), Sweden (13.4%), Poland (14.8%), Belgium (5.4%), etc. So don't pretend like it's just ol' wise Germany (2.2%) amongst a see of clueless socialists over there.

Plenty of them are rather stagnant: France (.9%), Finland (1.6%), etc.

A lot of them are hurting, big time: United Kingdom (-13.7%), Italy (-5.4%), Spain (-6.4%), Portugal (-6.4%), Ireland (-19.0%)

The European Union as a whole was hit hard, like everyone else, in 2007 but--as a whole--completely rebounded by 2011 (+3.5%), until their European hit in 2012.

A few thoughts on the matter: you haven't named any causes outside of "socialism," which is just too brand and useless. Is is the retirement? Is it a mortgage crisis? Is is the demographic trends? I won't pretend that the myriad economies challenges of like 800 million people stem solely from "socialism." I just won't accept that as a real argument. Ireland's problems aren't Spain's problems. Portugal's problems aren't Finland's problems.

And I won't be so arrogant and state that everything we do is better, even if at a national level some of them have made very poor decisions--which is obviously true. On the whole they just straight up kick our asses on a local government level, I'll say that much.

...and in germany, they do well because of the evil corporate automation which results in a more efficient worker (higher per capita output) - as a result, they have kept their manufacturing base.

Which is just totally absent elsewhere in Europe? Seems to simple to be true.

And I don't think "evil corporate automation" is a thing. But that doesn't mean that I don't recognize the obvious effects it has.

Corporatism is what is evil, not efficiency.

The German question is: If or when the cost of regulation will catch up to the productivity gained.

I think the German question is "are we better off out of the Euro so we don't suffer for the risky banking policies of Ireland, Portugal, etc?"

 

[Buster Bluth]

Hmmmm... I somewhat agree. The "everyone deserves a home" attitude

I'm going to assume until further notice that you agree only because you don't care if a poor person suffers, because you think it's solely due to their worth ethic.

 

[irishpat183]

I'm going to assume until further notice that you agree only because you don't care if a poor person suffers, because you think it's solely due to their worth ethic.

No, I just disagree with the government telling everyone that they deserve a home (especially homes they cannot afford and have no business buying). And then forcing banks to lend to people that were not able to otherwise get loans.

Again, this is what happens when we allow EMOTION to dictate legislation. It's moronic.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm going to assume until further notice that you agree only because you don't care if a poor person suffers, because you think it's solely due to their worth ethic.

If it's not work ethic, it's incompetence. Which is the more pessimistic view of humanity; that people are lazy, or that people are incapable of taking care of themselves? I tend to believe that the number of people who "make it" would be a lot higher if there were some consequences for NOT making it.

Benjamin Franklin said, "I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Your arguments for a Utopia built on social programs and redistribution would be a lot more compelling if it had any track record whatsoever of success.

 

[ACamp1900]

That's a great quote... sums up a lot of my politics right there.

 

[BobD]

Just some stuff on my mind:

In this country we lose far more from the wealthy avoiding paying their fair share, than from the fraudulent poor.

American publicly held corporations have lost their way by being solely focused on the bottom line and return to shareholders. Many company executives today wonder why their companies are no longer innovative. More than likely they've laid off or eliminated their innovation by cutting payroll to protect profits for shareholders. Innovation more often than not, comes up from motivated workers, not down from management. Show me a company that takes great pride in their employees success and I'll show you a company that is innovative, has great customer service and is growing.

The stock market is being manipulated and is way, way, way over valued IMO. How is everything in our economy moving so slowly, but stocks are soaring?

If you're a "world leader" and you don't know that other countries, even your allies are trying to listen in on your conversations, you should be fired for being a stooge.

GO IRISH!

GO NINERS!

Red Sox in 6.

Oregon should be number 1.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The largest economy in the world, too.

How strong and viable can the world's "largest" economy be if it was one proverbial German middle finger away from collapse? Most of the EU relies on Germany now.



And yet Germany is one of the most socialist of the bunch at a local level, which is where I operate.



United States: 35 hrs/wk
Greece: 41 hrs/wk
Portugal: 34 hrs/wk
Italy: 35 hrs/wk
Ireland: 31 hrs/wk

Germany, "pro-capitalist" saver of Europe: 27 hrs/wk

https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2627/3797144896_e5abba1cd0_o.png



Not at all true across the board.

Here I'll do what you do: show me.

Strawman argument.

How strong and viable is the world's "largest" economy if it was one proverbial German middle finger away from collapse? Please.

Your portrayal of the Germans as the socialist of the bunch is nice, but fact remains they are still producing the most and the most financially reliable.

Across the board not all true...agree to disagree. Strawman argument...same deal. Kind of surprised, Buster. I knew you were big on sitting back and just making fun of others' ideas and opinions without bringing your own to the table. I didn't know you were that big a fan of the Europeans and the nanny state. Interesting.

 

[BobD]

Wisdom that's been around a long time, but who listens?

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, feed him for life.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...The stock market is being manipulated and is way, way, way over valued IMO. How is everything in our economy moving so slowly, but stocks are soaring?...

The Fed.

 

[irishpat183]

Just some stuff on my mind:

In this country we lose far more from the wealthy avoiding paying their fair share, than from the fraudulent poor.

American publicly held corporations have lost their way by being solely focused on the bottom line and return to shareholders. Many company executives today wonder why their companies are no longer innovative. More than likely they've laid off or eliminated their innovation by cutting payroll to protect profits for shareholders. Innovation more often than not, comes up from motivated workers, not down from management. Show me a company that takes great pride in their employees success and I'll show you a company that is innovative, has great customer service and is growing.

The stock market is being manipulated and is way, way, way over valued IMO. How is everything in our economy moving so slowly, but stocks are soaring?

If you're a "world leader" and you don't know that other countries, even your allies are trying to listen in on your conversations, you should be fired for being a stooge.

GO IRISH!

GO NINERS!

Red Sox in 6.

Oregon should be number 1.

You lost me there...It's not OURS to begin with. It's their money.

 

[irishpat183]

The Fed.

Exactly. QE anyone?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

You lost me there...It's not OURS to begin with. It's their money.

Think of it this way: we lose $15 trillion each year letting people keep their money.

 

[Buster Bluth]

No, I just disagree with the government telling everyone that they deserve a home (especially homes they cannot afford and have no business buying). And then forcing banks to lend to people that were not able to otherwise get loans.

Again, this is what happens when we allow EMOTION to dictate legislation. It's moronic.

That's true and all, but the problem is 99% with the people who can actually afford their homes. The issue is that the entire marketplace is so subsidized that we are led to believe that it's affordable, when it's not. The housing market crashed because of the small minority of people who couldn't afford their house. What happens when all of the costs skyrocket as the federal and state government aid to local communities dries up?

 

[irishpat183]

Think of it this way: we lose $15 trillion each year letting people keep their money.

LOL!!!!


That way of thinking makes ZERO sense. But the "they wouldn't have that money without....etc." is coming.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Just some stuff on my mind:

In this country we lose far more from the wealthy avoiding paying their fair share, than from the fraudulent poor.

American publicly held corporations have lost their way by being solely focused on the bottom line and return to shareholders. Many company executives today wonder why their companies are no longer innovative. More than likely they've laid off or eliminated their innovation by cutting payroll to protect profits for shareholders. Innovation more often than not, comes up from motivated workers, not down from management. Show me a company that takes great pride in their employees success and I'll show you a company that is innovative, has great customer service and is growing.

The stock market is being manipulated and is way, way, way over valued IMO. How is everything in our economy moving so slowly, but stocks are soaring?

If you're a "world leader" and you don't know that other countries, even your allies are trying to listen in on your conversations, you should be fired for being a stooge.

GO IRISH!

GO NINERS!

Red Sox in 6.

Oregon should be number 1.

Philosophically, what is the "fair share", who gets to determine this "fair share", and under what authority do they determine it?

Where are your numbers to support this claim? Here are mine:

In 2010, the top 10% of earners in the US paid 70% of all income taxes. The other 90% pitched in for the remaining 30%, and 47% of Americans pay no income tax. ---- The Tax Foundation

Whaddaya got?

 

[ACamp1900]

"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, feed him for life.

I'll take "Different Ways of Saying the Exact Same Thing" for 500 Alex...

 

[BobD]

The Fed.

I have some retail stocks that are up 50% or more on lower sales, lower earnings, lower margins, same store sales etc. How is the Fed doing that?

Apple market share is shrinking and the stock is up about 25% in the last six months. Fed?

 

[irishpat183]

Philosophically, what is the "fair share", who gets to determine this "fair share", and under what authority do they determine it?

Where are your numbers to support this claim? Here are mine:

In 2010, the top 10% of earners in the US paid 70% of all income taxes. The other 90% pitched in for the remaining 30%, and 47% of Americans pay no income tax. ---- The Tax Foundation

Whaddaya got?

but...but...but...they make more money!!!

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I have some retail stocks that are up 50% or more on lower sales, lower earnings, lower margins, same store sales etc. How is the Fed doing that?

Apple market share is shrinking and the stock is up about 25% in the last six months. Fed?

Not sure if serious...Individual results drive individual stocks, but without a doubt I can tell you that had the Fed not engaged in their 'easy money' practice of the last 5+ years, those stocks would all be a lot lower.

If I gave the impression that the Fed could stop a company from missing their earnings, lowering their profits, or going bankrupt, then I apologize. The overall market as a whole, and general P/E ratios, are being driven by Fed policy right now.

 

[Wild Bill]

100%. But I should clarify that that I'm referring solely to single-family, suburban development, which is the vast majority of home ownership in this country. The idea of owning where you live is not inherently wrong, the way Americans do it robs us and future generations of so much money it's just downright sad.

I'm not even referring to the crash, which did in fact ruin millions of American anyway. The sheer cost needed to support the inefficiencies of the system outweight any gain, and that's just fiscally. Socially, the damage it's pretty tough to calculate outside of concentrating poverty (which makes it worse), but it's much deeper than that.

Demographic changes back up what I've said. Younger people are rejecting the "American Dream" as they see it as a ball and chain (mortgage) that they don't want. Cities around the country are finally waking up (after the third cycle of mortgages started this last decade) to just how fruitless the developments are to their coffers. States are realizing just how impossible it is to independently fund the third cycle of interstate development. So on and so forth.

The expressways and infrastructure, I would argue, simply connect a supply of houses to a housing demand. Perhaps thirty years from now we'll regret them, I don't know. What I do know is affordable housing is a primary need for everyone. Without the supply of housing in suburbs, how would we meet the demand in the cities? Certainly wouldn't be cheap even if it was possible.

I doubt young people aren't interested in mortgages or home ownership. These are the same young people who strap themselves with an incredible amount of student loan debt - they certainly aren't opposed to big piles of debt. IMO, it probably has more to do with stricter lending policies and inability to afford a down payment.

You can pay a mortgage for fifteen years and have a place to sleep the rest of your life, or you can pay rent til the day you die. Seems simple to me.

 

[potownhero]

And if you objectively look at GDP growth/shrinkage (2007-2012), it varies. Which goes back to what I've said about looking at these EU countries being akin to American states, so diversity should be expected.

Some countries, in spite of just how socialist they might be, have done well: Luxemburg (11.8%), Switzerland (40%), Norway (27.4%), Sweden (13.4%), Poland (14.8%), Belgium (5.4%), etc. So don't pretend like it's just ol' wise Germany (2.2%) amongst a see of clueless socialists over there.

Plenty of them are rather stagnant: France (.9%), Finland (1.6%), etc.

A lot of them are hurting, big time: United Kingdom (-13.7%), Italy (-5.4%), Spain (-6.4%), Portugal (-6.4%), Ireland (-19.0%)

The European Union as a whole was hit hard, like everyone else, in 2007 but--as a whole--completely rebounded by 2011 (+3.5%), until their European hit in 2012.

A few thoughts on the matter: you haven't named any causes outside of "socialism," which is just too brand and useless.

First of all, I don't know why you're making this personal with me - and your last comment makes no sense at all. You and some others were posting on the measure of health of economies. I stated that the growth rate is a generally better accepted indicator than the size. Don't go throwing words in my mouth that I said anything more than that. I was intentionally not taking a side in this conversation, only pointing the conversation in a direction that might have some meaning.

Secondly, my comment about Germany was solely because it was specifically being discussed already; not to say that it was the best in growth.

Thirdly, Obviously growth rates vary. So what? That doesn't change their relevance.

Is is the retirement? Is it a mortgage crisis? Is is the demographic trends? I won't pretend that the myriad economies challenges of like 800 million people stem solely from "socialism." I just won't accept that as a real argument. Ireland's problems aren't Spain's problems. Portugal's problems aren't Finland's problems.

And I won't be so arrogant and state that everything we do is better, even if at a national level some of them have made very poor decisions--which is obviously true. On the whole they just straight up kick our asses on a local government level, I'll say that much.

So, you don't think that our system is/was better? How did we become such a prosperous society? Magic? Maybe our country got this way from buying something from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans...right? Please take your head out of your ***.

While, I didn't mention our system vs. anyone else's system, I would like to point out a few distinctions that separate Germany from France which a short time ago were about the same size...and this reinforces the point above; that growth rates are what matter more than size.

Distinction #1. The German leaders have tended to use more supply-side economic policies while the French leaders have chosen more demand-side policies.
Distinction #2. The German government included employment as a factor when dealing with the Unions. When unemployment rises the workers' raises decrease. Not so in France; Employment levels aren't given consideration.
Distinction #3. The German industry has gone for specialization instead of off-shoring their production capacity.

One final note of difference between France and Germany - over a decade ago the German government essentially began implementing the Hartz reform plans which could be described as German Welfare Reform. Needless to say, I think we all know where France is with it's Welfare Programs spending levels.

Which is just totally absent elsewhere in Europe? Seems to simple to be true.

Why inform yourself with facts when it "seems" - that's a great argument? LOL.

And I don't think "evil corporate automation" is a thing. But that doesn't mean that I don't recognize the obvious effects it has.

Corporatism is what is evil, not efficiency.

If you're talking Crony Capitalism, I agree. I don't see anything wrong with two individual parties making the decision to make a voluntary transaction. No one is forcing that a transaction must occur (until Obamacare that is).

I think the German question is "are we better off out of the Euro so we don't suffer for the risky banking policies of Ireland, Portugal, etc?"

Here again, i was making reference to previous topic of economy and keeping an industrial base. That said, somewhat in agreement; the lack of a wealth creating manufacturing base is what exacerbated the financial crisis.

 

[MJ12666]

The problem with Social Security is that, IMO, it doesn't sufficiently accomplish what it was created for. FDR sold Social Security as a way to keep old people from living in penury in their declining years. That's a noble enough goal, and SS would be much more sustainable if it was limited to doing just that. But since everyone pays in, everyone feels entitled to a piece of the pie. So people are collecting benefits who absolutely don't need them. And that entitlement mindset is fueled by both politicians and private groups like AARP.

SS should be overhauled. Upping the eligibility age is a solution that gets mentioned, but it doesn't get at the real problem, which is means-testing. Warren Buffet could collect SS as long as he retired from active employment. That's ridiculous. SS is basically an elderly welfare program that has turned into a national pension system. But since almost everyone gets a piece of the pie come 65, the piece is small. That hurts those who need the benefit the most. For those who can retire comfortably, the SS check is basically fun money. But for those who truly need it, the benefit is pitifully small. You can't live on SS any more than you can live on minimum wage. And SS is structured so that holding a job penalizes your benefits, which causes the elderly poor to make tough choices which they shouldn't have to. But many senior organizations, like AARP, aren't geared towards helping the needy. They are speaking for their middle class dues payers, and those people want their check, whether they need the money or not.

I say turn SS into a true welfare program. Up the benefit pay out, but limit it to those who are truly in need. I would be on board with that, rather than the current system of wealth transfer from young to old that we currently have. A system that is not sustainable in its present form.

I agree that the system as presently constructed is not sustainable. However, keep in mind that SS was created as a supplemental retirement program. Initially the age that individuals could begin to collect was set at the average mortality age of the male citizen at the time that bill was signed into law. One could be a cynical and conclude that FDR proposed the program as a way to finance his public works programs as the money collected was invested US Treasury securities and many individuals never lived long enough to collect what they actually contributed. Also, the original law only made payments to individuals who actually contributed to the program. Once they died no more benefits were paid. The original law was fundamentally altered beginning in the 60's. At that time the law was amended so that spouses (and some children) would receive death benefits and "disabled" individuals also became eligible to receive benefits (I think this as also in the 60's but not 100%). Many in these new groups of individuals paid little if nothing into the program but received benefits for years. The SS program at this point has morphed into a welfare program (as you noted with the exception that is it not a welfare program limited to the elderly) as much as a supplemental retirement program. With that said, as someone who has been required by law to pay into the program for the past approximately 30 year I want a minimum of my money back, regardless of whether or not I need it. This should also apply to everyone who as paid SS taxes, including Warren Buffet. If Mr. Buffet doesn't need it he can always donate 100% of his SS benefits to the local food bank.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The expressways and infrastructure, I would argue, simply connect a supply of houses to a housing demand. Perhaps thirty years from now we'll regret them, I don't know. What I do know is affordable housing is a primary need for everyone. Without the supply of housing in suburbs, how would we meet the demand in the cities? Certainly wouldn't be cheap even if it was possible.

I doubt young people aren't interested in mortgages or home ownership. These are the same young people who strap themselves with an incredible amount of student loan debt - they certainly aren't opposed to big piles of debt. IMO, it probably has more to do with stricter lending policies and inability to afford a down payment.

You can pay a mortgage for fifteen years and have a place to sleep the rest of your life, or you can pay rent til the day you die. Seems simple to me.

Did you watch any of the videos I posted?

 

[Wild Bill]

Did you watch any of the videos I posted?

Only for a minute. Busy at work trying to make a couple bucks...mortgage payments are due in a couple days.

I saved the links. I'll watch them as soon as I get a minute. Seems interesting.

 

[enrico514]

Exactly. QE anyone?

The economy will not have a chance to truly recover until QE ends...

 

[BobD]

Philosophically, what is the "fair share", who gets to determine this "fair share", and under what authority do they determine it?

Where are your numbers to support this claim? Here are mine:

In 2010, the top 10% of earners in the US paid 70% of all income taxes. The other 90% pitched in for the remaining 30%, and 47% of Americans pay no income tax. ---- The Tax Foundation

Whaddaya got?

How to Pay No Taxes: 10 Strategies Used by the Rich - Businessweek

 

[BobD]

Philosophically, what is the "fair share", who gets to determine this "fair share", and under what authority do they determine it?

Where are your numbers to support this claim? Here are mine:

In 2010, the top 10% of earners in the US paid 70% of all income taxes. The other 90% pitched in for the remaining 30%, and 47% of Americans pay no income tax. ---- The Tax Foundation

Whaddaya got?

How much more you want amateur?

<a href="http://www.topaccountingdegrees.org/taxes/"><img src="http://www.topaccountingdegrees.org/taxes/rich.jpg" alt="How The Super Rich Avoid Paying Taxes" width="500" border="0" /></a><br />Source: <a href="http://www.topaccountingdegrees.org">TopAccountingDegrees.org</a>

 

[phgreek]

Elisitst jerkoffs who played Risk and with Magic Cards a bit too much in their 20's pretty much sums it up for me..

I don't know what they did for fun...but I will say whatever it was must have been replete with hallucinogenic fumes...

I laugh because here you have some jackass basically fomenting insurrection doing the whole subversion thing Mcarthy only dreamed of...and the Army briefs on the dangers of returning veterans, Christians and tea party folks (among others)...Is the Army going to add this fvcker tp the list of threats, along with the generalization "Silicon Valley dickheads"???