2011 Retirement En Masse

You mean I can go to Stanford for free??? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Isn't it refreshing - in a thread partially dedicated to the spreading of blatant falsehoods for political purposes - to see somebody spreading a blatant falsehood for political purposes?

C'mon Hank. You're smart enough to check this out before posting it.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

You are right. My memory did me a disservice, and I hung myself with my own rope on this one. An entitlement to in-state tuition rates is not the same as being entitled to free tuition: mea culpa.

See Weimar Republic for more information on trying to spend your way out of a recession. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Read The Holy Grail of Macroeconomics: Lessons from Japan's Great Recession, by Richard Koo to understand why and how spending your way out of recession can and does work.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Isn't Japan still in a recession?

Its payback for the artificially high rates they earned before that didn't reflect the risk in all those junk mortgages. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Payback? .... hasn't the taxpayer subsidized these bankers enough?

Not a bad gig if you can get it though. Privatize profits and socialize loses. I will always think of TARP as Socialism saving Capitalism or a better description is kicking the Capitalist can down the road. . Be kinda funny if it wasn't so freaking sad.

Does anyone here still follow WTF's links? Originally Posted by pjorourke

PJ, I hate to break it to ya bud, but nobody really follows anybody elese's post, much less links.

The goal of posters on here with half a brain is to tweek the other side enought to keep it intresting , thats all.

.

The goal of posters on here with half a brain is to tweek the other side enought to keep it intresting , thats all. Originally Posted by WTF

Too easy (that's for Becky)

...the bottom line is we don't need that many lemonade stands, which is about all you would have to invest in. Originally Posted by pjorourke

True, especially since we don't make much of anything in this country except hamburgers and financial "products." So, I would say that this condition almost exists presently except the neighborhood street is bounded on either side by an ocean.

Isn't Japan still in a recession? Originally Posted by pjorourke

I concur with this statement. And what proud American doesn't like free money and hamburgers?

I'm really, really curious how the US national debt has an impact on whether state pension plans are fully funded.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

If you are as intelligent as you think you are, just think real hard how the debt is repayed. Now, think about the size and scope of the debt when it comes to interest payments. When the interest payments overshadow government intake, it is unsustainable. The only way to cut into the debt is to stop spending. The largest payments are now and will be going to the overburdoned baby-boomers now retiring en masse. It's not rocket science, mazo, it's common sense.

If you want to go further into it, trade deficits: We do not manufacture ( much ) in the US any longer. Government has created so many regulations and taxes in this country, manufacturing is better suited in foreign economies. Foriegn trade, as suggested by Hayek, will not cut into our debt because we make nothing other countries want.

As quickly as technology is surpassing it's predecesors, there is no reason not to take advantage of the unproductive oil fields right here in the US, cutting our dependency of foreign oil while developing alternative energy sources. It was a disservice to the American people for the Supreme Court to allow special interest groups to sue on bahalf of the people where they dictate how we live. e.g., shutting off the water in furtile California farmlands to save a minnow or halting all production of nuclear power plants or stopping all oil drilling in the US.

Read The Holy Grail of Macroeconomics: Lessons from Japan's Great Recession, by Richard Koo to understand why and how spending your way out of recession can and does work.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

...and how long did Japan's Great Recession last?

Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n19493435/

The recent economic recovery has been achieved by an undauntedly aggressive expansion of non-residential investment backed by rising profits and a continued increase in exports supported by a favorable world economic environment. Despite persistent uncertainty, especially with respect to higher oil prices, fluctuating exchange rates, and domestic deflationary pressure, Japan's economy appears to have achieved sustainable growth. Therefore, the current Prime Minister, Shintaro Abe, seems to be in an enviable position to define his new economic policy. The Japanese government indeed can enjoy some breathing space for its macroeconomic policy. However, for the structural features of the economy, there is still a long way to go. (1)

Adam Posen aptly describes the post-bubble doldrums by stating, "Japan's Great Recession of the 1990s was the result of fiscal, financial, and monetary policy mistakes cutting off the economy's natural recovery." (2) Ironically, this disastrous situation did force a vast majority of the Japanese people to reexamine the old structural issues, many of which had remained untouched and even unnoticed during the 1970s and 1980s when Japan enjoyed its buoyant growth. Toward the end of the 1980s, Japan's bubble created a tight labor market leading to a higher rate of female labor force participation and a growing number of two-income families, which resulted in a relative decline of households supported by the husband's income alone, as shown in Figure 1. The 1992 collapse of the bubble that resulted in recession (often called the Heisei Recession) combined with a weaker labor market to change these trends. The two-income families continued to increase, but at a much slower pace, with a growing number of part-lime female workers whose incomes were extremely disadvantaged compared with those of their full-time counterparts. Accordingly, the Heisei Recession trapped an overwhelming majority of the population in a cul-de-sac and let them cogitate on the economic malaise in the mid-1990s. In other words, the macro-economic policy debacle during the post-bubble period shed light on the structural issues that should have been tackled in earlier years.

To add to the trouble... inflation ( echo )

Food Prices

Gas Prices

If you are as intelligent as you think you are, just think real hard how the debt is repayed. Now, think about the size and scope of the debt when it comes to interest payments. When the interest payments overshadow government intake, it is unsustainable. The only way to cut into the debt is to stop spending. The largest payments are now and will be going to the overburdoned baby-boomers now retiring en masse. It's not rocket science, mazo, it's common sense.

If you want to go further into it, trade deficits: We do not manufacture ( much ) in the US any longer. Government has created so many regulations and taxes in this country, manufacturing is better suited in foreign economies. Foriegn trade, as suggested by Hayek, will not cut into our debt because we make nothing other countries want.

As quickly as technology is surpassing it's predecesors, there is no reason not to take advantage of the unproductive oil fields right here in the US, cutting our dependency of foreign oil while developing alternative energy sources. It was a disservice to the American people for the Supreme Court to allow special interest groups to sue on bahalf of the people where they dictate how we live. e.g., shutting off the water in furtile California farmlands to save a minnow or halting all production of nuclear power plants or stopping all oil drilling in the US. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

This is a really long answer to Mazo's simple question. But you didn't say one word about state pension plans. Must be another case of misdirection. I know, it's a common tactic with toddlers, but you can't really get away with it on this board. Not many toddlers here.

This is a really long answer to Mazo's simple question. But you didn't say one word about state pension plans. Must be another case of misdirection. I know, it's a common tactic with toddlers, but you can't really get away with it on this board. Not many toddlers here. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

And do you really think reading one book or quoting your favorite marxist professor gives you a biased opinion? I suggest reading several different viewpoints, i.e., theories, before developing your own opinions. Wasn't it the flat-earthers who denied fact over faith?

Your faith in liberal ideology and Keynes is blindingly scary.

Too easy (that's for Becky) Originally Posted by discreetgent

Fine with me, I'll sit on the sidelines with Becky....


I'll leave it to you heavyweights to believe you can change the hearts and minds of your opponents!


.... not sure who you think is on the better end of that deal but I sure as know who I believe is!

. . . and your proof of this is what? Because you say so? Because you read it somewhere? Because a voice came to you in a dream in told you it was so? What exactly are the "facts" other than "Glen Beck said it on his show last week"?

The entire point of my post was how people today have no problem drinking any cup of Kool-Aid somebody hands to them no matter how thin the factual support behind the claim. You respond by pointing to the cup and saying "But look, it's Kool-Aid! We're supposed to be drinking it!" What a compelling argument that is.

As I said, I have heard over and over on the internet about how all of the state pensions are about to fall over and knock their heads on the sidewalk. I have yet to see a single piece of believable documentation that says it's so. Every study by government and private think tanks says the opposite. The support for an alternate conclusion is essentially "if this and this happens and it turns out we're wrong about this and that and nobody does anything to stop it until it's too late then the sky might fall." Congratulations on being one of the gullible who bought into that stupendous argument.

First of all, we're not talking about SS here. That's a different issue. But, in fact, you just happen to provide a perfect demonstration of how powerful a grip the Ministry of Information has over you.

You heard somewhere that you'd be a millionaire if you had a 3% return rate on your SS contributions? Well please do show me the math on that one, will ya?
[font=Verdana][color=black]

I didn't do a detailed computation but my quick scratches show that a person who started working in 1965 and who put away the absolute maximum SS benefit each and every year would have retired with something around $300K this year using your 3% return and Rule of 72 example.

Of course, very, very few people actually make more than the maximum wage base over the years so your average worker would end up with far, far less than even $300K. Not exactly the result you claim it is, huh? And that's not including what happened to the value of that money after inflation is taken into account.

So it seems that your buying into this oft-quoted but horribly wrong analysis is just one more example of how powerful the Ministry of Information's Kool-Aid actually is. Just one sip and you're hooked into voting the way they want you to for life.



I've got no problem putting you in charge of your own retirement.

I just don't want somebody like you in charge of my retirement. I prefer to use people who sit down and do the math instead of just trusting whatever the guy on the TV says.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

You are correct in your calculation. What I should have put in here is the number that the article and you and I both agree on 10%, however my investments have yielded much better than that with a lifetime average of 18.2% and I did pull my 1982 wage statement that shows that I paid in a total of $4,646.91 in SS tax that year. base on that and a monthly investment on $385.29 over 40 years at 10% the total value of my retirement account would be $2,706,453.66 please excuse my error now this is a very conservative calculation in part due to fact that my wages have increased significantly since 1982 making my contributions much higher. Not sure what Glen Beck has to do with this since I don't put stock in what others have to say about my future.

And do you really think reading one book or quoting your favorite marxist professor gives you a biased opinion? I suggest reading several different viewpoints, i.e., theories, before developing your own opinions. Wasn't it the flat-earthers who denied fact over faith?

Your faith in liberal ideology and Keynes is blindingly scary. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Look, you have twice been asked to provide proof of your assertions, and all you do is respond with knee-jerk epithets, attributing thoughts to Mazo and me that you cannot possibly know.

First of all, I never quoted a book, or cited a professor, Marxist or not. So, I don't know what hallucination you were viewing when you wrote this.

Second, I do read several viewpoints, some of them on this board.

Third, when people can't cite facts to support their opinions, they often times resort to name calling, such as "bleeding heart liberal" or "knee jerk reactionary" (see, it works for both sides of the political spectrum).

Fourth, my "faith in liberal ideology" is borne of a deep understanding of the US Constitution, an understanding of the history of the US (where it's been, and a belief in where it should go), and a strong belief in the priorities of this nation. If you want to refer to this as "liberal ideology" so be it. I am more interested in our country providing for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all citizens on an equal basis.

Fifth, and as to Keynes: I know only who he is. I have never read him.

So, continue posting epithets and name call when someone asks you to back up your position with facts. We'll all know you are nothing more than a fool blowing hot air.

And, since you tout yourself as a Marine, I would expect more of a real Marine than supercilious and hot air arguments.

First of all, I never quoted a book, or cited a professor, Marxist or not. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Word! We all know that Charles doesn't read books.