"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Jeff Rigby wrote:
DSK, the difference in our viewpoints seem illogical.

Only because you reject fact & logic.

... As far as foreign "affairs" and our President you are a pessimist
and distrust our motives but where the US treasury is concerned you seem
to be an optimist. I'm the opposite, I trust the executive branch and
distrust the Congress/Treasury


That's because the Treasury is run by people with some sense, they have
kept the US money thing going for 200+ years now, without starting any
wars under false pretenses.


The following site explains better than I can my feelings on the ability
of the Federal government to repay the 1.7 trillion dollars to the SS
account.
See: http://www.federalbudget.com/SSdebate.html


Considering that their opening statements are nonsense & lies, no wonder
you have such an attitude. Notice however that they stop short of claiming
that U.S. Treasury bonds are worthless.

I suggest you look at FACTs not right-wing blather.

DSK


Yes, the opening statement is a scare tactic to force you to read the rest
of the article. But I think you agree with the thrust of the arguments on
that link. Which is that the federal government needs to balance the budget.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes, the opening statement is a scare tactic to force you to read the rest
of the article.

???

What you're saying is, you trust & believe & agree with people whom you
*know* are lying to you. That includes President Bush & Vice President
Cheney?

... But I think you agree with the thrust of the arguments on
that link. Which is that the federal government needs to balance the budget.


Sure. That would be true in almost all cases no matter who was
President. But it has very little to do with the current hoopla about
Social Security.

DSK

Kubez wrote:
Familiar with "Economics In One Lesson"?

No, but I think I can safely say I'm relatively familiar with economics,
at least up through the undergrad level.


... Arbitrary, non-market-driven
expenditure does NOT increase velocity.


Really? You'd think that any random added expenditure would have at
least a random chance of increasing velocity. And any increase in buying
adds to aggregate demand, at least incrementally.

In any event, as a historical average, federal spending adds money to
the national economy 7:1. Of course it goes up and down at the margins,
one possible reason why the Bush/Cheney super-spend-a-thon hasn't perked
up the economy is that we are already at the flattened top part of that
curve, which wouldn't be their fault. Another possible explanation,
which I tend to give more credit to, is that their added spending
(especially the Iraq war spending) is simply funneling money into the
coffers of politically favored interests that do not have many inputs to
the US national economy.

And why is state & local taxes part of the U.S. Treasury issue?

Kubez wrote:
Come back when you understand the concept of "unfunded mandates" and we
MAY let you back in our reindeer games....


Hmm... you mean like the 'No Child Left Behind' unfunded mandate? Or the
voting reform unfunded mandate? Various security & police unfunded
mandates? Maybe I don't understand the concept, please explain...


... currently more than 20% of the federal budget outlay is for
debt repayment... this level of debt is already painful, at what
point does it become crippling?


When the Asians refuse to purchase any more of it.


What we need to do is expand Social Security so the trust fund can buy
more Treasuries... oh wait, does that bring us back full circle?

Actually, getting back to the original subject: it has never been
explained why it would be better to increase the deficit in order to
take Social Security money out of Treasuries and put it into the stock
market... especially when it has never been so much as hinted that the
stocks chosen won't be selected on a political basis. How about a nice
block of Enron? The whole thing reeks of a kickback scheme.

President Bush keeps saying "it's your money" so instead of this complex
plan, why doesn't he simply let us keep more of it and do with it what
we think best?

As for the complaints about "no money" in the Social Security Trust
Fund, this is rather inconsistent with the publicly stated goal of
trying to achieve higher returns. Should the SSA bury the money in mason
jars in the back yard, so that there will actually be real money instead
of worthless pieces of paper? Maybe put it in Krugerrands? And why are
stocks not "worthless pieces of paper," they are not even an IOU.

So much to explain, so little attempt being made to make sense of it all.


Maybe at the
next stop, somebody good will get on ;)


www.lp.org

As I've said, I don't see the Libertarian Party as a viable alternative.
We have a number of Libertarians on local bodies, they seem fairly
rational & sensible until they start talking about abolishing public
schools & putting toll booths on local roads. Whose idea of "progress"
is that?

Regards
Doug King

Kubez wrote:
Familiar with "Economics In One Lesson"?
Written by Henry Hazlitt. Classic. The example he uses is the claim that
breaking a window is "good" for the economy because repairing the window
creates economic activity (the manufacture of the replacement glass as
well as the job of the individual who performs the repair).

Hazlitt easily bursts that bubble by demonstrating that no value has been
added to the society through such an exercise - the window is the same as
it was before, yet resources (the glass and the repairman) have been
expended, therefore wasted.


Agreed, to a large extent (more below)


Really? You'd think that any random added expenditure would have at
least a random chance of increasing velocity. And any increase in buying
adds to aggregate demand, at least incrementally.

Kubez wrote:
But as explained above, spending money just to spend money adds no VALUE.

True, but VALUE isn't the same as demand. Because you need a new window,
demand for windows has gone up. Because you gave the window-fixer some
money that he wouldn't have otherwise had, he can now go out and buy
something with it that he otherwise would not have, and a third nebulous
party has more money to spend, etc etc.

This is how velocity of money works. It profoundly affects the money
supply, which of course profoundly affects supply & demand. Working out
the math of income velocity & supply velocity is what won Milton
Friedman the Nobel Prize.


Think tax accountants: billions of dollars spent and millions of hours
logged, but no VALUE in the form of a tangible good (a pencil, a
grapefruit, a sewing machine) or intangible benefit (relaxation from a
massage, enjoyment from a musician's performance) is added to society.

I disagree strongly. There is TANGIBLE benefit to both individuals and
to society at large. The individual gains the service of knowing that
his taxes are paid, of quantifying his income & securely identifying
it's sources, and even getting some fiscal advice from the accountant.
The benefit to society is greater assurance that the tax burden is being
distributed in a lawful way (and a way presumably approved by that society).

You have a very narrow idea of what constitutes benefit. Haven't you
heard that we live in the Information Age? Knowledge is power, and data
is wealth.


President Bush keeps saying "it's your money" so instead of this complex
plan, why doesn't he simply let us keep more of it and do with it what
we think best?


Ask the AARP or any other of a thousand groups who want more spending and
more taxes and more spending and more taxes.

Sure. Bread and circuses... a big part of the problem is that nobody
ever goes to Congress & demands that they spend LESS money on problem X.
However, I'm addressing the specific things that President Bush has done
to make the situation worse.

DSK

The Vice President wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Kubez wrote:


Right, the president.

Get a real life jackoff. If it isn't about boats, don't post it here.

Harold


-=-
Hmm, that's odd...I've NEVER seen a post here by you, about boats....

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes, the opening statement is a scare tactic to force you to read the
rest of the article.

???

What you're saying is, you trust & believe & agree with people whom you
*know* are lying to you. That includes President Bush & Vice President
Cheney?

... But I think you agree with the thrust of the arguments on that link.
Which is that the federal government needs to balance the budget.


Sure. That would be true in almost all cases no matter who was President.
But it has very little to do with the current hoopla about Social
Security.

DSK

The "hoopla" is about money and the congress and it's ability to spend it.
Take 50 billion out of an already over inflated budget and there will be
SOME pressure to not spend some of that on other pet projects. Who does
Bush's proposal benefit, not the federal government because they (congress)
can't get their hands on it. So what if it's designed to provide a hedge
for those of us that are going to have their SS benefits cut by 27%.

What private individual holds 100% of their retirement money in treasury
bonds? Since you feel that they are such a good investment, what percentage
of your retirement is in bonds? Since I know from your responses that you
are a smart guy, I'd suspect that less than 20% and then only when you have
achieved most of your retirement goals.

Maybe I'm naive but I do believe in spreading my investments around in
different areas of the economy. If I had enough I'd be investing outside
the US as well. AND hiding some of my money so that in the eventuality that
the government gets greedy they can't find it (typically hidden money never
grows).

The point we should have been making is that only a fool or someone with a
hidden agenda would insist that ALL the funds were in T bills.

... VALUE isn't the same as demand. Because you need a new
window, demand for windows has gone up. Because you gave the
window-fixer some money that he wouldn't have otherwise had, he can
now go out and buy something with it that he otherwise would not have,
and a third nebulous party has more money to spend, etc etc.


Kubez wrote:
But as demand for windows and window-installers goes up, so does the PRICE
of windows and window installers, which then brings demand back down.

Really? Break one window and a new glass/glazing company opens up in
town? Maybe right across the street from you, huh?

Basically, you want to play games below the sophomore level.

Rarely works in the real world, and rapidly becomes unsatisfying as an
"intellectual game" for anybody with a tad more larnin'.


Milton Friedman is the LAST economist one should cite when advocating
increased government expenditures as a means to stimulate the economy.
Well, maybe other than his son ;-)

Why, because in his dotage he has veered into fascist politics?
Actually, Dr. Friedman has said a number of things that go strongly
against Bush/Cheney policies, but they tend to tiptoe around that.



As a libertarian who defines taxation as the intersection of slavery and
theft, ANY labor devoted to that cause - ESPECIALLY the countless hours
wasted deciphering the byzantine obfuscation known as the IRS Code - is
considered without benefit.


So in other words, you're comfortable ignoring reality because of your
dogma? Maybe you can get a seat with the Hate-Clinton Circle Jerk bunch.
You'd have to dumb down your talk a bit, but your attitude would fit
right in.

DSK

... But I think you agree with the thrust of the arguments on that link.
Which is that the federal government needs to balance the budget.


Sure. That would be true in almost all cases no matter who was President.
But it has very little to do with the current hoopla about Social
Security.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
The "hoopla" is about money and the congress and it's ability to spend it.

And about a plan to change Social Security so that it goes bust sooner,
increases the deficit, and increases risk for those depending on SS
benefits. And the gain is... what, exactly? I have my theories, but I'd
like to hear a little more from the pro-Bush/Cheney camp on the subject.


Take 50 billion out of an already over inflated budget and there will be
SOME pressure to not spend some of that on other pet projects.

Not really. You're presuming that Congress has some degree of shame &
culpability, whereas the political lessons of the last decade have been
the opposite.

... Who does
Bush's proposal benefit

1- Wall St firms with whom the money is invested
2- political campaigns who will receive increased donation from #1 above
3- *some* (but certainly not all, and possibly very few) SS recipients
who gain increased benefits, years down the road.

Please note that #3 above could be achieved more simply & directly by a
lot of different methods. Therefor I conclude the real goal is #1 &
#2... as stated by Vice President Cheney's office months and months ago,
before they got their spin hats on straight.




... So what if it's designed to provide a hedge
for those of us that are going to have their SS benefits cut by 27%.

Where did you get that number?
It is inevitable that SS benefits will be cut. "Kubez" despite being
hobbled by dogma, hit the nail on the head... subsequent generations of
lesser numbers cannot support the Baby Boomers in retirement.


What private individual holds 100% of their retirement money in treasury
bonds?

Very few if any.

... Since you feel that they are such a good investment

I never said they were "such a good investment," I said (with 100% truth
and accuracy) that they are THE MOST **SECURE** investment. Secure
secure secure, rhymes with "security." Somebody give me a bigger hammer,
I think I can almost hammer this point home.


... what percentage
of your retirement is in bonds?

Corporate bonds, tax-free munis, or Treasuries? They're not all the same
thing, you know.

... Since I know from your responses that you
are a smart guy, I'd suspect that less than 20% and then only when you have
achieved most of your retirement goals.

I'm a rather conservative investor, having gone through the 1970s bear
market, the 1987 crash, and the Dot-Bomb bust. I've kept approximately
25% of my portfolio in bonds, mostly hi-yield corporate (rated BBB or
better) and tax-frees.


Maybe I'm naive but I do believe in spreading my investments around in
different areas of the economy. If I had enough I'd be investing outside
the US as well.

Are you trying to say you'd like to diversify? It's a good idea. And it
doesn't take much money, look into one of the many no-load foreign
exchange index funds.

... AND hiding some of my money so that in the eventuality that
the government gets greedy they can't find it (typically hidden money never
grows).

Better hide it from the black helicopters too.


The point we should have been making is that only a fool or someone with a
hidden agenda would insist that ALL the funds were in T bills.


Or someone who is mandated to provide the most security possible,
without showing any political favoritism, while providing a
higher-than-savings-account return on custodial funds.

DSK

Rarely works in the real world, and rapidly becomes unsatisfying as an
"intellectual game" for anybody with a tad more larnin'.

Kubez wrote:
Since you haven't heard of "Economics In One Lesson", I wouldn't brag
about the amount of larnin' you've had.


Uh huh. Somehow, claiming "Economics In One Lesson" trumps basic
economic principles taught in freshman macro-econ, and then claiming
that this makes you smarter, doesn't get very far up that hill.



Milton Friedman is the LAST economist one should cite when advocating
increased government expenditures as a means to stimulate the
economy. Well, maybe other than his son ;-)

Why, because in his dotage he has veered into fascist politics?


I was referring to "The Machinery Of Freedom", no doubt another tome
you've never heard of.


Got it on my bookshelf right next to "Das Kapital." Political
tub-thumpery disguised as economic preaching doesn't trump well-known
and long-proven economic principles, either.




Actually, Dr. Friedman has said a number of things that go strongly
against Bush/Cheney policies, but they tend to tiptoe around that.


I don't believe I've posted a single word in favor of a Bush/Cheney
budget.

Did I say you had?

You seem to be unwilling to admit facts contrary to your dogma... if you
have to throw out reality in order to fit your theory, then your theory
isn't going to work very well in reality, either.


You sound like a plantation owner patronizing an abolitionist, circa 1840.

???

DSK

"Kubez" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote in
:

Rarely works in the real world, and rapidly becomes unsatisfying as
an "intellectual game" for anybody with a tad more larnin'.

Kubez wrote:
Since you haven't heard of "Economics In One Lesson", I wouldn't brag
about the amount of larnin' you've had.


Uh huh. Somehow, claiming "Economics In One Lesson" trumps basic
economic principles taught in freshman macro-econ, and then claiming
that this makes you smarter, doesn't get very far up that hill.

I figured that was the extent of your vaunted "larnin'" - I was just
biding my time 'til you admitted it.

But as someone who actually *buys* the Keynesian government-spending-is-
manna-from-heaven claptrap that's forcefed to 300 hungover 18-year-olds
at
8AM M-W-F, you should be *praising* Bush/Cheney's deficit spending
spree.

That is why liebrals are such great hypocrites.