Submitted by bsfootprint on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 22:06
Economist Paul Samuelson, supporting and defending Social Security in his February 13, 1967 Newsweek column tells us without reservation: Social Security is indeed a Ponzi scheme.
Samuelson acknowledges:
Social Security depends on continual growth of younger workers joining the workforce to pay current recipients, and
Social Security recipients are paid benefits far in excess of anything they pay in during their working years.
Um.. what happens when the population is no longer growing? What happens when the taxable base upon which benefits rest is no longer greater than taxes paid historically by the generation now retired...?
The beauty about social insurance is that it is actuarially unsound. Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privileges that far exceed anything he has paid in. And exceed his payments by more than ten times as much (or five times, counting employer payments)!
How is this possible? It stems from the fact that the national product is growing at compound interest and can be expected to do so as far ahead as the eye cannot see. Always there are more youths than old folks in a growing population. More important, with real incomes growing at some 3 per cent per year, the taxable base upon which benefits rest in any period are much greater than the taxes paid historically by the generation now retired...
Social security is squarely based on what has been called the eighth wonder of the world—compound interest. A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived. And that is a fact, not a paradox.
Submitted by bsfootprint on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 14:41
Politicians love to talk about creating jobs.
They love to tell you how they will create jobs. They love to tell you their opponents didn't do it. They love to make you think that job creation is their responsibility. They love to think that they are creating jobs by legislation or executive fiat.
The best thing we can hope for is that politicians don't damage the economy. That they don't discourage job creation in the free market.
And politicians invite criticism by claiming to be able to create jobs: when jobs are lost, or the economy is slow, naturally blame falls on them, probably far more so than is reasonable. But remember: they asked for it.
You'd think they'd learn. You'd think they'd want to stop pushing that line of B.S.
So: Here's the best way for politicians to create jobs.
Are you ready? (Drum roll, please...)
Politicians: If you want to create jobs, here's how you do it. It's so simple, you won't even need a teleprompter. Just follow these easy-peasy steps:
Resign from public office.
Start a business.
Hire people and pay them fair market value for their work.
Turn a profit.
Avoid running afoul of tax, environmental, labor, and myriad other regulations.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
You think you're good at what you do? You think you have what it takes? You think you're a great leader? Let's see what happens when people can choose whether they follow you or not. Whether they will obey your command, or not.
Let's see what happens when people are free to choose whether to buy what you're selling, or not.
Go on, then, prove it. Get out of public life. Join the producers. Compete for customers.
Go out and try navigating the maze of licensing and regulation by which you and your cohorts have shackled free enterprise and productive people.
Go ahead and create some jobs. Some of us may even thank you for it, despite all that divisive anti-capitalistic rhetoric you or your colleagues may have used over the years.
You'll sleep better at night, too.
Go on. Please.
Stop talking about creating jobs, and just go do it.
I think it’s time to declare “peak BS”; the moment the production of BS cannot conceivably go any higher and future BS production will dwindle until mankind runs out of BS.
Submitted by bsfootprint on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 09:45
Is the teleprompter trying to tell us something?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
President Obama's markets rise and fall speech contained one of my favorite loaded terms–"pay their fair share":
What we need to do now is combine those spending cuts with two additional steps: tax reform that will ask those who can afford it to pay their fair share and modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare.
I really got a chuckle out of the little blurb about tax reform asking some group to pay their fair share.
Submitted by bsfootprint on Mon, 08/29/2011 - 07:48
I've heard it said many a time in politics and business: "I'm working within the system to make things better."
Well, if that's really the average person's motivation for moving up the ranks of their chosen hierarchy, then why, on average, are we in such bad shape politically, managerially and economically?
Sometimes it helps to step outside the system. Sometimes it helps to see it for what it is.
Is the machine operating according to the original design? No? Why not?
Sometimes, a high functioning and well intentioned part of a poorly designed machine is making the machine work better, but to what effect? If the machine's current configuration lends itself to doing damage, is the well-intentioned part making things better for those upon whom the machine operates?
Does the machine have a strong defense mechanism that resists changes? What will it take to overcome those defense mechanisms? Can you? Will you?