Rich CEOs Call For Raising Retirement Age To 70, Medicare & Social Security...

[skydog]

will get back to ya maybe..

Edited January 23, 2013 by sinansencer

[joeblast]

I dont know about the rest of you, but I am realistic - I plan on working until I am dead, because by such time as I become eligible for SS, etc - it is going to be long since dead. You can only ignore real world fundamentals for so long before they catch up with you and dash your pie in the sky hopes and dreams that you can get a free breakfast, lunch, and dinner, every day of the week, and somehow get by not paying it.

 

...and before we hear the ol "oh but I put my money in, and I simply want a return on my investment" - sorry to tell you but that line of thinking is based on a pack of lies. ALL of the money in the "SS Trust Fund" is gone, it is like in Dumb & Dumber, there is a big shoebox of intragovernmental IOUs - ALL SS money that comes in gets immediately paid out in benefits and there isnt a damn thing "invested for the future" about the money you currently pay in to SS. IOTW you are not investing a damned thing!!!

 

Congress can at any time change the benefit structure of SS, its payout, age of availability, etc - and you have *no* right to those funds before you're of age. And the treasuries and other backups are backups (on shaky knee street at that) and not meant to carry the full weight of the program, nevermind the myriad severely overburdened aspects.

 

 

 

 

We did not need Obamacare. What we needed was a means to repair the price discovery mechanism. Which due to wage freezes in the past and "special tax incentives," we wound up with a massively suppressed individual insurance market, all because third party payer was massively subsidized - now where's the average joe going to make up that money? He's not, that's why he gets his insurance through his employer, so half of it gets paid whereas because of government introduced distortions, he would be responsible for 100% of it if he goes it alone.

 

Now we wind up with authorities demanding that health plans have this, that, the other thing - MOST of which is beyond the function of insurance!!! If we're to call this "insurance" then it is necessarily catastrophic and THAT'S IT. What we refer to as "insurance" these days is merely a massive money-pooling scheme, it is "a healthcare finance model" but it doesnt have a ton to do with the traditional notion of insurance any longer.

 

Obamacare, true to Obama form, runs towards the wrong end zone in that it is ingraining the price distortions by introducing further distortions. I mean we all knew it was a crock of shit from the getgo, it was too good to be true, had to be functionally and fiscally lied about to the public in order for it to be within the realm of acceptability, and even at that, the "normal legislative process" had to be entirely bypassed, votes needed to be bought, for this violation to have occurred.

 

 

 

So yes, the "Rich CEO" is correct - the retirement age MUST be raised, whether we like it or not - actuarial soundness simply DEMANDS that it happen. Even if these other fiscal problems had not vastly accelerated and exacerbated the structural problems with SS, it is fundamentally flawed right from the getgo by this setting in stone of the age of benefit receipt. When SS was introduced, 65 was a few years beyond average lifespan - now its what, a decade behind average lifespan? And we're sitting here surprised that there are major structural, financial problems with the game?

 

Math, folks.

 

Taxes and incentives shape behavior - and we've been conditioned to put absolutely everything on a credit card and worry about the bill sometime later. Well, we're at a point where the actuaries are telling us we're about to lose a wheel or two off the wagon.

 

I mean, unless yall are ok with just letting the wagon lose its wheels and crash...but I dont see that as happening. I see most everyone saying "keep the wagon rolling, at all costs" but not considering the actual cost in the least, its someone else's problem to worry about.

[Birch]

This is such a huge topic. My take is there is a lot of 'stuff' hiding under the term 'healthcare' and that some of it is more about other interests than those of the patients's health. I've seen few decent unpackings of this. The term runs all over the place from moral issues to commercial issues to religious issues to social issues to political issues. Which ones do we pick to tackle first?

[skydog]

Okay I will explain with a pretty poem/story/joke

 

Once upon a time there was a guy called joe, when joe got annoyed, frustrated, angry, his energy vibration decreased, so all his thoughts matched his energy vibration, once he was watching videos about all the things wrong with the world, this frustrated him to no end as there was just so many. So he went out did some spontaneous movements in the garden and was finding it difficult to walk because he was in so much bliss, he remembered he had some kind of issue, but it made no sense anymore, suddenly he found himself thinking completely different things about the situation. He laughed.

 

Knowledge can be forgotten and rerembered. Ever taken peyote in that state theirs no fear of death etc, what is knowledge is thoughts coming from the vibratory state one is at, you forget knowledge, knowledge comes and goes it depends on mood, someone in a bad mood cannot understand certain ways of seeing the world.

 

Idealism went to the shores to meet future projection. Future projection was an old man but liked many things such as lillies and discussing politics. Idealism, never met reality before and one of the only ways to meet reality was to stop adding unneccessary fog, so idealism sat in zazen making it easy to see clearly but it was not the only way just 10 minutes of pure emptiness, all thoughts and philosophies and conceptual thinking seemed like a circle chasing a dog chasing its tail, so of into the wilderness was the bear, the bear was not like everybear it was itself, it hated the two men philosophies and conceptual thinking, but they existed and had its purpose and beauty but to him they were pain in the but just like constant diahreaa and this was only learned by being their friends until he saw them for what they truly were illusions. He hated them and thought conceptual thinking and philosophies were useless and a crime, but the zen master pandabogin bu stepped out from the bush and hit him on the head to show him that he too was involved in conceptual thinking. This killed the bear. But that was just the way it was.

[Owledge]

Your posting is confusing. I just wanted to comment on this:

Ever taken peyote in that state theirs no fear of death etc,

Unless peyote is profoundly different from ayahuasca, it's bold to generalize what there is in the "state" of peyote and what not. There definitely can be fear of death during an ayahuasca trip.

 

BTW liking your own posting is my favorite part of it.

[skydog]

Your posting is confusing. I just wanted to comment on this:

Unless peyote is profoundly different from ayahuasca, it's bold to generalize what there is in the "state" of peyote and what not. There definitely can be fear of death during an ayahuasca trip.

 

BTW liking your own posting is my favorite part of it.

 

thanks you should like my post, it would make me feel really cool and appreciated..ahah

 

I dunno man just took peyote once.

[GrandmasterP]

I just want to retire, but the memsahb won't let me as she claims that I get under her feet a home.

That and I can't afford to yet.

Roll on 65 or a lottery/premium bonds big win, whichever comes first.

[joeblast]

I just want to retire, but the memsahb won't let me as she claims that I get under her feet a home.

That and I can't afford to yet.

Roll on 65 or a lottery/premium bonds big win, whichever comes first.

Does that mean you're planning on turning 65 before 2008^2 happens again?

[joeblast]

The high price of understated inflation

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-23/high-price-understated-inflation

 

The reliable data which policymakers and the public need if effective solutions are to be found is not available. As Tullett Prebon's Tim Morgan notes, economic data has been subjected to incremental distortion; Data distortion can be divided into two categories. Economic data has been undermined by decades of methodological change which have distorted the statistics to the point where no really accurate data is available for the critical metrics of inflation, growth, output, unemployment or debt. Fiscal data, meanwhile, obscures the true scale of government obligations. While he does not believe that the debauching of US official data is the result of any grand conspiracy to mislead the American people; he does see it as an incremental process which has taken place over more than four decades. From 'owner equivalent rent" to 'hedonics', few series have been distorted more than published numbers for inflation, and few if any economic measures are of comparable importance; and the ramifications of understated inflation are huge.

 

Via Dr. Tim Morgan, Tullet Prebon, the high price of understated inflation

 

Though the undermining of data quality has been widespread, few series have been distorted more than published numbers for inflation, and few if any economic measures are of comparable importance. In the United States, CPI-U inflation reported at 3.2% in 2011 probably masked real price escalation which was very much higher than that. This is hugely significant, because inflation is central to calculations of economic growth, wages, pensions and benefits. Moreover, understated inflation undermines calculations of the ‘real’ cost of credit as represented by interest rates and bond yields, a factor which, as we shall see, may have played a very significant role in the escalation of indebtedness during the credit super-cycle.

 

British inflation data, too, seems pretty optimistic Between 2001 and 2011, average weekly wages increased by 38%, which ought to have been a more than adequate rise when set against official CPI (consumer price index) inflation of 27% over the same period (fig. 4.1). But the reported rate of overall inflation between those years seems strangely at odds with dramatic increases in the costs of essentials such as petrol (+59%), water charges (+63%), electricity (+97%) and gas (+168%).

Those who question the accuracy of official inflation measures in Britain have nothing much more upon which to base their suspicions than intuition, experience and the known escalation of the prices of essentials. In the United States, this situation is quite different, and far greater data transparency has enabled analysts to reverse out the methodological changes of the last three decades. The scale of the distortions which have been identified is truly shocking.

 

The biggest single undermining of official inflation data results from the application of “hedonic adjustment”. The aim of hedonic adjustment is to capture improvements in product quality. The introduction of, say, a better quality screen might lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to deem the price of a television to have fallen even though the price ticket in the shop has remained the same, or has risen. The improvement in the quality of the product is equivalent, BLS statisticians argue, to a reduction in price, because the customer is getting more for his or her money.

 

A big problem with hedonic adjustment is that it breaks the link between inflation indices and the actual (in-the-shop) prices of the measured goods. Another is that hedonic adjustment is subjective, and seems to incorporate only improvements in product quality, not offsetting deteriorations. A new telephone might, for example, offer improved functionality (a hedonic positive), but it might also have a shorter life (a hedonic negative) and, critics claim, the official statisticians are all too likely to incorporate the former whilst ignoring the latter. The failure to incorporate hedonic negatives may be particularly pertinent where home-produced goods are replaced by imports, a process which has been ongoing for more than two decades. A Chinese-made airbrush might be a great deal cheaper than one made in America, but is the lower quality of the imported item factored in to the equation?

 

A second area of adjustment to inflation concerns ‘substitution’. If the price of steak rises appreciably, ‘substitution’ assumes that the customer will purchase, say, chicken instead. As with hedonic adjustment, the use of substitution not only breaks the link with actual prices (a process exacerbated by ‘geometric weighting’), but it also, as Chris Martenson explains, means that CPI has ceased to measure the cost of living but quantifies “the cost of survival” instead.

 

Geometric weighting, too, plays a significant role in the distortion of American inflation data. In any case, some of the weightings used in the official indices look strange, one example being medical care, which accounted for 16% of consumer spending in 2011 but is weighted at just 7.1% in the CPI-U.

 

Since the process of adjustment began in the early 1980s, the officially-reported CPI-U number has diverged ever further from the underlying figure calculated on the traditional methodology. Fig. 4.2 gives an approximate idea of quite how distorted US inflation data seems to have become over three decades. Instead of the 3.2% number reported for 2011, for example real inflation was probably at least 7%. Worse still, the official numbers probably understate the sharp pick-up in inflation which America has been experiencing. A realistic appreciation of the inflationary threat would be almost certain to have forced very significant changes in monetary policy.

 

Taken in aggregate, the extent to which the loss of dollar purchasing power has been understated is almost certainly enormous. Between 1985 and 2011, official data shows that the dollar lost 53% of its value, but the decrease in purchasing power might stand at more like 75% on the basis of underlying data stripped of hedonics, substitution and geometric weighting.

 

The ramifications of understated inflation are huge. First, of course, and since pay deals often relate to reported CPI, wage rises for millions of Americans have been much smaller than they otherwise would have been. Small wonder, then, that millions of Americans feel much poorer than official figures tell them is the case. By the same token, those Americans in receipt of index-related pensions and benefits, too, have seen the real value of their incomes decline as a result of the severe (and cumulative) understatement of inflation.

 

This process, of course, has saved the government vast sums in benefit payments. Rebasing payments for the understatement of inflation since the early 1980s suggests that the Social Security system alone would have imploded many years ago had payments matched underlying rather than reported inflation. In other words, the use of ‘real’ inflation data would have overwhelmed the federal budget completely or, conversely, might have forced government to come clean on what levels of welfare spending really can be afforded.

 

Another implication of distorted inflation, an implication that may have played a hugely important role in the creation of America’s debt bubble, is that real interest rates may have been negative ever since the late 1990s (fig. 4.3). Taking 2003 as an example, average nominal bond rates¹² of 4.0% equated to a real rate of 1.7% after the deduction of official CPI-U inflation (2.3%), but were almost certainly heavily negative in real terms if adjustment is made on the basis of underlying inflation instead.

 

Logically, it makes perfect sense to borrow if the cost of borrowing is lower than the rate of inflation. Whilst most Americans may not have been aware of the way in which inflation numbers had been subjected to incremental distortion, their everyday experience may very well have led them to act on an intuitive understanding that borrowing was cheap. We believe that distorted inflation data may, together with irresponsible interest rate policies and woefully lax regulation, have been a major contributor to the reckless wave of borrowing which so distorted the US economy in the decade prior to the financial crisis.

[ralis]

I dont know about the rest of you, but I am realistic - I plan on working until I am dead, because by such time as I become eligible for SS, etc - it is going to be long since dead. You can only ignore real world fundamentals for so long before they catch up with you and dash your pie in the sky hopes and dreams that you can get a free breakfast, lunch, and dinner, every day of the week, and somehow get by not paying it.

 

...and before we hear the ol "oh but I put my money in, and I simply want a return on my investment" - sorry to tell you but that line of thinking is based on a pack of lies. ALL of the money in the "SS Trust Fund" is gone, it is like in Dumb & Dumber, there is a big shoebox of intragovernmental IOUs - ALL SS money that comes in gets immediately paid out in benefits and there isnt a damn thing "invested for the future" about the money you currently pay in to SS. IOTW you are not investing a damned thing!!!

 

Congress can at any time change the benefit structure of SS, its payout, age of availability, etc - and you have *no* right to those funds before you're of age. And the treasuries and other backups are backups (on shaky knee street at that) and not meant to carry the full weight of the program, nevermind the myriad severely overburdened aspects.

 

 

 

 

We did not need Obamacare. What we needed was a means to repair the price discovery mechanism. Which due to wage freezes in the past and "special tax incentives," we wound up with a massively suppressed individual insurance market, all because third party payer was massively subsidized - now where's the average joe going to make up that money? He's not, that's why he gets his insurance through his employer, so half of it gets paid whereas because of government introduced distortions, he would be responsible for 100% of it if he goes it alone.

 

Now we wind up with authorities demanding that health plans have this, that, the other thing - MOST of which is beyond the function of insurance!!! If we're to call this "insurance" then it is necessarily catastrophic and THAT'S IT. What we refer to as "insurance" these days is merely a massive money-pooling scheme, it is "a healthcare finance model" but it doesnt have a ton to do with the traditional notion of insurance any longer.

 

Obamacare, true to Obama form, runs towards the wrong end zone in that it is ingraining the price distortions by introducing further distortions. I mean we all knew it was a crock of shit from the getgo, it was too good to be true, had to be functionally and fiscally lied about to the public in order for it to be within the realm of acceptability, and even at that, the "normal legislative process" had to be entirely bypassed, votes needed to be bought, for this violation to have occurred.

 

 

 

So yes, the "Rich CEO" is correct - the retirement age MUST be raised, whether we like it or not - actuarial soundness simply DEMANDS that it happen. Even if these other fiscal problems had not vastly accelerated and exacerbated the structural problems with SS, it is fundamentally flawed right from the getgo by this setting in stone of the age of benefit receipt. When SS was introduced, 65 was a few years beyond average lifespan - now its what, a decade behind average lifespan? And we're sitting here surprised that there are major structural, financial problems with the game?

 

Math, folks.

 

Taxes and incentives shape behavior - and we've been conditioned to put absolutely everything on a credit card and worry about the bill sometime later. Well, we're at a point where the actuaries are telling us we're about to lose a wheel or two off the wagon.

 

I mean, unless yall are ok with just letting the wagon lose its wheels and crash...but I dont see that as happening. I see most everyone saying "keep the wagon rolling, at all costs" but not considering the actual cost in the least, its someone else's problem to worry about.

 

 

Anyone can look up and review the stats in regards to the SS fund. The Congressional Budget Office has posted the stats online. The SS fund is not broke and you are positing more lies and fear. As usual you post right wing propaganda to play on the fears of others, which exposes who you really are. Your use of terms such as 'math' and 'actuarial' are meant to impress and have no foundation.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43648

 

For a further understanding of the conservative mind I recommend reading Russel Kirk. Perhaps you should read it and understand your ideological preferences.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Conservative-Mind-Burke-ebook/dp/B002CJM6CC

Edited January 24, 2013 by ralis

[thelerner]

I dont know about the rest of you, but I am realistic - I plan on working until I am dead,

Math, folks.

 

I mean, unless yall are ok with just letting the wagon lose its wheels and crash...but I dont see that as happening. I see most everyone saying "keep the wagon rolling, at all costs" but not considering the actual cost in the least, its someone else's problem to worry about.

You make a good point. The math - $in $out has to make sense. Somebody pays for every free lunch. Still there's slack in the system. We pay 3x more as a whole for 2nd rate outcomes. I don't see Obama care as a game change. It has the same problems as before, some worse, some better ie millions of uninsured will be covered.

 

I'm concerned with: businesses paying sky high rates to insure workers, 66 year olds losing their retirement saving to pay for 4 years of medical insurance, I worry that funding medical health will exacerbate the rich poor schism to where there is a first and third world U.S.

Edited January 24, 2013 by thelerner

[ralis]

The basis for Joeblasts politics is to strip everyone of any right, benefit, law etc. that right wing extremists deem unconstitutional, so as to create an aristocratic ruling class that will create order from the chaos created by right wing extremists. Further, Joe has claimed to wanting to bring balance to the Tao by such extreme measures.

 

Thomas Hobbes wrote in 'Leviathan' that humans are evil by nature and must submit to a governmental, social contract that can't be broken. I believe what Hobbes was referring to is an authoritarian right wing statist regime and that all persons who are subjects to the regime must tolerate whatever is determined by said regime to create order.

 

Many of the right wing extremists are using their religious belief systems to influence a new government agenda.

 

Richard Viguerie is one person with a great deal of influence in right wing propaganda today. A Google search is revealing of his extreme agenda.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Viguerie

Edited January 24, 2013 by ralis

[Protector]

oh lawd, I knew this would turn into one of these political threads eventually

[Owledge]

When will you realize that all systems can be good if there's no corruption?

People are susceptible to corruption, thus all systems with people in it can be corrupted.

Very few systems - those developed by genius - are inherently corruption-resistant.

 

Small government is a solution. Small government is not a solution.

[safi]

When will you realize that all systems can be good if there's no corruption?

People are susceptible to corruption, thus all systems with people in it can be corrupted.

Very few systems - those developed by genius - are inherently corruption-resistant.

 

Small government is a solution. Small government is not a solution.

 

Great post.

 

Yeah, It's quite funny watching these right wingers and left wingers go at it. I say no system is corruption-resistant. Most people are easily corrupted so how can one expect a society without corruption?

[ralis]

Great post.

 

Yeah, It's quite funny watching these right wingers and left wingers go at it. I say no system is corruption-resistant. Most people are easily corrupted so how can one expect a society without corruption?

 

 

I am neither. I am just pointing out the extremely dangerous right wing movement here in the U.S. FYI the Virginia state legislature is gerrymandering so that the 'Electoral College' will have more weight than the popular vote. The Republicans waited till a Democratic rep. left for the inauguration to pass this voting scam. The rep. body in Virginia is equally divided 20/20. There are a number of states involved in this such as Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio etc. The Republicans can receive a minority of votes and still win.

 

There are a number of journalists reporting on this. See search results below.

 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=virginia+gerrymandering&rlz=1C1AVSH_enUS471US471&aq=0&oq=virginia+gerry&aqs=chrome.1.57j0l3j62.13590&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Edited January 24, 2013 by ralis

[joeblast]

You make a good point. The math - $in $out has to make sense. Somebody pays for every free lunch. Still there's slack in the system. We pay 3x more as a whole for 2nd rate outcomes. I don't see Obama care as a game change. It has the same problems as before, some worse, some better ie millions of uninsured will be covered.

 

I'm concerned with: businesses paying sky high rates to insure workers, 66 year olds losing their retirement saving to pay for 4 years of medical insurance, I worry that funding medical health will exacerbate the rich poor schism to where there is a first and third world U.S.

I've heard that whole "we pay 3x as much for half the outcome" before, and the approach is riddled with holes - how can you do any sort of apples to apples comparison on healthcare comparing us vs the "other countries" - most often the populations are but a fraction of what we have here. The problem with Obamacare was that it was presented as both a means to reduce spending and the cost of healthcare, and also a means to "insure" tens of millions more at the same time. (And then hide the fact that a big mass of funding for it was coming directly from the medicare budget!) Such analyses virtually always miss significant population differences, culture differences, drug subsidy differences (our drugs are purposefully inflated in price and most everywhere else deflated & subsidized because of it, thanks again lawmakers doing favors for the big business at the expense of the consumer.)

 

I've simply never heard that argument made well - and if you're truly concerned with what you say in the second bit...I dont see how that in any way, shape, or form equates to Obamacare being a good idea.

 

The basis for Joeblasts politics is to strip everyone of any right, benefit, law etc. that right wing extremists deem unconstitutional, so as to create an aristocratic ruling class that will create order from the chaos created by right wing extremists. Further, Joe has claimed to wanting to bring balance to the Tao by such extreme measures.

 

Sad that your point of view relies on misrepresenting "the opposition's" point of view in order to retain validity. Quite simply, the rottenest of tactics to take on the whole thing. All kinds of things are no longer an issue to you since we have a crop of progressives riding the rails as opposed to a crop of neocons doing it. I've tried addressing you before, to no avail, you simply do not want to hear what I have to say and have to twist everything a la the daily koshole-huffpo credo of "destroy your enemies at all costs, no matter if you have to entirely abandon scruples to do so."

 

Why do you shy away from where I post data? You wont even debate me on those terms

 

Time to move this thread to OT yet? Ralis isnt going to run out of games to play or historically proven solutions to disparage anytime soon.

[joeblast]

Anyone can look up and review the stats in regards to the SS fund. The Congressional Budget Office has posted the stats online. The SS fund is not broke and you are positing more lies and fear. As usual you post right wing propaganda to play on the fears of others, which exposes who you really are. Your use of terms such as 'math' and 'actuarial' are meant to impress and have no foundation.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43648

*chuckles* look! I can prove it! *points at government generated official stamped propaganda* see???

 

is that peer reviewed??

 

we all know the CBO reports on exactly what its told to report on, within the provided parameters included in the instructions. anything outside of that is not allowed to be counted or scored - how the hell do you think they got away with the bald faced lie that Obamacare was going to cost under a trillion dollars? anyone with half a brain that did their reading knew that number was a slice of the pie and not even close to the whole pie, explicitly because of the parameters of the CBO's scoring!!!

 

like I said...since the progressives are in charge now, there's a whole hell of a lot that is a-ok and no longer an issue! deed speaks louder than word.

[Owledge]

I feel like trolling right now, so let me point out that Democraps vs. Repugnicans is pretty much like global warming ... fake.

[Immortal4life]

Lol you're not supposed to admit you are a troll Owledge

Edited January 24, 2013 by Immortal4life

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

K, owl can be a Troll, i'll be an Incubus, and i'll fly owl over the thread and drop him in, buzzing the crowd as i go by.

Then i'll start tossing out pocket Gnomes and Pixies at random.

[Friend]

Edited January 25, 2013 by Friend

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Lol you're not supposed to admit you are a troll Owledge

 

 

Heh... that was perfect.

[Owledge]

You blew it.