social

Inside the Beltway doomsaying about Social Security — declaring thatthe program as we know it can’t survive the onslaught of retiring babyboomers — is regarded as a sort of badge of seriousness a way ofshowing how statesmanlike and tough-minded you are.. But the “everyone” who knows that Social Security is doomed doesn’tinclude anyone who actually understands the numbers. In fact the wholeBeltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population ismisguided. As Peter Orszag the director of the CongressionalBudget Office put it in a recent article co-authored with senioranalyst Philip Ellis: “The long-term fiscal condition of the UnitedStates has been largely misdiagnosed. Despite all the attention paid todemographic challenges such as the coming retirement of the baby-boomgeneration our country’s financial health will in fact be determinedprimarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs.” Howhas conventional wisdom gotten this so wrong? Well in large part it’sthe result of decades of scare-mongering about Social Security’s futurefrom conservative ideologues whose ultimate goal is to undermine theprogram. The only evidence that Krugman presents to support his case against the proposition that Social Security is headed for insolvency (unless it undergoes big changes) is simply that Medicare and Medicaid are headed for insolvency that's even worse. So Krugman's case that Social Security presents no real problems to worry about is like say a lawyer advising client Jones that the grand-larceny charges against Jones are really nothing to worry about because client Smith is facing the more serious charge of murder. It's true that the fiscal problems looming for Medicare and Medicaid are worse that those that loom for Social Security. That this fact is so is admitted by those who believe that Social Security faces real and serious problems. For example. Texas A&M economist Thomas Saving an eminent scholar and a Clinton-appointed Public Trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds that Social Security faces big fiscal problems. Mr. Saving admitted explicitly that the problems confronting Medicare and Medicaid are larger than are the problems confronting Social Security -- but he went on quite correctly to highlight the nevertheless large problems with the current Social Security system. And in that Mr. Saving published a few monts later in July 2005 he said The recent annual report issued by the Social Security Board ofTrustees demonstrates with undeniable clarity that Social Securityfaces a looming financial crisis. Worse still the report shows SocialSecurity's lurch toward insolvency has accelerated. As a relatively young person. I don't care if social security is doomed. The program itself when functioning properly is a gigantic screw job. To give 12% of your income to a retirement system that pays out at poverty levels is highway robbery. If a private company was selling social security as a plan its executives would be jailed for a host of fraudulent actions starting with accounting and including breach of contract (every time Congress decides to change the terms of the deal) and mismanagement (forcing clients into such an incredibly terrible deal). It would be extremely difficult to find someone who had privately invested 12% of their lifetime earnings who received less back in benefits than they will get from social security. Shifting part of the payroll tax an individual pays into a private account as opposed to paying it out for current govt spending will allow today's youth to accumulate a significant nest egg by the time they retire. That will in turn make changes down the road (i e traditional Social Security benefit cuts which eventually must happen) much easier. As I understand it both social security and Medicare/Medicaid can be relativily painless fixed by linking the growth in payouts to price increases rather than wage increase. How true is this? "Why should the overall surplus be no less than the combined surplus of the trust funds? Or to use Washington jargon why should we put those trust-fund surpluses in a 'lockbox'? First because we know that the projected surpluses in Social Security and Medicare though enough to postpone the eventual crises in the two systems are not enough to put off those crises forever." --Paul Krugman. "Going for Broke". The New Republic. 5/21/01 If young people have this attitude about Social Security then I'm not surprised that politicians don't think its a crisis. If people don't care that 7% of their money is basically being flushed down the toilet (14% if you count the "employers contribution") then there's probably plenty of room for raising that tax rate much higher. It will help the solvency of SS but not totally secure it. The CPI is what the benefits would be indexed to. However the CPI is a government statistic and can be manipulated by government officials to underhandedlly decrease benefits over the long run. I would heartily applaud the destruction of SS but the possible use of CPI to undermine benefits strikes me as evil and dishonest. The real financial crisis will come long before SS Trust is actually in danger. It's because the SS Trust and Medicare Trust Funds are all mixed up into one big slush fund for general spending. Once the SS surplus and the Medicare surplus starts decreasing the entire US Federal Government will be in danger of insolvency. It will no longer have enough money to pay for people do its most important task. National Security. Essentially this is the prefunding con job. Since FICA revenues will cease to support general expenditures in the near future what we must do is.. increase the FICA tax so it continues to support general expenditures. In other words we need to increase the regressive payroll tax so that we don't need to raise other taxes. And we're doing it to "save" social security. This is the con laid out clearly for all to see. This has nothing to do with "saving Social security" and everything to do with increasing the regressivity of the tax code. Krugman and other economists have written extensively on Social Security with compelling arguments to support the notion that it's solvent. So it's misleading to imply that his reasoning rests on the principle that Social Security is not as bad off as Medicare. Kebco over your lifetime you may pay a substantial portion of your income into home insurance and if you're lucky (i e. you don't suffer a fire or other disaster) you never will receive a payment in return. Will you regard this as "highway robbery"? PM if SS is an "easier problem" to fix as you say that supports Krugman's claim that it's not in crisis. Also if the market continues to whipsaw as it has recently and with global pressure and oil above $100/barrel can you guarantee private accounts will allow workers to accumulate a nest egg? Mason it is not correct to say that "SS Trust and Medicare Trust Funds are all mixed up into one big slush fund for general spending. Once the SS surplus and the Medicare surplus starts decreasing the entire US Federal Government will be in danger of insolvency." They have separate trust funds and none will throw the government into receivership. As for Krugman's seeming change of heart from 1996 for that I have no explanation. If the Krugman from 11 years ago truly thought Social Security faced a demographic-driven crisis then evidently he was wrong. Krugman does not deny this at all so it's not an effective rebuttal. What this "deficit" means is that the excess SS contributions that go into the trust fund go to zero and SS instead needs to start cashing in the Treasury bonds in the trust fund (to cover said "deficit"). That is *by design* the outcome of the Greenspan commission's plan of '82; it was the *whole point* of building up the trust fund. Ergo. 2017 is not a "crisis." The people proposing SS "fixes" that amount to either increasing SS payroll taxes or reducing benefits in order to stretch out the trust fund further instead of raising general (progressive) income taxes or cutting general expenditures to allow for paying back the debt from the general budget to SS are essentially proposing that a regressive tax (SS payroll) be continued to be used to subsidize lower rates on progressive taxes; the math here is inescapable. What about the longer term health? The CW expectation that the trust fund will be depleted by mid-century is based on using a pessimistic productivity growth assumption of 1.3%; however historical productivity growth tracks much more closely the middle-of-the-road assumption of 1.6% (it's actually between that and the optimistic assumption of 1.9%). At 1.6% productivity growth the trust fund is depleted after 2075. At 1.9% it lasts indefinitely. Again note that it was *always* the case that the trust fund would eventually be depleted as it was originally created by the Greepnspan Commission to cope with the demographic bomb of the baby boom. Pre-Greenspan. SS was a pay-as-you-go system. Ergo. 2042 (or 2075 or whenever the fund is depleted) is not a "crisis" either. What happens after it is depleted? SS returns to being a PAYG system as it was for almost 40 years without a problem; trustee projections indicate that after depletion. PAYG contributions can fund 75% of scheduled benefits (again based on pessimistic assumptions). Given that there are reasonable odds that trust-fund depletion is way in the future (the number of years until depletion varies by around 100% depending on the assumptions used) it's reasonable to address it when it's closer. Krugman is right. The political objective of the people pitching the "crisis" rhetoric is to postpone as much as possible using progressively-taxed general revenues to pay back regressively-taxed SS. It's pure-and-simple class warfare. Calling the SS tax regressive is a bit dishonest. A straight percentage of income is neither regressive or progressive--it's neutral. Regressive is a captitation tax. The only sense in which one might call the tax regressive is that it's capped at a level of income that represents a cap on benefits but that hardly deserves the "regressive" label. If Paul Krugman could lump SS and Medicare together in 1996 for crisis-mongering purposes without becoming a conservative ideologue thereby why can't we do it now? (And why did he say "crises" plural in 2001?) How big a seller would homeowner's insurance be if it left you worse off than self-insurance even when it paid off? Why they might have to pass a law forcing people to buy it whether they wanted to or not! Excellent post. Ivan. I would add that it's unclear how private accounts would enjoy the yields their proponents advertise in the face of the pessismistic 1.3% productivity growth rate which is the basis for the 2042 SS shortfall prediction. SaulOhio has the government ever in its history defaulted on treasury bonds? Do you imagine such a default wouldn't have grave consequences? Do you expect any future politician facing re-election ever to be in favor of such a default? Paul Zrimsek self-insurance of one's home--when it's feasible--always is economically more advantageous than the shared risk + profit model of purchased homeowners' insurance. When it's feasible. Usually it isn't which is why people continue to buy homeowners' insurance. Your analogy is bad. Roger O. has there ever been a trust fund since perhaps Pharaoh's that doesn't consist of promissory notes to pay? So why should I be more concerned about the SS trust fund than about any other? In addition it's misleading to characterize the bonds as merely "IOUs". Scribblings and a signature on the back of an envelope given to my brother for the 20 bucks he loaned me is merely an IOU and no law other than filial says I have to redeem it. Are such IOUs exactly the same as the SS bonds? Paul Zrimsek self-insurance against retirement is not feasible for people who earn too little throughout their working lives for some spouses who are widowed or for some people who become injured. As an earlier post noted were you to publicly offer this type of “investment,” with no guarantee of payout and major financing problems and a pyramid scheme-structure you would be arrested especially if you used the mail to do so. Assuming for one moment that solvency projections carry us optimistically out to 2040 and assuming productivity manages a nice 1.6 – 1.8% clip (very optimistic) aren’t you - and Krugman – completely missing the point that this is nothing short of generational warfare not class warfare? When the demographics line up just right (like now and because it is a horrible Ponzi scheme) Socialist Security saddles future generations with obligations they had zero input in creating and receive nothing Mesa Econoquy. SS is not an investment. It's insurance. Whether or not it has a "pyramid scheme-structure" well that you'll have to explain. As for whether it has major financing problems that hasn't been established as fact. "Warfare" isn't a neutral term it's a pejorative one that I don't use. SS is however both a generational and class wealth transfer mechanism which is a policy I endorse. Of course you're entitled to reject it on idealogical grounds but then you'd be wandering away from the subject of Krugman's opinion piece which is on SS's solvency. From the first paragraph in your link a pyramid scheme is "a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme usually without any product or service being delivered." Social security does not require money to become enrolled into the program. You are enrolled in the program when you are associated with a social security number which these days typically happens at birth. Also it does provide a service called insurance. If you reach retirement or are widowed or are injured and cannot work you will receive a distribution. Finally. Social Security has been sustained continuously since 1935. So you can put that charge to rest. A annuity is insurance-like investment that is sometimes used as insurance but there are other types of insurance which are not investments. At least not in the sense of an expected financial return in equity growth dividends or interest (though insurance is an "investment" in peace of mind). For instance. I recently made my semi-annual car insurance payment. I'm a good driver though. I drive little and I don't live in the city so it's very unlikely I will have an event (e g a crash) causing me to receive a financial return. In fact in my 15 years of making car payments I must have paid about $15000. I only ever have received about $1000 in return (a parking lot dent). If this was an investment evidently it's a very poor one. And when (if?) you get what we call “a job,” money is automatically withdrawn from your paycheck regardless of your consent (in the medical profession when a patient is unconscious and requires treatment that’s called “implied consent”) which in practically every other transactional situation is illegal. This is definitely illegal when you couple it with conditional payout: “if you reach retirement,” “if you are widowed,” if something else happens,” etc. You already paid in and there is zero obligation or guarantee of payout later. Plus the rate of return on so-called Socialist Security “benefits” is as we say in the investment industry. “shitty.” What makes you think I don't have a job and why does it matter? Your argument is not strengthened by ad hominem attacks. Or by telling the person with whom you're having a policy discussion to "be quiet". Is that how you like your political discourse? Only the people who agree with you are allowed to speak? Now you're saying that all taxation is illegal. Is that it? Have you given up criticizing the financial health and long-term prospects of SS in particular (which is what this thread is about.. it's not about libertarian fantasies) money is automatically withdrawn from your paycheck regardless of your consent.. which in practically every other transactional situation is illegal. I was under the impression that the SS trust fund while existing "on paper" had been spent "in reality" each year so that there really is no trust fund... If I'm saving for a new car and I set aside 15% of every paycheck but instead write myself an IOU and put it in a box then maybe through some crazy accounting mechanism I have the money but it will not be there when I go to buy the car. This means that when SS starts to dip into the trust fund the money will have to come from somewhere... Other David:If you don't mind giving that money to Shawn's grandmother why don't you just cut her a check directly instead of having a sizable portion of it go to bureaucratic waste? I also think the reason he might not tell her refuse the check is that she has been forced to pay taxes all of her life... As taxation goes- No not all taxes are illegal(roads post offices schools military courts etc.) but taxes solely for wealth transfers should be. What is that talk of 'generational warfare'? In most cultures the younguns are expected to take care of the eldery. "People shouldn't live too long as they don't have a right to expect others to care of them"? Oh well in the case of Futurama the suicide booth is released in 2008. The "trust fund" has no meaning whatsoever. Regardless of what you believe is in the fund - bonds or IOU's or accounting tricks - it has no meaning. The money to pay for the promised future benefits of social security must come from future taxpayers. Congress can at any point decide to shift the burden of funding social security benefits. It can raise the payroll tax to 20%. It can lower it to 0% and fund social security benefits from progressive income taxes. But whatever method it chooses the trust fund still has no meaning. Those who have built the trust fund can claim that through these bonds we have obligated future generations to fund social security benefits. But Congress can change the promised benefits at any time. Congress has already reduced benefits for some and raised benefits for others. There is no legal requirement for the federal government to meet the "obligation" of the trust fund bonds at any set schedule. The social security trust fund has no meaning. Other than the problems of transitioning off of social security what is the economic rational given for not allowing people to keep their own money and spend it how they see fit? I certainly can't see any sort of externality or market failure involved. If people were allowed to keep their payroll taxes surely market would respond with many alternatives to save for retirement. The number of people investing long-term would increase and their funds would be put to use creating new capital. I wonder how such a shift in time-preference would effect the (in)stability of the stock market since more funds would be dedicated to long-term investments? David:If I'm saving for a new car and I set aside 15% of every paycheck but instead write myself an IOU and put it in a box then maybe through some crazy accounting mechanism I have the money but it will not be there when I go to buy the car. 1) Do you normally go around giving random people your “hard-earned” money?2) Give me some now3) What gives Paul Krugman and you the right to determine what comes out of my paycheck?4) Are you so completely deluded that you think that there is some Socialist Security “lockbox” (there isn’t)? Since I work in the investment industry and you and Krugman don’t you need to disclose how you and the government will handle my money better than I will using very specific (and legally defined) performance time horizons and benchmarks. When you fail this scrutiny which you will. I demand all of my money back with interest (historical 30-year Treasury rates will suffice) and I demand any remuneration received by Paul Krugman from the New York Times and every other publication for which he has written. Socialist Security is an unsolicited and unapproved automatic confiscation of money from people who temporally don’t exist yet. That’s illegal and fraudulent. 3. Like other citizens of the U. S. you participate in a social contract by which you forfeit some rights to the state in order to enjoy the benefits of a safe and productive society. Taxes including FICA are part of that. 4. I never have thought there is a "lockbox". That was a clumsy rhetorical device popularized by the 2000 Democratic Presidential candidate. While I believe I understood what Gore was trying to say as a marketing tool it was underwhelming. 5. What specifically do you mean by "handling your money better"? Do you mean realizing a higher rate of return? At what level of risk? I don't believe I personally can give you a higher rate of return at lower risk than you can. I do believe however the SS administration can give you rate of return at lower risk than you ever can achieve on your own. In addition. I care about more people than just you or myself. I also care about people who have less wherewithal than you or I do to achieve economic security. 6. SS security was solicited in 1935. It was approved in 1935 and reaffirmed by every Congress since then. Like other policies it will affect future Americans who don't currently exist. That's how the Republic works. Gil excellent point to the favor of SS. In order to say that SS bonds are "IOUs" one has to adopt such a sufficiently loose definition of "IOU" that all financial instruments fall under that definition. Even precious metals don't have a guaranteed value. There is absolutely nothing different between my claim on Paul Krugman’s (unearned) paycheck and his fraudulent claim on mine. The only difference is I happened to be born after him. If anything he owes me for all the economic bullshit he concocts for amateurs like you to digest. As an investment professional (which you aren’t). I am far more capable of managing my money than you are so there is absolutely zero reason I should be restricted to your sub-optimal performance and limits or the government’s. Are you insinuating that Bawney Fwank knows more about Reg NMS Rule 611. CAPM & MPT and what I should do with my money than I do? If so. I’m going to have to ask you to step outside so I can punch you (and Bawney Fwank a vewy impowtant pewson) in the face. I can do [much] better than a “modest” rate of return – that’s not for you or the government to decide. Yet that is precisely what you are arguing. I should forfeit my expertise because of some non-existent “social contract.” Even if we are somehow miraculously successful at avoiding the current Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid trainwreck there is absolutely nothing preventing an identical situation from recurring in future as there is [currently] no government enforced demographic framework. I’m sure you’ll be arguing for that next. The point is Paul Krugman is free to write anything he wants including this absurd claim that Social Security is solvent. The marketplace has decided that he’s basically dumb and irrelevant for obvious reasons. His idea that somehow other people are responsible for paying his debts is economically vacuous. That is the underlying assumption of Socialist Security. There is no such obligation. There is no “socialist contract.” I think some comments are confusing the difference between when I buy a government bond (I have nothing against government bonds when used properly) and when the government buys its own bonds. When I buy a bond. I give X value to the government. In Y years they pay me back X value plus interest. With the trust fund taxes have been paid into the fund and the government borrows X value and spends it. When SS starts to dip into the trust fund the government pays back X value into the trust fund. Here's the problem though.. do you really think the government will be running budget surpluses in 2017? So where will the money come from to pay back the bonds issued to the trust fund? FROM TAXES. I never argued the government wouldn't be solvent as some of you say. That's dumb. My argument is that every dollar the government spends comes from taxpayers even to pay back treasury bonds issued to itself.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/11/on-krugman-on-s.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Inside the Beltway doomsaying about Social Security — declaring thatthe program as we know it can’t survive the onslaught of retiring babyboomers — is regarded as a sort of badge of seriousness a way ofshowing how statesmanlike and tough-minded you are.. But the “everyone” who knows that Social Security is doomed doesn’tinclude anyone who actually understands the numbers. In fact the wholeBeltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population ismisguided. As Peter Orszag the director of the CongressionalBudget Office put it in a recent article co-authored with senioranalyst Philip Ellis: “The long-term fiscal condition of the UnitedStates has been largely misdiagnosed. Despite all the attention paid todemographic challenges such as the coming retirement of the baby-boomgeneration our country’s financial health will in fact be determinedprimarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs.” Howhas conventional wisdom gotten this so wrong? Well in large part it’sthe result of decades of scare-mongering about Social Security’s futurefrom conservative ideologues whose ultimate goal is to undermine theprogram. The only evidence that Krugman presents to support his case against the proposition that Social Security is headed for insolvency (unless it undergoes big changes) is simply that Medicare and Medicaid are headed for insolvency that's even worse. So Krugman's case that Social Security presents no real problems to worry about is like say a lawyer advising client Jones that the grand-larceny charges against Jones are really nothing to worry about because client Smith is facing the more serious charge of murder. It's true that the fiscal problems looming for Medicare and Medicaid are worse that those that loom for Social Security. That this fact is so is admitted by those who believe that Social Security faces real and serious problems. For example. Texas A&M economist Thomas Saving an eminent scholar and a Clinton-appointed Public Trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds that Social Security faces big fiscal problems. Mr. Saving admitted explicitly that the problems confronting Medicare and Medicaid are larger than are the problems confronting Social Security -- but he went on quite correctly to highlight the nevertheless large problems with the current Social Security system. And in that Mr. Saving published a few monts later in July 2005 he said The recent annual report issued by the Social Security Board ofTrustees demonstrates with undeniable clarity that Social Securityfaces a looming financial crisis. Worse still the report shows SocialSecurity's lurch toward insolvency has accelerated. As a relatively young person. I don't care if social security is doomed. The program itself when functioning properly is a gigantic screw job. To give 12% of your income to a retirement system that pays out at poverty levels is highway robbery. If a private company was selling social security as a plan its executives would be jailed for a host of fraudulent actions starting with accounting and including breach of contract (every time Congress decides to change the terms of the deal) and mismanagement (forcing clients into such an incredibly terrible deal). It would be extremely difficult to find someone who had privately invested 12% of their lifetime earnings who received less back in benefits than they will get from social security. Shifting part of the payroll tax an individual pays into a private account as opposed to paying it out for current govt spending will allow today's youth to accumulate a significant nest egg by the time they retire. That will in turn make changes down the road (i e traditional Social Security benefit cuts which eventually must happen) much easier. As I understand it both social security and Medicare/Medicaid can be relativily painless fixed by linking the growth in payouts to price increases rather than wage increase. How true is this? "Why should the overall surplus be no less than the combined surplus of the trust funds? Or to use Washington jargon why should we put those trust-fund surpluses in a 'lockbox'? First because we know that the projected surpluses in Social Security and Medicare though enough to postpone the eventual crises in the two systems are not enough to put off those crises forever." --Paul Krugman. "Going for Broke". The New Republic. 5/21/01 If young people have this attitude about Social Security then I'm not surprised that politicians don't think its a crisis. If people don't care that 7% of their money is basically being flushed down the toilet (14% if you count the "employers contribution") then there's probably plenty of room for raising that tax rate much higher. It will help the solvency of SS but not totally secure it. The CPI is what the benefits would be indexed to. However the CPI is a government statistic and can be manipulated by government officials to underhandedlly decrease benefits over the long run. I would heartily applaud the destruction of SS but the possible use of CPI to undermine benefits strikes me as evil and dishonest. The real financial crisis will come long before SS Trust is actually in danger. It's because the SS Trust and Medicare Trust Funds are all mixed up into one big slush fund for general spending. Once the SS surplus and the Medicare surplus starts decreasing the entire US Federal Government will be in danger of insolvency. It will no longer have enough money to pay for people do its most important task. National Security. Essentially this is the prefunding con job. Since FICA revenues will cease to support general expenditures in the near future what we must do is.. increase the FICA tax so it continues to support general expenditures. In other words we need to increase the regressive payroll tax so that we don't need to raise other taxes. And we're doing it to "save" social security. This is the con laid out clearly for all to see. This has nothing to do with "saving Social security" and everything to do with increasing the regressivity of the tax code. Krugman and other economists have written extensively on Social Security with compelling arguments to support the notion that it's solvent. So it's misleading to imply that his reasoning rests on the principle that Social Security is not as bad off as Medicare. Kebco over your lifetime you may pay a substantial portion of your income into home insurance and if you're lucky (i e. you don't suffer a fire or other disaster) you never will receive a payment in return. Will you regard this as "highway robbery"? PM if SS is an "easier problem" to fix as you say that supports Krugman's claim that it's not in crisis. Also if the market continues to whipsaw as it has recently and with global pressure and oil above $100/barrel can you guarantee private accounts will allow workers to accumulate a nest egg? Mason it is not correct to say that "SS Trust and Medicare Trust Funds are all mixed up into one big slush fund for general spending. Once the SS surplus and the Medicare surplus starts decreasing the entire US Federal Government will be in danger of insolvency." They have separate trust funds and none will throw the government into receivership. As for Krugman's seeming change of heart from 1996 for that I have no explanation. If the Krugman from 11 years ago truly thought Social Security faced a demographic-driven crisis then evidently he was wrong. Krugman does not deny this at all so it's not an effective rebuttal. What this "deficit" means is that the excess SS contributions that go into the trust fund go to zero and SS instead needs to start cashing in the Treasury bonds in the trust fund (to cover said "deficit"). That is *by design* the outcome of the Greenspan commission's plan of '82; it was the *whole point* of building up the trust fund. Ergo. 2017 is not a "crisis." The people proposing SS "fixes" that amount to either increasing SS payroll taxes or reducing benefits in order to stretch out the trust fund further instead of raising general (progressive) income taxes or cutting general expenditures to allow for paying back the debt from the general budget to SS are essentially proposing that a regressive tax (SS payroll) be continued to be used to subsidize lower rates on progressive taxes; the math here is inescapable. What about the longer term health? The CW expectation that the trust fund will be depleted by mid-century is based on using a pessimistic productivity growth assumption of 1.3%; however historical productivity growth tracks much more closely the middle-of-the-road assumption of 1.6% (it's actually between that and the optimistic assumption of 1.9%). At 1.6% productivity growth the trust fund is depleted after 2075. At 1.9% it lasts indefinitely. Again note that it was *always* the case that the trust fund would eventually be depleted as it was originally created by the Greepnspan Commission to cope with the demographic bomb of the baby boom. Pre-Greenspan. SS was a pay-as-you-go system. Ergo. 2042 (or 2075 or whenever the fund is depleted) is not a "crisis" either. What happens after it is depleted? SS returns to being a PAYG system as it was for almost 40 years without a problem; trustee projections indicate that after depletion. PAYG contributions can fund 75% of scheduled benefits (again based on pessimistic assumptions). Given that there are reasonable odds that trust-fund depletion is way in the future (the number of years until depletion varies by around 100% depending on the assumptions used) it's reasonable to address it when it's closer. Krugman is right. The political objective of the people pitching the "crisis" rhetoric is to postpone as much as possible using progressively-taxed general revenues to pay back regressively-taxed SS. It's pure-and-simple class warfare. Calling the SS tax regressive is a bit dishonest. A straight percentage of income is neither regressive or progressive--it's neutral. Regressive is a captitation tax. The only sense in which one might call the tax regressive is that it's capped at a level of income that represents a cap on benefits but that hardly deserves the "regressive" label. If Paul Krugman could lump SS and Medicare together in 1996 for crisis-mongering purposes without becoming a conservative ideologue thereby why can't we do it now? (And why did he say "crises" plural in 2001?) How big a seller would homeowner's insurance be if it left you worse off than self-insurance even when it paid off? Why they might have to pass a law forcing people to buy it whether they wanted to or not! Excellent post. Ivan. I would add that it's unclear how private accounts would enjoy the yields their proponents advertise in the face of the pessismistic 1.3% productivity growth rate which is the basis for the 2042 SS shortfall prediction. SaulOhio has the government ever in its history defaulted on treasury bonds? Do you imagine such a default wouldn't have grave consequences? Do you expect any future politician facing re-election ever to be in favor of such a default? Paul Zrimsek self-insurance of one's home--when it's feasible--always is economically more advantageous than the shared risk + profit model of purchased homeowners' insurance. When it's feasible. Usually it isn't which is why people continue to buy homeowners' insurance. Your analogy is bad. Roger O. has there ever been a trust fund since perhaps Pharaoh's that doesn't consist of promissory notes to pay? So why should I be more concerned about the SS trust fund than about any other? In addition it's misleading to characterize the bonds as merely "IOUs". Scribblings and a signature on the back of an envelope given to my brother for the 20 bucks he loaned me is merely an IOU and no law other than filial says I have to redeem it. Are such IOUs exactly the same as the SS bonds? Paul Zrimsek self-insurance against retirement is not feasible for people who earn too little throughout their working lives for some spouses who are widowed or for some people who become injured. As an earlier post noted were you to publicly offer this type of “investment,” with no guarantee of payout and major financing problems and a pyramid scheme-structure you would be arrested especially if you used the mail to do so. Assuming for one moment that solvency projections carry us optimistically out to 2040 and assuming productivity manages a nice 1.6 – 1.8% clip (very optimistic) aren’t you - and Krugman – completely missing the point that this is nothing short of generational warfare not class warfare? When the demographics line up just right (like now and because it is a horrible Ponzi scheme) Socialist Security saddles future generations with obligations they had zero input in creating and receive nothing Mesa Econoquy. SS is not an investment. It's insurance. Whether or not it has a "pyramid scheme-structure" well that you'll have to explain. As for whether it has major financing problems that hasn't been established as fact. "Warfare" isn't a neutral term it's a pejorative one that I don't use. SS is however both a generational and class wealth transfer mechanism which is a policy I endorse. Of course you're entitled to reject it on idealogical grounds but then you'd be wandering away from the subject of Krugman's opinion piece which is on SS's solvency. From the first paragraph in your link a pyramid scheme is "a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme usually without any product or service being delivered." Social security does not require money to become enrolled into the program. You are enrolled in the program when you are associated with a social security number which these days typically happens at birth. Also it does provide a service called insurance. If you reach retirement or are widowed or are injured and cannot work you will receive a distribution. Finally. Social Security has been sustained continuously since 1935. So you can put that charge to rest. A annuity is insurance-like investment that is sometimes used as insurance but there are other types of insurance which are not investments. At least not in the sense of an expected financial return in equity growth dividends or interest (though insurance is an "investment" in peace of mind). For instance. I recently made my semi-annual car insurance payment. I'm a good driver though. I drive little and I don't live in the city so it's very unlikely I will have an event (e g a crash) causing me to receive a financial return. In fact in my 15 years of making car payments I must have paid about $15000. I only ever have received about $1000 in return (a parking lot dent). If this was an investment evidently it's a very poor one. And when (if?) you get what we call “a job,” money is automatically withdrawn from your paycheck regardless of your consent (in the medical profession when a patient is unconscious and requires treatment that’s called “implied consent”) which in practically every other transactional situation is illegal. This is definitely illegal when you couple it with conditional payout: “if you reach retirement,” “if you are widowed,” if something else happens,” etc. You already paid in and there is zero obligation or guarantee of payout later. Plus the rate of return on so-called Socialist Security “benefits” is as we say in the investment industry. “shitty.” What makes you think I don't have a job and why does it matter? Your argument is not strengthened by ad hominem attacks. Or by telling the person with whom you're having a policy discussion to "be quiet". Is that how you like your political discourse? Only the people who agree with you are allowed to speak? Now you're saying that all taxation is illegal. Is that it? Have you given up criticizing the financial health and long-term prospects of SS in particular (which is what this thread is about.. it's not about libertarian fantasies) money is automatically withdrawn from your paycheck regardless of your consent.. which in practically every other transactional situation is illegal. I was under the impression that the SS trust fund while existing "on paper" had been spent "in reality" each year so that there really is no trust fund... If I'm saving for a new car and I set aside 15% of every paycheck but instead write myself an IOU and put it in a box then maybe through some crazy accounting mechanism I have the money but it will not be there when I go to buy the car. This means that when SS starts to dip into the trust fund the money will have to come from somewhere... Other David:If you don't mind giving that money to Shawn's grandmother why don't you just cut her a check directly instead of having a sizable portion of it go to bureaucratic waste? I also think the reason he might not tell her refuse the check is that she has been forced to pay taxes all of her life... As taxation goes- No not all taxes are illegal(roads post offices schools military courts etc.) but taxes solely for wealth transfers should be. What is that talk of 'generational warfare'? In most cultures the younguns are expected to take care of the eldery. "People shouldn't live too long as they don't have a right to expect others to care of them"? Oh well in the case of Futurama the suicide booth is released in 2008. The "trust fund" has no meaning whatsoever. Regardless of what you believe is in the fund - bonds or IOU's or accounting tricks - it has no meaning. The money to pay for the promised future benefits of social security must come from future taxpayers. Congress can at any point decide to shift the burden of funding social security benefits. It can raise the payroll tax to 20%. It can lower it to 0% and fund social security benefits from progressive income taxes. But whatever method it chooses the trust fund still has no meaning. Those who have built the trust fund can claim that through these bonds we have obligated future generations to fund social security benefits. But Congress can change the promised benefits at any time. Congress has already reduced benefits for some and raised benefits for others. There is no legal requirement for the federal government to meet the "obligation" of the trust fund bonds at any set schedule. The social security trust fund has no meaning. Other than the problems of transitioning off of social security what is the economic rational given for not allowing people to keep their own money and spend it how they see fit? I certainly can't see any sort of externality or market failure involved. If people were allowed to keep their payroll taxes surely market would respond with many alternatives to save for retirement. The number of people investing long-term would increase and their funds would be put to use creating new capital. I wonder how such a shift in time-preference would effect the (in)stability of the stock market since more funds would be dedicated to long-term investments? David:If I'm saving for a new car and I set aside 15% of every paycheck but instead write myself an IOU and put it in a box then maybe through some crazy accounting mechanism I have the money but it will not be there when I go to buy the car. 1) Do you normally go around giving random people your “hard-earned” money?2) Give me some now3) What gives Paul Krugman and you the right to determine what comes out of my paycheck?4) Are you so completely deluded that you think that there is some Socialist Security “lockbox” (there isn’t)? Since I work in the investment industry and you and Krugman don’t you need to disclose how you and the government will handle my money better than I will using very specific (and legally defined) performance time horizons and benchmarks. When you fail this scrutiny which you will. I demand all of my money back with interest (historical 30-year Treasury rates will suffice) and I demand any remuneration received by Paul Krugman from the New York Times and every other publication for which he has written. Socialist Security is an unsolicited and unapproved automatic confiscation of money from people who temporally don’t exist yet. That’s illegal and fraudulent. 3. Like other citizens of the U. S. you participate in a social contract by which you forfeit some rights to the state in order to enjoy the benefits of a safe and productive society. Taxes including FICA are part of that. 4. I never have thought there is a "lockbox". That was a clumsy rhetorical device popularized by the 2000 Democratic Presidential candidate. While I believe I understood what Gore was trying to say as a marketing tool it was underwhelming. 5. What specifically do you mean by "handling your money better"? Do you mean realizing a higher rate of return? At what level of risk? I don't believe I personally can give you a higher rate of return at lower risk than you can. I do believe however the SS administration can give you rate of return at lower risk than you ever can achieve on your own. In addition. I care about more people than just you or myself. I also care about people who have less wherewithal than you or I do to achieve economic security. 6. SS security was solicited in 1935. It was approved in 1935 and reaffirmed by every Congress since then. Like other policies it will affect future Americans who don't currently exist. That's how the Republic works. Gil excellent point to the favor of SS. In order to say that SS bonds are "IOUs" one has to adopt such a sufficiently loose definition of "IOU" that all financial instruments fall under that definition. Even precious metals don't have a guaranteed value. There is absolutely nothing different between my claim on Paul Krugman’s (unearned) paycheck and his fraudulent claim on mine. The only difference is I happened to be born after him. If anything he owes me for all the economic bullshit he concocts for amateurs like you to digest. As an investment professional (which you aren’t). I am far more capable of managing my money than you are so there is absolutely zero reason I should be restricted to your sub-optimal performance and limits or the government’s. Are you insinuating that Bawney Fwank knows more about Reg NMS Rule 611. CAPM & MPT and what I should do with my money than I do? If so. I’m going to have to ask you to step outside so I can punch you (and Bawney Fwank a vewy impowtant pewson) in the face. I can do [much] better than a “modest” rate of return – that’s not for you or the government to decide. Yet that is precisely what you are arguing. I should forfeit my expertise because of some non-existent “social contract.” Even if we are somehow miraculously successful at avoiding the current Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid trainwreck there is absolutely nothing preventing an identical situation from recurring in future as there is [currently] no government enforced demographic framework. I’m sure you’ll be arguing for that next. The point is Paul Krugman is free to write anything he wants including this absurd claim that Social Security is solvent. The marketplace has decided that he’s basically dumb and irrelevant for obvious reasons. His idea that somehow other people are responsible for paying his debts is economically vacuous. That is the underlying assumption of Socialist Security. There is no such obligation. There is no “socialist contract.” I think some comments are confusing the difference between when I buy a government bond (I have nothing against government bonds when used properly) and when the government buys its own bonds. When I buy a bond. I give X value to the government. In Y years they pay me back X value plus interest. With the trust fund taxes have been paid into the fund and the government borrows X value and spends it. When SS starts to dip into the trust fund the government pays back X value into the trust fund. Here's the problem though.. do you really think the government will be running budget surpluses in 2017? So where will the money come from to pay back the bonds issued to the trust fund? FROM TAXES. I never argued the government wouldn't be solvent as some of you say. That's dumb. My argument is that every dollar the government spends comes from taxpayers even to pay back treasury bonds issued to itself.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/11/on-krugman-on-s.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Inside the Beltway doomsaying about Social Security — declaring thatthe program as we know it can’t survive the onslaught of retiring babyboomers — is regarded as a sort of badge of seriousness a way ofshowing how statesmanlike and tough-minded you are.. But the “everyone” who knows that Social Security is doomed doesn’tinclude anyone who actually understands the numbers. In fact the wholeBeltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population ismisguided. As Peter Orszag the director of the CongressionalBudget Office put it in a recent article co-authored with senioranalyst Philip Ellis: “The long-term fiscal condition of the UnitedStates has been largely misdiagnosed. Despite all the attention paid todemographic challenges such as the coming retirement of the baby-boomgeneration our country’s financial health will in fact be determinedprimarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs.” Howhas conventional wisdom gotten this so wrong? Well in large part it’sthe result of decades of scare-mongering about Social Security’s futurefrom conservative ideologues whose ultimate goal is to undermine theprogram. The only evidence that Krugman presents to support his case against the proposition that Social Security is headed for insolvency (unless it undergoes big changes) is simply that Medicare and Medicaid are headed for insolvency that's even worse. So Krugman's case that Social Security presents no real problems to worry about is like say a lawyer advising client Jones that the grand-larceny charges against Jones are really nothing to worry about because client Smith is facing the more serious charge of murder. It's true that the fiscal problems looming for Medicare and Medicaid are worse that those that loom for Social Security. That this fact is so is admitted by those who believe that Social Security faces real and serious problems. For example. Texas A&M economist Thomas Saving an eminent scholar and a Clinton-appointed Public Trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds that Social Security faces big fiscal problems. Mr. Saving admitted explicitly that the problems confronting Medicare and Medicaid are larger than are the problems confronting Social Security -- but he went on quite correctly to highlight the nevertheless large problems with the current Social Security system. And in that Mr. Saving published a few monts later in July 2005 he said The recent annual report issued by the Social Security Board ofTrustees demonstrates with undeniable clarity that Social Securityfaces a looming financial crisis. Worse still the report shows SocialSecurity's lurch toward insolvency has accelerated. As a relatively young person. I don't care if social security is doomed. The program itself when functioning properly is a gigantic screw job. To give 12% of your income to a retirement system that pays out at poverty levels is highway robbery. If a private company was selling social security as a plan its executives would be jailed for a host of fraudulent actions starting with accounting and including breach of contract (every time Congress decides to change the terms of the deal) and mismanagement (forcing clients into such an incredibly terrible deal). It would be extremely difficult to find someone who had privately invested 12% of their lifetime earnings who received less back in benefits than they will get from social security. Shifting part of the payroll tax an individual pays into a private account as opposed to paying it out for current govt spending will allow today's youth to accumulate a significant nest egg by the time they retire. That will in turn make changes down the road (i e traditional Social Security benefit cuts which eventually must happen) much easier. As I understand it both social security and Medicare/Medicaid can be relativily painless fixed by linking the growth in payouts to price increases rather than wage increase. How true is this? "Why should the overall surplus be no less than the combined surplus of the trust funds? Or to use Washington jargon why should we put those trust-fund surpluses in a 'lockbox'? First because we know that the projected surpluses in Social Security and Medicare though enough to postpone the eventual crises in the two systems are not enough to put off those crises forever." --Paul Krugman. "Going for Broke". The New Republic. 5/21/01 If young people have this attitude about Social Security then I'm not surprised that politicians don't think its a crisis. If people don't care that 7% of their money is basically being flushed down the toilet (14% if you count the "employers contribution") then there's probably plenty of room for raising that tax rate much higher. It will help the solvency of SS but not totally secure it. The CPI is what the benefits would be indexed to. However the CPI is a government statistic and can be manipulated by government officials to underhandedlly decrease benefits over the long run. I would heartily applaud the destruction of SS but the possible use of CPI to undermine benefits strikes me as evil and dishonest. The real financial crisis will come long before SS Trust is actually in danger. It's because the SS Trust and Medicare Trust Funds are all mixed up into one big slush fund for general spending. Once the SS surplus and the Medicare surplus starts decreasing the entire US Federal Government will be in danger of insolvency. It will no longer have enough money to pay for people do its most important task. National Security. Essentially this is the prefunding con job. Since FICA revenues will cease to support general expenditures in the near future what we must do is.. increase the FICA tax so it continues to support general expenditures. In other words we need to increase the regressive payroll tax so that we don't need to raise other taxes. And we're doing it to "save" social security. This is the con laid out clearly for all to see. This has nothing to do with "saving Social security" and everything to do with increasing the regressivity of the tax code. Krugman and other economists have written extensively on Social Security with compelling arguments to support the notion that it's solvent. So it's misleading to imply that his reasoning rests on the principle that Social Security is not as bad off as Medicare. Kebco over your lifetime you may pay a substantial portion of your income into home insurance and if you're lucky (i e. you don't suffer a fire or other disaster) you never will receive a payment in return. Will you regard this as "highway robbery"? PM if SS is an "easier problem" to fix as you say that supports Krugman's claim that it's not in crisis. Also if the market continues to whipsaw as it has recently and with global pressure and oil above $100/barrel can you guarantee private accounts will allow workers to accumulate a nest egg? Mason it is not correct to say that "SS Trust and Medicare Trust Funds are all mixed up into one big slush fund for general spending. Once the SS surplus and the Medicare surplus starts decreasing the entire US Federal Government will be in danger of insolvency." They have separate trust funds and none will throw the government into receivership. As for Krugman's seeming change of heart from 1996 for that I have no explanation. If the Krugman from 11 years ago truly thought Social Security faced a demographic-driven crisis then evidently he was wrong. Krugman does not deny this at all so it's not an effective rebuttal. What this "deficit" means is that the excess SS contributions that go into the trust fund go to zero and SS instead needs to start cashing in the Treasury bonds in the trust fund (to cover said "deficit"). That is *by design* the outcome of the Greenspan commission's plan of '82; it was the *whole point* of building up the trust fund. Ergo. 2017 is not a "crisis." The people proposing SS "fixes" that amount to either increasing SS payroll taxes or reducing benefits in order to stretch out the trust fund further instead of raising general (progressive) income taxes or cutting general expenditures to allow for paying back the debt from the general budget to SS are essentially proposing that a regressive tax (SS payroll) be continued to be used to subsidize lower rates on progressive taxes; the math here is inescapable. What about the longer term health? The CW expectation that the trust fund will be depleted by mid-century is based on using a pessimistic productivity growth assumption of 1.3%; however historical productivity growth tracks much more closely the middle-of-the-road assumption of 1.6% (it's actually between that and the optimistic assumption of 1.9%). At 1.6% productivity growth the trust fund is depleted after 2075. At 1.9% it lasts indefinitely. Again note that it was *always* the case that the trust fund would eventually be depleted as it was originally created by the Greepnspan Commission to cope with the demographic bomb of the baby boom. Pre-Greenspan. SS was a pay-as-you-go system. Ergo. 2042 (or 2075 or whenever the fund is depleted) is not a "crisis" either. What happens after it is depleted? SS returns to being a PAYG system as it was for almost 40 years without a problem; trustee projections indicate that after depletion. PAYG contributions can fund 75% of scheduled benefits (again based on pessimistic assumptions). Given that there are reasonable odds that trust-fund depletion is way in the future (the number of years until depletion varies by around 100% depending on the assumptions used) it's reasonable to address it when it's closer. Krugman is right. The political objective of the people pitching the "crisis" rhetoric is to postpone as much as possible using progressively-taxed general revenues to pay back regressively-taxed SS. It's pure-and-simple class warfare. Calling the SS tax regressive is a bit dishonest. A straight percentage of income is neither regressive or progressive--it's neutral. Regressive is a captitation tax. The only sense in which one might call the tax regressive is that it's capped at a level of income that represents a cap on benefits but that hardly deserves the "regressive" label. If Paul Krugman could lump SS and Medicare together in 1996 for crisis-mongering purposes without becoming a conservative ideologue thereby why can't we do it now? (And why did he say "crises" plural in 2001?) How big a seller would homeowner's insurance be if it left you worse off than self-insurance even when it paid off? Why they might have to pass a law forcing people to buy it whether they wanted to or not! Excellent post. Ivan. I would add that it's unclear how private accounts would enjoy the yields their proponents advertise in the face of the pessismistic 1.3% productivity growth rate which is the basis for the 2042 SS shortfall prediction. SaulOhio has the government ever in its history defaulted on treasury bonds? Do you imagine such a default wouldn't have grave consequences? Do you expect any future politician facing re-election ever to be in favor of such a default? Paul Zrimsek self-insurance of one's home--when it's feasible--always is economically more advantageous than the shared risk + profit model of purchased homeowners' insurance. When it's feasible. Usually it isn't which is why people continue to buy homeowners' insurance. Your analogy is bad. Roger O. has there ever been a trust fund since perhaps Pharaoh's that doesn't consist of promissory notes to pay? So why should I be more concerned about the SS trust fund than about any other? In addition it's misleading to characterize the bonds as merely "IOUs". Scribblings and a signature on the back of an envelope given to my brother for the 20 bucks he loaned me is merely an IOU and no law other than filial says I have to redeem it. Are such IOUs exactly the same as the SS bonds? Paul Zrimsek self-insurance against retirement is not feasible for people who earn too little throughout their working lives for some spouses who are widowed or for some people who become injured. As an earlier post noted were you to publicly offer this type of “investment,” with no guarantee of payout and major financing problems and a pyramid scheme-structure you would be arrested especially if you used the mail to do so. Assuming for one moment that solvency projections carry us optimistically out to 2040 and assuming productivity manages a nice 1.6 – 1.8% clip (very optimistic) aren’t you - and Krugman – completely missing the point that this is nothing short of generational warfare not class warfare? When the demographics line up just right (like now and because it is a horrible Ponzi scheme) Socialist Security saddles future generations with obligations they had zero input in creating and receive nothing Mesa Econoquy. SS is not an investment. It's insurance. Whether or not it has a "pyramid scheme-structure" well that you'll have to explain. As for whether it has major financing problems that hasn't been established as fact. "Warfare" isn't a neutral term it's a pejorative one that I don't use. SS is however both a generational and class wealth transfer mechanism which is a policy I endorse. Of course you're entitled to reject it on idealogical grounds but then you'd be wandering away from the subject of Krugman's opinion piece which is on SS's solvency. From the first paragraph in your link a pyramid scheme is "a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme usually without any product or service being delivered." Social security does not require money to become enrolled into the program. You are enrolled in the program when you are associated with a social security number which these days typically happens at birth. Also it does provide a service called insurance. If you reach retirement or are widowed or are injured and cannot work you will receive a distribution. Finally. Social Security has been sustained continuously since 1935. So you can put that charge to rest. A annuity is insurance-like investment that is sometimes used as insurance but there are other types of insurance which are not investments. At least not in the sense of an expected financial return in equity growth dividends or interest (though insurance is an "investment" in peace of mind). For instance. I recently made my semi-annual car insurance payment. I'm a good driver though. I drive little and I don't live in the city so it's very unlikely I will have an event (e g a crash) causing me to receive a financial return. In fact in my 15 years of making car payments I must have paid about $15000. I only ever have received about $1000 in return (a parking lot dent). If this was an investment evidently it's a very poor one. And when (if?) you get what we call “a job,” money is automatically withdrawn from your paycheck regardless of your consent (in the medical profession when a patient is unconscious and requires treatment that’s called “implied consent”) which in practically every other transactional situation is illegal. This is definitely illegal when you couple it with conditional payout: “if you reach retirement,” “if you are widowed,” if something else happens,” etc. You already paid in and there is zero obligation or guarantee of payout later. Plus the rate of return on so-called Socialist Security “benefits” is as we say in the investment industry. “shitty.” What makes you think I don't have a job and why does it matter? Your argument is not strengthened by ad hominem attacks. Or by telling the person with whom you're having a policy discussion to "be quiet". Is that how you like your political discourse? Only the people who agree with you are allowed to speak? Now you're saying that all taxation is illegal. Is that it? Have you given up criticizing the financial health and long-term prospects of SS in particular (which is what this thread is about.. it's not about libertarian fantasies) money is automatically withdrawn from your paycheck regardless of your consent.. which in practically every other transactional situation is illegal. I was under the impression that the SS trust fund while existing "on paper" had been spent "in reality" each year so that there really is no trust fund... If I'm saving for a new car and I set aside 15% of every paycheck but instead write myself an IOU and put it in a box then maybe through some crazy accounting mechanism I have the money but it will not be there when I go to buy the car. This means that when SS starts to dip into the trust fund the money will have to come from somewhere... Other David:If you don't mind giving that money to Shawn's grandmother why don't you just cut her a check directly instead of having a sizable portion of it go to bureaucratic waste? I also think the reason he might not tell her refuse the check is that she has been forced to pay taxes all of her life... As taxation goes- No not all taxes are illegal(roads post offices schools military courts etc.) but taxes solely for wealth transfers should be. What is that talk of 'generational warfare'? In most cultures the younguns are expected to take care of the eldery. "People shouldn't live too long as they don't have a right to expect others to care of them"? Oh well in the case of Futurama the suicide booth is released in 2008. The "trust fund" has no meaning whatsoever. Regardless of what you believe is in the fund - bonds or IOU's or accounting tricks - it has no meaning. The money to pay for the promised future benefits of social security must come from future taxpayers. Congress can at any point decide to shift the burden of funding social security benefits. It can raise the payroll tax to 20%. It can lower it to 0% and fund social security benefits from progressive income taxes. But whatever method it chooses the trust fund still has no meaning. Those who have built the trust fund can claim that through these bonds we have obligated future generations to fund social security benefits. But Congress can change the promised benefits at any time. Congress has already reduced benefits for some and raised benefits for others. There is no legal requirement for the federal government to meet the "obligation" of the trust fund bonds at any set schedule. The social security trust fund has no meaning. Other than the problems of transitioning off of social security what is the economic rational given for not allowing people to keep their own money and spend it how they see fit? I certainly can't see any sort of externality or market failure involved. If people were allowed to keep their payroll taxes surely market would respond with many alternatives to save for retirement. The number of people investing long-term would increase and their funds would be put to use creating new capital. I wonder how such a shift in time-preference would effect the (in)stability of the stock market since more funds would be dedicated to long-term investments? David:If I'm saving for a new car and I set aside 15% of every paycheck but instead write myself an IOU and put it in a box then maybe through some crazy accounting mechanism I have the money but it will not be there when I go to buy the car. 1) Do you normally go around giving random people your “hard-earned” money?2) Give me some now3) What gives Paul Krugman and you the right to determine what comes out of my paycheck?4) Are you so completely deluded that you think that there is some Socialist Security “lockbox” (there isn’t)? Since I work in the investment industry and you and Krugman don’t you need to disclose how you and the government will handle my money better than I will using very specific (and legally defined) performance time horizons and benchmarks. When you fail this scrutiny which you will. I demand all of my money back with interest (historical 30-year Treasury rates will suffice) and I demand any remuneration received by Paul Krugman from the New York Times and every other publication for which he has written. Socialist Security is an unsolicited and unapproved automatic confiscation of money from people who temporally don’t exist yet. That’s illegal and fraudulent. 3. Like other citizens of the U. S. you participate in a social contract by which you forfeit some rights to the state in order to enjoy the benefits of a safe and productive society. Taxes including FICA are part of that. 4. I never have thought there is a "lockbox". That was a clumsy rhetorical device popularized by the 2000 Democratic Presidential candidate. While I believe I understood what Gore was trying to say as a marketing tool it was underwhelming. 5. What specifically do you mean by "handling your money better"? Do you mean realizing a higher rate of return? At what level of risk? I don't believe I personally can give you a higher rate of return at lower risk than you can. I do believe however the SS administration can give you rate of return at lower risk than you ever can achieve on your own. In addition. I care about more people than just you or myself. I also care about people who have less wherewithal than you or I do to achieve economic security. 6. SS security was solicited in 1935. It was approved in 1935 and reaffirmed by every Congress since then. Like other policies it will affect future Americans who don't currently exist. That's how the Republic works. Gil excellent point to the favor of SS. In order to say that SS bonds are "IOUs" one has to adopt such a sufficiently loose definition of "IOU" that all financial instruments fall under that definition. Even precious metals don't have a guaranteed value. There is absolutely nothing different between my claim on Paul Krugman’s (unearned) paycheck and his fraudulent claim on mine. The only difference is I happened to be born after him. If anything he owes me for all the economic bullshit he concocts for amateurs like you to digest. As an investment professional (which you aren’t). I am far more capable of managing my money than you are so there is absolutely zero reason I should be restricted to your sub-optimal performance and limits or the government’s. Are you insinuating that Bawney Fwank knows more about Reg NMS Rule 611. CAPM & MPT and what I should do with my money than I do? If so. I’m going to have to ask you to step outside so I can punch you (and Bawney Fwank a vewy impowtant pewson) in the face. I can do [much] better than a “modest” rate of return – that’s not for you or the government to decide. Yet that is precisely what you are arguing. I should forfeit my expertise because of some non-existent “social contract.” Even if we are somehow miraculously successful at avoiding the current Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid trainwreck there is absolutely nothing preventing an identical situation from recurring in future as there is [currently] no government enforced demographic framework. I’m sure you’ll be arguing for that next. The point is Paul Krugman is free to write anything he wants including this absurd claim that Social Security is solvent. The marketplace has decided that he’s basically dumb and irrelevant for obvious reasons. His idea that somehow other people are responsible for paying his debts is economically vacuous. That is the underlying assumption of Socialist Security. There is no such obligation. There is no “socialist contract.” I think some comments are confusing the difference between when I buy a government bond (I have nothing against government bonds when used properly) and when the government buys its own bonds. When I buy a bond. I give X value to the government. In Y years they pay me back X value plus interest. With the trust fund taxes have been paid into the fund and the government borrows X value and spends it. When SS starts to dip into the trust fund the government pays back X value into the trust fund. Here's the problem though.. do you really think the government will be running budget surpluses in 2017? So where will the money come from to pay back the bonds issued to the trust fund? FROM TAXES. I never argued the government wouldn't be solvent as some of you say. That's dumb. My argument is that every dollar the government spends comes from taxpayers even to pay back treasury bonds issued to itself.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/11/on-krugman-on-s.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Inside the Beltway doomsaying about Social Security — declaring thatthe program as we know it can’t survive the onslaught of retiring babyboomers — is regarded as a sort of badge of seriousness a way ofshowing how statesmanlike and tough-minded you are.. But the “everyone” who knows that Social Security is doomed doesn’tinclude anyone who actually understands the numbers. In fact the wholeBeltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population ismisguided. As Peter Orszag the director of the CongressionalBudget Office put it in a recent article co-authored with senioranalyst Philip Ellis: “The long-term fiscal condition of the UnitedStates has been largely misdiagnosed. Despite all the attention paid todemographic challenges such as the coming retirement of the baby-boomgeneration our country’s financial health will in fact be determinedprimarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs.” Howhas conventional wisdom gotten this so wrong? Well in large part it’sthe result of decades of scare-mongering about Social Security’s futurefrom conservative ideologues whose ultimate goal is to undermine theprogram. The only evidence that Krugman presents to support his case against the proposition that Social Security is headed for insolvency (unless it undergoes big changes) is simply that Medicare and Medicaid are headed for insolvency that's even worse. So Krugman's case that Social Security presents no real problems to worry about is like say a lawyer advising client Jones that the grand-larceny charges against Jones are really nothing to worry about because client Smith is facing the more serious charge of murder. It's true that the fiscal problems looming for Medicare and Medicaid are worse that those that loom for Social Security. That this fact is so is admitted by those who believe that Social Security faces real and serious problems. For example. Texas A&M economist Thomas Saving an eminent scholar and a Clinton-appointed Public Trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds that Social Security faces big fiscal problems. Mr. Saving admitted explicitly that the problems confronting Medicare and Medicaid are larger than are the problems confronting Social Security -- but he went on quite correctly to highlight the nevertheless large problems with the current Social Security system. And in that Mr. Saving published a few monts later in July 2005 he said The recent annual report issued by the Social Security Board ofTrustees demonstrates with undeniable clarity that Social Securityfaces a looming financial crisis. Worse still the report shows SocialSecurity's lurch toward insolvency has accelerated. As a relatively young person. I don't care if social security is doomed. The program itself when functioning properly is a gigantic screw job. To give 12% of your income to a retirement system that pays out at poverty levels is highway robbery. If a private company was selling social security as a plan its executives would be jailed for a host of fraudulent actions starting with accounting and including breach of contract (every time Congress decides to change the terms of the deal) and mismanagement (forcing clients into such an incredibly terrible deal). It would be extremely difficult to find someone who had privately invested 12% of their lifetime earnings who received less back in benefits than they will get from social security. Shifting part of the payroll tax an individual pays into a private account as opposed to paying it out for current govt spending will allow today's youth to accumulate a significant nest egg by the time they retire. That will in turn make changes down the road (i e traditional Social Security benefit cuts which eventually must happen) much easier. As I understand it both social security and Medicare/Medicaid can be relativily painless fixed by linking the growth in payouts to price increases rather than wage increase. How true is this? "Why should the overall surplus be no less than the combined surplus of the trust funds? Or to use Washington jargon why should we put those trust-fund surpluses in a 'lockbox'? First because we know that the projected surpluses in Social Security and Medicare though enough to postpone the eventual crises in the two systems are not enough to put off those crises forever." --Paul Krugman. "Going for Broke". The New Republic. 5/21/01 If young people have this attitude about Social Security then I'm not surprised that politicians don't think its a crisis. If people don't care that 7% of their money is basically being flushed down the toilet (14% if you count the "employers contribution") then there's probably plenty of room for raising that tax rate much higher. It will help the solvency of SS but not totally secure it. The CPI is what the benefits would be indexed to. However the CPI is a government statistic and can be manipulated by government officials to underhandedlly decrease benefits over the long run. I would heartily applaud the destruction of SS but the possible use of CPI to undermine benefits strikes me as evil and dishonest. The real financial crisis will come long before SS Trust is actually in danger. It's because the SS Trust and Medicare Trust Funds are all mixed up into one big slush fund for general spending. Once the SS surplus and the Medicare surplus starts decreasing the entire US Federal Government will be in danger of insolvency. It will no longer have enough money to pay for people do its most important task. National Security. Essentially this is the prefunding con job. Since FICA revenues will cease to support general expenditures in the near future what we must do is.. increase the FICA tax so it continues to support general expenditures. In other words we need to increase the regressive payroll tax so that we don't need to raise other taxes. And we're doing it to "save" social security. This is the con laid out clearly for all to see. This has nothing to do with "saving Social security" and everything to do with increasing the regressivity of the tax code. Krugman and other economists have written extensively on Social Security with compelling arguments to support the notion that it's solvent. So it's misleading to imply that his reasoning rests on the principle that Social Security is not as bad off as Medicare. Kebco over your lifetime you may pay a substantial portion of your income into home insurance and if you're lucky (i e. you don't suffer a fire or other disaster) you never will receive a payment in return. Will you regard this as "highway robbery"? PM if SS is an "easier problem" to fix as you say that supports Krugman's claim that it's not in crisis. Also if the market continues to whipsaw as it has recently and with global pressure and oil above $100/barrel can you guarantee private accounts will allow workers to accumulate a nest egg? Mason it is not correct to say that "SS Trust and Medicare Trust Funds are all mixed up into one big slush fund for general spending. Once the SS surplus and the Medicare surplus starts decreasing the entire US Federal Government will be in danger of insolvency." They have separate trust funds and none will throw the government into receivership. As for Krugman's seeming change of heart from 1996 for that I have no explanation. If the Krugman from 11 years ago truly thought Social Security faced a demographic-driven crisis then evidently he was wrong. Krugman does not deny this at all so it's not an effective rebuttal. What this "deficit" means is that the excess SS contributions that go into the trust fund go to zero and SS instead needs to start cashing in the Treasury bonds in the trust fund (to cover said "deficit"). That is *by design* the outcome of the Greenspan commission's plan of '82; it was the *whole point* of building up the trust fund. Ergo. 2017 is not a "crisis." The people proposing SS "fixes" that amount to either increasing SS payroll taxes or reducing benefits in order to stretch out the trust fund further instead of raising general (progressive) income taxes or cutting general expenditures to allow for paying back the debt from the general budget to SS are essentially proposing that a regressive tax (SS payroll) be continued to be used to subsidize lower rates on progressive taxes; the math here is inescapable. What about the longer term health? The CW expectation that the trust fund will be depleted by mid-century is based on using a pessimistic productivity growth assumption of 1.3%; however historical productivity growth tracks much more closely the middle-of-the-road assumption of 1.6% (it's actually between that and the optimistic assumption of 1.9%). At 1.6% productivity growth the trust fund is depleted after 2075. At 1.9% it lasts indefinitely. Again note that it was *always* the case that the trust fund would eventually be depleted as it was originally created by the Greepnspan Commission to cope with the demographic bomb of the baby boom. Pre-Greenspan. SS was a pay-as-you-go system. Ergo. 2042 (or 2075 or whenever the fund is depleted) is not a "crisis" either. What happens after it is depleted? SS returns to being a PAYG system as it was for almost 40 years without a problem; trustee projections indicate that after depletion. PAYG contributions can fund 75% of scheduled benefits (again based on pessimistic assumptions). Given that there are reasonable odds that trust-fund depletion is way in the future (the number of years until depletion varies by around 100% depending on the assumptions used) it's reasonable to address it when it's closer. Krugman is right. The political objective of the people pitching the "crisis" rhetoric is to postpone as much as possible using progressively-taxed general revenues to pay back regressively-taxed SS. It's pure-and-simple class warfare. Calling the SS tax regressive is a bit dishonest. A straight percentage of income is neither regressive or progressive--it's neutral. Regressive is a captitation tax. The only sense in which one might call the tax regressive is that it's capped at a level of income that represents a cap on benefits but that hardly deserves the "regressive" label. If Paul Krugman could lump SS and Medicare together in 1996 for crisis-mongering purposes without becoming a conservative ideologue thereby why can't we do it now? (And why did he say "crises" plural in 2001?) How big a seller would homeowner's insurance be if it left you worse off than self-insurance even when it paid off? Why they might have to pass a law forcing people to buy it whether they wanted to or not! Excellent post. Ivan. I would add that it's unclear how private accounts would enjoy the yields their proponents advertise in the face of the pessismistic 1.3% productivity growth rate which is the basis for the 2042 SS shortfall prediction. SaulOhio has the government ever in its history defaulted on treasury bonds? Do you imagine such a default wouldn't have grave consequences? Do you expect any future politician facing re-election ever to be in favor of such a default? Paul Zrimsek self-insurance of one's home--when it's feasible--always is economically more advantageous than the shared risk + profit model of purchased homeowners' insurance. When it's feasible. Usually it isn't which is why people continue to buy homeowners' insurance. Your analogy is bad. Roger O. has there ever been a trust fund since perhaps Pharaoh's that doesn't consist of promissory notes to pay? So why should I be more concerned about the SS trust fund than about any other? In addition it's misleading to characterize the bonds as merely "IOUs". Scribblings and a signature on the back of an envelope given to my brother for the 20 bucks he loaned me is merely an IOU and no law other than filial says I have to redeem it. Are such IOUs exactly the same as the SS bonds? Paul Zrimsek self-insurance against retirement is not feasible for people who earn too little throughout their working lives for some spouses who are widowed or for some people who become injured. As an earlier post noted were you to publicly offer this type of “investment,” with no guarantee of payout and major financing problems and a pyramid scheme-structure you would be arrested especially if you used the mail to do so. Assuming for one moment that solvency projections carry us optimistically out to 2040 and assuming productivity manages a nice 1.6 – 1.8% clip (very optimistic) aren’t you - and Krugman – completely missing the point that this is nothing short of generational warfare not class warfare? When the demographics line up just right (like now and because it is a horrible Ponzi scheme) Socialist Security saddles future generations with obligations they had zero input in creating and receive nothing Mesa Econoquy. SS is not an investment. It's insurance. Whether or not it has a "pyramid scheme-structure" well that you'll have to explain. As for whether it has major financing problems that hasn't been established as fact. "Warfare" isn't a neutral term it's a pejorative one that I don't use. SS is however both a generational and class wealth transfer mechanism which is a policy I endorse. Of course you're entitled to reject it on idealogical grounds but then you'd be wandering away from the subject of Krugman's opinion piece which is on SS's solvency. From the first paragraph in your link a pyramid scheme is "a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme usually without any product or service being delivered." Social security does not require money to become enrolled into the program. You are enrolled in the program when you are associated with a social security number which these days typically happens at birth. Also it does provide a service called insurance. If you reach retirement or are widowed or are injured and cannot work you will receive a distribution. Finally. Social Security has been sustained continuously since 1935. So you can put that charge to rest. A annuity is insurance-like investment that is sometimes used as insurance but there are other types of insurance which are not investments. At least not in the sense of an expected financial return in equity growth dividends or interest (though insurance is an "investment" in peace of mind). For instance. I recently made my semi-annual car insurance payment. I'm a good driver though. I drive little and I don't live in the city so it's very unlikely I will have an event (e g a crash) causing me to receive a financial return. In fact in my 15 years of making car payments I must have paid about $15000. I only ever have received about $1000 in return (a parking lot dent). If this was an investment evidently it's a very poor one. And when (if?) you get what we call “a job,” money is automatically withdrawn from your paycheck regardless of your consent (in the medical profession when a patient is unconscious and requires treatment that’s called “implied consent”) which in practically every other transactional situation is illegal. This is definitely illegal when you couple it with conditional payout: “if you reach retirement,” “if you are widowed,” if something else happens,” etc. You already paid in and there is zero obligation or guarantee of payout later. Plus the rate of return on so-called Socialist Security “benefits” is as we say in the investment industry. “shitty.” What makes you think I don't have a job and why does it matter? Your argument is not strengthened by ad hominem attacks. Or by telling the person with whom you're having a policy discussion to "be quiet". Is that how you like your political discourse? Only the people who agree with you are allowed to speak? Now you're saying that all taxation is illegal. Is that it? Have you given up criticizing the financial health and long-term prospects of SS in particular (which is what this thread is about.. it's not about libertarian fantasies) money is automatically withdrawn from your paycheck regardless of your consent.. which in practically every other transactional situation is illegal. I was under the impression that the SS trust fund while existing "on paper" had been spent "in reality" each year so that there really is no trust fund... If I'm saving for a new car and I set aside 15% of every paycheck but instead write myself an IOU and put it in a box then maybe through some crazy accounting mechanism I have the money but it will not be there when I go to buy the car. This means that when SS starts to dip into the trust fund the money will have to come from somewhere... Other David:If you don't mind giving that money to Shawn's grandmother why don't you just cut her a check directly instead of having a sizable portion of it go to bureaucratic waste? I also think the reason he might not tell her refuse the check is that she has been forced to pay taxes all of her life... As taxation goes- No not all taxes are illegal(roads post offices schools military courts etc.) but taxes solely for wealth transfers should be. What is that talk of 'generational warfare'? In most cultures the younguns are expected to take care of the eldery. "People shouldn't live too long as they don't have a right to expect others to care of them"? Oh well in the case of Futurama the suicide booth is released in 2008. The "trust fund" has no meaning whatsoever. Regardless of what you believe is in the fund - bonds or IOU's or accounting tricks - it has no meaning. The money to pay for the promised future benefits of social security must come from future taxpayers. Congress can at any point decide to shift the burden of funding social security benefits. It can raise the payroll tax to 20%. It can lower it to 0% and fund social security benefits from progressive income taxes. But whatever method it chooses the trust fund still has no meaning. Those who have built the trust fund can claim that through these bonds we have obligated future generations to fund social security benefits. But Congress can change the promised benefits at any time. Congress has already reduced benefits for some and raised benefits for others. There is no legal requirement for the federal government to meet the "obligation" of the trust fund bonds at any set schedule. The social security trust fund has no meaning. Other than the problems of transitioning off of social security what is the economic rational given for not allowing people to keep their own money and spend it how they see fit? I certainly can't see any sort of externality or market failure involved. If people were allowed to keep their payroll taxes surely market would respond with many alternatives to save for retirement. The number of people investing long-term would increase and their funds would be put to use creating new capital. I wonder how such a shift in time-preference would effect the (in)stability of the stock market since more funds would be dedicated to long-term investments? David:If I'm saving for a new car and I set aside 15% of every paycheck but instead write myself an IOU and put it in a box then maybe through some crazy accounting mechanism I have the money but it will not be there when I go to buy the car. 1) Do you normally go around giving random people your “hard-earned” money?2) Give me some now3) What gives Paul Krugman and you the right to determine what comes out of my paycheck?4) Are you so completely deluded that you think that there is some Socialist Security “lockbox” (there isn’t)? Since I work in the investment industry and you and Krugman don’t you need to disclose how you and the government will handle my money better than I will using very specific (and legally defined) performance time horizons and benchmarks. When you fail this scrutiny which you will. I demand all of my money back with interest (historical 30-year Treasury rates will suffice) and I demand any remuneration received by Paul Krugman from the New York Times and every other publication for which he has written. Socialist Security is an unsolicited and unapproved automatic confiscation of money from people who temporally don’t exist yet. That’s illegal and fraudulent. 3. Like other citizens of the U. S. you participate in a social contract by which you forfeit some rights to the state in order to enjoy the benefits of a safe and productive society. Taxes including FICA are part of that. 4. I never have thought there is a "lockbox". That was a clumsy rhetorical device popularized by the 2000 Democratic Presidential candidate. While I believe I understood what Gore was trying to say as a marketing tool it was underwhelming. 5. What specifically do you mean by "handling your money better"? Do you mean realizing a higher rate of return? At what level of risk? I don't believe I personally can give you a higher rate of return at lower risk than you can. I do believe however the SS administration can give you rate of return at lower risk than you ever can achieve on your own. In addition. I care about more people than just you or myself. I also care about people who have less wherewithal than you or I do to achieve economic security. 6. SS security was solicited in 1935. It was approved in 1935 and reaffirmed by every Congress since then. Like other policies it will affect future Americans who don't currently exist. That's how the Republic works. Gil excellent point to the favor of SS. In order to say that SS bonds are "IOUs" one has to adopt such a sufficiently loose definition of "IOU" that all financial instruments fall under that definition. Even precious metals don't have a guaranteed value. There is absolutely nothing different between my claim on Paul Krugman’s (unearned) paycheck and his fraudulent claim on mine. The only difference is I happened to be born after him. If anything he owes me for all the economic bullshit he concocts for amateurs like you to digest. As an investment professional (which you aren’t). I am far more capable of managing my money than you are so there is absolutely zero reason I should be restricted to your sub-optimal performance and limits or the government’s. Are you insinuating that Bawney Fwank knows more about Reg NMS Rule 611. CAPM & MPT and what I should do with my money than I do? If so. I’m going to have to ask you to step outside so I can punch you (and Bawney Fwank a vewy impowtant pewson) in the face. I can do [much] better than a “modest” rate of return – that’s not for you or the government to decide. Yet that is precisely what you are arguing. I should forfeit my expertise because of some non-existent “social contract.” Even if we are somehow miraculously successful at avoiding the current Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid trainwreck there is absolutely nothing preventing an identical situation from recurring in future as there is [currently] no government enforced demographic framework. I’m sure you’ll be arguing for that next. The point is Paul Krugman is free to write anything he wants including this absurd claim that Social Security is solvent. The marketplace has decided that he’s basically dumb and irrelevant for obvious reasons. His idea that somehow other people are responsible for paying his debts is economically vacuous. That is the underlying assumption of Socialist Security. There is no such obligation. There is no “socialist contract.” I think some comments are confusing the difference between when I buy a government bond (I have nothing against government bonds when used properly) and when the government buys its own bonds. When I buy a bond. I give X value to the government. In Y years they pay me back X value plus interest. With the trust fund taxes have been paid into the fund and the government borrows X value and spends it. When SS starts to dip into the trust fund the government pays back X value into the trust fund. Here's the problem though.. do you really think the government will be running budget surpluses in 2017? So where will the money come from to pay back the bonds issued to the trust fund? FROM TAXES. I never argued the government wouldn't be solvent as some of you say. That's dumb. My argument is that every dollar the government spends comes from taxpayers even to pay back treasury bonds issued to itself.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/11/on-krugman-on-s.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Many forms of social media are relatively inexpensive and easy to position. Given this it’s not surprising that non-profits have embraced Web 2.0 technologies. According to just released by marketing consultant Eric Mattson and Dr. Nora Barnes of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth bear on for Marketing Research: “Charitable organizations are outpacing the business world in their use of social media. Seventy-five percent of the charitable organizations studied are using some form of social media including blogs podcasts message boards social networking video blogging and wikis. More than a third of the organizations are blogging. Forty-six percent of those studied report social media is very important to their fundraising strategy.”However while non-profits are embracing the Internet and social media technologies some have a few words of caution. In a recent New York Times article Timothy L. Seiler director of the Fund Raising educate at Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy. : “What we’ve seen is that the reality [of the Internet] has never matched what people perceived to be the potential.” Currently non-profits are carefully evaluating the ROI of their social media powered communications and fundraising efforts. If more organizations are successful look for more top charities to join the go toward Web 2.0 technologies. Comments will act a moment to process. The page will be rebuilt in the background and you may have to refresh the summon to see your comment. Thanks! - Miami dentist specializing in procedures such as cosmetic dentistry teeth whitening and dental implants in Miami Beach. FL. - New York Dentist offering root canals dental implants veneers and more to patients in Manhattan. NY. Use these abstain growing business social media sites to back up your business feature your products spotlight your business leaders create links and drive traffic back to your company site. - Add your logo - free link to your place - Add photos of your products and people - refer your profile and build your online visibility - bring out your business with free links - Videos about businesses products and business people. - "Digg" for Business - Submit your articles and posts

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.healthcarevox.com/2007/11/new_research_charities_are_big.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Some of the discussion on the focused on the relationship between social sciences and social ameliorate movements. Neither Jane Addams nor Myles Horton did their work as disinterested social scientists—far from it. Addams may have been a sort-of-elitist social progressive but she used city residents in gathering data on garbage collection in Chicago (as another audience member at the panel pointed out). Horton was more self-consciously deliberate about countering myths of social-scientific expertise. In the Addams inspect and Chicago what is clear is that she relied primarily on women in a way that was growing less common as social science faculty began looking towards powerful organizations as the clients for expertise. As Kurt Danziger has noted. U. S psychologists switched from parents and teachers as clients to school administrators as clients. But what also happened is that the shift was between women as clients to men as clients. Given Mary Ann Dzuback's work on women and social science in the early 20th century. I am cautious about this impression but I'll put this out as a hypothesis and perhaps a suggestion for an interesting dissertation. (Other dissertation ideas to come out of my listening to panels: the need for an international history of curriculum and curriculum policies and the need for a serious history of cosmetology as a curriculum affect.... And now someone will accuse me of taking listening- or thinking-depressing drugs this morning.)

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.shermandorn.com/mt/archives/001081.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Paul Krugman is with Barrack Obama for caring about the solvency of Social Security. Of cover Krugman is not hoping for insolvency he simply thinks that the solvency of one schedule is only important in comparison to other programs. This has caused our friend Don Boudreaux over at Café Hayek to : The only evidence that Krugman presents to give his case against the advise that Social Security is headed for insolvency (unless it undergoes big changes) is simply that Medicare and Medicaid are headed for insolvency that’s even worse. So Krugman’s inspect that Social Security presents no real problems to worry about is like say a lawyer advising client Jones that the grand-larceny charges against Jones are really nothing to worry about because client Smith is facing the more serious charge of murder. This is why I have grown to be somewhat politically agnostic. Policy is rarely debated on the basis of its merits. The Social Security debate is a prime example. <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote have in mind=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q have in mind=""> <strike> <strong>

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://everydayecon.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/boudreaux-krugman-and-social-security/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Too much money spent on social websites just to be the one to benefit from the advertising fruits. Let's see how much money spent on that and what Internet industry giants ordain benefit from it. Get a real-time be beneath the ascend in the with our tools and. Also see our original real-time tracking system. NEW! Check out where you can Digg and watch the activity of your favorite Presidential candidates. --> DIGG. DIGG IT. DUGG. DIGG THIS. Digg graphics logos designs summon headers add icons scripts and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Social_networking_market_competition_to_get_the_biggest_pie

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I emailed today to ask him if it was ok to mention his donation that he had made towards Sustainable Harvest International earlier this week. This was his reply: If an be of $25.00 is not received in the Sustainable Harvest fund by November 31 2007 at 23:59:59 EST. I ordain hack into the core of Fuelmyblog’s social community further. This must be placed in the account by a person other than myself. Sylvie or Kevin. By placement of this by Sylvie Dixie. Fuelmyblog com; and all third parties involved having an interest in these affairs potentially; releases myself from any alter to their image prettiness and whatever else can be thought of as ‘wholesome’ or ‘good’. John... you may be rather scary at times.. but you have a heart of gold from the bottom of my heart thank you! Someone paid the charity ransom. good on you. I'll match it. :-)If you wish to remain anon let me experience. Thanks!

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://blog.fuelmyblog.com/2007/11/news-update.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Shiv Singh has written an bind on drawing upon a range of academic research. To quote: The online social network field is broad and any literature review can only cerebrate on a selection of articles. The present bind highlights recent research in the field and focuses on centrality linkage strength identity believe activity and benefits. By no means is this analyse comprehensive but it should give practitioners some useful concepts to believe as they create by mental act social network based web applications. Posted by jamesr on September 15. 2007 04:35 PMCategories:

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.steptwo.com.au/columntwo/archives/002614.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Yahoo’s weak lay in social networking is baffling and has been a source of sharp criticism for the company’s top managers. They undergo been blamed for being asleep at the wheel while MySpace initially as a startup went on a disunite in the social-networking lay for launching a weak product and also for being unable or unwilling to buy Facebook or another strong competitor. The on something Arrington knew months ago… is it any surprise that Yahoo! is looking to buff it’s cred in social networking given that they have missed the attach with Yahoo 360 yet comfort have 54 million MyYahoo users? Anyone think that Google isn’t working on something to compete here? It’s easy to forget that explore still has Orkut easy to forget because after the Brazillians moved in everyone else left but they comfort bring home the bacon 35 million unique visitors a day which is oh I don’t know bigger than Facebook (I don’t experience FB’s daily stats but they were 25 million uniques a few months ago… so I will adjudge now that I could very well be do by about Orkut being bigger than FB but how many times in the last week have you construe about Orkut yet it’s comfort that big?) Everything will undergo a social mark (for you GTA fans… "in the future there ordain be robots") but while that is initially called social networking ultimately it ordain consolidate and the market ordain segment as companies cognise that individual consumers aren’t going to manage 10 different social networks on a daily basis. We’ll see demographic shifts of course but my bet is that a new industry will appear that is neither exclusively data nor application function provider but a combination of the two that serves the social dimension into those applications and services that are not in the upper tier of providers. XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote have in mind=""> <code> <em> <i> <touch> <strong>

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2007/09/14/everyone-building-social-networking/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Just received an email from with a neat that shows facilitated social networking. If you are planning to attend. I highly advise you try out the networking tool by. We had used it qite a bit at Macromedia conferences and it's a blast to sight out who at the conference has similar interests or expertise. The introNetworks matches you with like minded attendees and allows you to communicate other attendees about certain topics they are experts in. It's a fantastic networking opportunity I'll miss this year (we will have some presentations on Adobe tools and also Adobe Captivate).

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://blogs.adobe.com/silke.fleischer/2007/09/facilitated_social_network_dem.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

some time ago and accepted a course of invitations to confirm various people as friends. I wasn't too sure of its usefulness to be honest and tended to only analyse in from time to time. However earlier this week I made it the fail page on my browser and started to use it more actively. Up process then its main use had been to allow me to analyse on who my daughter was friends with and which photos she was sharing ( I have an integrating mechanism. I don't evaluate (but I will experiment) that it will replace the RSS feeder I use but I can see a myself using it more. Since I got active I undergo used it for telecommunicate and also avoided having to displace emails simply by seeing what my friends were doing. I realised I was taking it seriously when I removed my rather severe conference enter and replaced it with my : it seemed more in the animate of things. I also started to modify it with where I am and what I am thinking. All in all. I had originally accept with Euan's : Now go about the same time I got a slightly patronising email from. It turns out that he has decided to cast aside his Star Series and plans to act over to some more complex attempt to set up various discussion and other forum (plus some publishing which ordain allow him to continue his journalistic gleaning of other people's material). He was inviting me to reenter the fray but I would have to understand that he was maintaining moderation. I sent a note approve to say that if it was unmoderated or moderated by a assort of people (as in ActKM) then I might but that if he wanted to hang on to the apron strings and maintain hold back drop it. I resisted the temptation to inform out that if you banned or forced the resignation of a sizable harmonise of your active participants you should not be surprised that discussion suffers in consequence. Regrettably Uncle Jerry still thinks he knows best and that his happy little bind will only stay happy if he protects them from the big bad wolves. That said good luck to those who want to alter something of it. I am afraid I was a little short in my reply to him but there is limit to my tolerance of stupidity not be how come up intentioned. Yesterday I met up with Lynn Wernham for coffee. We met on the FOE2007 online conference and became facebook friends shortly after. We have kept up contact and I was able to get her and my line manager together when he advised that he was recruiting (it mght bring about to nothing but it's worth a shot). Anyhoo when we finally met up yesterday the nature of the relationship we have developed definitely called for a hug rather than a handshake. We spent two hours chatting desire old friends about past experiences learning create by mental act and our preferred way of working. Any eavesdroppers would undergo written us off as a pair of total geeks waxing enthusiastic about learning and learners but we were in our natural element and having a whale of a measure! While Facebook might have "numbers" the individual interest groups have the same problem as any other discussion forum. It can only survive as desire as the people bear on maintain their interest. And in my opinion the Facebook service is no different from most of the other online services. What happens when you want to join two groups? Or ten? There is just too much to follow and it gets lost in the wind. This is why email-lists (listserves) continue to be interesting. And this is why RSS-fed news plus blogs are interesting as well. Certainly there is a fit but I don't see the Facebook groups as being significantly better than all the others. And they have the drawback of no email and restricted RSS (if any - this seems to change frequently). My experience: I've joined a number of Facebook groups based on watching what my friends are doing but none of the groups have been strong enough to keep coming approve to them. I also back up Jack's points. the joining of groups is almost like a sash of boy or girl observe be badges without any of the "merit" behind it just a enumerate of things (cause inititiatives( that you might be interested in. To get traction and getting going as CoP's online there needs to be a strong intend and motivation and such groups may sight many other vehicles or media capacity online in/ with which they can function as well or better. FB is probably trying to do too many things thus some end up being irrelevant or appropriate to its core out functionality / utility. But maybe not too bad as a firestarter sometimes ? It's a brilliant 'social platform' and is doing astounding work to make the gaps smaller between us. It's the first of a new cause where we are seeing the platform come (one login many groups etc.). I guess there ordain be more. It's important to bequeath that this was set up for university students so many of our professional desires may not be instantly met; we should manage our own expectations. Re: the coffee analogy: the noise<