|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 31 2013 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 06:35 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 31 2013 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:I found this really interesting. Definitely check the whole thing out.
One candidate that may be equal to that task is a homely sounding economic noun that separates the wealthy from the rest of us. "Assets" are a seemingly magical set of resources that work for anyone who owns them. In conversations about economic fairness, "assets" are a resource that has largely remained outside the policy tent. President Obama has recently raised expectations about how economic policy might attack the problem of inequality. But he likely won't get that far unless he too is ready to step outside that tent.
Accounting textbooks teach us that there are different categories of assets, both tangible (e.g., land, buildings, housing, corporate stock, minerals) and intangible (e.g., patents, goodwill, copyrights). Wealthy people own lots of these assets. So many that they often forgo that more pedestrian instrument that makes possible the accumulation of income, the paycheck.
Unwealthy people own few, if any, assets. Theirs is wage-dependent, income based universe. They live from paycheck to paycheck. If assets are the key discriminant that sustains the wealthy, why is it that the most commonly invoked solutions to economic inequality tend to focus on income enhancing measures such as minimum wage campaigns, payroll tax credits and job training? That's not where the real money is. One could be forgiven for suspecting a plot. If the general problem of economic inequality could be likened to an overly deep bowl of soup that should be more fairly consumed, income-based solutions attack the challenge with forks. We need spoons, asset spoons. Let's examine a few.
Broad-Based Asset Sharing Strategies
Since 1982 every citizen of the state of Alaska has enjoyed an annual dividend as a return on their share of oil revenues through the Alaska Permanent Fund. Bipartisan support, including from former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin, has protected this asset sharing program for over 30 years. When legislators sought access to a share of Permanent Fund revenue to fund state deficits in 1999, they were rejected by 84 percent of voters. Annual dividend payments have ranged from $331 to $2,069 per Alaskan.
Similar natural resource-based ideas have been proposed but not yet implemented. One would provide all citizens an annual clean air dividend derived from taxing polluters. The "Sky Trust" concept developed by West coast entrepreneur Peter Barnes has also attracted bipartisan support in part because, like the Alaska Permanent Fund, it circumvents government capture and directs revenue immediately to citizens. Sky Trust dividends would be an asset shared by all. Natural resource-based asset sharing concepts have decided advantages: They can help address complex problems such as pollution, and they're easily shared through the common status of citizenship........
The Alternative American Dream: Inclusive Capitalism And lo did Jonny repeat: "we need the middle class to save and invest moar." I know there's more to the article than that, but that's really what the suggestions boil down to (admittedly I only skimmed it, but it's a familiar topic). I've found two political problems with advocating it. Some people, often on the left, don't trust it (finance is icky and frightening). Others, often on the right, are indifferent towards it (who cares so long as someone is investing). Did we read the same article? I read the author saying how "inclusive capitalism" (aka good-old employee ownership) isn't a dead concept and should be more or less set as a goal for society, but it said nothing of how to get there (though middle class saving would be a means to do it, as would be straight-up redistributive policies). Yeah it sure sounds like we read the same article. "good old employee ownership" is when employees own a large undiversified equity stake in a corporation. My frequent advocacy for the not rich to save more spend less is essentially a simplified version of the same core concept. I've advocated other policies that move towards the same goal, to mixed reception on this thread.
Just saying there is more than one way to achieve what the author was reaching at, not just middle class saving more.
Anyway, what policies do you think can actually affect saving rate for low/middle class? The way I see it, it's more of a cultural issue than anything. Short of what would be highly unpopular restrictions on consumer credit, I can't envision anything that would significantly affect saving rates, plus the timing for it wouldn't exactly be good (given the current state of the american economy). Here in Brazil we also have problems with low household saving rate (even though it's an issue that sadly rarely makes the news).
|
On August 31 2013 08:45 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 06:35 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 31 2013 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:I found this really interesting. Definitely check the whole thing out.
One candidate that may be equal to that task is a homely sounding economic noun that separates the wealthy from the rest of us. "Assets" are a seemingly magical set of resources that work for anyone who owns them. In conversations about economic fairness, "assets" are a resource that has largely remained outside the policy tent. President Obama has recently raised expectations about how economic policy might attack the problem of inequality. But he likely won't get that far unless he too is ready to step outside that tent.
Accounting textbooks teach us that there are different categories of assets, both tangible (e.g., land, buildings, housing, corporate stock, minerals) and intangible (e.g., patents, goodwill, copyrights). Wealthy people own lots of these assets. So many that they often forgo that more pedestrian instrument that makes possible the accumulation of income, the paycheck.
Unwealthy people own few, if any, assets. Theirs is wage-dependent, income based universe. They live from paycheck to paycheck. If assets are the key discriminant that sustains the wealthy, why is it that the most commonly invoked solutions to economic inequality tend to focus on income enhancing measures such as minimum wage campaigns, payroll tax credits and job training? That's not where the real money is. One could be forgiven for suspecting a plot. If the general problem of economic inequality could be likened to an overly deep bowl of soup that should be more fairly consumed, income-based solutions attack the challenge with forks. We need spoons, asset spoons. Let's examine a few.
Broad-Based Asset Sharing Strategies
Since 1982 every citizen of the state of Alaska has enjoyed an annual dividend as a return on their share of oil revenues through the Alaska Permanent Fund. Bipartisan support, including from former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin, has protected this asset sharing program for over 30 years. When legislators sought access to a share of Permanent Fund revenue to fund state deficits in 1999, they were rejected by 84 percent of voters. Annual dividend payments have ranged from $331 to $2,069 per Alaskan.
Similar natural resource-based ideas have been proposed but not yet implemented. One would provide all citizens an annual clean air dividend derived from taxing polluters. The "Sky Trust" concept developed by West coast entrepreneur Peter Barnes has also attracted bipartisan support in part because, like the Alaska Permanent Fund, it circumvents government capture and directs revenue immediately to citizens. Sky Trust dividends would be an asset shared by all. Natural resource-based asset sharing concepts have decided advantages: They can help address complex problems such as pollution, and they're easily shared through the common status of citizenship........
The Alternative American Dream: Inclusive Capitalism And lo did Jonny repeat: "we need the middle class to save and invest moar." I know there's more to the article than that, but that's really what the suggestions boil down to (admittedly I only skimmed it, but it's a familiar topic). I've found two political problems with advocating it. Some people, often on the left, don't trust it (finance is icky and frightening). Others, often on the right, are indifferent towards it (who cares so long as someone is investing). Did we read the same article? I read the author saying how "inclusive capitalism" (aka good-old employee ownership) isn't a dead concept and should be more or less set as a goal for society, but it said nothing of how to get there (though middle class saving would be a means to do it, as would be straight-up redistributive policies). Yeah it sure sounds like we read the same article. "good old employee ownership" is when employees own a large undiversified equity stake in a corporation. My frequent advocacy for the not rich to save more spend less is essentially a simplified version of the same core concept. I've advocated other policies that move towards the same goal, to mixed reception on this thread. Just saying there is more than one way to achieve what the author was reaching at, not just middle class saving more. Anyway, what policies do you think can actually affect saving rate for low/middle class? The way I see it, it's more of a cultural issue than anything. Short of what would be highly unpopular restrictions on consumer credit, I can't envision anything that would significantly affect saving rates, plus the timing for it wouldn't exactly be good (given the current state of the american economy). Here in Brazil we also have problems with low household saving rate (even though it's an issue that sadly rarely makes the news).
I think it has become cultural. One would have to go back to before the S&L crisis and Reaganomics for such policies.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
let the new generation of debt burdened students solve that cultural issue
|
On August 31 2013 08:45 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 06:35 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 31 2013 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:I found this really interesting. Definitely check the whole thing out.
One candidate that may be equal to that task is a homely sounding economic noun that separates the wealthy from the rest of us. "Assets" are a seemingly magical set of resources that work for anyone who owns them. In conversations about economic fairness, "assets" are a resource that has largely remained outside the policy tent. President Obama has recently raised expectations about how economic policy might attack the problem of inequality. But he likely won't get that far unless he too is ready to step outside that tent.
Accounting textbooks teach us that there are different categories of assets, both tangible (e.g., land, buildings, housing, corporate stock, minerals) and intangible (e.g., patents, goodwill, copyrights). Wealthy people own lots of these assets. So many that they often forgo that more pedestrian instrument that makes possible the accumulation of income, the paycheck.
Unwealthy people own few, if any, assets. Theirs is wage-dependent, income based universe. They live from paycheck to paycheck. If assets are the key discriminant that sustains the wealthy, why is it that the most commonly invoked solutions to economic inequality tend to focus on income enhancing measures such as minimum wage campaigns, payroll tax credits and job training? That's not where the real money is. One could be forgiven for suspecting a plot. If the general problem of economic inequality could be likened to an overly deep bowl of soup that should be more fairly consumed, income-based solutions attack the challenge with forks. We need spoons, asset spoons. Let's examine a few.
Broad-Based Asset Sharing Strategies
Since 1982 every citizen of the state of Alaska has enjoyed an annual dividend as a return on their share of oil revenues through the Alaska Permanent Fund. Bipartisan support, including from former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin, has protected this asset sharing program for over 30 years. When legislators sought access to a share of Permanent Fund revenue to fund state deficits in 1999, they were rejected by 84 percent of voters. Annual dividend payments have ranged from $331 to $2,069 per Alaskan.
Similar natural resource-based ideas have been proposed but not yet implemented. One would provide all citizens an annual clean air dividend derived from taxing polluters. The "Sky Trust" concept developed by West coast entrepreneur Peter Barnes has also attracted bipartisan support in part because, like the Alaska Permanent Fund, it circumvents government capture and directs revenue immediately to citizens. Sky Trust dividends would be an asset shared by all. Natural resource-based asset sharing concepts have decided advantages: They can help address complex problems such as pollution, and they're easily shared through the common status of citizenship........
The Alternative American Dream: Inclusive Capitalism And lo did Jonny repeat: "we need the middle class to save and invest moar." I know there's more to the article than that, but that's really what the suggestions boil down to (admittedly I only skimmed it, but it's a familiar topic). I've found two political problems with advocating it. Some people, often on the left, don't trust it (finance is icky and frightening). Others, often on the right, are indifferent towards it (who cares so long as someone is investing). Did we read the same article? I read the author saying how "inclusive capitalism" (aka good-old employee ownership) isn't a dead concept and should be more or less set as a goal for society, but it said nothing of how to get there (though middle class saving would be a means to do it, as would be straight-up redistributive policies). Yeah it sure sounds like we read the same article. "good old employee ownership" is when employees own a large undiversified equity stake in a corporation. My frequent advocacy for the not rich to save more spend less is essentially a simplified version of the same core concept. I've advocated other policies that move towards the same goal, to mixed reception on this thread. Just saying there is more than one way to achieve what the author was reaching at, not just middle class saving more. Anyway, what policies do you think can actually affect saving rate for low/middle class? The way I see it, it's more of a cultural issue than anything. Short of what would be highly unpopular restrictions on consumer credit, I can't envision anything that would significantly affect saving rates, plus the timing for it wouldn't exactly be good (given the current state of the american economy). Here in Brazil we also have problems with low household saving rate (even though it's an issue that sadly rarely makes the news).
I know there's a lot of ways to go about it. In my brain something like the government saving and investing on behalf of the middle class is essentially the same thing as the middle class saving and investing more.
Ex. The Smith family can save more for retirement. Or, the social security system can save more for the Smith family's retirement on their behalf. There's a difference there, but it's essentially the same thing - the the Smith family owns more assets.
I think changing the saving rate is a long term issue. The tax code can be made to more favor saving over consumption in a number of ways. Financial literacy can play a huge role as well. A lack of financial literacy is a big obstacle for a lot of green investing at the moment, for example.
|
On August 31 2013 07:45 Danglars wrote:
How long until I can buy into marijuana alongside the other sin stocks of beer and tobacco?
You can already buy into marijuana stocks. CANV, ERBB, AMNG, CBIS, HEMP, MJNA, the list is too long to name. Maybe I misunderstood...
|
Scientists used to be well represented among the nearly half of Americans who voted Republican. But that’s changed over the years, and one poll found that just 6 percent of scientists call themselves part of the GOP now.
What happened? There might not be textbook answers, but there are theories.
Barry Bickmore, a professor of geology at Brigham Young University and onetime Republican convention delegate in crimson-red Utah County in the nation’s reddest state, has pondered the issue at length. He contends his party is increasingly ruled by zealots and a demand for "ideological purity" that turns off scientists.
He says most examples are in the environmental sciences. And he points to the time in 2009 when majority-party Republicans in the Utah Capitol put climate-science doubters on a pedestal — while rejecting the mainstream scientist view about the danger global warming poses and even taking a beef about a Utah State University physicist to the university president.
"Scientists just don’t get those people," he says of Republicans who adhere to party orthodoxy about scientific questions on climate change, evolution and other hot-button issues. "They [in the GOP] are driving us away, people like me."
He points to the 6 percent statistic from a 2009 Pew poll, and wondered aloud if any other voting group offered lower GOP support.
(There was, it turns out. Just 3 percent of black women voters gave their support to GOP candidate Mitt Romney in the last election, and the percentage of all blacks voting for him was double that.)
Stacy Morris Bamberg, an expert in the biomechanics of walking at the University of Utah, suggests a number of reasons for the growing divide.
One might be that back when more scientists were part of the GOP, the party itself was more moderate. Now conservative Republicans and the tea party — with their focus on free-market capitalism and less federal government — have shifted the whole party to the right, and left scientists behind.
She wonders, too, if support is eroding along with federal funding for scientific research, especially basic research that might prove important long-term but offers few prospects for immediate money-making. While research grants shrink, the government dollars going to commercial research and development has swelled.
Scientists leave GOP due to attitudes toward science
|
Ruth Bader Ginsburg will become the first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex wedding, The Washington Post reported Friday.
Ginsburg will officiate the wedding of Kennedy Center President Michael M. Kaiser and economist John Roberts, according to the Post. The wedding will take place on Saturday at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C.
The move by Ginsburg comes just two months after the Supreme Court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states. The court ruled DOMA was unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote.
Source
|
On August 31 2013 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 08:45 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 31 2013 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 06:35 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 31 2013 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:I found this really interesting. Definitely check the whole thing out.
One candidate that may be equal to that task is a homely sounding economic noun that separates the wealthy from the rest of us. "Assets" are a seemingly magical set of resources that work for anyone who owns them. In conversations about economic fairness, "assets" are a resource that has largely remained outside the policy tent. President Obama has recently raised expectations about how economic policy might attack the problem of inequality. But he likely won't get that far unless he too is ready to step outside that tent.
Accounting textbooks teach us that there are different categories of assets, both tangible (e.g., land, buildings, housing, corporate stock, minerals) and intangible (e.g., patents, goodwill, copyrights). Wealthy people own lots of these assets. So many that they often forgo that more pedestrian instrument that makes possible the accumulation of income, the paycheck.
Unwealthy people own few, if any, assets. Theirs is wage-dependent, income based universe. They live from paycheck to paycheck. If assets are the key discriminant that sustains the wealthy, why is it that the most commonly invoked solutions to economic inequality tend to focus on income enhancing measures such as minimum wage campaigns, payroll tax credits and job training? That's not where the real money is. One could be forgiven for suspecting a plot. If the general problem of economic inequality could be likened to an overly deep bowl of soup that should be more fairly consumed, income-based solutions attack the challenge with forks. We need spoons, asset spoons. Let's examine a few.
Broad-Based Asset Sharing Strategies
Since 1982 every citizen of the state of Alaska has enjoyed an annual dividend as a return on their share of oil revenues through the Alaska Permanent Fund. Bipartisan support, including from former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin, has protected this asset sharing program for over 30 years. When legislators sought access to a share of Permanent Fund revenue to fund state deficits in 1999, they were rejected by 84 percent of voters. Annual dividend payments have ranged from $331 to $2,069 per Alaskan.
Similar natural resource-based ideas have been proposed but not yet implemented. One would provide all citizens an annual clean air dividend derived from taxing polluters. The "Sky Trust" concept developed by West coast entrepreneur Peter Barnes has also attracted bipartisan support in part because, like the Alaska Permanent Fund, it circumvents government capture and directs revenue immediately to citizens. Sky Trust dividends would be an asset shared by all. Natural resource-based asset sharing concepts have decided advantages: They can help address complex problems such as pollution, and they're easily shared through the common status of citizenship........
The Alternative American Dream: Inclusive Capitalism And lo did Jonny repeat: "we need the middle class to save and invest moar." I know there's more to the article than that, but that's really what the suggestions boil down to (admittedly I only skimmed it, but it's a familiar topic). I've found two political problems with advocating it. Some people, often on the left, don't trust it (finance is icky and frightening). Others, often on the right, are indifferent towards it (who cares so long as someone is investing). Did we read the same article? I read the author saying how "inclusive capitalism" (aka good-old employee ownership) isn't a dead concept and should be more or less set as a goal for society, but it said nothing of how to get there (though middle class saving would be a means to do it, as would be straight-up redistributive policies). Yeah it sure sounds like we read the same article. "good old employee ownership" is when employees own a large undiversified equity stake in a corporation. My frequent advocacy for the not rich to save more spend less is essentially a simplified version of the same core concept. I've advocated other policies that move towards the same goal, to mixed reception on this thread. Just saying there is more than one way to achieve what the author was reaching at, not just middle class saving more. Anyway, what policies do you think can actually affect saving rate for low/middle class? The way I see it, it's more of a cultural issue than anything. Short of what would be highly unpopular restrictions on consumer credit, I can't envision anything that would significantly affect saving rates, plus the timing for it wouldn't exactly be good (given the current state of the american economy). Here in Brazil we also have problems with low household saving rate (even though it's an issue that sadly rarely makes the news). I know there's a lot of ways to go about it. In my brain something like the government saving and investing on behalf of the middle class is essentially the same thing as the middle class saving and investing more. Ex. The Smith family can save more for retirement. Or, the social security system can save more for the Smith family's retirement on their behalf. There's a difference there, but it's essentially the same thing - the the Smith family owns more assets. I think changing the saving rate is a long term issue. The tax code can be made to more favor saving over consumption in a number of ways. Financial literacy can play a huge role as well. A lack of financial literacy is a big obstacle for a lot of green investing at the moment, for example.
Then, the government will promise to keep the Smith Family's savings in their own special account to access after they retire. The money they invest is actually immediately spent, but the government assures the Smith Family that they'll still pay out, just now from money arriving in Washington at the moment they retire. They'll be very transparent every step of the way.
I don't think in this modern day and age that it can be an option. There's just too little accountability and real reaction.
|
On August 31 2013 14:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 08:45 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 31 2013 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 06:35 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 31 2013 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:I found this really interesting. Definitely check the whole thing out.
One candidate that may be equal to that task is a homely sounding economic noun that separates the wealthy from the rest of us. "Assets" are a seemingly magical set of resources that work for anyone who owns them. In conversations about economic fairness, "assets" are a resource that has largely remained outside the policy tent. President Obama has recently raised expectations about how economic policy might attack the problem of inequality. But he likely won't get that far unless he too is ready to step outside that tent.
Accounting textbooks teach us that there are different categories of assets, both tangible (e.g., land, buildings, housing, corporate stock, minerals) and intangible (e.g., patents, goodwill, copyrights). Wealthy people own lots of these assets. So many that they often forgo that more pedestrian instrument that makes possible the accumulation of income, the paycheck.
Unwealthy people own few, if any, assets. Theirs is wage-dependent, income based universe. They live from paycheck to paycheck. If assets are the key discriminant that sustains the wealthy, why is it that the most commonly invoked solutions to economic inequality tend to focus on income enhancing measures such as minimum wage campaigns, payroll tax credits and job training? That's not where the real money is. One could be forgiven for suspecting a plot. If the general problem of economic inequality could be likened to an overly deep bowl of soup that should be more fairly consumed, income-based solutions attack the challenge with forks. We need spoons, asset spoons. Let's examine a few.
Broad-Based Asset Sharing Strategies
Since 1982 every citizen of the state of Alaska has enjoyed an annual dividend as a return on their share of oil revenues through the Alaska Permanent Fund. Bipartisan support, including from former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin, has protected this asset sharing program for over 30 years. When legislators sought access to a share of Permanent Fund revenue to fund state deficits in 1999, they were rejected by 84 percent of voters. Annual dividend payments have ranged from $331 to $2,069 per Alaskan.
Similar natural resource-based ideas have been proposed but not yet implemented. One would provide all citizens an annual clean air dividend derived from taxing polluters. The "Sky Trust" concept developed by West coast entrepreneur Peter Barnes has also attracted bipartisan support in part because, like the Alaska Permanent Fund, it circumvents government capture and directs revenue immediately to citizens. Sky Trust dividends would be an asset shared by all. Natural resource-based asset sharing concepts have decided advantages: They can help address complex problems such as pollution, and they're easily shared through the common status of citizenship........
The Alternative American Dream: Inclusive Capitalism And lo did Jonny repeat: "we need the middle class to save and invest moar." I know there's more to the article than that, but that's really what the suggestions boil down to (admittedly I only skimmed it, but it's a familiar topic). I've found two political problems with advocating it. Some people, often on the left, don't trust it (finance is icky and frightening). Others, often on the right, are indifferent towards it (who cares so long as someone is investing). Did we read the same article? I read the author saying how "inclusive capitalism" (aka good-old employee ownership) isn't a dead concept and should be more or less set as a goal for society, but it said nothing of how to get there (though middle class saving would be a means to do it, as would be straight-up redistributive policies). Yeah it sure sounds like we read the same article. "good old employee ownership" is when employees own a large undiversified equity stake in a corporation. My frequent advocacy for the not rich to save more spend less is essentially a simplified version of the same core concept. I've advocated other policies that move towards the same goal, to mixed reception on this thread. Just saying there is more than one way to achieve what the author was reaching at, not just middle class saving more. Anyway, what policies do you think can actually affect saving rate for low/middle class? The way I see it, it's more of a cultural issue than anything. Short of what would be highly unpopular restrictions on consumer credit, I can't envision anything that would significantly affect saving rates, plus the timing for it wouldn't exactly be good (given the current state of the american economy). Here in Brazil we also have problems with low household saving rate (even though it's an issue that sadly rarely makes the news). I know there's a lot of ways to go about it. In my brain something like the government saving and investing on behalf of the middle class is essentially the same thing as the middle class saving and investing more. Ex. The Smith family can save more for retirement. Or, the social security system can save more for the Smith family's retirement on their behalf. There's a difference there, but it's essentially the same thing - the the Smith family owns more assets. I think changing the saving rate is a long term issue. The tax code can be made to more favor saving over consumption in a number of ways. Financial literacy can play a huge role as well. A lack of financial literacy is a big obstacle for a lot of green investing at the moment, for example. Then, the government will promise to keep the Smith Family's savings in their own special account to access after they retire. The money they invest is actually immediately spent, but the government assures the Smith Family that they'll still pay out, just now from money arriving in Washington at the moment they retire. They'll be very transparent every step of the way. I don't think in this modern day and age that it can be an option. There's just too little accountability and real reaction.
As is social security is a pay as you go system. If I wanted SS to save money for people it would need to be changed to a pre-funded system. I don't see any reason why that couldn't work, more or less. Other countries are able to do just that, as are states that have sovereign wealth funds.
|
yes it's the hidden downside of cannabis legalization that we are creating a government monopoly and inevitable crony capitalism. I'd rather keep buying mine on the black market!
also the extinction of the local pot dealer is a great tragedy for american culture 
|
On September 01 2013 01:10 sam!zdat wrote:yes it's the hidden downside of cannabis legalization that we are creating a government monopoly and inevitable crony capitalism. I'd rather keep buying mine on the black market! also the extinction of the local pot dealer is a great tragedy for american culture
The government targeting and taking down small business owners again.
|
just wait till monsanto gets in on the act and we all become blessed with roundup ready cannabis sativa... On the bright side, we won't have to deal anymore with those pesky seeds...
|
On September 01 2013 00:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 14:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2013 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 08:45 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 31 2013 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 06:35 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 31 2013 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:I found this really interesting. Definitely check the whole thing out.
One candidate that may be equal to that task is a homely sounding economic noun that separates the wealthy from the rest of us. "Assets" are a seemingly magical set of resources that work for anyone who owns them. In conversations about economic fairness, "assets" are a resource that has largely remained outside the policy tent. President Obama has recently raised expectations about how economic policy might attack the problem of inequality. But he likely won't get that far unless he too is ready to step outside that tent.
Accounting textbooks teach us that there are different categories of assets, both tangible (e.g., land, buildings, housing, corporate stock, minerals) and intangible (e.g., patents, goodwill, copyrights). Wealthy people own lots of these assets. So many that they often forgo that more pedestrian instrument that makes possible the accumulation of income, the paycheck.
Unwealthy people own few, if any, assets. Theirs is wage-dependent, income based universe. They live from paycheck to paycheck. If assets are the key discriminant that sustains the wealthy, why is it that the most commonly invoked solutions to economic inequality tend to focus on income enhancing measures such as minimum wage campaigns, payroll tax credits and job training? That's not where the real money is. One could be forgiven for suspecting a plot. If the general problem of economic inequality could be likened to an overly deep bowl of soup that should be more fairly consumed, income-based solutions attack the challenge with forks. We need spoons, asset spoons. Let's examine a few.
Broad-Based Asset Sharing Strategies
Since 1982 every citizen of the state of Alaska has enjoyed an annual dividend as a return on their share of oil revenues through the Alaska Permanent Fund. Bipartisan support, including from former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin, has protected this asset sharing program for over 30 years. When legislators sought access to a share of Permanent Fund revenue to fund state deficits in 1999, they were rejected by 84 percent of voters. Annual dividend payments have ranged from $331 to $2,069 per Alaskan.
Similar natural resource-based ideas have been proposed but not yet implemented. One would provide all citizens an annual clean air dividend derived from taxing polluters. The "Sky Trust" concept developed by West coast entrepreneur Peter Barnes has also attracted bipartisan support in part because, like the Alaska Permanent Fund, it circumvents government capture and directs revenue immediately to citizens. Sky Trust dividends would be an asset shared by all. Natural resource-based asset sharing concepts have decided advantages: They can help address complex problems such as pollution, and they're easily shared through the common status of citizenship........
The Alternative American Dream: Inclusive Capitalism And lo did Jonny repeat: "we need the middle class to save and invest moar." I know there's more to the article than that, but that's really what the suggestions boil down to (admittedly I only skimmed it, but it's a familiar topic). I've found two political problems with advocating it. Some people, often on the left, don't trust it (finance is icky and frightening). Others, often on the right, are indifferent towards it (who cares so long as someone is investing). Did we read the same article? I read the author saying how "inclusive capitalism" (aka good-old employee ownership) isn't a dead concept and should be more or less set as a goal for society, but it said nothing of how to get there (though middle class saving would be a means to do it, as would be straight-up redistributive policies). Yeah it sure sounds like we read the same article. "good old employee ownership" is when employees own a large undiversified equity stake in a corporation. My frequent advocacy for the not rich to save more spend less is essentially a simplified version of the same core concept. I've advocated other policies that move towards the same goal, to mixed reception on this thread. Just saying there is more than one way to achieve what the author was reaching at, not just middle class saving more. Anyway, what policies do you think can actually affect saving rate for low/middle class? The way I see it, it's more of a cultural issue than anything. Short of what would be highly unpopular restrictions on consumer credit, I can't envision anything that would significantly affect saving rates, plus the timing for it wouldn't exactly be good (given the current state of the american economy). Here in Brazil we also have problems with low household saving rate (even though it's an issue that sadly rarely makes the news). I know there's a lot of ways to go about it. In my brain something like the government saving and investing on behalf of the middle class is essentially the same thing as the middle class saving and investing more. Ex. The Smith family can save more for retirement. Or, the social security system can save more for the Smith family's retirement on their behalf. There's a difference there, but it's essentially the same thing - the the Smith family owns more assets. I think changing the saving rate is a long term issue. The tax code can be made to more favor saving over consumption in a number of ways. Financial literacy can play a huge role as well. A lack of financial literacy is a big obstacle for a lot of green investing at the moment, for example. Then, the government will promise to keep the Smith Family's savings in their own special account to access after they retire. The money they invest is actually immediately spent, but the government assures the Smith Family that they'll still pay out, just now from money arriving in Washington at the moment they retire. They'll be very transparent every step of the way. I don't think in this modern day and age that it can be an option. There's just too little accountability and real reaction. As is social security is a pay as you go system. If I wanted SS to save money for people it would need to be changed to a pre-funded system. I don't see any reason why that couldn't work, more or less. Other countries are able to do just that, as are states that have sovereign wealth funds.
As it was sold, it was a private account investment-type scheme. Look at any of the propaganda from the period.
1936
After the first 3 years — that is to say, beginning in 1940 — you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. ... Beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. ... And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.
Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right.
Politicians knew what it would become and deceived the American people that it wouldn't be that. I'm saying that the current political climate of low representative accountability spells doom for any government-run savings schemes like you described. The SSA is case in point. The theory's nice (and perhaps workable in ideal circumstances) but the practice yields unfortunate outcomes. (And the case can be made that is it not amongst the legitimate roles of the Federal government to use its power to manipulate middle class savings incentives in the specific case described.)
I admit that the plan in Europe may be more workable because I haven't done research beyond the sovereign debt crisis on European participation in government decisions. Maybe some countries would experience massive and productive protests if ever their representatives ever robbed the savings accounts of tomorrow to pay for new and continuing programs today. I don't see that happening here. The promises of politicians running due opposite their actions is not a heavy force against their re-election.
The government has set a program in place not unlike a Ponzi scheme, of a magnitude that would make Madoff blush. I am wary of any future attempts to invest on behalf of economist's noble goals.
|
Polluters are getting away scot-free in Florida, quite literally, according to one group that alleges Gov. Rick Scott and his slimmed-down Department of Environmental Protection are not doing their jobs.
Thursday Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility (PEER) issued a statement that the DEP collected 70 percent less fines from violators in 2012 and opened half as many environmental investigations than the year before.
“These latest figures document a jaw-dropping abdication of pollution protections in Florida,” wrote PEER Director Jerry Phillips, a former DEP enforcement attorney, who conducted the analysis. “If Florida is in a race to the bottom, it has reached the basement.”
The group says Scott advised DEP staff to restrain from pursuing enforcement as well as laid off staff formerly in charge of enforcing the state's environmental standards.
PEER also released an internal DEP memo in which the deputy secretary Jeff Littlejohn advises directors to focus on compliance without enforcement.
Meanwhile the DEP says the lower enforcement numbers are merely a consequence of more Florida industries operating within safe environmental standards.
Littlejohn reasoned in a July editorial that ran in several Florida newspapers that the lower penalties collected this year are the result of not only higher compliance rates, but also catching problems before they officially exceed standards.
Source
|
On September 01 2013 05:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2013 00:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 14:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2013 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 08:45 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 31 2013 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 06:35 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 31 2013 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:I found this really interesting. Definitely check the whole thing out.
One candidate that may be equal to that task is a homely sounding economic noun that separates the wealthy from the rest of us. "Assets" are a seemingly magical set of resources that work for anyone who owns them. In conversations about economic fairness, "assets" are a resource that has largely remained outside the policy tent. President Obama has recently raised expectations about how economic policy might attack the problem of inequality. But he likely won't get that far unless he too is ready to step outside that tent.
Accounting textbooks teach us that there are different categories of assets, both tangible (e.g., land, buildings, housing, corporate stock, minerals) and intangible (e.g., patents, goodwill, copyrights). Wealthy people own lots of these assets. So many that they often forgo that more pedestrian instrument that makes possible the accumulation of income, the paycheck.
Unwealthy people own few, if any, assets. Theirs is wage-dependent, income based universe. They live from paycheck to paycheck. If assets are the key discriminant that sustains the wealthy, why is it that the most commonly invoked solutions to economic inequality tend to focus on income enhancing measures such as minimum wage campaigns, payroll tax credits and job training? That's not where the real money is. One could be forgiven for suspecting a plot. If the general problem of economic inequality could be likened to an overly deep bowl of soup that should be more fairly consumed, income-based solutions attack the challenge with forks. We need spoons, asset spoons. Let's examine a few.
Broad-Based Asset Sharing Strategies
Since 1982 every citizen of the state of Alaska has enjoyed an annual dividend as a return on their share of oil revenues through the Alaska Permanent Fund. Bipartisan support, including from former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin, has protected this asset sharing program for over 30 years. When legislators sought access to a share of Permanent Fund revenue to fund state deficits in 1999, they were rejected by 84 percent of voters. Annual dividend payments have ranged from $331 to $2,069 per Alaskan.
Similar natural resource-based ideas have been proposed but not yet implemented. One would provide all citizens an annual clean air dividend derived from taxing polluters. The "Sky Trust" concept developed by West coast entrepreneur Peter Barnes has also attracted bipartisan support in part because, like the Alaska Permanent Fund, it circumvents government capture and directs revenue immediately to citizens. Sky Trust dividends would be an asset shared by all. Natural resource-based asset sharing concepts have decided advantages: They can help address complex problems such as pollution, and they're easily shared through the common status of citizenship........
The Alternative American Dream: Inclusive Capitalism And lo did Jonny repeat: "we need the middle class to save and invest moar." I know there's more to the article than that, but that's really what the suggestions boil down to (admittedly I only skimmed it, but it's a familiar topic). I've found two political problems with advocating it. Some people, often on the left, don't trust it (finance is icky and frightening). Others, often on the right, are indifferent towards it (who cares so long as someone is investing). Did we read the same article? I read the author saying how "inclusive capitalism" (aka good-old employee ownership) isn't a dead concept and should be more or less set as a goal for society, but it said nothing of how to get there (though middle class saving would be a means to do it, as would be straight-up redistributive policies). Yeah it sure sounds like we read the same article. "good old employee ownership" is when employees own a large undiversified equity stake in a corporation. My frequent advocacy for the not rich to save more spend less is essentially a simplified version of the same core concept. I've advocated other policies that move towards the same goal, to mixed reception on this thread. Just saying there is more than one way to achieve what the author was reaching at, not just middle class saving more. Anyway, what policies do you think can actually affect saving rate for low/middle class? The way I see it, it's more of a cultural issue than anything. Short of what would be highly unpopular restrictions on consumer credit, I can't envision anything that would significantly affect saving rates, plus the timing for it wouldn't exactly be good (given the current state of the american economy). Here in Brazil we also have problems with low household saving rate (even though it's an issue that sadly rarely makes the news). I know there's a lot of ways to go about it. In my brain something like the government saving and investing on behalf of the middle class is essentially the same thing as the middle class saving and investing more. Ex. The Smith family can save more for retirement. Or, the social security system can save more for the Smith family's retirement on their behalf. There's a difference there, but it's essentially the same thing - the the Smith family owns more assets. I think changing the saving rate is a long term issue. The tax code can be made to more favor saving over consumption in a number of ways. Financial literacy can play a huge role as well. A lack of financial literacy is a big obstacle for a lot of green investing at the moment, for example. Then, the government will promise to keep the Smith Family's savings in their own special account to access after they retire. The money they invest is actually immediately spent, but the government assures the Smith Family that they'll still pay out, just now from money arriving in Washington at the moment they retire. They'll be very transparent every step of the way. I don't think in this modern day and age that it can be an option. There's just too little accountability and real reaction. As is social security is a pay as you go system. If I wanted SS to save money for people it would need to be changed to a pre-funded system. I don't see any reason why that couldn't work, more or less. Other countries are able to do just that, as are states that have sovereign wealth funds. As it was sold, it was a private account investment-type scheme. Look at any of the propaganda from the period. Show nested quote +
1936
After the first 3 years — that is to say, beginning in 1940 — you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. ... Beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. ... And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.
Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right.
Politicians knew what it would become and deceived the American people that it wouldn't be that. I'm saying that the current political climate of low representative accountability spells doom for any government-run savings schemes like you described. The SSA is case in point. The theory's nice (and perhaps workable in ideal circumstances) but the practice yields unfortunate outcomes. (And the case can be made that is it not amongst the legitimate roles of the Federal government to use its power to manipulate middle class savings incentives in the specific case described.) I admit that the plan in Europe may be more workable because I haven't done research beyond the sovereign debt crisis on European participation in government decisions. Maybe some countries would experience massive and productive protests if ever their representatives ever robbed the savings accounts of tomorrow to pay for new and continuing programs today. I don't see that happening here. The promises of politicians running due opposite their actions is not a heavy force against their re-election. The government has set a program in place not unlike a Ponzi scheme, of a magnitude that would make Madoff blush. I am wary of any future attempts to invest on behalf of economist's noble goals.
I'm not sure where you are seeing the deception. People do have social security accounts, and the benefit checks do come to retirees by right.
From the SS FAQ:
Q1: When did Social Security start?
A: The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.
If you are collecting taxes and making payments in the same month, you obviously aren't building up a stock of assets and using the income from that stock of assets to make the payments.
|
Read again the SSA annual report (Linked Two Posts Back). There are projected to be massive shortfalls. The entire bill was sold to the American people as a means of saving for retirement. Your own SSA account, caps on how much you pay in for a steady rate of savings, etc. It remains the foremost piece of deception in government promising to do it one way and doing it completely different. As for rights, the SSA says,
Entitlement to Social Security benefits is not (a) contractual right," adding, "There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. ... Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law.
Here I am indebted to the work of economist Walter Williams. Since I think you are seriously interested in whether or not that program was billed as something completely opposite of reality, I invite you to read his full article. It presents the clear contrasts that modern politicians have since paved over. Furthermore, I doubt any future laws aimed at impelling middle class savings taken by the Federal government on their citizen's behalf will avoid the same treatment for even 20 years.
|
On September 01 2013 06:57 Danglars wrote:Read again the SSA annual report (Linked Two Posts Back). There are projected to be massive shortfalls. The entire bill was sold to the American people as a means of saving for retirement. Your own SSA account, caps on how much you pay in for a steady rate of savings, etc. It remains the foremost piece of deception in government promising to do it one way and doing it completely different. As for rights, the SSA says, Show nested quote +Entitlement to Social Security benefits is not (a) contractual right," adding, "There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. ... Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Here I am indebted to the work of economist Walter Williams. Since I think you are seriously interested in whether or not that program was billed as something completely opposite of reality, I invite you to read his full article. It presents the clear contrasts that modern politicians have since paved over. Furthermore, I doubt any future laws aimed at impelling middle class savings taken by the Federal government on their citizen's behalf will avoid the same treatment for even 20 years.
I think you are suffering from too high expectations. The government could stack gold bars in a vault with your name on it, sign all sorts of contracts to guarantee the value, and still default on its promises. As could any private sector scheme.
There exists a reality that there are more retired people for a given worker. That's a burden you can't get around in any scheme. No matter what.
|
WASHINGTON — Members of Congress, abruptly handed exactly the war powers many had demanded, grappled Saturday with whether to sign off on President Barack Obama's plan to punish Syria for an alleged chemical weapons attack. Now with a stake in the nation's global credibility, lawmakers were seeking more information about the possible consequences of striking a region without knowing what would happen next.
The debate over what action, if any, Congress might approve is in its infancy as lawmakers prepare for public hearings next week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But the first contours began emerging within hours of Obama's announcement.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he doesn't believe Syria should go unpunished for the Aug. 21 attack near Damascus. "But we need to understand what the whole scope of consequences is," he said by telephone. "What the president may perceive as limited ... won't stop there."
Arguing for a strategy that seeks to end Syrian President Bashar Assad's rule, Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina issued a joint statement saying that any operation should be broader in scope than the "limited" scope Obama described.
"We cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the president's stated goal of Assad's removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests," the senators said.
Source
|
The conduct of the government can be analyzed and understood as a bad idea for encouraging/forcing savings and investment. The argument here is if it can be trusted more, equally, or less to act as the manager of a savings account compared to a private company. Both schemes have the risk of default. What matters is the input of the investor into the risk and what risks have arisen in the past that continue today. I say both of these speak against any Federal legislation to save money on behalf of the middle class.
The structure of the SSA and it's ignored warnings today is a case study in this. I ask the abstract analysis of what the government made and how it was sold to those who thought they understood it. Any rube can see the faults today, eighty years later, just as omnibus bills crafted today will be seen in another eighty years. The American people of that year were persuaded that the government was saving money they paid in to pay back out, holding it in an account with their name and their SSN on it. What actually happened and how the legislation was crafted was far different. In the US realization of political philosophy, the Federal government simply cannot save and invest on the citizen's behalf in an act of Congress.
|
On September 01 2013 12:28 Danglars wrote:
The conduct of the government can be analyzed and understood as a bad idea for encouraging/forcing savings and investment. The argument here is if it can be trusted more, equally, or less to act as the manager of a savings account compared to a private company. Both schemes have the risk of default. What matters is the input of the investor into the risk and what risks have arisen in the past that continue today. I say both of these speak against any Federal legislation to save money on behalf of the middle class.
The structure of the SSA and it's ignored warnings today is a case study in this. I ask the abstract analysis of what the government made and how it was sold to those who thought they understood it. Any rube can see the faults today, eighty years later, just as omnibus bills crafted today will be seen in another eighty years. The American people of that year were persuaded that the government was saving money they paid in to pay back out, holding it in an account with their name and their SSN on it. What actually happened and how the legislation was crafted was far different. In the US realization of political philosophy, the Federal government simply cannot save and invest on the citizen's behalf in an act of Congress.
Social Security is a welfare program set up during the Depression that started paying out to retirees who had never paid any SS tax in the first place. While it is a part of people's financial security for retirement in the U.S., it isn't a retirement plan: it's a welfare program. It's wholly orthogonal to retirement savings, and any intellectual musings and pondering and rumination and hemming and hawing are no more relevant than saying that a savings program would fail because the Mars Surveyor Orbiter crashed so the government is bad at math.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
