patrick.net

Well, I'll say this about Mormons . . .

I've met about a dozen or so, and they've all been wonderful, warm, hardworking family people. I don't want to tar them all with that same brush. I'm sure some of them are real bastards. But, just what I've noticed.

SactoQt -
We should still get together for a drink. No woman, other than my wife, who ever fell for me didn’t hate me first.

Lol
The love/hate thing huh? Maybe one of these days we'll actually get around to having that blog party Peter P keeps talking about. Peter, you must be so happy to have met Jack and Kurt. Actually, I'm jealous.

Perhaps evolution is the God's tool in His intelligent design. We now have more unprovable theories...

Peter P -
Let me know if you throw the blog party.

I'll fly in from Ct.

I swear I will.

I'll even take a shower and comb my hair.

If we ever do the blog party, we should play a game where everyone shows up and nobody tells anybody who they are. At the end of the night, we have to guess each person's alter ego.

I probably shouldn't mention this but...........
My husband has a co-worker who's a devout Mormon, she also happens to be the original "40 year old virgin" (actually she's something like 42 now) I'm guessing the polygamy thing didn't appeal to her.

Peter, you must be so happy to have met Jack and Kurt. Actually, I’m jealous.

I am sure we will meet someday. Granite Bay is not that far.

“the original 40 year old virgin”

I'll pass on opening that bottle of wine . . . that's way too much pressure.

I can just see it . . .

"I saved myself for 20 some odd years for THAT?"

Peter P -
Let me know if you throw the blog party.

I’ll fly in from Ct.

Great! I would love to meet you.

I am sure we will meet someday. Granite Bay is not that far.

True, but it does feel like a different world sometimes. Hopefully we can do a get together sometime.

Well this thread took a long time to read. Lot's of fun stuff. And to think I found this blog just looking for ideas/data on irrational real estate prices. Phew, so much more, huh?
Thanks everyone, keep it up (wish I could add more myself)!

Getting sleepy. Good nite all.

Nite Peter, think I'll turn in myself.

It's 4:30, I'm not tired, I want to insulate my attic with Cocoon(TM), I have 4 weeks of work on my desk waiting for me that I am trying to work up the inspiration to attack, oh yeah, and

"I'd like to save the world, but I don't know where to start."

Jesus Stan, you post prompted two quick turn ins.

I'm gonna start calling you "threadkiller"

Don't invite this guy to the blarty.

:)

Stan,
I've seen a documentary on the slaughter of the people migrating to California.
How/why did you learn "their whole deal much better than they...?"

I like the concept of private accounts. I don't know why there was such "outrage" over this...perhaps there really wasn't outrage as opposed to, perhaps, ambivalence...which is not good either when looking for support for such a drastic change to such a large program. My understanding was that participation would be somewhat voluntary. One less cookie jar to dip into, I suppose, it what explains a lot of the (political) opposition.
I like your stated idea of gradual ramp up.

Stanman wrote . . .

I don’t know why there was such “outrage” over this…perhaps there really wasn’t outrage as opposed to, perhaps, ambivalence

What can you say to that? I feel bad for people who think the Government is a better guardian of their money then are they.

Unintentional bold, but I like it.

Test

Test

Test

Test

Test

Test

test

test

. . .
Final test

Stanman,

I'm far from a social liberal, but label me as you will. The proofs--which are just economic proofs, admitedly, not preeminant facts--are all nicely summarized in Mankiw, Macroeconomics. This includes Keynes, Friedman, and opposing theories as well. It includes labor efficiency, labor mobility, and immigration/emmigration theories.

My arguments are indeed in the labor-mobility camp. First, I never said anything about New Hampshire, lol. There is an important difference between nations, at least economically--and we're talking about immigration insofar as it serves free market forces. Intramigration within a country is requisite, at least according to many theories. This is the great strength of the US, and a weakness of the emerging EU.

My point about immigration and diversity was that one risks creating adverse effects when they try to use policy to "pick the winners". Immigration should be regulated and controlled, _but_ equal. We must be careful about picking those we want from those we don't and make sure that we only use truly objective criteria for such selection. Skin color, religion, geographic origin, etc. are dangerous criteria. One need only look at the contributions to science and technology and the last names of many of those people will reveal their origin was not within the European/Christian region of the world. Nonetheless, their contributions accrue to the US economy and further power our growth and prosperity. And, many of them came here as children of labor-class parents, so even socioeconomic selection can be difficult.

Finally, such diverse immigration has been one of the great catylsts driving the American economic engine for the past 200 years. I'm open to well reasoned contra-proofs to this statement; I've yet to see one.

Yustas,

THe plans I've read all have a minimum mandatory investment percentage in risk-free assets, primary T-bills/bonds. Many here know more about the details on the plans. If those became wortheless, then all bets are off. Actually I have a problem because I think fixed percentages are troublesome; I'd rather see some basic portfolio theory applied--or at least an option for more sophisticated investors to choose appropriate asset mixes. Regardless, any of these plans will outperform the current system of insanity.

“Hey Randy H, please point out my inconsistencies as you see them!”

So here is one I didn't argue about last night. We were debating unmarried pregnancy rates in Sweden and the US, both of which are about 50%. You claimed that we have to eliminate US teenage pregnancy from this because it makes a more direct comparison on a socio-economic basis, which is true enough.

But, we were arguing about the causality or correlation between this variable given the underlying economic system. If we elminate anthything from either data set then there is a risk that we inadvertantly break a causual link. That is, their system produces their results, and ours produces its results, which itself may be a product of the economic systems (or may not), but you cannot be sure you haven't skewed the aggregate statistic when you make arbitrary "adjustments". Again, I, like you, believe that unmarried pregnancies are bad in the US--I think that nuclear families work better for a number of reasons here. But we cannot make comparative analyses on this basis...at least not very easily. Sometimes with these things "only time will tell", and yours and my inclinations may be proven true, but proving we're right about this now is hazardous.

from what I heard, currently SS tax money are not invested at all,

This is not true. The current SS funds are invested, just not by the individuals paying in but by the government. The government borrows against the SS funds to invest in government spending projects, then uses later proceds to pay recipients. From an National Income Accounting perspective, this is pure investment activity. Those in favor of private accounts contend that individuals can invest more efficiently than the government.

I'll not argue the merits of the original system, where what you stated was true. I could argue that such a system (SS lockbox, or whatever), won't work today because the economic dynamics have changed quite a bit. I also don't argue that sometimes the government can't invest at a greater return than individuals can achieve, but these tend to be massive infrastructure spending projects which should be funded by general fund taxation. Things like highways, University systems, space projects, basic scientific research, etc. But SS funds generally get pissed away on things that should be left to the private sector, or should never occur at all (like subsidies for tobacco farmers).

Young should provide at least minimal support for the old today.

We are living in the midst of the greatest systemic transfer of wealth from young to old that has ever occurred in US society. Maybe this is ok, but you are then relying on some very optimisitic projections about future GDP growth, dramatically increasing birth rates (which generally comes from poorer class immigrants), and neverending super-productivty growth. Any of these things (or others I'm not smart enough to invoke) prove to be false and the scheme will simply break down.

What keeps me up at night is that such large scale mismangement of the economy typically ends with a big war, or the decline of the society, or both.

Randy H, please disabuse me if I'm wrong here.

The SS money coming in goes to one of two place . . .

1. To pay current SS expenses.
2. The rest goes into the general fund. The "SS fund," or whatever it is called, has IOUs in it from the government.

Because the U.S. Feds are running at a 200+ billion dollar deficit each year, it is improper to say the SS $ in the general fund are being invested. They are being spent on highway bills and energy bills and welfare.

What's incorrect?

Can this technology be adopted for home — if you miss two mortgage payment, you can not enter home just kidding

Or it will turn on A/C in the winter and heat in the summer. Toilet will also refuse to flush.

Because the U.S. Feds are running at a 200+ billion dollar deficit each year, it is improper to say the SS $ in the general fund are being invested. They are being spent on highway bills and energy bills and welfare.

If the SS funds which entered the general fund were carefully earmarked and spent on only high-return infrastructure spending, then I'd have no problem--in theory. But, instead the funds are mixed and not accounted for as such (at least in my reading of the situation). Even if the SS funds are invested in positive NPV projects, I still contend that this should be raised through general taxation, not SS, because the infrastructure projects benefit everyone, not just workers. Worse, use of SS funds reduces the opportunity costs for tax-generated funds which creates an incentive for the government to spend those unwisely. In other words, the current system distorts the true cost of capital for our tax and SS dollars.

Again, I'm not the expert on this (or much else), just relying on my first-principles to guide me here. I'd be delighted for a real SS expert to enlighten me (not that that's not you, I just like to see the real accounting before I trust what people/policy makers say).

...and just because we're running a deficit doesn't mean the dollars aren't being invested. it just means the investment dollars are leveraged.

ok Randy H. I'm no expert for sure, but I've read in several places that excess SS money gets dumped on the pile with income taxes, estate taxes, and so on.

As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. Government shouldn't be "investing" in anything until the deficit is 0 and the National Debt is 0. Putting money toward those two things is the best investment we can make.

As far as I’m concerned, the U.S. Government shouldn’t be “investing” in anything until the deficit is 0 and the National Debt is 0. Putting money toward those two things is the best investment we can make.

We're close to complete agreement, but I think that the government should continue investment to replace necessary depreciated capital stock regardless of the deficit or debt. Neglecting the infrastructure will only ensure that we never pay down either.

A couple of my favorite pro-nuclear power factoids:
--Living by nuclear reactor safer than living in Denver Colorado in terms of radiation exposure (thin atmosphere).
--If your brought a coleman lantern mantle into nuclear power plant it would set off radiation detectors (trace thorium content).
Favorite NE bumper sticker:
"Another Environmentalist for Nuclear Power"

Randy H -

"Oil Shock! It now appears that the US will suffer another severe blow to its oil refining infrastructure. With this being the second major shock to the supply-side of energy in less than a month, and with oil, gas and petrol being major inputs into the US economy, how could this affect the overall US economic situation."

Just to let everyone know, preliminary reports (from CNN) say that Rita didn't cause any major damage to pipe lines or refineries. Again, these reports are very preliminary so no one really knows for sure what damage there is, if any. I think Rita was more or less a disruption for the oil industry.

However, there is some major cleaning up to do because of the severe flooding. What kind of strain this will put on an already strained economy is a question better suited for someone other then myself.

Here's a link regarding the oil industry:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16715130%255E1702,00.htm

Stanman, Does that mean conservative on fiscal issues and possibly don’t know on social issues?

I know exactly how I stand on social issues; it's just that I don't fit neatly into one of the Fox-News labels. Most would probably put me in the Libertarian camp, but I would use the small "l", not the big "L", because I think the L party is just plain terrible. I say rationalist because I subscribe to classic Objectivist rational philosophy. We don't have a party at the moment (and probably never will).

A great portion of the European influx you refer to as positive wasn't viewed so at the time due to what, at the time, people thought were dramatic religious differences. That is, most of the newcomers were Catholic and poor; most of the incumbents were Protestant and not so poor (or at least they were land-owners). Columbia University has a great compilation of newspapers and such from the period (NYC focussed) which shows just how resistant people were to incoming Catholics. Many of the arguments against allowing so many Catholics into the country echo those being made today , and at least back then they turned out to be unfounded. That doesn't mean you're right, it just means that I'm not convinced on logical grounds you're right.

I'm just skeptical about who's going to "do the picking" when it comes to which cultures will compliment the US and which won't. The problem with such things is that we each personally "know" what is best, but we can't so easily hammer out concensus. For example, I don't want either Pat Buchanan nor Hillary Clinton making those choices about my country's future. If they ever ask me to do it, I'll call you guys in on my team.

This is not a minor point (risking being long winded again). I think that we all here are having informed political debate, whether we agree or not. This is something that ultimately yields good policy (at least better policy), not the crap we have today. I don't see this level of debate going on in the public sphere, and that is the real tragedy.

How many of you guys can actually afford to buy a house?

Many of us own, or recently sold and are waiting to buy back in. Some of us still have a primary residence and are selling 2nd homes and investment properties. Some are rentors, some aren't. What's the difference? I don't have to be a professional baseball player to have an opinion about the Cincinnati Reds.

Well HZ, we can differ . . .

The pessimist eats well when the hunger strikes march in. The opptomist hopes that the bread lines will be short.

Sound far fetched?

Of course! If it didn't sound far fetched, then it wouldn't be an issue.

Ask around in the late 20s. Do you think anybody would have predicted bread lines in few years?

Pessimists!!

And, building on DC...

There is a marked difference between pessimism and skepticism. I'd say that we're skeptics here, most of us aren't pessimist, although we are cynical about a great many things. I for one plan to buy another primary residence to replace the one we just sold, probably before the absolute bottom; and I'll feel very good about that decision, regardless of the outcome, so long as I make the decision given a reasonable airing of the facts.