Quotulatiousness

August 9, 2011

We have a saying in Britain … we call it ‘shitting on your own doorstep’

Filed under: Britain, Government, Law — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:11

Brendan O’Neill refutes some of the theories on what underlying causes are motivating the London riots:

Many commentators are on a mission to contextualise the riots that have swept parts of urban London and other British cities. ‘It’s very naive to look at these riots without the context’, says one journalist, who says the reason the violence kicked off in the London suburb of Tottenham is because ‘that area is getting 75% cuts [in public services]’. Others have said that the political context for the rioting is youth unemployment or working-class anger at David Cameron’s cuts agenda. ‘There is a context to London’s riots that can’t be ignored’, said a writer for the Guardian, and it is the ‘backdrop of brutal cuts and enforced austerity measures’. The ‘mass unrest’ is a protest against unhinged capitalism, apparently.

These observers are right that there is a political context to the riots. They are right to argue that while the police shooting of young black man Mark Duggan may ostensibly have been the trigger for the street violence, there is a broader context to the disturbances. But they are wrong about what the political context is. Painting these riots as some kind of action replay of historic political streetfights against capitalist bosses or racist cops might allow armchair radicals to get their intellectual rocks off, as they lift their noses from dusty tomes about the Levellers or the Suffragettes and fantasise that a political upheaval of equal worth is now occurring outside their windows. But such shameless projection misses what is new and peculiar and deeply worrying about these riots. The political context is not the cuts agenda or racist policing — it is the welfare state, which, it is now clear, has nurtured a new generation that has absolutely no sense of community spirit or social solidarity.

What we have on the streets of London and elsewhere are welfare-state mobs. The youth who are ‘rising up’ — actually they are simply shattering their own communities — represent a generation that has been more suckled by the state than any generation before it. They live in those urban territories where the sharp-elbowed intrusion of the welfare state over the past 30 years has pushed aside older ideals of self-reliance and community spirit. The march of the welfare state into every aspect of less well-off urban people’s existences, from their financial wellbeing to their childrearing habits and even into their emotional lives, with the rise of therapeutic welfarism designed to ensure that the poor remain ‘mentally fit’, has helped to undermine such things as individual resourcefulness and social bonding. The anti-social youthful rioters look to me like the end product of such an anti-social system of state intervention.

August 7, 2011

Mitchell: Obama bears only 15% of the blame for the downgrade

Filed under: Economics, Government, History, USA — Tags: , , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 17:57

In a blog post guaranteed to tick off members of both parties, Daniel Mitchell tries a first approximation of where the blame should be assigned:

Well, it turns out that Social Security is a relatively minor part of the problem, so even though President Roosevelt’s policies exacerbated and extended the Great Depression, the program he created is only responsible for a small share of the fiscal crisis. To give the illusion of scientific exactitude, let’s assign FDR 13.2 percent of the blame.

The health care numbers are much harder to disentangle because it’s not apparent how much of the increase is due to Medicare, Medicaid, Bush’s prescription drug entitlement, and Obamacare. A healthcare policy wonk may know these numbers, but the CBO long-run forecast didn’t provide much detail.

So with a big caveat that these are just wild estimations, I feel reasonably comfortable in saying that both Bush and Obama made matters worse with their reckless entitlement expansions, but that they merely deepened a fiscal hole that was created when President Johnson imposed Medicare and Medicaid.

July 19, 2011

Walsh: This is what the debt-ceiling fight is really all about

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:20

Michael A. Walsh puts the real issue into focus:

Forget all the numbers being tossed around in Washington — the millions and billions and trillions of dollars being taxed, borrowed, printed and spent as the country approaches the Aug. 2 debt-ceiling deadline.

Forget the political jockeying for position between a president desperately seeking re-election in 16 months and a Congress equally desperately seeking not to be blamed for spending even more money that we don’t have.

Forget the fact that such “entitlements” as Social Security and Medicare — social-insurance programs that the public long thought to be actuarially sound — have been exposed as little more than legal Ponzi schemes, paying today’s benefits out of tomorrow’s borrowed receipts.

Instead, just ask yourself this simple question: When did it become the primary function of the federal government to send millions of Americans checks?

For this, in essence, is what the debt-ceiling fight is all about — the inexorable and ultimately fatal growth of the welfare state. If you don’t believe it, just look at President Obama’s veiled threat to withhold Grandma’s Social Security benefits if Congress doesn’t let him borrow another $2 trillion or so to get himself safely past the 2012 election.

July 18, 2011

It won’t hurt just the “rich”

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:00

Michael Boskin illustrates just what the current levels of US government spending will mean when translated into personal tax rates:

Many Democrats demand no changes to Social Security and Medicare spending. But these programs are projected to run ever-growing deficits totaling tens of trillions of dollars in coming decades, primarily from rising real benefits per beneficiary. To cover these projected deficits would require continually higher income and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare on all taxpayers that would drive the combined marginal tax rate on labor income to more than 70% by 2035 and 80% by 2050. And that’s before accounting for the Laffer effect, likely future interest costs, state deficits and the rising ratio of voters receiving government payments to those paying income taxes.

It would be a huge mistake to imagine that the cumulative, cascading burden of many tax rates on the same income will leave the middle class untouched. Take a teacher in California earning $60,000. A current federal rate of 25%, a 9.5% California rate, and 15.3% payroll tax yield a combined income tax rate of 45%. The income tax increases to cover the CBO’s projected federal deficit in 2016 raises that to 52%. Covering future Social Security and Medicare deficits brings the combined marginal tax rate on that middle-income taxpayer to an astounding 71%. That teacher working a summer job would keep just 29% of her wages. At the margin, virtually everyone would be working primarily for the government, reduced to a minority partner in their own labor.

Nobody — rich, middle-income or poor — can afford to have the economy so burdened. Higher tax rates are the major reason why European per-capita income, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is about 30% lower than in the United States — a permanent difference many times the temporary decline in the recent recession and anemic recovery.

While policy makers may shrug off the impact of higher tax rates, it has a significant effect on individual choices when it comes to part-time jobs, overtime, and even raises. Even if in reality working a few hours of overtime won’t make a difference, psychologically, the higher tax burden can act as a deterrent: “why put in the effort if the government gets more out of my effort than I do?”

July 15, 2011

The US government’s plight, as a poker technique

Filed under: Economics, Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:05

Jagadeesh Gokhale points out that President Obama is not only bluffing, but that it’s transparently obvious what this tactic is intended to achieve:

The president’s Wednesday night warning to House Majority Leader Cantor to not “call his bluff” suggests that… well, he’s bluffing. But the president has already been playing some transparently thin cards in this game of poker, including his melodramatic — but highly questionable — hint that Social Security checks would be interrupted on August 2.

The go-to strategy in a literal train wreck is to jump off a nanosecond just before the collision. The debt-limit debate is more complicated, however, because no one really knows what the effect would be if the deadlock on budget negotiations continues through August 2nd.

Debt-rating agencies may soon downgrade U.S. debt. But does the debt of a country on a fiscal path to borrow and spend 45 percent more than its revenues — at a time when its debt already equals its annual output — really warrant a AAA rating? Won’t House Republicans really be doing investors a service by revealing a more honest debt rating?

[. . .]

Regarding a potential “bluff” by the president and high officials of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve: It’s only natural that they would sound the most dire of alarms. There is no guarantee that the government would default on its existing contractual debt and that financial markets would tank even if such a temporary technical default were to occur. But the risk of such events is not zero and no high government officials would wish to risk it on their watch.

A hint about whether and how much President Obama might be “bluffing” is his unwarranted warning that Social Security payments could not be guaranteed if the debt limit is not increased. There is every reason to believe that those payments could and would be made in full in August — and for many more months — no matter whether the budget deadlock is resolved by August 2nd.

May 13, 2011

QotD: The financial legacy of the Baby Boomers

Filed under: Economics, Quotations — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 00:05

Greg Mankiw links to a WSJ piece about our negative bequest to our children. It’s a point I’ve made many times myself (and am sometimes accused of bashing the elderly because of this). A good quote from the WSJ piece:

     [R]egardless of how much they have contributed, the hard reality is that the federal government has already spent it. No matter how deserving they are, it is younger generations of workers who have to come up with the money.

It is morally wrong to force young people to make good on false promises made before they were even born. It is an outrage, a scandal, a shame on our society. A society that invests in the old at the expense of (actually, to the large detriment of) the young cannot survive. A caring and kind society cares for the weak and elderly and helpless; a dynamic and just society allows the young to grow and prosper on their own merits. If America is to prosper as a nation, the young must be given room to build families and careers. To build lives, without the onerous, crushing burden of debt run up by their forebears.

Never mind questions of ethics or “fairness”: it’s just math. The numbers do not, cannot, and will not ever even up, no matter what accounting tricks the government uses. Until we fundamentally change how the Big Three entitlement programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) work, we will continue to load up our young people with a crippling load of debt they had no hand in accruing.

“Monty”, “A hot cup of DOOM!, no cream, no sugar”, Ace of Spades H.Q., 2011-05-12

April 13, 2011

Delaying retirement: expect to see lots of articles like this

Filed under: Britain, Economics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 07:57

This Guardian article is a pattern for lots to follow in the next few years, as would-be retirees discover that they can’t afford to retire when they’d hoped:

Two-fifths of people who intended to retire this year will have to work for an extra six years because they cannot afford to stop working, according to a study by Prudential.

The pension provider’s Class of 2011 report found that 38% of people are delaying their retirement, and 40% of those say they will have to work until they are 70 to have a comfortable income.

It also shows that 22% of those delaying retirement are doing so because they can’t afford to stop working, up from 15% last year. They had intended, on average, to retire at 62, but now believe they will be at least 68 before they can draw a pension.

Governments in the western world are slowly moving the mandatory retirement age (where it exists), but even in some unionized environments, the benefits workers depend on start to phase out before retirement age. The expectation is that government programs would be there to cover older workers, but governments have little chance of expanding programs during tough economic times.

March 14, 2011

Government debt: “U.S Treasuries increasingly look like Wile E. Coyote running in midair; they’ll keep selling only as long as nobody actually looks down”

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 16:17

To borrow a phrase from Monty at Ace of Spades HQ, here’s a hot steaming bolus of DOOM for you, courtesy of Eric S. Raymond:

Insolvency is no longer a sporadic problem, it’s become pervasive at all levels of government everywhere. This is why the recent brouhaha in Wisconsin was so surreal. The public-employee unions weren’t just rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking Titanic, they were fighting to preserve their right to bore more holes in the hull.

When these are the objective conditions, what point is there in arguing that the whole system is corrupt and that middle-class entitlements have to go on the scrap-heap along with every other big-government program? It’s going to happen anyway soon enough. A year ago the U.S. government was only taking in a third of what it needed to cover annual outlays; today it’s so much worse that individual monthly deficits are larger than the entire Bush administration’s. The money’s all gone. Our options are closing down to default or hyperinflation.

It’s going to get ugly out there. A lot of old people are either not going to get their pensions and Social Security at all or get them in hyperinflated dollars that won’t be worth anything. Anyone else dependent on government transfer payments will be similarly screwed. Urban poor, farmers, veterans, the list goes on. Imagine the backlash when that really hits — when it sinks in that the promises were lies, the bubble has popped, the Ponzi scheme is over.

March 4, 2011

A model of how government pension schemes work

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:04

It’s all so immense that it’s hard to understand, so Karl Denninger reduces it to an easy-to-comprehend model:

Let’s start with the model but take it into the real world. We’ll use you and I.

You set up a business. I’m a “trustworthy guy.” You have employee who you wish to provide a pension.

So every week when you pay them, you take out $100 from their paycheck. You have 10 employees (including yourself) and you come to me with your $1,000 every week and give it to me. I take it.

But instead of sticking it in an account somewhere with your name on it (as a trustee would) I instead give you a piece of paper. It says I owe you $1,000. But it’s not a debt security. You cannot negotiate it like a check, nor can you sell it to anyone else — it’s only valid if you bring it back to me. It says so right on the face. I promise that if you bring it back I’ll give you the $1,000.

Here’s the problem — as soon as you leave I call up my 10 stripper friends and the local liquor store and throw a party. Guess what I use for the money? Your $1,000.

Now here’s the rub — I don’t have any other money. At all.

In fact, I’m in hock up to my neck. I earn $100,000 a year but I spend $170,000. And how do I do this? Well, among other things I have people like you giving me money to “save.” I also have a bunch of credit cards, and everyone thinks I’m a great guy — kind of like an uncle (just call me “Sam”) and so they keep raising my credit limit.

It’s a wonderful life, isn’t it?

Well, maybe for a while.

But there is a problem with this model. First, this isn’t a “Trust.” A Trust can hold funds for someone, and can even invest them in something, but the funds cannot be converted to the trustee’s use. They must be held segregated and not inure to the benefit of the trustee. Further, the trustee must act solely in the best interest of the beneficiaries of the trust, not their own interest. That’s black-letter law.

Then there’s the second problem — I didn’t invest the money. I blew it, and all of the rest of my money.

One day you come and ask me to redeem one of your $1,000 IOUs. I don’t have any money, but I have a cash advance available on the credit card — or at least I think I do. So I go to the local bank and pull a $1,000 cash advance, giving you ten crisp $100 bills.

Notice what just happened: As soon as you showed up, your IOU, which in fact had no legal status as debt, had to be turned into actual debt at that point in time. Now there really is $1,000 in debt out there — it’s on the credit card.

This is exactly what happened with Social Security and Medicare since Reagan’s “reform” of the systems in the 1980s. Every single Administration since has taken all the money and immediately blown it. There is no money.

January 25, 2011

Did Ayn Rand experience “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement”?

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Liberty — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 07:29

Patia Stephens investigates whether Ayn Rand and her husband ever took social security or medicare benefits:

Critics of Social Security and Medicare frequently invoke the words and ideals of author and philosopher Ayn Rand, one of the fiercest critics of federal insurance programs. But a little-known fact is that Ayn Rand herself collected Social Security. She may also have received Medicare benefits.

An interview recently surfaced that was conducted in 1998 by the Ayn Rand Institute with a social worker who says she helped Rand and her husband, Frank O’Connor, sign up for Social Security and Medicare in 1974.

[. . .]

According to a spokesman in the Baltimore headquarters of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Rand and O’Connor were eligible for both Part A, which provides hospital coverage, and Part B, medical. The spokesman said their eligibility for Part B means they did apply for Medicare; however, he said he was not authorized to release any documentation and referred the request to the CMS New York regional office. That office said they could not locate any records related to Rand and O’Connor.

November 5, 2010

Monty on the social security Ponzi scheme and Ireland’s coming crisis

Filed under: Economics, Europe, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:11

The always interesting Monty reminds everyone that social security won’t be there when you most need it:

Generational warfare is all but a certainty at this point as the lie that is Social Security festers and grows unchecked. All I can say is: reality will assert itself, sooner or later. Don’t get caught short — save enough of your own money to fund your own retirement, because Uncle Sugar is going to screw you just as surely as the sunrise. Pull quote:

There will be pain. The system will gore a lot of oxen. The obvious victims will be the oldsters who have become dependent on Federal handouts. They are a powerful swing vote today, but they are in the minority. When the majority of working citizens finally perceive that it is an inescapable choice between handouts to oldsters vs. their families’ solvency, they are going to vote away the oldsters’ handouts.

Social Security only survives at the suffrance of the taxpayers who fund it. Pay particular attention to the part where it’s explained in terrifyingly clear detail that it doesn’t matter how much you paid in: you were paying a tax, not a contribution to a savings account. Uncle Sam can legally stiff you at any time.

And on the Irish financial crisis:

That Irish austerity program just went from “painful” to “Oh my God I think I just barfed up a lung”. The problem in Ireland, as in Greece, is that you somehow have to convince your own citizens to accept dire reductions in their own quality-of-life to make sure that (mostly foreign) bondholders don’t have to take a haircut. I suspect that this strategy will fail, and end in default. Which, really, is probably the best course of action for the PIIGS — get off the Euro, go back to the old national currencies, and devalue. Yes, they will be shut out of the credit markets for a while, but not for all that long in relative terms. And the alternative — extreme civil unrest — is worse.

May 11, 2010

A quick spin through Canada’s refugee program

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:13

An interesting article at the Montreal Gazette looking at the current refugee system in Canada:

Want to know why Canada’s refugee system is a shambolic mess that leaves claimants in limbo for years while bleeding taxpayers for uncounted billions?

It’s not just because anyone from anywhere in the world can claim asylum in Canada simply by showing up at the border or in one of our airports and lying, although that helps.

It’s not the usual suspects, either. It’s the review process that is severely broken, encouraging abusers and discouraging legitimate claimants. The time it takes for an applicant to go through the process is breathtaking:

Average wait, with local taxpayers picking up half the tab for the welfare on their property taxes (the rest comes out of your provincial taxes): 19 months. [If turned down,] they can apply for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.

Average wait for a court date: four to six months.

If a risk assessment is required they wait another nine to 24 months. They can also return to federal court for another go, waiting yet another four to six months.

On welfare. For most of the world’s poor, “that’s pretty attractive,” Kenney points out.

If the courts still say no to our Swiss claimant the alleged refugee can appeal for admittance to Canada under Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds, which takes at least six more months. If they lose that they get another crack at federal court, waiting four to six more months.

On top of the 12,000 claimants allowed in under current refugee rules, another 40,000 try to get into the country every year. Nearly 6 in 10 of these claimants are refused refugee status by the courts, but the number of cases increases faster than the applications are processed. The current (admitted) backlog for applicants is 61,000 and growing. An unknown number have just abandoned the process but (in many or most cases) haven’t left the country: they’re underground, hoping not to get caught.

The federal government is hoping to pass reforms to the refugee process, raising the number of legitimate refugees allowed in annually, but cutting down on bogus claimants earlier in the process, with an eye to both improving fairness and cutting the costs of supporting the current system.

H/T to Kathy Shaidle for the link.

A trillion dollars doesn’t buy as much as you’d expect

Filed under: Economics, Europe — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 07:54

It doesn’t, for example, buy exemption from the laws of economics:

European Union President Herman Van Rompuy said European governments need to consider pooling their national powers and create a joint economic government.

“We can’t have a monetary union without some form of economic and political union and that is our big task for the coming weeks and the coming months,” he said.

He said he would draft tougher rules for EU leaders to discuss in October that go beyond current EU limits on debt and deficit.

The core problem is near-zero economic growth, high unemployment and governments unwilling to take painful steps to get people to work more and longer.

Simon Tilford, an economist at the Center for European Reform think tank, warned that EU governments so far haven’t come up with anything “game changing.”

“What Europe needs is a growth pact because without growth, public finances aren’t going to be sustainable,” Tilford said. “The bond markets are going to be forcing them to make those kind of changes.”

Even EU president Van Rompuy warned that the bloc risks irrelevance and the end of its expensive welfare programs if it can’t speed up economic growth, forecast to expand by just 1 percent this year.

“With 1 percent growth we can’t finance our social model any more. With 1 percent structural growth we can’t play a role in the world,” he told the World Economic Forum in Brussels. “We need to double the economic growth potential that we now have.”

So even with a trillion dollar injection, you still can’t spend more than you make, year after year, and hope to carry on as if there wasn’t a problem. Who knew?

April 16, 2010

Exposing the truth about government-run Ponzi schemes

Filed under: Economics, Government, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:22

Kathy Shaidle is exactly right in her analysis of the key weakness of the Tea Party movement:

The Tea party movement contains the seed of its own failure

It preaches self-reliance and small government, but old people still want their pittance of gubmit cheese, ie Social Security.

If they/we were intellectually honest, we would be calling on the raising of the eligibility age to 90, which is more in line with Bismark’s original plan: a little pension for those who were never expected to live long enough to ever get it.

It was meant to be a “look how generous I am” gesture with no real impact; the original designers never thought we’d live long enough to cash the checks.

Older Tea Partiers (and all of us) should be petitioning the government to write everyone a one time check for the exact amount they were forced to contribute, plus maybe 5% interest if that is do-able.

And then the program should be abolished.

I hope most of my readers are not depending on their “government benefits” to get them through in their retirement years: the economics of the situation almost certainly won’t allow it. There are several problems with government-run retirement schemes, starting with the fact that most of them are not in any sense of the word “funded”. Most governments have been using the contributions as a giant low-interest revolving fund: you contribute, they withdraw and leave a promissary note in the kitty. The promissary note is drawn on you and your children. There is, technically speaking, no money in the kitty.

The people who will be worst hurt by the necessary changes to government pension schemes are the ones who earned too little (or spent too much) during their working lives and didn’t make any private provision for retirement. As Kathy points out, the first government pensions were designed so that most potential recipients would be unable to collect, because the start date of the pension income was set beyond the average lifespan of the population. Looking forward to a pension would be much less realistic today if the official “retirement age” was set to 90!

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress