Posted on 01/02/2007 7:05:29 AM PST by shrinkermd
...Nothing good is going to come from political haggling over some hypothetical Social Security crisis decades in the future, when our economy will be vastly different and hugely more productive. From the completion of a worldwide fiber-optic broadband Internet to cornucopian energy and medical advances, the global economy is engaged in a siege of accelerating innovation that will unify it and enrich it increasingly as time passes. But no legislative reshuffling of taxes and spending today will enhance the economy's ability to support medical care, housing and transport for the aged in the future. That will depend not on actuarial trumpery but on the realities of productivity, technology, immigration and global trade and investment.
...If we lower our tax rates on payrolls and incomes, however, we will discover that this economy in future decades can easily sustain scores of trillions of dollars of additional debt as necessary -- the entire $45 trillion of alleged social and healthcare liabilities. Investor king Ken Fisher's new book, "The Only Three Questions That Count," shows that the U.S. already commands a steadily growing, world-leading resource of some $110 trillion of assets, generating $13 trillion in GDP -- a 12% yield compared to long-term interest rates near 6%. Following the Bush tax-rate reductions on capital gains and dividends, we are already running an all-governmental surplus. Our corporations are laden with cash. Our current debt-asset ratio is suboptimally conservative.
Now we need to extend tax cuts to incomes and payrolls. The only thing that matters is pursuing the opportunities of global economic growth. Focus on that. Let Democrat accountant-economists grouse about the problem of debt and push for increases in taxes on middle-class workers.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
This is kind of like falling off a clift and saying hitting the ground is a hypothetical problem.
I read this earlier and have my doubts about it. Just a couple of points that seem off to me - 1) cut taxes on labor and demand will increase for it, we are just about at full employment now - where will the workers come from? 2) regarding debt and debt service - how do you like to be saddled with debt, as a person? For myself, it's not pleasant. You MUST work hard to meet your obligations, and any problem on the way will be magnified. Ever worked for a company that was bought as part of a leveraged buyout (i.e. the purchasing company took on a lot of debt)? Its not fun. 3) Do we really want to continue Social Security as a program? It's internal rate of return is approximately 1%. In other words its a lousy investment. Better to let individuals save for their own retirement and pass on their thrift to their children. Etc.
This is kind of like falling off a clift and saying hitting the ground is a hypothetical problem.
Those who belong to the global warming religion make the same argument.
George Gilder: "la-la-la-la-la... don't confuse me with discouraging facts! la-la-la-la I'm not listenting!"
The same Mr. Micawber strategy ("let's wait and surely something will turn up!") that has worked so well for politicians so far, so why change?
But global warming is based on little fact and numerous assumptions. The debt on social security is pretty much a known. We know how many people have paid in and what they expected life spans are and how much we promised to pay them. There is no getting around that we have promised to pay trillions of dollars in social security benefits and there is no fund to pay them with. Whether or economy can grow at a pace where that debt is manageable is unknown.
I think the gist of this argument is that all we have to fear is fear itself and we should focus on creating the conditions for growth and let the Democrats argue for cuts and tax increases. It is a political argument as much as it is a philosophical and economic argument.
But raising taxes, now is unnecessary. Structural reform is ok. And, we should stop talking about getting out of Iraq. We can make a fortune developing the 50 million we have freed into customers.
"Nothing good is going to come from political haggling over some hypothetical Social Security crisis decades in the future, when our economy will be vastly different and hugely more productive."
Seems mighty presumptive to me. Not only that, but this guy doesn't seem to comprehend that the social security shortfall is a problem now. That 300 billion dollar deficit did not pop up out of thin air. It's the result of ballooning unfunded entitlements.
Social Security is part of the general revenue base. Indeed, one of the major problems is that politicians get to spend what we should be saving/investing.
It would not happen if they privatized social security. But the sad fact is that it's too late. The damage has been done.
In addition, the first wave of Boomers is now on deck to begin collecting benefits. Their immediate squalling for increased largesse will begin shortly. Politicians who cater to this will win votes bigtime. I predict this will begin next election.
Hold on to your seats, this is going to be a bumpy ride.
If our younger generation were truly educated they would be in the streets demanding IRA type accounts instead of SS.
But 90% of them are economically illiterate thanks to their education and background. They will work like drones for 40 years and have nothing.
The DemocRATS and their govt employees will be secure with their govt(tax paid) retirements.
Not getting individual accounts was the second most grevious failure of the Republicans and Bush. Second to failure to regulate immigration.
Our children will pay the price.
Have you built a lifeboat for your kids?
Do you think this will help?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1760916/posts
Social Security Agreement With Mexico Released After 3 1/2 Year Freedom of Information Act Battle
They are not going to be more benefits. The Dems are going to reduce or eliminate benefits for high income individuals and increase taxes on high income individuals. But that is not going to solve the problem. Eventually, the cost of this fraud is going to fall on the midlde class.
Anyone thats "for it" is in effect a socialist..
No matter how they "grunt and squeal"...
Why is George Gilder an iconoclast? I remember him as just another dot-com scammer and 'industry analyst' who told everyone that infinite broadband capacity would make them rich. His big picks included MCI, Global Crossing and a few other gone and forgotton flash-in-the-telecosm startups.
His wikipedia entry includes this: While Gilder has on several occasions maintained that he saw the Nasdaq meltdown coming, he never shared this insight with his subscribers, who suffered catastrophic losses. "The typical Gilder subscriber lost all his money and that made it very hard for me to market the newsletter" remarked Gilder in a Wall Street Journal interview.
What's next? Bernard Ebbers plan for health care reform? Jeff Skillings balanced budget blueprint.
Seriously, does being catastrophically wrong about projecting financial outcomes some how qualify him to tell us to ignore actuarial reality, as he does in this article. When do we get to write him down as a simple publicity seeking idiot, and not as an iconoclast?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.