Topic: Tomorrow I head to the Lions' Den.... - page 2. (Read 2325 times)

I agree.  The point is that they can't get a decent return so government debt is not a problem.  Its free money IF you can find a place to invest it.  Better than free - atm government debt has a negative rate of return.

That's not an example of a conservatively run pension fun. That's an example of public sector idiocy.

Anyone with a calculator and a knowledge of 8th grade mathematics can see that it's not possible in the long term for an investment strategy to exceed the overall growth rate of the economy. Only a moron would expect to get 8% returns forever if the economy is growing at 3%-4%  because if your investment fund is growing exponentially at a rate greater than the economy as a whole after a certain number of years your fund would need to own more than 100% of the economy.

What happened is that a bunch of public sector pension funds got lucky in the 1990s and experienced about 8% returns for a few years. This was a fluke but they got greedy and wrote into law that the pension fund must achieve those returns every year forever, as if legislating investment returns magically causes economic growth to appear. All these pension funds are now insolvent and the people depending on those unsustainable promises are going to get increasing desperate and hostile as the mathematical reality inevitably closes in.

It's really very simple. Making political promises is free but fulfilling those promises is not.

It costs a politician nothing to promise everybody the ability to retire at 40 with their own private moon base. However all those retirees still need food, medicine, entertainment, clothing and shelter. They need people to construct the moon bases and to transport them to and from the moon. This couldn't be done because the economic output of the sub-40 population simply isn't large enough to give everybody over 40 their own private moon base to retire on. Printing money doesn't help because money printing doesn't cause crops to grow or rockets to be constructed. Real economic output requires human effort. If the entire population was expecting to retire at 40 to their own private moon base it just wouldn't happen for everyone. A couple people might get one but no matter how big of a tantrum the rest of the aspiring moon retirees threw it just wouldn't happen because the economic output necessary to support such a plan does not exist. You can't vote, bribe, threaten or cajole mathematics. 2+2=4 no matter how inconvenient or unfair we might think it is.

The US borrows money for less than its inflation rate.  There is no debt problem.  The problem is that the US can't find a way to use the money.  

To be fair, its not just a US problem.   The world is awash in cash that is desperately seeking a return over 5% but ends up being lent to sovereigns at a loss.  

EDIT: here's a fine example.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/business/south-carolinas-pension-push-into-high-octane-investments.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Conservatively run pension fund is making wild investment decisions because it needs 8% return and can only get 4%.  The problem the world faces is not debt - its what can you invest in?

Technically true, they had a solvency problem instead.  As a nation they ate away the capital of the prior generations until everyone was poor and simply couldn't match the 'arms race' anymore that was forcing them to continue to extract what little wealth their society could produce for military uses.

We have a debt problem, because we have had a solvency problem for some time now.

Another Dmitry Orlov fan I presume?  Although I agree with many of his assessments, there are many differences that he overlooks as well, not the least of which is bitcoin itself.  Also, what he describes as 'collapse' is far from it.  It wasn't the end of the world for Russia, and it wouldn't be for the people of the US either, if it does come to that.  A breakup of the union would, by default, be the decentralization of political power that libertarians have been advocating for decades.  Granted, such a method is going to be much harder an adjustment for most than an intentional localization of authority would have been; but in the long run it's not likely to matter.  Like Russia, the US does have enough arable land to grow enough food for it's population even with small scale and less productive methods than agrabusiness; we just wouldn't likely be major exporters of foodstuff like we are today.

The Soviets didn't have a debt problem.

It was a simple matter of mathematics, just like it is here. Exponential debt growth can't last forever and the end comes much more rapidly than people expect because they don't intuitively understand the nature of exponents.

We do   Those ideas are no longer tied to a country - they are being developed online.

Ideology has never been a force for progress. Only technology drives society toward an improved quality of life. Ask yourself who has the best plan for improving and delivering technological invention and innovation for the future.

I think you forget that the USSR's biggest problem was that people could see they were poorer than necessary just by looking at television and seeing how we lived.  No matter how bad things get in the US economy, there isn't actually a better model that people can see right now.  Chances are, the system will outlive all of us.

Perhaps. There are far too many parallels between the events of the last few years and the situation in the USSR circa 1980 for me to be certain that the current political system will still exist in 2016.

Well, I'm back.  It wasn't a success, but nor was it a complete failure.  There were no dirty tricks, but that may have been because we didn't quite have a majority, so there wasn't a need for any dirty tricks.  The trendline is obvious, however.  In 2008, Paulites represented about 1/4 of the state delegates; today almost half.  I suspect that if Rand had held off his endorsement for another week, we would have had a majority.  That took the wind out of the sails of many of the activists that were married to the idea that Ron Paul was actually going to be the nominee by some miracle last minute move.  It even seemed to me that the party structure here has recognized the inevitablitity of a takeover of the party structure and ideologies by the young & the libertarian.  There were several cases that I noted that the chair (and by proxy, the state party, since he was also the head of the state executive committee) went out of his way to permit the liberty leaning crowd leniency in their misunderstandings of Robert's Rules.  We ended up with some great resolutions, but not a single delegate to the national convention.

Ah, well.  Time carries on.  Whether by ideology or simple demographics, the concepts of liberty will once again dominate in the Republican Party.  It is simply inevitable now.

I can see it now... President MoonShadow...


"what is your stance on Iran?"

Bitcoinz.


"what are you planning to do about unemployment?"

Make jobs building a big ass mining farm and 51% this shit.


"How are you going to get us out of debt?"

See question #1. Burn US dollars. get Bitcoinz.

Good luck mate! If I was back in the USA I'd be doing this too.

Good luck! May you successfully be the delegate!

Good luck!

I will get up at O'dark thirty to drive to the Kentucky convention for the Republican Party in my final attempt to become a delegate to Tampa.

The odds are long, and Robert's Rule suck.  Pray for me to whatever God or gods you prefer.  I'm sure it can't hurt in any case.