If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Oh, look, another Rethuglican spouting off at the mouth about Medicare being unsustainable and people getting $3 in services for every dollar they put in and fark it, let's just sick the liberal fact checkers on him. See, I told you...oh, he's right?   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 754
    More: Obvious, Medicare, fact checking, John Barrasso, average wage  
•       •       •

2704 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2013 at 12:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



754 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-21 11:04:53 AM

MattStafford: DrPainMD: The figures come from the Congressional Budget Office. It doesn't matter what system we go to, 1.5 workers will not be able to support each retiree. It's not possible no matter how you do it.

It appears we agree on a great deal, but do you honestly not believe that we, as a country, aren't wealthy enough to support our retirees?  I understand that with our current debt situation and economy, we are beyond farked, but in alternate universe where we actually paid for things instead of borrowed for them, don't you think the eventual end game is large scale wealth redistribution?

We're going to get to the point where large portions of our society don't offer any goods or services that a computer or robot can't do better for cheaper, so what will be our plan then?  It seems to me we should tax the owners of the machines and redistribute some of that wealth to those who are unable to offer goods and services people want.


That would require an astronomical increase in productivity, and I don't see that happening. I've been designing software for automated industrial machinery for 25 years, and, at least in this country, every increase in automation has been made only after fighting tooth and nail with labor ("the robots are takin' ar jerbs" to use the Fark colloquial). Much of the automated machinery in this country has built in inefficiencies just to provide jobs (a program will go into an infinite loop until some union slacker presses a button, and then the machine will do what it could have been doing without any human intervention). China is another story, and it's a big part of why they're whipping our butts.
 
2013-03-21 11:06:00 AM

DrPainMD: So, you think that 1.5 workers can produce not only everything that they need, but also produce enough to support one retired person?


If all those 1.5 workers have to do is flip a switch on a machine to produce ten cars, then yeah. Of course, we would have to tax the person who owns the machine far higher than the person doing the flipping.
 
2013-03-21 11:06:30 AM

CPennypacker: DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: In 15 years, when there is one person on SS/medicare for every 1.5 workers, no tax rate will be high enough to pay for it.

Citation needed.

SS can be fixed for the forseeable future merely by adjusting the income cap.
Medicare can be fixed by looking at any other first-world country and copying their system. We already pay on average twice per capita what every other nation pays for their healthcare systems.
And just to further degrade your nonsense, I think you underestimate just how much money the wealthy are stealing away from the rest of the country as they enjoy low capital gains taxes and offshore tax havens.

PPS. I found a source. Comes from the Labor Department. Sez that private sector workers per SS recipient is down to 1.75, as of 2010. Is it still nonsense? Do you see that juggling money around isn't going to allow 1.5 workers to produce not only everything they need, but also produce everything needed for a retiree? It's not going to happen; it can't happen; it's not in the set of things that are possible.

143MM workers, 62MM Social security recipients. That works out to 2.3. Those numbers are from BLS and SSA. What the actual fark are you talking about?


You didn't read the article, did you?
 
2013-03-21 11:06:37 AM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: No, I get it. You think your little fantasies are analogous to the real world.

Again, you need to explain why they aren't analogous to the real world.

It is easy to see what would happen if I waltzed into town, printed up the currency, and bought all of the goods.  The town would be worse off.  What if I bought 95% of the goods?  50% of the goods?  10% of the goods?  I see no reason why the percentage of goods that I have bought would affect whether or not the action was beneficial or detrimental to that town.  In every case, counterfeiting money and then buying their goods hurts that town.

So why isn't that the case with regards to the US Economy?


You haven't explained how the town is worse off.  Not once. Is this 'printed currency' the undetectable perfect counterfeits you were talking about earlier or actual, real currency you got from the entirely unsecured loan you were somehow able to get from the bank even though you have no job or assets (two things that essentially never happen in the real world)? Why are the people selling you stuff not making a profit (this does happen in the real world, but doesn't seem to happen in your fantasy scenario)? Why does the town only trade within their own town (this does not happen in the real world)? Why doesn't the town get any goods produced outside the town (this doesn't happen in the real world)? Why is money from a loan not as good as some other, undefined, source of the money?  When I got a mortgage, I bought a house. When I got a car loan, I bought a car. The people I bought that car and house from and the money they got have no knowledge of what happened to my loans. Defaulting on my loans does not diminish the value of the money they got from me because of those loans. Money from a loan in the real world is just as good as money from a job, but apparently not in your fantasy scenario.

There is literally NOTHING in your fantasy that is analogous to the real world.
 
2013-03-21 11:09:33 AM

DrPainMD: That would require an astronomical increase in productivity, and I don't see that happening. I've been designing software for automated industrial machinery for 25 years, and, at least in this country, every increase in automation has been made only after fighting tooth and nail with labor ("the robots are takin' ar jerbs" to use the Fark colloquial). Much of the automated machinery in this country has built in inefficiencies just to provide jobs (a program will go into an infinite loop until some union slacker presses a button, and then the machine will do what it could have been doing without any human intervention). China is another story, and it's a big part of why they're whipping our butts.


Well, that astronomical increase in productivity is certainly going to happen eventually (more likely nuclear war/collapse of society, but barring that) we would require a situation with a significant amount of wealth redistribution.  If I own a car manufacturing plant, and you own a food processing plant, and with the use of machines and a few workers we can make more food and cars cheaper than anyone else can - well, it seems like the logical thing would be to give access to our production to those people out of job via wealth redistribution.  Or create a security state enforced through drones and just live a ridiculously lavish lifestyle.  One or the other.
 
2013-03-21 11:10:19 AM

DrPainMD: CPennypacker: DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: In 15 years, when there is one person on SS/medicare for every 1.5 workers, no tax rate will be high enough to pay for it.

Citation needed.

SS can be fixed for the forseeable future merely by adjusting the income cap.
Medicare can be fixed by looking at any other first-world country and copying their system. We already pay on average twice per capita what every other nation pays for their healthcare systems.
And just to further degrade your nonsense, I think you underestimate just how much money the wealthy are stealing away from the rest of the country as they enjoy low capital gains taxes and offshore tax havens.

PPS. I found a source. Comes from the Labor Department. Sez that private sector workers per SS recipient is down to 1.75, as of 2010. Is it still nonsense? Do you see that juggling money around isn't going to allow 1.5 workers to produce not only everything they need, but also produce everything needed for a retiree? It's not going to happen; it can't happen; it's not in the set of things that are possible.

143MM workers, 62MM Social security recipients. That works out to 2.3. Those numbers are from BLS and SSA. What the actual fark are you talking about?

You didn't read the article, did you?

What, the BS you posted from one of your right wing watchdog groups? No. I don't read shlock. I checked your claim with actual data. Your article is garbage.
 
2013-03-21 11:10:35 AM

DrPainMD: CPennypacker: DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: In 15 years, when there is one person on SS/medicare for every 1.5 workers, no tax rate will be high enough to pay for it.

Citation needed.

SS can be fixed for the forseeable future merely by adjusting the income cap.
Medicare can be fixed by looking at any other first-world country and copying their system. We already pay on average twice per capita what every other nation pays for their healthcare systems.
And just to further degrade your nonsense, I think you underestimate just how much money the wealthy are stealing away from the rest of the country as they enjoy low capital gains taxes and offshore tax havens.

PPS. I found a source. Comes from the Labor Department. Sez that private sector workers per SS recipient is down to 1.75, as of 2010. Is it still nonsense? Do you see that juggling money around isn't going to allow 1.5 workers to produce not only everything they need, but also produce everything needed for a retiree? It's not going to happen; it can't happen; it's not in the set of things that are possible.

143MM workers, 62MM Social security recipients. That works out to 2.3. Those numbers are from BLS and SSA. What the actual fark are you talking about?

You didn't read the article, did you?


from your source: "There were only 1.75 full-time private-sector workers in the United States last year for each person receiving benefits from Social Security "

public sector and part-time workers also pay into SS. Why isolate full-time private-sector only?
 
2013-03-21 11:13:27 AM

theknuckler_33: DrPainMD: CPennypacker: DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: In 15 years, when there is one person on SS/medicare for every 1.5 workers, no tax rate will be high enough to pay for it.

Citation needed.

SS can be fixed for the forseeable future merely by adjusting the income cap.
Medicare can be fixed by looking at any other first-world country and copying their system. We already pay on average twice per capita what every other nation pays for their healthcare systems.
And just to further degrade your nonsense, I think you underestimate just how much money the wealthy are stealing away from the rest of the country as they enjoy low capital gains taxes and offshore tax havens.

PPS. I found a source. Comes from the Labor Department. Sez that private sector workers per SS recipient is down to 1.75, as of 2010. Is it still nonsense? Do you see that juggling money around isn't going to allow 1.5 workers to produce not only everything they need, but also produce everything needed for a retiree? It's not going to happen; it can't happen; it's not in the set of things that are possible.

143MM workers, 62MM Social security recipients. That works out to 2.3. Those numbers are from BLS and SSA. What the actual fark are you talking about?

You didn't read the article, did you?

from your source: "There were only 1.75 full-time private-sector workers in the United States last year for each person receiving benefits from Social Security "

public sector and part-time workers also pay into SS. Why isolate full-time private-sector only?


Cuz it makes the ratio look smaller. Cuz they think that makes some sort of point.
 
2013-03-21 11:19:13 AM

MattStafford: DrPainMD: So, you think that 1.5 workers can produce not only everything that they need, but also produce enough to support one retired person?

If all those 1.5 workers have to do is flip a switch on a machine to produce ten cars, then yeah. Of course, we would have to tax the person who owns the machine far higher than the person doing the flipping.


No doubt that the technology exists to drastically increase industrial automation (and has existed for a long time... the IBM PC Jr., which went into production in 1983, was assembled entirely by machine), but to get it done requires fighting unions, politicians, and the lobbyists of companies that would see losses due to the automation (catering companies that operate factory cafeterias, etc.). This is why the PC Jr. was assembled in Tennessee, a non-union state (my first job out of college was working at the Teledyne plant that built them). As a people, we learned nothing from the Luddites.
 
2013-03-21 11:21:22 AM

CPennypacker: theknuckler_33: DrPainMD: CPennypacker: DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: In 15 years, when there is one person on SS/medicare for every 1.5 workers, no tax rate will be high enough to pay for it.

Citation needed.

SS can be fixed for the forseeable future merely by adjusting the income cap.
Medicare can be fixed by looking at any other first-world country and copying their system. We already pay on average twice per capita what every other nation pays for their healthcare systems.
And just to further degrade your nonsense, I think you underestimate just how much money the wealthy are stealing away from the rest of the country as they enjoy low capital gains taxes and offshore tax havens.

PPS. I found a source. Comes from the Labor Department. Sez that private sector workers per SS recipient is down to 1.75, as of 2010. Is it still nonsense? Do you see that juggling money around isn't going to allow 1.5 workers to produce not only everything they need, but also produce everything needed for a retiree? It's not going to happen; it can't happen; it's not in the set of things that are possible.

143MM workers, 62MM Social security recipients. That works out to 2.3. Those numbers are from BLS and SSA. What the actual fark are you talking about?

You didn't read the article, did you?

from your source: "There were only 1.75 full-time private-sector workers in the United States last year for each person receiving benefits from Social Security "

public sector and part-time workers also pay into SS. Why isolate full-time private-sector only?

Cuz it makes the ratio look smaller. Cuz they think that makes some sort of point.


Not all public sector employees pay into SS. Millions don't.
 
2013-03-21 11:22:26 AM

CPennypacker: DrPainMD: CPennypacker: DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: In 15 years, when there is one person on SS/medicare for every 1.5 workers, no tax rate will be high enough to pay for it.

Citation needed.

SS can be fixed for the forseeable future merely by adjusting the income cap.
Medicare can be fixed by looking at any other first-world country and copying their system. We already pay on average twice per capita what every other nation pays for their healthcare systems.
And just to further degrade your nonsense, I think you underestimate just how much money the wealthy are stealing away from the rest of the country as they enjoy low capital gains taxes and offshore tax havens.

PPS. I found a source. Comes from the Labor Department. Sez that private sector workers per SS recipient is down to 1.75, as of 2010. Is it still nonsense? Do you see that juggling money around isn't going to allow 1.5 workers to produce not only everything they need, but also produce everything needed for a retiree? It's not going to happen; it can't happen; it's not in the set of things that are possible.

143MM workers, 62MM Social security recipients. That works out to 2.3. Those numbers are from BLS and SSA. What the actual fark are you talking about?

You didn't read the article, did you?
What, the BS you posted from one of your right wing watchdog groups? No. I don't read shlock. I checked your claim with actual data. Your article is garbage.


The Labor Department is now a "right wing watchdog group?" OK... you win.
 
2013-03-21 11:26:06 AM

DrPainMD: CPennypacker: DrPainMD: CPennypacker: DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: In 15 years, when there is one person on SS/medicare for every 1.5 workers, no tax rate will be high enough to pay for it.

Citation needed.

SS can be fixed for the forseeable future merely by adjusting the income cap.
Medicare can be fixed by looking at any other first-world country and copying their system. We already pay on average twice per capita what every other nation pays for their healthcare systems.
And just to further degrade your nonsense, I think you underestimate just how much money the wealthy are stealing away from the rest of the country as they enjoy low capital gains taxes and offshore tax havens.

PPS. I found a source. Comes from the Labor Department. Sez that private sector workers per SS recipient is down to 1.75, as of 2010. Is it still nonsense? Do you see that juggling money around isn't going to allow 1.5 workers to produce not only everything they need, but also produce everything needed for a retiree? It's not going to happen; it can't happen; it's not in the set of things that are possible.

143MM workers, 62MM Social security recipients. That works out to 2.3. Those numbers are from BLS and SSA. What the actual fark are you talking about?

You didn't read the article, did you?
What, the BS you posted from one of your right wing watchdog groups? No. I don't read shlock. I checked your claim with actual data. Your article is garbage.

The Labor Department is now a "right wing watchdog group?" OK... you win.


No professor, CNS News is
 
2013-03-21 11:26:26 AM

MattStafford: DrPainMD: That would require an astronomical increase in productivity, and I don't see that happening. I've been designing software for automated industrial machinery for 25 years, and, at least in this country, every increase in automation has been made only after fighting tooth and nail with labor ("the robots are takin' ar jerbs" to use the Fark colloquial). Much of the automated machinery in this country has built in inefficiencies just to provide jobs (a program will go into an infinite loop until some union slacker presses a button, and then the machine will do what it could have been doing without any human intervention). China is another story, and it's a big part of why they're whipping our butts.

Well, that astronomical increase in productivity is certainly going to happen eventually (more likely nuclear war/collapse of society, but barring that) we would require a situation with a significant amount of wealth redistribution.  If I own a car manufacturing plant, and you own a food processing plant, and with the use of machines and a few workers we can make more food and cars cheaper than anyone else can - well, it seems like the logical thing would be to give access to our production to those people out of job via wealth redistribution.  Or create a security state enforced through drones and just live a ridiculously lavish lifestyle.  One or the other.


You'll never get the permits required to upgrade your plant. That's the problem. Once the government says you can't, then you can't. And there are plenty of groups with enough cash to buy the politicians. And none of them understand that our farmers' standard of living is higher than that of Cambodian farmers' because one uses a tractor and one uses a water buffalo. Believe me, I've been fighting these idiots for most of my adult life.
 
2013-03-21 11:27:23 AM

CPennypacker: DrPainMD: CPennypacker: DrPainMD: CPennypacker: DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: In 15 years, when there is one person on SS/medicare for every 1.5 workers, no tax rate will be high enough to pay for it.

Citation needed.

SS can be fixed for the forseeable future merely by adjusting the income cap.
Medicare can be fixed by looking at any other first-world country and copying their system. We already pay on average twice per capita what every other nation pays for their healthcare systems.
And just to further degrade your nonsense, I think you underestimate just how much money the wealthy are stealing away from the rest of the country as they enjoy low capital gains taxes and offshore tax havens.

PPS. I found a source. Comes from the Labor Department. Sez that private sector workers per SS recipient is down to 1.75, as of 2010. Is it still nonsense? Do you see that juggling money around isn't going to allow 1.5 workers to produce not only everything they need, but also produce everything needed for a retiree? It's not going to happen; it can't happen; it's not in the set of things that are possible.

143MM workers, 62MM Social security recipients. That works out to 2.3. Those numbers are from BLS and SSA. What the actual fark are you talking about?

You didn't read the article, did you?
What, the BS you posted from one of your right wing watchdog groups? No. I don't read shlock. I checked your claim with actual data. Your article is garbage.

The Labor Department is now a "right wing watchdog group?" OK... you win.

No professor, CNS News is


All they did was quote the Labor Dept. and link to their data.
 
2013-03-21 11:29:13 AM

theknuckler_33: There is literally NOTHING in your fantasy that is analogous to the real world.


You're doing the exact same thing another poster did a while back:

I present a scenario, and explain how a certain action affects that scenario (scenario A).  I then extrapolate that scenario into a different scenario (scenario B), and say that the action will have a similar effect.

You claim that I am not able to do that, because A is different from B.  You then proceed to list a bunch of reasons why A is different from B.  Unfortunately, you do not explain why any of these reasons will change how the action affects the scenario.

It would be as though I said made the following claim:  I can throw a strike at my local baseball league, therefore I can throw a strike during the final inning of game seven of the world series.  This, of course is false, for a variety of reasons.  However, if I asked you for these reasons, and you went: "different ballpark, more fans, different grass, different state, different clothing, different time, different catcher, different umpire, different second baseman, different outfielder" and kept on listing differences, I wouldn't take you seriously.  Obviously, some of those differences may have an effect - but at the same time, some of those differences will have very little to no effect.  It is up to you to explain why those differences have an effect on my ability to throw a strike.

If you said: "You couldn't throw a strike because you are facing a different batter", that doesn't convince me.  Why does it matter if I am facing a different batter?  However, if you said "You couldn't throw a strike because the batter you are facing is a phenomenal baseball player who is significantly better than you", you would have convinced me.

Do you see the difference in those two statements?  Just pointing out a difference doesn't mean the point made by an analogy fails - you need to explain why that difference makes the analogy fail.  I'm still waiting on that explanation, as so far all you have given me is a list of differences.  If you think I mischaracterized one of your arguments, let me know, and I'll take another look at it.
 
2013-03-21 11:30:30 AM
This thread needs to be whacked over the head with something hard. Like a coconut or something.
 
2013-03-21 11:30:36 AM

MattStafford: DrPainMD: That would require an astronomical increase in productivity, and I don't see that happening. I've been designing software for automated industrial machinery for 25 years, and, at least in this country, every increase in automation has been made only after fighting tooth and nail with labor ("the robots are takin' ar jerbs" to use the Fark colloquial). Much of the automated machinery in this country has built in inefficiencies just to provide jobs (a program will go into an infinite loop until some union slacker presses a button, and then the machine will do what it could have been doing without any human intervention). China is another story, and it's a big part of why they're whipping our butts.

Well, that astronomical increase in productivity is certainly going to happen eventually...

[snip]

It is happening, but not here. It's happening in China, and if they ever figure out the importance of quality control and conforming to the contracted specs, we're doomed... well... we'll be more doomed than we already are.
 
2013-03-21 11:32:20 AM

skullkrusher: This thread needs to be whacked over the head with something hard. Like a coconut or something.


AD HOMINEM ATTACK!!!ONE!
 
2013-03-21 11:32:29 AM

DrPainMD: You'll never get the permits required to upgrade your plant. That's the problem. Once the government says you can't, then you can't. And there are plenty of groups with enough cash to buy the politicians. And none of them understand that our farmers' standard of living is higher than that of Cambodian farmers' because one uses a tractor and one uses a water buffalo. Believe me, I've been fighting these idiots for most of my adult life.


The saying seems to be a rising tide lifts all boats, but that is only true to a certain extent.  If a farm becomes so powerful and automated that it puts the majority of other farmers out of business, that rising tide won't lift their boats unless we actively redistribute the wealth to those boats, to use a tortured analogy.  It is the end game, as far as I'm concerned.

I do agree with pretty much everything you say though.
 
2013-03-21 11:34:37 AM

DrPainMD: CPennypacker: DrPainMD: CPennypacker: DrPainMD: CPennypacker: DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: In 15 years, when there is one person on SS/medicare for every 1.5 workers, no tax rate will be high enough to pay for it.

Citation needed.

SS can be fixed for the forseeable future merely by adjusting the income cap.
Medicare can be fixed by looking at any other first-world country and copying their system. We already pay on average twice per capita what every other nation pays for their healthcare systems.
And just to further degrade your nonsense, I think you underestimate just how much money the wealthy are stealing away from the rest of the country as they enjoy low capital gains taxes and offshore tax havens.

PPS. I found a source. Comes from the Labor Department. Sez that private sector workers per SS recipient is down to 1.75, as of 2010. Is it still nonsense? Do you see that juggling money around isn't going to allow 1.5 workers to produce not only everything they need, but also produce everything needed for a retiree? It's not going to happen; it can't happen; it's not in the set of things that are possible.

143MM workers, 62MM Social security recipients. That works out to 2.3. Those numbers are from BLS and SSA. What the actual fark are you talking about?

You didn't read the article, did you?
What, the BS you posted from one of your right wing watchdog groups? No. I don't read shlock. I checked your claim with actual data. Your article is garbage.

The Labor Department is now a "right wing watchdog group?" OK... you win.

No professor, CNS News is

All they did was quote the Labor Dept. and link to their data.


Must be a short article then
 
2013-03-21 11:39:48 AM

CPennypacker: Let's say the economy exists. The economy consists of me by myself, and everyone else. I have all the jam, so i put everyone to work in my toast factory. If I pay them in jam, that creates demand for toast when all of the toast made in my factory is being made for me. Also I have a racecar.

This is what Keynesians actually believe. Put down the book and start using your own mind, sheep.


If nothing else, I'm glad I came back today and got to read this.

Thanks!
 
2013-03-21 11:45:32 AM

MattStafford: DrPainMD: You'll never get the permits required to upgrade your plant. That's the problem. Once the government says you can't, then you can't. And there are plenty of groups with enough cash to buy the politicians. And none of them understand that our farmers' standard of living is higher than that of Cambodian farmers' because one uses a tractor and one uses a water buffalo. Believe me, I've been fighting these idiots for most of my adult life.

The saying seems to be a rising tide lifts all boats, but that is only true to a certain extent.  If a farm becomes so powerful and automated that it puts the majority of other farmers out of business, that rising tide won't lift their boats unless we actively redistribute the wealth to those boats, to use a tortured analogy.  It is the end game, as far as I'm concerned.

I do agree with pretty much everything you say though.


For those, like me, who make a living in automation, it's better to see everybody automate. If, for example, I invest $500,000 in writing control code for a machine, and make my money back plus $100,000 profit from selling six licenses for six different machines, you better believe I want to sell more licenses. $100,000 per license and my cost is zero. It all goes right in my pocket. The biggest companies are already the most automated... not a whole lot more to squeeze out of them at this point. But, if I could automate the medium sized farms I'd make a killing, and then, with increased volume I could lower the cost to license and go after the small farms. The hardware end wouldn't see quite that level of profit, since they actually have to manufacture equipment, but everybody in the industry wants to grow the pie. But there are too many people fighting against it, and they have more money to buy politicians than we do. And, some of the most automated businesses are the ones fighting it, because they want to be the only ones that are automated.
 
2013-03-21 11:47:30 AM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: There is literally NOTHING in your fantasy that is analogous to the real world.

You're doing the exact same thing another poster did a while back:

I present a scenario, and explain how a certain action affects that scenario (scenario A).  I then extrapolate that scenario into a different scenario (scenario B), and say that the action will have a similar effect.

You claim that I am not able to do that, because A is different from B.  You then proceed to list a bunch of reasons why A is different from B.  Unfortunately, you do not explain why any of these reasons will change how the action affects the scenario.


You never justified the supposed effects in your fantasy to begin with you just assumed them to be so and then did the same thing you accuse me of doing. You literally just said "in my scenario the town is unequivocally worse off. If you can't understand that, you can't understand anything. ".

In fact, not only did you not JUSTIFY the effects, you never even said what the effects supposedly are!  You just said "they're worse off... unequivocally!" and that was it. First, how, and then why?
 
2013-03-21 11:48:49 AM

MattStafford: It would be as though I said made the following claim


No, it's absolutely nothing at all like that.
 
2013-03-21 11:53:16 AM

DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: Sez that private sector workers per SS recipient is down to 1.75, as of 2010.

I'm not disputing this. It's just that it has absolutely zero relevance for your next bit:

DrPainMD: It's not going to happen; it can't happen; it's not in the set of things that are possible.

Which is pure nonsense.

So, you think that 1.5 workers can produce not only everything that they need, but also produce enough to support one retired person?


Especially if we raise the wage cap. A billionaire won't be paying or 1.5, he'll be paying for several or even dozens more.
 
2013-03-21 11:55:41 AM

DrPainMD: CPennypacker: theknuckler_33: DrPainMD: CPennypacker: DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: In 15 years, when there is one person on SS/medicare for every 1.5 workers, no tax rate will be high enough to pay for it.

Citation needed.

SS can be fixed for the forseeable future merely by adjusting the income cap.
Medicare can be fixed by looking at any other first-world country and copying their system. We already pay on average twice per capita what every other nation pays for their healthcare systems.
And just to further degrade your nonsense, I think you underestimate just how much money the wealthy are stealing away from the rest of the country as they enjoy low capital gains taxes and offshore tax havens.

PPS. I found a source. Comes from the Labor Department. Sez that private sector workers per SS recipient is down to 1.75, as of 2010. Is it still nonsense? Do you see that juggling money around isn't going to allow 1.5 workers to produce not only everything they need, but also produce everything needed for a retiree? It's not going to happen; it can't happen; it's not in the set of things that are possible.

143MM workers, 62MM Social security recipients. That works out to 2.3. Those numbers are from BLS and SSA. What the actual fark are you talking about?

You didn't read the article, did you?

from your source: "There were only 1.75 full-time private-sector workers in the United States last year for each person receiving benefits from Social Security "

public sector and part-time workers also pay into SS. Why isolate full-time private-sector only?

Cuz it makes the ratio look smaller. Cuz they think that makes some sort of point.

Not all public sector employees pay into SS. Millions don't.


Where did you hear that one, chief?
 
2013-03-21 11:55:58 AM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: Sez that private sector workers per SS recipient is down to 1.75, as of 2010.

I'm not disputing this. It's just that it has absolutely zero relevance for your next bit:

DrPainMD: It's not going to happen; it can't happen; it's not in the set of things that are possible.

Which is pure nonsense.

So, you think that 1.5 workers can produce not only everything that they need, but also produce enough to support one retired person?

Especially if we raise the wage cap. A billionaire won't be paying or 1.5, he'll be paying for several or even dozens more.


It's not about money; it's about the production of consumable goods and services. 1.5 people are not going to be able to produce all that they (and their children, if any) consume, and produce all that one retired person needs. It won't happen.
 
2013-03-21 11:59:30 AM

DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: Sez that private sector workers per SS recipient is down to 1.75, as of 2010.

I'm not disputing this. It's just that it has absolutely zero relevance for your next bit:

DrPainMD: It's not going to happen; it can't happen; it's not in the set of things that are possible.

Which is pure nonsense.

So, you think that 1.5 workers can produce not only everything that they need, but also produce enough to support one retired person?

Especially if we raise the wage cap. A billionaire won't be paying or 1.5, he'll be paying for several or even dozens more.

It's not about money; it's about the production of consumable goods and services. 1.5 people are not going to be able to produce all that they (and their children, if any) consume, and produce all that one retired person needs. It won't happen.


If you wanted to out derp Matt in this thread you should have showed up a loooooooooooooooooooong time ago, prof.
 
2013-03-21 12:01:10 PM

DrPainMD: It's not about money; it's about the production of consumable goods and services. 1.5 people are not going to be able to produce all that they (and their children, if any) consume, and produce all that one retired person needs. It won't happen.


Oh, I get it. You're assuming that people who work for the government don't produce anything, which is a logical fallacy.
 
2013-03-21 12:02:48 PM

skullkrusher: This thread needs to be whacked over the head with something hard. Like a coconut or something.


Why don't you attack his easily assailable arguments rather than going for the cozy feel of joining a pile-on without adding anything of merit?

I have a feeling I know why.
 
2013-03-21 12:06:31 PM

DrPainMD: It's not about money; it's about the production of consumable goods and services


www.educationstate.org
 
2013-03-21 12:08:05 PM

theknuckler_33: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: There is literally NOTHING in your fantasy that is analogous to the real world.

You're doing the exact same thing another poster did a while back:

I present a scenario, and explain how a certain action affects that scenario (scenario A).  I then extrapolate that scenario into a different scenario (scenario B), and say that the action will have a similar effect.

You claim that I am not able to do that, because A is different from B.  You then proceed to list a bunch of reasons why A is different from B.  Unfortunately, you do not explain why any of these reasons will change how the action affects the scenario.

You never justified the supposed effects in your fantasy to begin with you just assumed them to be so and then did the same thing you accuse me of doing. You literally just said "in my scenario the town is unequivocally worse off. If you can't understand that, you can't understand anything. ".

In fact, not only did you not JUSTIFY the effects, you never even said what the effects supposedly are!  You just said "they're worse off... unequivocally!" and that was it. First, how, and then why?


Is this for real? They have less real goods and more paper money! Why is this so farking tough for you to understand?

Money only has value relative to what it can buy. You are reducing the amount of goods that can be bought. The fact that they have more paper money does not change this face.

Again, are you suggesting that they wouldn't be worse off after I bought an entire days worth of goods with fake currency?
 
2013-03-21 12:09:19 PM

MattStafford: Is this for real? They have less real goods and more paper money! Why is this so farking tough for you to understand?


Because you don't understand how inflation actually works out in the real world.
 
2013-03-21 12:09:32 PM

theknuckler_33: MattStafford: It would be as though I said made the following claim

No, it's absolutely nothing at all like that.


I see you really took that whole explainwhy analogies ddon't work instead of dismissing them outright to heart.
 
2013-03-21 12:13:28 PM

CPennypacker: DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: Sez that private sector workers per SS recipient is down to 1.75, as of 2010.

I'm not disputing this. It's just that it has absolutely zero relevance for your next bit:

DrPainMD: It's not going to happen; it can't happen; it's not in the set of things that are possible.

Which is pure nonsense.

So, you think that 1.5 workers can produce not only everything that they need, but also produce enough to support one retired person?

Especially if we raise the wage cap. A billionaire won't be paying or 1.5, he'll be paying for several or even dozens more.

It's not about money; it's about the production of consumable goods and services. 1.5 people are not going to be able to produce all that they (and their children, if any) consume, and produce all that one retired person needs. It won't happen.

If you wanted to out derp Matt in this thread you should have showed up a loooooooooooooooooooong time ago, prof.


If those 1.5 workers aren't producing all the goods, then who is producing them? If you take all the money from the rich to buy these goods, who will you buy them from? Somebody has to produce them; they won't produce themselves.
 
2013-03-21 12:14:35 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: It's not about money; it's about the production of consumable goods and services. 1.5 people are not going to be able to produce all that they (and their children, if any) consume, and produce all that one retired person needs. It won't happen.

Oh, I get it. You're assuming that people who work for the government don't produce anything, which is a logical fallacy.


I never said any such thing, although most don't. See: straw man.
 
2013-03-21 12:16:25 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: It's not about money; it's about the production of consumable goods and services

[www.educationstate.org image 294x235]


I'm not moving any goal posts. Money is just a way to measure production, nothing more. It's two different ways of stating the same thing. I'm sorry that you don't understand this very simple concept.
 
2013-03-21 12:18:07 PM

DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: It's not about money; it's about the production of consumable goods and services. 1.5 people are not going to be able to produce all that they (and their children, if any) consume, and produce all that one retired person needs. It won't happen.

Oh, I get it. You're assuming that people who work for the government don't produce anything, which is a logical fallacy.

I never said any such thing, although most don't. See: straw man.


So then why are you not including public-sector workers in your math? When you include all workers the number is not 1.5, it's 2.3.
 
2013-03-21 12:30:55 PM

MattStafford: theknuckler_33: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: There is literally NOTHING in your fantasy that is analogous to the real world.

You're doing the exact same thing another poster did a while back:

I present a scenario, and explain how a certain action affects that scenario (scenario A).  I then extrapolate that scenario into a different scenario (scenario B), and say that the action will have a similar effect.

You claim that I am not able to do that, because A is different from B.  You then proceed to list a bunch of reasons why A is different from B.  Unfortunately, you do not explain why any of these reasons will change how the action affects the scenario.

You never justified the supposed effects in your fantasy to begin with you just assumed them to be so and then did the same thing you accuse me of doing. You literally just said "in my scenario the town is unequivocally worse off. If you can't understand that, you can't understand anything. ".

In fact, not only did you not JUSTIFY the effects, you never even said what the effects supposedly are!  You just said "they're worse off... unequivocally!" and that was it. First, how, and then why?

Is this for real? They have less real goods and more paper money! Why is this so farking tough for you to understand?

Money only has value relative to what it can buy. You are reducing the amount of goods that can be bought. The fact that they have more paper money does not change this face.

Again, are you suggesting that they wouldn't be worse off after I bought an entire days worth of goods with fake currency?


So, how is a single person being able to buy the entire daily production of an entire town have any resemblance to anything anywhere in the real world? Who is buying things in the real world with fake currency? That does not happen in the real world.

What business anywhere in the history of ever produce only exactly what they know they are going to sell and never have more in case more demand comes up?  That's the whole farking point of owning a business is to GET MORE BUSINESS! This stupid scenario that a town only can produce in one day exactly what it needs in one day so that anyone coming in to increase demand makes the local economy collapse like a house of cards doesn't extrapolate to the real world because no business ever has ever worked that way!!! It is exactly because nothing in the real world actually works the way things seems to in your preposterously specific scenarios that they don't 'extrapolate'.

Where do people live in the US where they can't get good with the money they have? Why can't the town people buy shiat on Amazon or drive to the next farking town? You know, the kinds of things that people all across this country can do. When you remove so much of how our economy works from your scenario it ceases to be analogous! If it is no longer analogous, the results from the scenario cannot be extrapolated!
 
2013-03-21 12:47:09 PM

DrPainMD: CPennypacker: DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: Sez that private sector workers per SS recipient is down to 1.75, as of 2010.

I'm not disputing this. It's just that it has absolutely zero relevance for your next bit:

DrPainMD: It's not going to happen; it can't happen; it's not in the set of things that are possible.

Which is pure nonsense.

So, you think that 1.5 workers can produce not only everything that they need, but also produce enough to support one retired person?

Especially if we raise the wage cap. A billionaire won't be paying or 1.5, he'll be paying for several or even dozens more.

It's not about money; it's about the production of consumable goods and services. 1.5 people are not going to be able to produce all that they (and their children, if any) consume, and produce all that one retired person needs. It won't happen.

If you wanted to out derp Matt in this thread you should have showed up a loooooooooooooooooooong time ago, prof.

If those 1.5 workers aren't producing all the goods, then who is producing them? If you take all the money from the rich to buy these goods, who will you buy them from? Somebody has to produce them; they won't produce themselves.


What farking goods are you talking about? Are you taking coconut pills?
 
2013-03-21 12:54:15 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: It's not about money; it's about the production of consumable goods and services. 1.5 people are not going to be able to produce all that they (and their children, if any) consume, and produce all that one retired person needs. It won't happen.

Oh, I get it. You're assuming that people who work for the government don't produce anything, which is a logical fallacy.

I never said any such thing, although most don't. See: straw man.

So then why are you not including public-sector workers in your math? When you include all workers the number is not 1.5, it's 2.3.


I never said that the number NOW is 1.5. I said that it will soon drop below 2 and then drop to 1.5. The government statistics back me up on this (here's the link, again. Be advised that SS projected, in 2009, that the SS fund would go into the red in 2016. It went into the red six months later, in 2010... they aren't very good at projecting and are always ridiculously optimistic). But, not all public workers produce goods and services that are consumed by the public; many are parasites, consuming but not producing. The majority of military jobs fall into this category. We have nukes; nobody is going to invade and we don't need millions of military personnel backed by millions of civilian support staff. They produce nothing. We could cut half of all government jobs and not deprive one person of anything that he currently consumes (in fact, we could cut taxes and those who produce would see a higher standard of living and our nation would be much more secure; it's a win-win situation).
 
2013-03-21 12:58:04 PM

DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: It's not about money; it's about the production of consumable goods and services. 1.5 people are not going to be able to produce all that they (and their children, if any) consume, and produce all that one retired person needs. It won't happen.

Oh, I get it. You're assuming that people who work for the government don't produce anything, which is a logical fallacy.

I never said any such thing, although most don't. See: straw man.

So then why are you not including public-sector workers in your math? When you include all workers the number is not 1.5, it's 2.3.

I never said that the number NOW is 1.5. I said that it will soon drop below 2 and then drop to 1.5. The government statistics back me up on this (here's the link, again. Be advised that SS projected, in 2009, that the SS fund would go into the red in 2016. It went into the red six months later, in 2010... they aren't very good at projecting and are always ridiculously optimistic). But, not all public workers produce goods and services that are consumed by the public; many are parasites, consuming but not producing. The majority of military jobs fall into this category. We have nukes; nobody is going to invade and we don't need millions of military personnel backed by millions of civilian support staff. They produce nothing. We could cut half of all government jobs and not deprive one person of anything that he currently consumes (in fact, we could cut taxes and those who produce would see a higher standard of living and our nation would be much more secure; it's a win-win situation).


Holy shiat Matt, I didn't believe it was possible, but you better get in here fast and defend your crown cuz the wind is changing.  I mean, just LOOK at this gem! Finely polished and gleaming!
 
2013-03-21 01:10:40 PM
I just woke up from a 12 hour sleep:
i115.photobucket.com


/I see there have been even more overly simplistic analogies going on in here while I was sleeping
 
2013-03-21 01:22:35 PM
This thread is why we can't have nice things
 
2013-03-21 01:35:39 PM

DamnYankees: Dusk-You-n-Me: mrshowrules: You should eliminate the age requirements.

Medicare for all would be fine by me.

We should.

[s3.amazonaws.com image 480x295]


Which is why we won't
 
2013-03-21 01:55:18 PM

theknuckler_33: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: MattStafford: theknuckler_33: There is literally NOTHING in your fantasy that is analogous to the real world.

You're doing the exact same thing another poster did a while back:

I present a scenario, and explain how a certain action affects that scenario (scenario A).  I then extrapolate that scenario into a different scenario (scenario B), and say that the action will have a similar effect.

You claim that I am not able to do that, because A is different from B.  You then proceed to list a bunch of reasons why A is different from B.  Unfortunately, you do not explain why any of these reasons will change how the action affects the scenario.

You never justified the supposed effects in your fantasy to begin with you just assumed them to be so and then did the same thing you accuse me of doing. You literally just said "in my scenario the town is unequivocally worse off. If you can't understand that, you can't understand anything. ".

In fact, not only did you not JUSTIFY the effects, you never even said what the effects supposedly are!  You just said "they're worse off... unequivocally!" and that was it. First, how, and then why?

Is this for real? They have less real goods and more paper money! Why is this so farking tough for you to understand?

Money only has value relative to what it can buy. You are reducing the amount of goods that can be bought. The fact that they have more paper money does not change this face.

Again, are you suggesting that they wouldn't be worse off after I bought an entire days worth of goods with fake currency?

So, how is a single person being able to buy the entire daily production of an entire town have any resemblance to anything anywhere in the real world? Who is buying things in the real world with fake currency? That does not happen in the real world.

What business anywhere in the history of ever produce only exactly what they know they are going to sell and never have more in case more demand comes up?  That's the whole farking point of owning a business is to GET MORE BUSINESS! This stupid scenario that a town only can produce in one day exactly what it needs in one day so that anyone coming in to increase demand makes the local economy collapse like a house of cards doesn't extrapolate to the real world because no business ever has ever worked that way!!! It is exactly because nothing in the real world actually works the way things seems to in your preposterously specific scenarios that they don't 'extrapolate'.

Where do people live in the US where they can't get good with the money they have? Why can't the town people buy shiat on Amazon or drive to the next farking town? You know, the kinds of things that people all across this country can do. When you remove so much of how our economy works from your scenario it ceases to be analogous! If it is no longer analogous, the results from the scenario cannot be extrapolated!


I'll do a thorough response in a bit, but the initial diagnosis is a complete inability to think abstractly.
 
2013-03-21 02:05:50 PM

DrPainMD: But, not all public workers produce goods and services that are consumed by the public; many are parasites, consuming but not producing.


[citation needed]
 
2013-03-21 02:11:50 PM

MattStafford: I'll do a thorough response in a bit, but the initial diagnosis is a complete inability to think abstractly.


What you mean is that we have a problem with ignoring the constraints of reality.
 
2013-03-21 02:37:49 PM

theknuckler_33: So, how is a single person being able to buy the entire daily production of an entire town have any resemblance to anything anywhere in the real world? Who is buying things in the real world with fake currency? That does not happen in the real world.


Again:

MattStafford: A:  I live outside of a small town.  I convince the local central bank to print me up a bunch of currency.  I go into the small town and buy a bunch of things.  I do not produce anything that anyone in the small town wants.

B:  I am a senior citizen.  I convince the Federal Reserve to print me up a bunch of currency.  I buy a bunch of things from other people in the country.  I do not produce anything that anyone in the country wants.

A:  I live outside of a small town.  I convince the town government to borrow money from citizens of the town and from neighboring towns and give that money to me.  I go into the small town and buy a bunch of things.  I do not produce anything that anyone in the small town wants, nor do I make money to pay back the government.

B:  I am a senior citizen.  I convince the government to borrow money from citizens of the US and other governments and give that money to me.  I buy a bunch of things from other people in the country.  I do not produce anything that anyone in the country wants, nor do I make money to pay back the government.


The situation between what I am doing in this small town is analogous to what a senior citizen is doing when receiving Social Security or Medicare.

I/the senior receive printed money from myself/the government and I/the senior use that money to buy goods from the small town/other people in the US.

I/the senior receive borrowed money from banks in the small town/the government, and I/the senior use that money to buy goods from the small town/other people in the US.

theknuckler_33: What business anywhere in the history of ever produce only exactly what they know they are going to sell and never have more in case more demand comes up?  That's the whole farking point of owning a business is to GET MORE BUSINESS! This stupid scenario that a town only can produce in one day exactly what it needs in one day so that anyone coming in to increase demand makes the local economy collapse like a house of cards doesn't extrapolate to the real world because no business ever has ever worked that way!!! It is exactly because nothing in the real world actually works the way things seems to in your preposterously specific scenarios that they don't 'extrapolate'.


Again, these are a bunch of differences that aren't relevant to the point I'm trying to make.  All your saying is that there are differences between my analogy and reality, which I accept (otherwise, why use an analogy).  However, just because there are differences, doesn't mean the point is invalid.

That said, tt seems like you are suggesting that, if I were to walk into this town and buy 10,000 dollars worth of goods in one day, the businesses would simply double their production.  Is that a fair assessment of your argument?  I'm not entirely sure what your argument is - try to be more specific.  I buy 10,000 dollars worth of goods, and what actions do the businesses take?  Do they double their production on that day?  Do they double their production for every day following?  I'm curious.

theknuckler_33: Where do people live in the US where they can't get good with the money they have? Why can't the town people buy shiat on Amazon or drive to the next farking town? You know, the kinds of things that people all across this country can do. When you remove so much of how our economy works from your scenario it ceases to be analogous! If it is no longer analogous, the results from the scenario cannot be extrapolated!


The small town represents the US in the analogy, if you couldn't figure it out.  The reason they can't buy shiat from Amazon, is because Amazon is located within the town, in the analogy.  We could add other cities in this analogy, which would be similar to foreign countries in reality, if you would like.

I'm not removing how our economy works.  Instead of our economy being 300 million people in the United States, it is 200 people in a small town.  It functions exactly the same.  To be fair, I removed foreign countries/other towns from the analogy, which is an important issue - the one thing you aren't getting at, which is really the only difference between the 300 million and 200 people economies (besides the scale of course) is that the larger one also has a reserve currency.  Which certainly makes things more interesting, but does not change the facts.

It seems like you are incapable of understanding that the same rules that govern an economy of 300 million people govern an economy of 200 people.  You want there to be some kind of difference between the two, but you are unable to provide one.  Because there isn't a difference.
 
2013-03-21 02:39:09 PM

cameroncrazy1984: What you mean is that we have a problem with ignoring the constraints of reality.


No, all of the constraints of reality are present in my analogies - it is simply a matter of scale.

The laws that govern an economy of 200 people are the exact same as those that govern an economy of 300 million people.  Your failure to understand that is your fault, not mine.
 
Displayed 50 of 754 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report