[ElJefe]

First of all, I love how he doesn't let the journalist bulldoze over him with her wild prejudices and preconceptions typical of the uninformed-TV-journalist/commentator I-am-the-celebrity-here class (paging Matthews, Hannity, Maddow, Reilly, and so forth).

That said, really interesting stuff. The 500 percent debt/income figure was mind-boggling. I'd like to know how the asset-side looked.

We have tirades about baby-boomers in here (I think it originated over at Roissy) but his after 13:30 it gets interesting. Especially the part about younger people voting more right (as opposed to left, as before).

[tenderman100]

Everyone in Congress should be required to read The Ascent of Money.

In the 16th Century, Spain was incredibly wealthy (killing the Incas and Aztecs and absconding with their gold, but that's another matter). And guess what.

It went bankrupt. Twice.

So don't think it can't happen here. It can.

[Grit]

His talk about the boomer generation breaking the social contract resonated with me.

Imagine the conditions of young people today. You see youth dropping out of beliefs and participation in government AND society; the resulting hodgepodge (far left Occupy, far right Tea Party, nihilists, extremist realists aka Roissy, MGTOW, feminism, etc) has one common theme: extremism. Let me be clear: you don't physically drop out of society, but you begin to classify all people into hard line groups to the point that you have no reason to socialize and come to hate socializing with them. "Look at that guy, what loser. Look at her, what a feminist cuntbag. Look at that family: what a bunch of honey boo boos."

On the other hand, you have the stick-around youth who come to realize that you are fighting a generational juggernaut of ego driven and apathetic narcissists entrenched in politics. Why the fuck would a young person participate when the mentality is "we spent a few trillion for ourselves, you guys will have to pay for it. And you have to feel special that we would even give you that privelege. But we will royally fuck up your chance at having a wife or kids if you don't participate."

[Excelsior]

(10-14-2012 04:20 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

Especially the part about younger people voting more right (as opposed to left, as before).

I recall touching on this somewhere before. This book has an interesting take on the matter of rising conservatism/religious fervor in the future as the new generations grow potentially more conservative.

(10-14-2012 10:15 PM)Grit Wrote:  

On the other hand, you have the stick-around youth who come to realize that you are fighting a generational juggernaut of ego driven and apathetic narcissists entrenched in politics. Why the fuck would a young person participate when the mentality is "we spent a few trillion for ourselves, you guys will have to pay for it. And you have to feel special that we would even give you that privelege. But we will royally fuck up your chance at having a wife or kids if you don't participate."

Bingo.
The generational shift (coming in 20-30 years) is going to be crucial to any productive future.

On a less serious (though still quite relevant, given Niall's broaching the topic) note-Scumbag Boomers:

[Excelsior]

Wait, not finished...

[Deluge]

^I wish I could give you another rep point

[iknowexactly]

Right and Left are abstract BS; focus on numbers and where the moneys going.

"Right", if it means Republicans, means FURTHER concentration of wealth with those who already have it. Which, if you are focused on blaming Boomers, is who you already think has the money.

Remember, EVERYTHING You hear from the media is brilliantly designed by the 1/100th of 1% to lead you off the trail of who's getting richer, and onto the trail of some scapegoat who will get taxed and raped more.

[Samseau]

Niall Ferguson is one of the hardest hitting political thinkers out there today. He gets a lot of coverage on Zerohedge, pretty much everything he says is 100%.

[ElJefe]

(10-15-2012 12:24 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Niall Ferguson is one of the hardest hitting political thinkers out there today. He gets a lot of coverage on Zerohedge, pretty much everything he says is 100%.

If you like Ferguson, I can recommend Angelo Codevilla.

[tenderman100]

Those meme posters hit home. I am of this generation, but alas no wife on the arm.

I belong to this association and was at a lunch with some of the participants. This was when Obamacare was being rammed through and the idea of the individual mandate came up in conversation. One of the women at the table, a few years older than me, pretty well off, and on the verge of retirement, was saying, "everybody should pay into the system."

So I looked at her and said the following: "Let me get this straight. You want 50 26-year olds to pay $250 a month for 10 years for health insurance they don't need so you don't have to pay the full cost of the $200,000 ICU episode you are going to have in the next decade. Is that right?"

You should have seen the look on her face.

What is happening now is generational theft, pure and simple. And I hate to say it, but Democrats are the main purveyors of this.

[Tuthmosis]

While I agree that the boomers are bunch of assholes, I think the "generational" talking point is being used cynically, in all sorts of scenarios, to push for privatized systems that further enrich ultra-wealthy corporations.

[Parlay44]

(10-15-2012 08:10 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Those meme posters hit home. I am of this generation, but alas no wife on the arm.

I belong to this association and was at a lunch with some of the participants. This was when Obamacare was being rammed through and the idea of the individual mandate came up in conversation. One of the women at the table, a few years older than me, pretty well off, and on the verge of retirement, was saying, "everybody should pay into the system."

So I looked at her and said the following: "Let me get this straight. You want 50 26-year olds to pay $250 a month for 10 years for health insurance they don't need so you don't have to pay the full cost of the $200,000 ICU episode you are going to have in the next decade. Is that right?"

You should have seen the look on her face.

What is happening now is generational theft, pure and simple. And I hate to say it, but Democrats are the main purveyors of this.

There's no point in discussing money or politics with women

[dk902]

(10-14-2012 06:13 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Everyone in Congress should be required to read The Ascent of Money.

In the 16th Century, Spain was incredibly wealthy (killing the Incas and Aztecs and absconding with their gold, but that's another matter). And guess what.

It went bankrupt. Twice.

So don't think it can't happen here. It can.

I think the ascent of money should be required reading for a lot of people never mind just congress! It's an excellent book.

I like Ferguson a lot and the TV series that accompany his books are really interesting.

[ElJefe]

(10-15-2012 11:07 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

While I agree that the boomers are bunch of assholes, I think the "generational" talking point is being used cynically, in all sorts of scenarios, to push for privatized systems that further enrich ultra-wealthy corporations.

As opposed to government bureaucracies with their famously efficient procedures and lean pension-schemes?

[Tigre]

(10-14-2012 04:20 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

First of all, I love how he doesn't let the journalist bulldoze over him with her wild prejudices and preconceptions typical of the uninformed-TV-journalist/commentator I-am-the-celebrity-here class (paging Matthews, Hannity, Maddow, Reilly, and so forth).

That was the part I liked the least. He wasted the first half of the interview making the same point over and over again.

She was trying to move him along to the other things they planned to discuss. He wasted the opportunity by paying no heed to what she was clearly communicating.

I've read a small amount from Niall Ferguson, enough to know he's an extremely talented writer. In this case, however, he would have benefited from the humility to listen to what a professional of the TV format was hinting at, and follow her lead.

[tenderman100]

(10-15-2012 04:52 PM)Tigre Wrote:  

(10-14-2012 04:20 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

First of all, I love how he doesn't let the journalist bulldoze over him with her wild prejudices and preconceptions typical of the uninformed-TV-journalist/commentator I-am-the-celebrity-here class (paging Matthews, Hannity, Maddow, Reilly, and so forth).

That was the part I liked the least. He wasted the first half of the interview making the same point over and over again.

She was trying to move him along to the other things they planned to discuss. He wasted the opportunity by paying no heed to what she was clearly communicating.

I've read a small amount from Niall Ferguson, enough to know he's an extremely talented writer. In this case, however, he would have benefited from the humility to listen to what a professional of the TV format was hinting at, and follow her lead.

Nope, disagree. You have to quash these ignorant media types like a fly, buzzing around with their annoying faulty assumptions.

[tenderman100]

More Niall:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/20...-know.html

Quote:

It was predictable that Biden would bring up Mitt Romney’s now notorious reference at a fundraiser to the “47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,"...

...Last year, in the heyday of Occupy Wall Street, it was all about the 1 percent and the 99 percent. But now Democrats want to make membership of the 47 percent a badge of honor.

This language of percentiles strikes me as transitional. Americans have never been comfortable with the language of class—hence the strange phenomenon that all candidates, including both Biden and Ryan, now claim to represent the middle class. But the voters have absorbed the idea of politics as a zero-sum game, in which resources are redistributed through the systems of taxation and welfare—hence all the percents.

Yet the reality is that the real distributional issue the country faces is not between percentiles but between generations. As Paul Ryan put it in a powerful peroration, which temporarily silenced the ranting to his right, “A debt crisis is coming. We can’t keep spending and borrowing like this. We can’t keep spending money we don’t have.”

You don’t need to take this from Paul Ryan. In its latest “World Economic Outlook,” the International Monetary Fund points out that the U.S. public debt now exceeds 100 percent of GDP. The last time debt was this high, the IMF shows, the results were an “unexpected burst of inflation” and policies of “financial repression.” But that combination doesn’t look likely today—which means the debt is going to be around for years to come. More importantly, in the absence of the kind of reforms of Medicare, Social Security, and the tax system that Paul Ryan has long advocated, it’s going to keep on growing.

Already a staggering $16 trillion, the debt represents nothing less than a vast claim by the generation currently retired or about to retire on their children and grandchildren.

...What we saw last week was not just a contrast between Irish-American political styles. We saw the opening round in the clash of generations that will soon dominate American politics.

[ElJefe]

Beating a dead horse, but I suppose if there was one issue on which I felt strongly, it would be the fiscal situation. This 1 hour lecture puts it in the proper perspective and why it matters.

Irrespective of the demerits of various Presidents, least of all Bush, but now also our current Prez, for me it's the overriding issue, and I believe proper stewardship of the economy and the fiscal situation is what matters most.

[Excelsior]

[Grit]

Great line from Niall: " do i think having kids taught me about debt? Not as much as having ex-wives."

[Pacesetter20]

(10-15-2012 11:07 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

While I agree that the boomers are bunch of assholes, I think the "generational" talking point is being used cynically, in all sorts of scenarios, to push for privatized systems that further enrich ultra-wealthy corporations.

Why does Chile's privatized social security system function much better than ours?

If privatized health care/social security is a tool for the evil corporations to make more money, why did/do they support Obamacare?

[Handsome Creepy Eel]