[lurker]

(05-20-2014 10:02 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 08:57 PM)lurker Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 12:14 PM)berserk Wrote:  

You're basically saying, lets eat all our food in the summer and save none for winter. Or the famous saying: "After us, the flood, I care not what happens when I am dead and gone". Of course, a few years that mistress of the King had her head chopped off in the guillotine.

"Apres moi, le deluge" is a quote generally attributable to the mistress of Louis XV, not his grandson Louis XVI.

It's pertinent here because it evidences a misunderstanding of Keynesian economics. Keynesianism is not just about deficit spending: the other, almost universally overlook half of it is about national surplus saving. Under a Keynesian system, you put away money you don't need during the "summer months" to smooth over economic downturns during the "winters." The purpose is to save a citizenry from the natural business cycle, which is a fancy way of saying that people in free markets are too perennially short-sighted to adequately provide for their long-term needs, which causes reverberation effects across the entire population in the form of liquidity crises when bubbles pop and recession hits. Protecting people from their own idiocies and misfortunes through collectivized action is a large part of what post-agrarian civilization is all about.

Go ahead, call me a socialist.

So how have those Keynesian surpluses worked out during the boom cycle? Rather than save them up for the inevitable bust cycle, government always just gets expanded, at least whilst left wing parties are in power. If right wing parties get in power, it's a case of this, at least in the outline of the past two decades of federal Australian politics illustrate:

Quote:

Democratic politics also corrodes right-wing economic policy even more directly. The lesson from Reaganism is especially stark. From the beginning, political competence is expressed by a single dominant insight: any gains made by a right-wing administration in the direction of fiscal responsibility is simply a savings account for the opposition. It can be predicated, with absolute confidence, that each step painfully taken away from public insolvency will be reversed, with opposite political sign, as soon as the Left gets its turn once again. Thus, the Reaganite stance that any intelligent conservative government is bound to the proclamation ‘deficits don’t matter’. It is only by keeping public finances hard up against the edge of bankruptcy that fiscal laxity can be prevented from reverting to its natural state, as a fund available for the promotion of leftward social acceleration. Private saving is profoundly compromised by democratic governance. Public saving — or even moderated indebtedness — is simply impossible.

Taken from here.

The red pill on politics is recognising the ratchet that is the democratic political process. In this case, what happens is that in a truly parasitic way, the left in Australia uses the surpluses of the right against them to shore up the pork. Then, they pass the mess onto the right again just in time to build up a new pork fund for the left to then distribute as the "nice guys". Don't mistake this for me being pro-centre right though. They're a bunch of useful idiots, enablers and downright masochists.

Anyone who thinks right-wing administrations engage in anything even remotely resembling fiscal discipline - or building surpluses - is willingly ignoring the facts.* Reagan was the biggest deficit hawk of all. In the US, the pattern generally runs:

Liberal administration: raise taxes, spend money.
Conservative administration: lower taxes, spend even more money.

Moreover, the argument that "Keynesianism doesn't work because nobody has really tried it" isn't much of a starter.

*Australian politics may differ.

(05-20-2014 11:36 AM)bacon Wrote:  

I know guys like cattle rustler and iknowexactly are very pro government workers even inspite of legitament criticism of the benefit package they get when local governments can't afford it. I'm curious how would you resolve these pension issues when local governments are unable to pay it.

Make the generations responsible for the shortfall take the haircut in pension payment. You have a vested pension, but you consistently voted for a local or state tax level sufficient to fund 67% of it? You get 67% of your pension. Problem solved. While we're on the subject, pensions are capped at a fraction of ending base salary, no overtime pumping allowed. This is retroactive to current pensions. Otherwise, let the localities dump them in Chapter 9.

[Feisbook Control]

(05-22-2014 12:26 AM)lurker Wrote:  

Anyone who thinks right-wing administrations engage in anything even remotely resembling fiscal discipline - or building surpluses - is willingly ignoring the facts.* Reagan was the biggest deficit hawk of all. In the US, the pattern generally runs:

Liberal administration: raise taxes, spend money.
Conservative administration: lower taxes, spend even more money.

Moreover, the argument that "Keynesianism doesn't work because nobody has really tried it" isn't much of a starter.

*Australian politics may differ.

Of course, because right wing politicians have come to understand that running surpluses just sets up a bank account for the left wing, as I mentioned above. All politics now is moving towards tribalism and redistribution to the faithful, the greater good be damned. Politics is war without bullets. The Tea Party in the U.S. haven't quite figured this out yet, but they will the hard way. All that nonsense over debt ceiling showdowns? No one wanted to hear that shit. No one ever wants the party to stop. Likewise, the Liberal Party in Australia (actually cente right, which is confusing, but they're named after classical liberalism) will eventually figure this out also, probably long after the rot has already set in.

If it were me, I'd play the culture war game. Whenever I gained control of both houses (i.e. after the opposition had been in power for a couple of terms and had enough time to monumentally fuck things up), I'd completely defund or privatise any and all mouthpieces of the left. I'd run a scorched earth policy on the budget. Those people and their champions would never vote right anyway, so fuck 'em. Let the left then be the bad guys by either having to 1) increase taxes or 2) cut other, more essential, services in order to re-establish their institutional mouthpieces. This is what it has come down to. Me and mine, you and yours. It's the death of civil society, but it's better to be on the winning team than to think yourself noble for being on the losing team and playing by rules that your enemy doesn't recognise.

In one hundred years, the left won't exist anyway. The willingly barren will make themselves into a footnote of history. Everyone else just needs to outlast them and win the war of attrition. Because the left don't have children of their own, they have to steal them from the right via their mouthpieces in the media and education. Defund those things, and the left will eventually run out of foot soldiers.

[lurker]

(05-22-2014 07:37 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:26 AM)lurker Wrote:  

Anyone who thinks right-wing administrations engage in anything even remotely resembling fiscal discipline - or building surpluses - is willingly ignoring the facts.* Reagan was the biggest deficit hawk of all. In the US, the pattern generally runs:

Liberal administration: raise taxes, spend money.
Conservative administration: lower taxes, spend even more money.

Moreover, the argument that "Keynesianism doesn't work because nobody has really tried it" isn't much of a starter.

*Australian politics may differ.

Of course, because right wing politicians have come to understand that running surpluses just sets up a bank account for the left wing, as I mentioned above. All politics now is moving towards tribalism and redistribution to the faithful, the greater good be damned. Politics is war without bullets. The Tea Party in the U.S. haven't quite figured this out yet, but they will the hard way. All that nonsense over debt ceiling showdowns? No one wanted to hear that shit. No one ever wants the party to stop. Likewise, the Liberal Party in Australia (actually cente right, which is confusing, but they're named after classical liberalism) will eventually figure this out also, probably long after the rot has already set in.

If it were me, I'd play the culture war game. Whenever I gained control of both houses (i.e. after the opposition had been in power for a couple of terms and had enough time to monumentally fuck things up), I'd completely defund or privatise any and all mouthpieces of the left. I'd run a scorched earth policy on the budget. Those people and their champions would never vote right anyway, so fuck 'em. Let the left then be the bad guys by either having to 1) increase taxes or 2) cut other, more essential, services in order to re-establish their institutional mouthpieces. This is what it has come down to. Me and mine, you and yours. It's the death of civil society, but it's better to be on the winning team than to think yourself noble for being on the losing team and playing by rules that your enemy doesn't recognise.

In one hundred years, the left won't exist anyway. The willingly barren will make themselves into a footnote of history. Everyone else just needs to outlast them and win the war of attrition. Because the left don't have children of their own, they have to steal them from the right via their mouthpieces in the media and education. Defund those things, and the left will eventually run out of foot soldiers.

So your argument is that right-wing administrations need to run up huge deficits to keep left-wing administrations from running up smaller deficits?

As a followup, what are you planning on doing when the privatized interests you created end up stronger than any government capable of keeping them in check? Do you really assume that the corporate arm of society is less capable of exerting negative tribal influences on the citizenry?

[Feisbook Control]

(05-22-2014 09:50 PM)lurker Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 07:37 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:26 AM)lurker Wrote:  

Anyone who thinks right-wing administrations engage in anything even remotely resembling fiscal discipline - or building surpluses - is willingly ignoring the facts.* Reagan was the biggest deficit hawk of all. In the US, the pattern generally runs:

Liberal administration: raise taxes, spend money.
Conservative administration: lower taxes, spend even more money.

Moreover, the argument that "Keynesianism doesn't work because nobody has really tried it" isn't much of a starter.

*Australian politics may differ.

Of course, because right wing politicians have come to understand that running surpluses just sets up a bank account for the left wing, as I mentioned above. All politics now is moving towards tribalism and redistribution to the faithful, the greater good be damned. Politics is war without bullets. The Tea Party in the U.S. haven't quite figured this out yet, but they will the hard way. All that nonsense over debt ceiling showdowns? No one wanted to hear that shit. No one ever wants the party to stop. Likewise, the Liberal Party in Australia (actually cente right, which is confusing, but they're named after classical liberalism) will eventually figure this out also, probably long after the rot has already set in.

If it were me, I'd play the culture war game. Whenever I gained control of both houses (i.e. after the opposition had been in power for a couple of terms and had enough time to monumentally fuck things up), I'd completely defund or privatise any and all mouthpieces of the left. I'd run a scorched earth policy on the budget. Those people and their champions would never vote right anyway, so fuck 'em. Let the left then be the bad guys by either having to 1) increase taxes or 2) cut other, more essential, services in order to re-establish their institutional mouthpieces. This is what it has come down to. Me and mine, you and yours. It's the death of civil society, but it's better to be on the winning team than to think yourself noble for being on the losing team and playing by rules that your enemy doesn't recognise.

In one hundred years, the left won't exist anyway. The willingly barren will make themselves into a footnote of history. Everyone else just needs to outlast them and win the war of attrition. Because the left don't have children of their own, they have to steal them from the right via their mouthpieces in the media and education. Defund those things, and the left will eventually run out of foot soldiers.

So your argument is that right-wing administrations need to run up huge deficits to keep left-wing administrations from running up smaller deficits?

As a followup, what are you planning on doing when the privatized interests you created end up stronger than any government capable of keeping them in check? Do you really assume that the corporate arm of society is less capable of exerting negative tribal influences on the citizenry?

No, my plan is to completely gut leftist institutions or programmes. Save money there and simultaneously starve the left of its ideological nutrition. The Overton Window has only moved farther left because of a Gramscian "march through the institutions". We need to reverse that.

I do think the so-called right should be taken to task for engaging in its own pork programmes. It shouldn't run those, and when it gets into power, it should cut those of the left, though it might have to throw some pork to the middle class in the short term (which I wouldn't like, but I am realistic about electoral politics). People would manage well enough if the state got out of their lives.

As for corporatism, you're making a false distinction between the state and corporations. They are one and the same. They work in lock step already.

[iknowexactly]

(05-22-2014 12:26 AM)lurker Wrote:  

Make the generations responsible for the shortfall take the haircut in pension payment. You have a vested pension, but you consistently voted for a local or state tax level sufficient to fund 67% of it? You get 67% of your pension. Problem solved. While we're on the subject, pensions are capped at a fraction of ending base salary, no overtime pumping allowed. This is retroactive to current pensions. Otherwise, let the localities dump them in Chapter 9.

Hey, you're welcome to try it. Lots of ex-cops collecting pensions, plus tons of teachers.

It's a democracy, sort of. Just get your 27 year-old self up on a soapbox or run for office on cutting all our pensions, despite the fact they were guaranteed in legal contracts. Also, we're not ASKING for the money, we already have it in our pension fund. You have to come get it.

I'm sure you'll go far.

Just to help you target our money, here's the current total of what you want to get your hands on.

While we're at it, how about refunding part of the salary YOU'VE earned. I've decided you weren't entitled to it, because of how you voted-- and I want it back retroactively. Problem solved.

[lurker]

(05-23-2014 01:20 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:26 AM)lurker Wrote:  

Make the generations responsible for the shortfall take the haircut in pension payment. You have a vested pension, but you consistently voted for a local or state tax level sufficient to fund 67% of it? You get 67% of your pension. Problem solved. While we're on the subject, pensions are capped at a fraction of ending base salary, no overtime pumping allowed. This is retroactive to current pensions. Otherwise, let the localities dump them in Chapter 9.

Hey, you're welcome to try it. Lots of ex-cops collecting pensions, plus tons of teachers.

It's a democracy, sort of. Just get your 27 year-old self up on a soapbox or run for office on cutting all our pensions, despite the fact they were guaranteed in legal contracts. Also, we're not ASKING for the money, we already have it in our pension fund. You have to come get it.

I'm sure you'll go far.

Just to help you target our money, here's the current total of what you want to get your hands on.

While we're at it, how about refunding part of the salary YOU'VE earned. I've decided you weren't entitled to it, because of how you voted-- and I want it back retroactively. Problem solved.

I'm 31. You have no idea how I voted. And you don' t already have it in your pension fund. If you did, they wouldn't be underfunded in the first place and the problem wouldn't exist. For what it's worth, voting yourselves pension coverage that exceeds the tax burden you're willing to pay for it is an odd concept of "earned." Strikes me as more rent-seeking. But Boomers gonna boom.

Of course my idea is politically untenable - the cops, firefighters, and teachers see to that. Just do my generation a favor and try to pause your locust vampirism to leave us at least a few crumbs for our inherited deficit and rampant student debt.

[Sp5]

(05-22-2014 07:37 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

In one hundred years, the left won't exist anyway. The willingly barren will make themselves into a footnote of history. Everyone else just needs to outlast them and win the war of attrition. Because the left don't have children of their own, they have to steal them from the right via their mouthpieces in the media and education. Defund those things, and the left will eventually run out of foot soldiers.

This left-right shit has been going on at least since Marius and Sulla, the Gracchi, Caesar, Cato and Cicero and probably many other examples from Ancient Egypt, Greece and China I don't even know about.

The left/right pendulum addresses a natural human dilemma, so it will continue as long as there are human politics, which is nothing but primate social organization writ large. In most cases, "left" and "right" just represent opposing interest groups rather than pure ideas, so the definition changes.

What would "left" and "right" represent nowadays? For example, it's been pointed out many times the destructive effect a completely free market in labor, goods and services has on the family, culture and religion.

[Samseau]

(05-22-2014 09:50 PM)lurker Wrote:  

So your argument is that right-wing administrations need to run up huge deficits to keep left-wing administrations from running up smaller deficits?

What are you talking about? Obama just racked up more debt than every previous pres combined.

[lurker]

(05-23-2014 08:06 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 09:50 PM)lurker Wrote:  

So your argument is that right-wing administrations need to run up huge deficits to keep left-wing administrations from running up smaller deficits?

What are you talking about? Obama just racked up more debt than every previous pres combined.

Obama has been a terrible President, especially on the fiscal front. However, his deficits are substantially affected by the Bush-era tax cuts and are finally starting to recede.

The last three decades before Obama have had a distinct pattern: lower deficits and debt under Carter and Clinton, huge increases in both under Reagan and both Bushes.

[It_is_my_time]

(05-23-2014 10:32 AM)lurker Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:06 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 09:50 PM)lurker Wrote:  

So your argument is that right-wing administrations need to run up huge deficits to keep left-wing administrations from running up smaller deficits?

What are you talking about? Obama just racked up more debt than every previous pres combined.

Obama has been a terrible President, especially on the fiscal front. However, his deficits are substantially affected by the Bush-era tax cuts and are finally starting to recede.

The last three decades before Obama have had a distinct pattern: lower deficits and debt under Carter and Clinton, huge increases in both under Reagan and both Bushes.

It wasn't the Bush era tax cuts that caused the financial melt down. In fact the Bush era tax cuts allowed the US to get out of an economic recession and slow growth from 2000 (when Clinton left) to 2002.

The cause of the financial melt down was the housing crisis, fueled by banks doing really sh**ty things. Not illegal in many cases, but should be illegal. And the govt. failed to over see it and put a stop too it before it was too late. Once again the govt. failing to do its job and a bunch of rich guys got richer while the rest of us got screwed over.

Add in the trillion dollar stimulus that largely went to Teacher Unions and other connected sources. And Obama's spending was not all to recover the economy, but also to pay off friends for his election.

[Samseau]

(05-23-2014 10:32 AM)lurker Wrote:  

The last three decades before Obama have had a distinct pattern: lower deficits and debt under Carter and Clinton, huge increases in both under Reagan and both Bushes.

Major oversimplification, since during Clinton the Republicans dominated Congress and quickly put an end to any and all spending increases. Clinton was merely an extension of Reagan's policies because the Republican controlled Congress that blocked most democratic initiatives. Also, the increased tax revenue during Clinton's era began during Bush I who increased taxes despite a promise he made to voters, "Read my lips, no new taxes," which Clinton used to ride into office.

Also, recall that Hilary tried to pass a Universal Health Care law back in the 90's. Republicans killed it fast.

Carter was also a disaster of a president, much like Obama, and left the office in shame. His economic policies were such a disaster it enabled a hard-right candidate like Reagan to succeed.

Ironically, today's labor force participation rate is the same that it was during Carter's era.

[Apollo]

(05-23-2014 01:20 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:26 AM)lurker Wrote:  

Make the generations responsible for the shortfall take the haircut in pension payment. You have a vested pension, but you consistently voted for a local or state tax level sufficient to fund 67% of it? You get 67% of your pension. Problem solved. While we're on the subject, pensions are capped at a fraction of ending base salary, no overtime pumping allowed. This is retroactive to current pensions. Otherwise, let the localities dump them in Chapter 9.

Hey, you're welcome to try it. Lots of ex-cops collecting pensions, plus tons of teachers.

It's a democracy, sort of. Just get your 27 year-old self up on a soapbox or run for office on cutting all our pensions, despite the fact they were guaranteed in legal contracts. Also, we're not ASKING for the money, we already have it in our pension fund. You have to come get it.

I'm sure you'll go far.

Just to help you target our money, here's the current total of what you want to get your hands on.

While we're at it, how about refunding part of the salary YOU'VE earned. I've decided you weren't entitled to it, because of how you voted-- and I want it back retroactively. Problem solved.

What do you mean that you already have it?

The money you cite (MV of CALPERS) is tied to a variety of endogenous variables (interest rates, expected rates of return, etc.) that fluctuate with the tides of the market. It's no more of a guarantee than any other poorly managed pension plan. Disbursements can and will be effected if California is unable to sufficiently finance new debt to cover their massive spending shortfalls. That the state legislature and city governments of California fail to have a firm grasp on creating wealth (rather than plundering it) may serve as an accurate precursor as to what the future of the state entails.

However, I would not bet against that occurring in the short term. California still has a couple of tricks up its sleeves since it carries considerable economic power that it can use to leverage some kind of bailout deal when it needs too. If other states were smart, they might even want to include themselves in on that deal too. (Michigan, NY, NJ, Texas, Ohio)

Long-term outlook though...something's gotta give. Hard to tell if government pensions would be targeted specifically, or something else, but someone is going to take the haircut. Luckily in a democracy, all you need is 50.1% of the vote to control who gets fucked and that will most likely be the private sector in those respective states. All the more reason for them to pack up and move.

[Andy_B]

(05-19-2014 01:59 PM)Snowplow Wrote:  

I work for the public sector as a maintenance engineer. I'm 26, and last year before taxes I made a little over $90k. I get full bennies, and one of the best pension plans. But I get fucked in taxes. Take home was close to $60k. I never plan on receiving any SS, so I have my own retirement accounts which I started young.

I suggest the young guys reading seriously look into public sector trade jobs. Live comfortably my friends!

Honestly if I were in the trades, I would probably look for public sector work as well.

My gripe with the public sector is all the bullshit in the political type jobs. Police officers who spend half their day prosecuting victimless drug crimes. Teachers who indoctrinate kids into the PC consensus. Various PR type people who are basically there to lobby for more more retarded laws. Analysts whose jobs probably aren't actually needed.

There are legit people in the public sector but much of it seems like a scam, some of it downright oppressive.