Changes to The Constitution.

[laughing dog]

But the stock market is very risky. If a young person does not want to accept that risk and responsibility (or pay someone else for fees) for his retirement savings he will rapidly lose wealth to inflation. In a better world that would not be the case.

Higher return typically means higher risk, Individual stocks are much riskier than stocks in a mutual fund. Deposits in a bank are ready a form of a mutual fund where the bank pools the deposits, suede its expertise to evaluate potential investment in assets ( called loans). The interest rate on bank deposits has the costs of the bank’s evaluation and monitoring efforts deducted from the overall returns. Unless a saver does all the work themself of investing in the stock directly or loan market, they pay a fee to someone either directly or indirectly.

 

[bilby]

In End the Fed, Paul argues...

Paul is a blithering idiot, so why should anyone care what he argues?

 

[Harry Bosch]

During a serious downturn, federal employees would be laid off in proportion to the private economy.

Why? This would be about the stupidest possible response to an economic downturn, and would lead to conditions not seen since the Great Depression.

"Let's scrap the fire department. If my house catches fire, everyone else's houses should be set afire, in proportion to the damage caused at my house". A true stroke of genius, that.

Since when was (is) the federal government in the business of putting out fires? That is usually done at the city or even the county level. If the federal government has been engaged to put out house fires, it is even bigger and more bloated than I thought.

Furthermore, if you wish to argue Keynesian economics to stimulate the economy in a downturn, there are many other ways to stimulate the local and or national economy with spending "such as infrastructure spending", "hyperloop tunnels", "alternative energy", other than more federal administration and bloated do nothing government jobs that cost a lot of money and never go away.

Which government jobs entail doing nothing?

Be specific; Give me one example of a government job that you think achieves nothing at all.

Republican Congressperson?

 

[Derec]

The problem becomes the selection of representatives.

It would be up to parties to propose a party list, like in the other systems with proportional representation.
Germany does something interesting with their local elections. You have x votes, equal to the number of seats. You can simply vote the party list and I guess most people do that. But you can also promote certain people by giving them more than one vote (up to three) and spread your votes among different lists.

Too bad they do not do that with state and federal elections too, as it sounds pretty good for independent voters not beholden to any particular party.

With district boundaries you at least have a candidate who has to live in the district and is (or can be) both familiar with the district and familiar to the district's voters.

Not necessarily. In NY they do not have to live in their districts. That's why SPM was shamed for wanting to run in the district he lived in and not in the district that has the same number as the former district he lived in (and represented). That's also why Mondaire Jones chose to run in the Manhattan NY-10 even though he lives in Westchester County.

District-based voting is a remnant of the world where political parties were not important and people did not really know the world outside their district. They cause more problems than they solve in the 21st century I think.
For one, how do you draw the boundaries? There is a danger of gerrymandering, of course, but even without it, population patterns itself can befuddle fair district drawing. Look at the fight in Alabama. One majority black district or two? And should not voters decide elections? With districts, elections are often decided at the time district maps are drawn up. At least for most districts/seats.

Another thing is pork. Many projects Congress votes for are voted the way they are because a powerful congressman managed to bring pork to their district, whether e.g. the military needed that particular project in this form or not. Non-district based representation would alleviate that problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which government jobs entail doing nothing?

Be specific; Give me one example of a government job that you think achieves nothing at all.

Missile silo command crew. You had better hope they do nothing.

They still do stuff. They have to test their equipment and run drills to ensure their readiness.

And they arguably achieved the avoidance of nuclear war for the past 77 years, which is no mean feat.

Drills, sure, but that's training, not doing. You do not want them actually doing!

Their mission is potential, not actual. (Although I think we should be looking at making them capable against Tunguska-level impact threats.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly.

So money today is worth more than money at some future date - you (like any sane individual) would prefer the former over the latter.

Money being worth less in the future than it is today IS inflation. Inflation is an unavoidable long-term feature of any viable currency, simply because people prefer money now over money later.

No. The time value of money is separate from inflation. The real world value of money is about 3% in constant dollars.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are just doubling down on showing you don't understand.

Target inflation rate: 2%. Average long term stock market return: 6%. (Beware of survivorship bias, the 8% number you often see is wrong.)

In our world we expect to average $71 ($10 * 1.04^50 years) in that bucket. If you only have $10 you made some pretty bad choices!

If you had $10 in 1964 it bought $74.52 worth of goods in 2013 so you lost inflation adjusted wealth. https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=10.00&year1=196401&year2=201301

You missed the fact that I already subtracted off inflation. That's $71 in constant dollars. Roughly $500 in the bucket.

But you lost even more than that.

1) The governments inflation calculator doesn't tell the truth. I can remember when you could buy a glass bottle of coke from a vending machine for a dime. Now the equivalent costs $1.50. So I know from my experience that real inflation over 50 years has been more like 150% or $150 worth of goods and services that should have been in your bucket.

Some things go up faster than others. Labor costs of small purchases are one of the things that has gone up considerably.

2) You also had to pay either interest or federal and state income tax gains each and every year on your $10. So more and bigger holes in your bucket. You would be compelled to lose that amount to federal and state taxes or you were compelled to lose your freedom to spend that money if it was placed in any sort of retirement account. Illiquid funds that can not really be spent at your will are NOT savings. If the government (at their will) can make any future laws over these accounts, all of those funds really belongs to the government even if your name is on the account.

You said retirement, it's $10 you already had to it's after tax, I figured a Roth IRA. No tax bite.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As for the young person saving--there are no holes in the bucket. Inflation is factored into interest rates. If you had 0% inflation you would find the bank paid about 0% interest and probably would charge you for having an account at all. The problem is bank deposits aren't a viable investment option regardless of the inflation rate. If you want your savings to grow you need to look at the stock market.

But the stock market is very risky. If a young person does not want to accept that risk and responsibility (or pay someone else for fees) for his retirement savings he will rapidly lose wealth to inflation. In a better world that would not be the case.

No need to pay an advisor, just buy index funds. Or, to minimize the paperwork at a fairly small cost, mutual funds that basically mimic index funds.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Apparently Rand Paul feels the current annual audit is inadequate. From your link, it seems (although it is not clear), that some want an audit to include the content of operational and policy discussions.

I think the US Senate should model the type of audit it wishes the FRB to have so that the American people get the transparency their deserve from every gov’t institution.

No. It's the standard Republican approach--take authority from the experts and give it to the legislature. That makes it much easier to exploit the system.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sounds weird, someone referencing Rand Paul for anything. He is a hack, a libertarian-lite, ie when he wants to get his name in the paper. Ron Paul, I think, was the real deal. Principled and unpragmatic as all heck.

 

[RVonse]

During a serious downturn, federal employees would be laid off in proportion to the private economy.

Why? This would be about the stupidest possible response to an economic downturn, and would lead to conditions not seen since the Great Depression.

"Let's scrap the fire department. If my house catches fire, everyone else's houses should be set afire, in proportion to the damage caused at my house". A true stroke of genius, that.

Since when was (is) the federal government in the business of putting out fires? That is usually done at the city or even the county level. If the federal government has been engaged to put out house fires, it is even bigger and more bloated than I thought.

Furthermore, if you wish to argue Keynesian economics to stimulate the economy in a downturn, there are many other ways to stimulate the local and or national economy with spending "such as infrastructure spending", "hyperloop tunnels", "alternative energy", other than more federal administration and bloated do nothing government jobs that cost a lot of money and never go away.

Which government jobs entail doing nothing?

Be specific; Give me one example of a government job that you think achieves nothing at all.

Are There Too Many General Officers for Today’s Military?

There are approximately 900 Active-duty general/flag officers (GO/FOs) today of 1.3 million troops. This is a ratio of 1 GO/FO for every 1,400 troops. During World War II, an admittedly different era,

ndupress.ndu.edu

And it also should be noted that most of these high ranking generals who are really not needed will soon be pulling pensions worth well over the average salary of a US citizen. Sitting at home and living off tax money being paid by wage labor earners.

 

[Patooka]

Cool. Take away Michael Flynn's pension then. There's also a subtle difference between being overpaid and doing nothing at all. Sing out if you need an explanation as to why.

 

[jonatha]

In NY they do not have to live in their districts.

Article III section 7 of the New York Constitution says otherwise (except that after redistricting a candidate in a district must have been a resident of the county containing the district).

 

[Gospel]

And it also should be noted that most of these high ranking generals who are really not needed will soon be pulling pensions worth well over the average salary of a US citizen. Sitting at home and living off tax money being paid by wage labor earners.

I suspect that when people talk reducing military spending, they aren't considering this.

 

[Patooka]

And it also should be noted that most of these high ranking generals who are really not needed will soon be pulling pensions worth well over the average salary of a US citizen. Sitting at home and living off tax money being paid by wage labor earners.

I suspect that when people talk reducing military spending, they aren't considering this.

I suspect the cost of all the pensions for retired Generals wouldn't even equate to one defense contract the DOD has with Northrop.

 

[Tigers!]

Republican Congressperson?

FIFY

 

[Tigers!]

The problem becomes the selection of representatives.

It would be up to parties to propose a party list, like in the other systems with proportional representation.
Germany does something interesting with their local elections. You have x votes, equal to the number of seats. You can simply vote the party list and I guess most people do that. But you can also promote certain people by giving them more than one vote (up to three) and spread your votes among different lists.

Too bad they do not do that with state and federal elections too, as it sounds pretty good for independent voters not beholden to any particular party.

The Jerries seem to e on the right track though not there yet.

With district boundaries you at least have a candidate who has to live in the district and is (or can be) both familiar with the district and familiar to the district's voters.

Not necessarily. In NY they do not have to live in their districts. That's why SPM was shamed for wanting to run in the district he lived in and not in the district that has the same number as the former district he lived in (and represented). That's also why Mondaire Jones chose to run in the Manhattan NY-10 even though he lives in Westchester County.

District-based voting is a remnant of the world where political parties were not important and people did not really know the world outside their district. They cause more problems than they solve in the 21st century I think.
For one, how do you draw the boundaries? There is a danger of gerrymandering, of course, but even without it, population patterns itself can befuddle fair district drawing. Look at the fight in Alabama. One majority black district or two? And should not voters decide elections? With districts, elections are often decided at the time district maps are drawn up. At least for most districts/seats.

The only useful criteria for electorate distribution is noses i.e. number of people. Once you add another criteria or use a non-numeric you will get gerrymandering. Why does it matter whether the voters are a certain colour or sex or amount of money etc.?

Another thing is pork. Many projects Congress votes for are voted the way they are because a powerful congressman managed to bring pork to their district, whether e.g. the military needed that particular project in this form or not. Non-district based representation would alleviate that problem.

Yes it would

 

[Toni]

During a serious downturn, federal employees would be laid off in proportion to the private economy.

Why? This would be about the stupidest possible response to an economic downturn, and would lead to conditions not seen since the Great Depression.

"Let's scrap the fire department. If my house catches fire, everyone else's houses should be set afire, in proportion to the damage caused at my house". A true stroke of genius, that.

Since when was (is) the federal government in the business of putting out fires? That is usually done at the city or even the county level. If the federal government has been engaged to put out house fires, it is even bigger and more bloated than I thought.

Furthermore, if you wish to argue Keynesian economics to stimulate the economy in a downturn, there are many other ways to stimulate the local and or national economy with spending "such as infrastructure spending", "hyperloop tunnels", "alternative energy", other than more federal administration and bloated do nothing government jobs that cost a lot of money and never go away.

It was an analogy, RVonse.

Who, exactly, do you suppose funds infrastructure and alternative energy? Do you not realize that there is a lot of infrastructure, which you consider ‘bloat’ in ensuring that such projects are appropriately funded, carried out by well vetted contractors taking into consideration all due concerns and rules and regulations with regards to environmental, and health and safety concerns? You think that without such rules and regulations, such practices will always be followed? Or ever?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In NY they do not have to live in their districts.

Article III section 7 of the New York Constitution says otherwise (except that after redistricting a candidate in a district must have been a resident of the county containing the district).

Somebody actually got it right??

I've been saying this for years--if you're redistricted out of your district it should not keep you from running for re-election. This would avoid fights where a powerful politician opposes a new map that moves their district away from them--or the flip side when the opposition deliberately redistricts a politician out of their office.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Republican Congressperson?

FIFY

Tiger: the last democratic congress got quite a bit done: no government shutdowns, infrastructure bill, chips act, funding for Ukraine, and etc. What has the republican congress accomplished? Paid our bills in a timely manner (no). All that I see them working on is going after big meanie Hunter and complaining about the border and deficit. But they don't do a damn thing about either one.