![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
What future is there for us but insolvency and the collapse of the dollar? Other than ron paul, nobody will even begin to acknowledge how fucked we are, let alone attempt to address it.
Let us once again pay homage to democracy with one of the great quotes:
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
-- HL Mencken
September 15 2007, 16:07:16 UTC 4 years ago
"I've always thought that in a democracy, and I don't know--I've only lived in this country..."
-Jon Stewart
September 15 2007, 18:03:42 UTC 4 years ago
September 15 2007, 18:21:21 UTC 4 years ago
And, presumably, "private workers" is everyone else minus those with jobs in the government itself (although I may be mistaken on that last part).
Quite simply, we're turning into a society that doesn't make stuff anymore. If there's anything left to salvage after the Baby Boom generation dies off, though, there may be hope yet.
September 15 2007, 18:56:28 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
September 15 2007, 19:28:45 UTC 4 years ago
September 15 2007, 20:02:49 UTC 4 years ago
September 16 2007, 22:32:52 UTC 4 years ago
Some reasons
My guess: the number one reason for this trend is the aging of the population, and I'm guessing the dire projections are largely a result of retiring baby boomers. The dependency ratio we're facing is quite daunting.Number two, as I believe is implied above, is that American manufacturing companies no longer wish to employ American workers. Some blame the unions -- I blame the expansion of the "investor class" to those with a few thousand bucks in the market, who sit idly by as jobs go away and they make a few hundred extra bucks. Gotta love that short money.
September 17 2007, 04:07:26 UTC 4 years ago
What future is there for us but insolvency and the collapse of the dollar?
OK, you've identified the inevitable outcome. What steps have you taken to protect/increase your wealth when this scenario plays out?
September 17 2007, 14:04:57 UTC 4 years ago
September 19 2007, 15:17:31 UTC 4 years ago
September 19 2007, 17:10:12 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
Deleted comment
September 17 2007, 18:10:57 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Cbo view
I suppose everyone has their own reason to spin numbers to match their own philosophy.I guess. I think you're completely nuts if you believe you have any chance of collecting out of social security. That kind of faith only belongs in church.
Deleted comment
September 18 2007, 04:09:53 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Cbo view
I don't know what the entire future of ss is, but I suspect if you got out ole Al Gore's Lockbox and put the ss funds there...you'd go a fair ways toward heading off that particular set of problems.Your childlike faith in Algore's Lockbox is amusing. Sadly, there are few politicians outside of Ron Paul willing to tell the truth about the Ponzi scheme called Social Security.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
September 17 2007, 21:58:58 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Cbo view
Get real. Or stick to Scrabble.September 17 2007, 22:54:18 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Cbo view
You think you can make rock solid projections about what's going to happen in freaking 2053 and I need to get real? Also, why is it that it's always the most self-assured and least worthy of being so who say "...or stick to [poker|scrabble|what-have-you]"? Is there some psychological need to pigeonhole me into the "scrabble" box so you can guiltlessly discount my opinions? It's unbecoming.I guess reading the black swan has heightened my distaste for people who think they can extrapolate the curve of their choosing out for half a freaking century, and worse, get all cocky about it, as if relying on a system the size of the us government to behave in the manner you have predicted for FIFTY YEARS is the sensible default position, and only loony scrabble players would contest it.
4 years ago
4 years ago
September 25 2007, 17:32:51 UTC 4 years ago
Dude...get off the cliff...NOW
I cannot comment on this chart because it doesn't reveal any underlying data, nor can I make heads or tails of its claim to represent the entire United States population (could kids ever fall into the private workers category?).Anyway, it seems pretty clear to me that the central question this chart raises is: how can we possibly afford our government largesse and still succeed economically?
Well, consider these two things.
First, total government spending as a % of GDP:
1950s: 23%
1960s: 26%
1970s: 29%
1980s: 32%
1990s: 31%
These numbers include everything -- SocSec, state, local, federal etc. At the time I calculated these (May) I only had three years of data for 2000s, but that number was 30% (I suspect it has risen due to Iraq).
Now, in terms of real GDP per capita, in 2002 dollars I found a BLS document http://www.bls.gov/fls/flsgdp.pdf with data on 1960-2006:
1960s: $16,767
1970s: $20,926
1980s: $26,001
1990s: $31,601
So two things:
(a) From the 1970s - 2000, government spending was relatively flat as a % of GDP, moreover, it was also flat through 2003 and net of the Iraq War is, I am sure, flat
(b) Although gov't spending has a % of GDP grew from 26% in the 1960s to 31% in the 1990s, per capita GDP (in 2002 dollars) nearly DOUBLED.
Hopefully this data gives you a different perspective to consider -- no need to go jumping off any cliffs, even the spectacularly beautiful ones around Cannon Beach.
September 26 2007, 13:09:12 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Dude...get off the cliff...NOW
I"m not going to argue about it - if you think the government's been shrinking the past fifty years then okay, I envy your interpretation.September 26 2007, 16:03:31 UTC 4 years ago
I don't think gov't has been getting smaller
I don't want to argue either, but I think you may have misunderstood my point, or I my have misstated my point.Obviously, I don't think gov't is getting smaller since 1950 (the data which I submitted to you pretty clearly proves the opposite point).
My point was that government growth is not a proxy for economic decay. Rather than being a precursor to insolvency, it may just be an expression of our wealth. (On the debt question you may find this http://www.heritage.org/Research/Bu
Now with that being said, I will share with you the greatest thing Ron Paul has ever inspired:
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/origi
September 27 2007, 00:37:53 UTC 4 years ago
Re: I don't think gov't has been getting smaller
Remember this, I will be assuming any article from the heritage foundation is the opposite of true.Your perspective on the government makes me think of all those people who leveraged to the max to buy their houses on the theory that their house would go up in value fast enough to keep them afloat. If it's an "expression of our wealth" does that mean I can expect less of it should we enter harder economic times? You can't have it both ways.
4 years ago
September 25 2007, 18:02:06 UTC 4 years ago
Another set of data
According to the BLS measure of total government employment (it's unclear whether this includes military or not; it does not exclude military in its description so I assume it does include military):% of U.S. population working for government:
1950: 4.1%
1960: 4.7%
1970: 5.6%
1980: 7.2%
1990: 7.4%
2000: 7.4%
Wow big jump, eh?
But look at % of U.S. population working for private firms (excludes farms, which presumably would make these numbers higher):
1950: 26.0%
1960: 25.6%
1970: 25.7%
1980: 32.7%
1990: 36.6%
2000: 39.4%
From this, you can come up with the following ratio -- how many private sector workers are there per government worker:
1950: 6.4
1960: 5.4
1970: 4.6
1980: 4.5
1990: 4.9
2000: 5.3
That's right, from 1980-2000, the ratio of private workers to government workers steadily grew, nearly reaching the level in 1960.
September 26 2007, 21:06:35 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Another set of data
Interesting data. Is there a chart that shows average hours per week worked in gov't vs. private sector? I would find that to be a truer measure. Anecdotal evidence that I've seen indicates that more people are sporadically employed than in the past -- my guess is that this would affect private sector workers disproportionately, which would mitigate your point somewhat.September 26 2007, 21:29:44 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Another set of data
That is a very good question, which I looked at after my original post; there is an index which measure of aggregate hours worked in the private sector, but it is only for non-management positions (any non-hourly position is excluded). It also didn't have corresponding data for gov't jobs. There is another index of aggregate payroll for the same workers.The problem is, I don't understand these indices and therefore had no idea how to make heads or tails of the measures.
But I suspect that your speculation is correct and that it does mitigate my point somewhat.
September 27 2007, 01:35:51 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Another set of data
Oh well -- thanks for the effort.4 years ago