Academic economists tend to see economies as a galaxy of utilities balancing perfectly (or almost) at the margin (according to their utility).
I see economies as made of the same wheels within wheels feedback architecture — but resulting in something more the process of evolution, more like the survival of the fittest — where whoever grows the biggest fangs first gets to eat everybody else for dinner; or in the economic case, everyone else’s dinner. Think Tyrannosaurus Rich. 🙂
Kotlikoff was the economist who did the work on the fairtax bill who somehow forgot to figure out if you placed a tax on government buying that the cost of government would go up. Additionally, he has constantly revised the amount of that tax necessary as people have actually looked at his numbers(I cannot blame the inclusve-exclusive PR bs on him as much as I wish I could).
It’s an abuse of power “writers” can delete comments when the supporting data strongly dispute their statements and then tell you to stop whining and accept the hog wild propaganda.
And, “Slightly left of center economic commentary ” is misleading, unless Karl Marx is the center.
Folks, its a “print ALL ya want” money system. As long as dollars will spend Social Security will stay in business. Don’t want a raise in SS TAX, call Congress and TELL them no, its just that simple. It ain’t broke, don’t “fix it”.
Looks to me like Mr. Kotlikoff either is employed by one of the 2big2fail banks or perhaps The Koch Bros.
Deletion is considered by several people before being done.
Only one comment was deleted, and that because it was way off topic of the post and started with a rhetorical question to Maggie that did not address the post, but other matters on healthcare. So this data was not directed at the post, and is an issue you are aware of in particular.
You had been asked not to hijack comments a number of times.
Kotlikoff has a job for the same reason Pat Roberston, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh have jobs.
People believe him.
I went round and round with Kotlikoff saying (he was saying) there was no way that a gradual increase in the SS tax could catch up with the “present value” 12 Trillion dollar unfunded deficit. The reasons he gave convinced me that he does not understand present value. Eventually … he seems to have thought about what i was telling him… he conceded that it would catch up, but “who,” he asked (paraphrase) “would spend 16% of their income on Social Security?”
Well, anyone, I thought, who wanted to pay in advance for a “too old to work” part of their life that would last twenty years or more. So, not only does he not understand present value, he doesn’t understand Social Security, retirement, or the facts of life of getting old in a free enterprise economy.
I have some sympathy for you, being myself a person who has gotten kicked out of the box for.. ah, … thinking outside the box.
I don’t like censorship. But there are limits to what people can stand. I think if you presented your thoughts in reasonably short essays, probably only one “comment” at a time (i myself am a violator of both these strictures. probably people put up with me because sometimes i say something they agree with, and i do try to say something new). and worked on saying things that people could find some common ground of reality with… you would not be “censored.”
I find “economics is true” and “logic (or math) say…” really hard to put up with, but you are hardly the only person who imagines that what he believes is “true” “logic” or even “math.”
Your personality as shown (to me) on this blog suggests (to me) that you won’t be able to understand this. But I think you have not been “censored” for political reasons, but for reasons of common good manners… which means being reasonably sensitive to what your audience is willing to put up with.
Dan, Maggie directed her comments to me by name and I responded appropriately, including revealing her comments were misleading when I introduced facts and events.
And, since that comment was deleted, I couldn’t respond to her other comment where she tried to contradict me with just an opinion. She made more comments than I could respond to anyway, which all were left standing, while my comment was deleted.
You say it wasn’t political, but it sure turned out that way.
Coberly, I never wrote “economics is true” and “logic (or math) say” which you imply with the quotes.
Coberly, you seem very confused with quite an imagination when reading other people’s statements. And, not only in telling people what they didn’t write, but also in economics, logic, and math.
Moreover, my response to Maggie was deleted very quickly after I posted it. I saw that it was posted under Maggie’s statement and then checked out some stock market info on another site for just a few minutes. When I came back to proof read what I wrote, it wasn’t there. I thought maybe I posted it in another thread by mistake, but it was nowhere. With the supporting info, it seemed it was just skimmed over at best, right after I posted it, and then deleted immediately.
And, it wasn’t just a bunch of unsupported assertions by Maggie. She supported her assertions with other people’s opinions rather than with facts and events.
Furthermore, if I recall correctly, you have a low regard of economics.And, yet, when I explained some economics to you, your responses showed you didn’t understand it. How can you make a competent conclusion on something you don’t understand?
Kotlikoff says social security is a bankrupt ponzi scheme…
he seems to be responding to all comments, which now top 150:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/americas-ponzi-scheme-why-social-security-needs-to-retire/
Sounds like the same old scare tactics.
Just thought of this:
Academic economists tend to see economies as a galaxy of utilities balancing perfectly (or almost) at the margin (according to their utility).
I see economies as made of the same wheels within wheels feedback architecture — but resulting in something more the process of evolution, more like the survival of the fittest — where whoever grows the biggest fangs first gets to eat everybody else for dinner; or in the economic case, everyone else’s dinner. Think Tyrannosaurus Rich. 🙂
Kotlikoff was the economist who did the work on the fairtax bill who somehow forgot to figure out if you placed a tax on government buying that the cost of government would go up. Additionally, he has constantly revised the amount of that tax necessary as people have actually looked at his numbers(I cannot blame the inclusve-exclusive PR bs on him as much as I wish I could).
Why does he have a job?
It’s an abuse of power “writers” can delete comments when the supporting data strongly dispute their statements and then tell you to stop whining and accept the hog wild propaganda.
And, “Slightly left of center economic commentary ” is misleading, unless Karl Marx is the center.
Social Security is broke! So is the government!
Gee, where have I heard this before?
Folks, its a “print ALL ya want” money system. As long as dollars will spend Social Security will stay in business. Don’t want a raise in SS TAX, call Congress and TELL them no, its just that simple. It ain’t broke, don’t “fix it”.
Looks to me like Mr. Kotlikoff either is employed by one of the 2big2fail banks or perhaps The Koch Bros.
Course when supporting data is not linked and/or shows no relationship to the topic(let alone the comment) we wasting bytes.
Rjs, Kotlikoff practically invented “generational warfare”.
PT,
Deletion is considered by several people before being done.
Only one comment was deleted, and that because it was way off topic of the post and started with a rhetorical question to Maggie that did not address the post, but other matters on healthcare. So this data was not directed at the post, and is an issue you are aware of in particular.
You had been asked not to hijack comments a number of times.
Kotlikoff has a job for the same reason Pat Roberston, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh have jobs.
People believe him.
I went round and round with Kotlikoff saying (he was saying) there was no way that a gradual increase in the SS tax could catch up with the “present value” 12 Trillion dollar unfunded deficit. The reasons he gave convinced me that he does not understand present value. Eventually … he seems to have thought about what i was telling him… he conceded that it would catch up, but “who,” he asked (paraphrase) “would spend 16% of their income on Social Security?”
Well, anyone, I thought, who wanted to pay in advance for a “too old to work” part of their life that would last twenty years or more. So, not only does he not understand present value, he doesn’t understand Social Security, retirement, or the facts of life of getting old in a free enterprise economy.
PT
I have some sympathy for you, being myself a person who has gotten kicked out of the box for.. ah, … thinking outside the box.
I don’t like censorship. But there are limits to what people can stand. I think if you presented your thoughts in reasonably short essays, probably only one “comment” at a time (i myself am a violator of both these strictures. probably people put up with me because sometimes i say something they agree with, and i do try to say something new). and worked on saying things that people could find some common ground of reality with… you would not be “censored.”
I find “economics is true” and “logic (or math) say…” really hard to put up with, but you are hardly the only person who imagines that what he believes is “true” “logic” or even “math.”
Your personality as shown (to me) on this blog suggests (to me) that you won’t be able to understand this. But I think you have not been “censored” for political reasons, but for reasons of common good manners… which means being reasonably sensitive to what your audience is willing to put up with.
Dan, Maggie directed her comments to me by name and I responded appropriately, including revealing her comments were misleading when I introduced facts and events.
And, since that comment was deleted, I couldn’t respond to her other comment where she tried to contradict me with just an opinion. She made more comments than I could respond to anyway, which all were left standing, while my comment was deleted.
You say it wasn’t political, but it sure turned out that way.
Coberly, I never wrote “economics is true” and “logic (or math) say” which you imply with the quotes.
Peak
yes, you did. but I’d be glad to forget about it.
except that even here, your reply to Dan contrasts your “facts” with Maggie’s “opinion”. Could be, but sounds unlikely to me.
Coberly, you seem very confused with quite an imagination when reading other people’s statements. And, not only in telling people what they didn’t write, but also in economics, logic, and math.
Moreover, my response to Maggie was deleted very quickly after I posted it. I saw that it was posted under Maggie’s statement and then checked out some stock market info on another site for just a few minutes. When I came back to proof read what I wrote, it wasn’t there. I thought maybe I posted it in another thread by mistake, but it was nowhere. With the supporting info, it seemed it was just skimmed over at best, right after I posted it, and then deleted immediately.
And, it wasn’t just a bunch of unsupported assertions by Maggie. She supported her assertions with other people’s opinions rather than with facts and events.
Furthermore, if I recall correctly, you have a low regard of economics.And, yet, when I explained some economics to you, your responses showed you didn’t understand it. How can you make a competent conclusion on something you don’t understand?
Hijacking is simply that with some grey areas. Live with it and move on please.
Thanks Peak.