Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Social Security and the NYT

(Dan here….)  Via the New York Times comes an article on the Social Security shortfall.  No explanations given for what the shortfall context is, and not till the end was a fix suggested.  In comments calling SS a ponzi scheme (with no explanation) was common, or with the fix mostly was about lifting the cap.  Only one commenter referred readers to a Bruce Bartlett article from 2013 on the matter,

From an e-mail by Dale Coberly

Forgive me,  I have studied this problem and may actually know what I am talking about.
All we have to do is pay an extra dollar per week per person per year.  After next year It will be more like a dollar and ten cents.  And if we wait another year it will be about a dollar and twenty cents for the first few years,  then a great deal less than a dollar per week on average. This would keep Social Security solvent essentially forever.  The Deputy Chief Actuary at Social Security agrees that this is true.
This would mean people are paying more, but not a lot more, for their Social Security.  That is they would be setting aside enough money through Social Security to save enough to live on when they will no longer be able to work.  Don’t fool yourself:  working longer is not going to be possible for at least half the population.  And since they will have paid for it themselves, there is no reason they should not be able to retire if they want to even if they “could” work longer.
The Social Security Trustees Report says that about a one and a half percent (about fifteen dollars per week) one time “immediate and permanent” increase  would keep SS solvent for the next seventy five years.This would not be a real burden, or even noticeable once people got over their overreaction to the increase.  Even the about twenty dollars per week that would come in 2035 or so if we wait to the last minute will not be a real burden.  Wages will have risen by about two hundred dollars per week by then.  Again, no no one would think twice about it if it weren’t for the Big Liars making it sound like some kind of tragedy:  “You are going to have to put aside an extra twenty dollars per week, out of your two hundred dollar raise, in order to have enough to live on for the extra two to four years you will expect to live.” [Dollar amounts are in present terms.  SS pay as you go financing automatically takes care of inflation and real interest.]
The thing is they keep talking about it as if “we” — that is “the government”– can’t afford it.    But we — that is each of us — certainly can afford it.
But “they” want to talk about it as if “the government” was going to have to come up with trillions of dollars.  And they call it “socialism.”  Meanwhile the “progressives”  want to make it socialism by “making the rich pay” for it.
Social Security was carefully designed to NOT be welfare. It’s just the worker saving enough of his own money to pay for his own food and shelter when he will be too old to work, and insuring himself against the possibility that otherwise he might not be able to save enough. The government does not pay for any of this. The “rich” do not pay for more than they will get back with reasonable interest, including its insurance value.
Since you have been lied to intensively for at least the last thirty years,  you will not easily understand this or believe it. But it can be proven with attention to real math and real facts. There is no hope the people will understand it if no one tells them. The question is are you willing to do the work?

Tags: Comments (26) | |

Regional Fed indexes confirm that manufacturing is flat

Regional Fed indexes confirm that manufacturing is flat

[A reminder: this week I’m on vacation, so light posting is the rule.]

Earlier this week the Empire State Manufacturing Index went negative. This morning the Philly Index just barely avoided the same, reported at up +0.3 for June:

The more leading new orders index declined to +8.3.

This means the average of NY and Philly is a little below -1, while the average of all five regional Fed indexes as of their last reports is +0.8.

Last week I pointed out that the average manufacturing work week had fallen to a point consistent with an oncoming recession, and based on past patterns, I expect layoffs to follow. This week’s two regional indexes show that the leading manufacturing sector, as of the most recent readings, is not in decline, but on the other hand, it is almost exactly flat.

Comments (0) | |

Weekly Indicators for June 10 – 14 at Seeking Alpha

by New Deal democrat

Weekly Indicators for June 10 – 14 at Seeking Alpha

My Weekly Indicators post is up at Seeking Alpha.

The divergence between the near term vs. longer term forecast is increasing, and the risk that the forecast is too optimistic is asymmetrical, because for the economy, Trump’s chaotic tariff behavior cannot improve the situation, but can definitely cause harm.

Comments (1) | |

The slowdown cometh

by New Deal democrat

The slowdown cometh

I submitted a long post on the above to Seeking Alpha. They haven’t put it up yet. When they do, I’ll link to it here.   UPDATE: Here’s the link.

Long story short: you all know that a year ago I forecast a slowdown by about mid-year this year. Everything except for portions of GDP and jobs has acted in accordance with that forecast.

And, judging by this morning’s ADP jobs report for May:


the official jobs report may finally follow suit this Friday

Comments (4) | |

The Rise and Fall of FDI

by Joseph Joyce

The Rise and Fall of FDI

After the global financial crisis,  international capital flows contracted, especially bank lending in Europe. Foreign direct investment (FDI) by multinational firms, however, provided a steady source of external finance, particularly for emerging market economies. The McKinsey Global Institute has calculated that the global stock of FDI increased from 46% of world GDP in 2007 to 57% in 2016 ($25 trillion to $41 trillion). But FDI flows fell by 27% in 2018 according to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and this drop followed a decline of 16% in the previous year. We have entered a new period of contraction by multinational firms, and in particular, U.S.-based multinationals.

A significant amount of the decline is due to firms based in the U.S. responding to changes in U.S. tax law. The U.S.-based firms repatriated earnings that had been kept abroad to avoid U.S. taxes. As a result, the U.S. recorded a negative FDI outflow of $50 trillion in 2018, down from a positive outflow of $379 billion in the previous year. By the latter half 2018, the acquisition of foreign assets had returned to positive levels, but the long-run changes of the tax code revision on the foreign operations of U.S. firms will only become clear over time.

Ireland and Switzerland were particularly hard-hit by the disinvestments, since these countries had often attracted FDI because of generous tax provisions. There were also reversals of investment in Special Purpose Entities (SPE), which allow the multinationals to channel funds through countries with favorable regulatory and tax practices to their ultimate destination. The OECD reported that FDI flows to SPEs in Luxembourg and the Netherlands fell to negative levels last year.

 

Comments (1) | |