Trump II

[JoeKitchen]

Can you name a few?

Insofar as pure capitalism, that has never existed, so there is really no examples to look at. 

PS, one could argue that Hong Kong prior to China taking over was as close to a pure capitalistic society ever formed, and it did pretty well. 

[Alan Klein]

Insofar as pure capitalism, that has never existed, so there is really no examples to look at. 

I think the two problems in the US is, first,  that our capitalism has slipped into crony capitalism where government conspires with business to protect businesses and re-elect the politicians that support them.  The destructive and constructive forces of a free marketplace is stopped from doing its good work.  Companies are rewarded by politicians who they support rather than relying on free market forces.  Lobbyists make millions influencing legislation to reward the politically connected elites.  This is the "swamp" Trump refers too that he wants to drain.  The elites, both Republican and Democrat, who fought him during the election still fight him today.  These critters have gotten rich and powerful living in the swamp.  They're not going to give it up without a fight.   

Second, politicians supports socialist giveaway programs for the vote.  We've reached the point where both parties are afraid to touch any programs that people depend upon for their welfare.  So our continued spending will kill the golden goose.  Obamacare and these other programs sound great until you have to figure out where the money will come from that won't kill the goose at the same time.  Like Venezuela, we're sowing the seeds of our own destruction.  Who needs to worry about North Korea and Russia when we have ourselves?

[Alan Goldhammer]

  In the USA, all pensions and social programs are based off of the premise that the next generation will be bigger then the previous. 

This is not quite true.  Companies have a reporting obligation to say how much their pension plans are funded.  I get a yearly statement from my former employer regarding the pension plan funding.  It is fully funded to account for all current and future retirees.  I was one of the lucky ones to retire when I did as the trade association eliminated the defined benefit pension plan in favor of an enhanced 401(k) plan two years after I retired.  Certainly there are some well known states such as Illinois that are very deficient in the funding of the plan for state employees. 

both Medicare and Social Security have trust funds that are paid into.  The problem with Medicare is Part A that covers hospitalization; this is the part that is in financial jeopardy.  Part B (doctor's visits) and Part D (prescription drugs) are not in trouble because Medicare enrollees pay monthly premiums for these two.  Part B is means tested and wealthier people pay more for their coverage (as I well know!!!!).  I don't know about Part D as I get my Rx benefit from my employer.  Social Security has been "fixed" several times since the inception to make it more financially stable.  One easy fix that could be done is to remove the cap on Medicare Social Security tax payments.  Right now any income over $127K is not taxed.  I used to always celebrate in July when I reached the cap and got an extra $100 or so in every pay check.

Alan

[Alan Goldhammer]

No one says the Norwegians aren't smart.  They did stay out of the EU.

Yes, they stayed out of the EU but there are a number of EU policies that they have to follow in return for preferential trade status with the EU.  The UK will also have to negotiate on some of this stuff if they want to maintain decent trade.  Brexit is not going to be a free lunch for the UK>

[JoeKitchen]

This is not quite true.  Companies have a reporting obligation to say how much their pension plans are funded.  I get a yearly statement from my former employer regarding the pension plan funding.  It is fully funded to account for all current and future retirees.  I was one of the lucky ones to retire when I did as the trade association eliminated the defined benefit pension plan in favor of an enhanced 401(k) plan two years after I retired.  Certainly there are some well known states such as Illinois that are very deficient in the funding of the plan for state employees. 

both Medicare and Social Security have trust funds that are paid into.  The problem with Medicare is Part A that covers hospitalization; this is the part that is in financial jeopardy.  Part B (doctor's visits) and Part D (prescription drugs) are not in trouble because Medicare enrollees pay monthly premiums for these two.  Part B is means tested and wealthier people pay more for their coverage (as I well know!!!!).  I don't know about Part D as I get my Rx benefit from my employer.  Social Security has been "fixed" several times since the inception to make it more financially stable.  One easy fix that could be done is to remove the cap on Medicare tax payments.  Right now any income over $127K is not taxed.  I used to always celebrate in July when I reached the cap and got an extra $100 or so in every pay check.

Alan

Okay, so maybe all was a little too generous. 

However, there are many pension plans that are based on this premise, and it is not going to end well.  We live in an aging population, and naturally born Americans are having much less kids.  With immigration how it is, I don't see this changing. 

Insofar as your fix for SS, that is one thing I would like to not see.  I pay ~15% for SS being self-employed, and that is always a big check to write out this time of year. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Insofar as your fix for SS, that is one thing I would like to not see.  I pay ~15% for SS being self-employed, and that is always a big check to write out this time of year.

We need enterprising young workers such as you to let me lead a life of luxury!!!  Seriously though, I sympathize with you as I have two daughters that are free lance workers and they also pay that 15%.  Social Security alone certainly doesn't allow one to lead a life of luxury in retirement.  When one takes out he Medicare premiums there is even less.  I really don't know how those who live on just Social Security alone manage things.

[Alan Klein]

This is not quite true.  Companies have a reporting obligation to say how much their pension plans are funded.  I get a yearly statement from my former employer regarding the pension plan funding.  It is fully funded to account for all current and future retirees.  I was one of the lucky ones to retire when I did as the trade association eliminated the defined benefit pension plan in favor of an enhanced 401(k) plan two years after I retired.  Certainly there are some well known states such as Illinois that are very deficient in the funding of the plan for state employees. 

both Medicare and Social Security have trust funds that are paid into.  The problem with Medicare is Part A that covers hospitalization; this is the part that is in financial jeopardy.  Part B (doctor's visits) and Part D (prescription drugs) are not in trouble because Medicare enrollees pay monthly premiums for these two.  Part B is means tested and wealthier people pay more for their coverage (as I well know!!!!).  I don't know about Part D as I get my Rx benefit from my employer.  Social Security has been "fixed" several times since the inception to make it more financially stable.  One easy fix that could be done is to remove the cap on Medicare tax payments.  Right now any income over $127K is not taxed.  I used to always celebrate in July when I reached the cap and got an extra $100 or so in every pay check.

Alan

The problem with pension plans are their funding is dependent on valuation of their investments.  If the economy takes a big hit again, and doesn't recover quickly, pension funds are really going to have problems.  They're higher invested in the market.   In NYS, its constitution requires that public pensions cannot be reduced by legislative action.  So theoretically, the state legislature has to cut everything else first before lowering our pensions and pay them out of the yearly budget.  But you never know.  This year is the 20th anniversary where NYS can review its constitution if the people vote for a review.  So naturally, the government unions are working very hard not to even have a convention, so scared they are of losing that constitutional protection.  Me too. 

By the way, I think you meant to say to remove the cap on Social Security.  There already is no cap on Medicare.  However, before you remove that cap, you know that the employer's cap also ends.  Since a business already has figured a person's salary in the costs to do business, any resultant increases in SS taxes the employee pays has no effect on the company.  However, since the company would have to match increases in social security, this would suddenly become a major cost increase in running their business that wasn't in the price of their products.  If Congress does it, it would have to be phased in to allow for adjustment.  But more taxes just hurts the economy even more.  A better way might be to increase the age to 67 from 66.  Or make all illegal immigrants citizens and encourage more immigration to increase SS deductions.  Someone has to pay for my SS.

[Alan Klein]

Yes, they stayed out of the EU but there are a number of EU policies that they have to follow in return for preferential trade status with the EU.  The UK will also have to negotiate on some of this stuff if they want to maintain decent trade.  Brexit is not going to be a free lunch for the UK>

That's true.  But you know sometimes you have to give something to get something.  Having the pride of running your own country and not having to turn over important decisions to the gnomes in Brussels means a lot too many people.  They want to be the captain of their own ship of state.  They want to feel that their democratic vote on how their country runs is not watered down or eliminated by foreigners concerned with their own wealth and power.  That self-sufficiency is worth a lot to many people. 

Freedom costs!

[Alan Goldhammer]

The problem with pension plans are their funding is dependent on valuation of their investments.  If the economy takes a big hit again, and doesn't recover quickly, pension funds are really going to have problems.  They're higher invested in the market.

The same thing happens with 401(k) plans and is also a key reason why I oppose privatization of Social Security.  I know some folks who were scheduled to retire in 2009-10 whose 401(k) portfolios were way too risky.  They didn't have enough money to retire on.  In the new economy, workers have to be much more savvy because defined benefit plans are a thing of the past. 

   In NYS, its constitution requires that public pensions cannot be reduced by legislative action.  So theoretically, the state legislature has to cut everything else first before lowering our pensions and pay them out of the yearly budget.  But you never know.  This year is the 20th anniversary where NYS can review its constitution if the people vote for a review.  So naturally, the government unions are working very hard not to even have a convention, so scared they are of losing that constitutional protection.  Me too.

I'm not sure if there are other states in the same position.   The workers are clearly worried that a promise will be broken.   

By the way, I think you meant to say to remove the cap on Social Security.

Yes, and I fixed it in the original post. 

  However, before you remove that cap, you know that the employer's cap also ends.  Since a business already has figured a person's salary in the costs to do business, any resultant increases in SS taxes the employee pays has no effect on the company.  However, since the company would have to match increases in social security, this would suddenly become a major cost increase in running their business that wasn't in the price of their products.  If Congress does it, it would have to be phased in to allow for adjustment.  But more taxes just hurts the economy even more.  A better way might be to increase the age to 67 from 66.  Or make all illegal immigrants citizens and encourage more immigration to increase SS deductions.  Someone has to pay for my SS.

I would not make the employer pay more Social Security tax as per your point, just the employee.  I think the age to take full retirement is going up to 67 for those born after 1960.  As to the immigrant issue, some illegal immigrants get EITN number and do pay taxes (there was a story on the radio about this about 18 months ago which was quite interesting).  The farm worker program in California that allowed Mexican nationals to work parts of the year in the fields did require the payment of Social Security even though the employees might not stay here long enough to gain citizenship and qualify for Social Security.

[Otto Phocus]

Insofar as pure capitalism, that has never existed, so there is really no examples to look at. 

Yet earlier in this thread you wrote

"I just find it crazy that if you look at history, capitalism worked the moment it was created, but pure socialism has yet to work in any country it has been applied to. "

Your story is not consistent.

[JoeKitchen]

Yet earlier in this thread you wrote

"I just find it crazy that if you look at history, capitalism worked the moment it was created, but pure socialism has yet to work in any country it has been applied to. "

Your story is not consistent.

In that quote, I did not use the phrase "pure capitalism," only "pure socialism."   

Nice try; read more thoroughly next time.  In all honesty, I wrote that quote with conscience and purposely avoided that phrase knowing it has never existed.  And if you don't believe that I would be careful with the words I use and consistent with their use, ask yourself why then did I use prefix the latter with pure but not the former? 

I think considering whenever a country is mostly socialistic, it fails, and whenever it is mostly capitalistic, it survives, proves my point. 

[Alan Klein]

...I would not make the employer pay more Social Security tax as per your point, just the employee...

Yes, I agree.  We should just keep squeezing them youngins as long as we get our Social Security.  Screw 'em. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... whenever a country is mostly socialistic, it fails, and whenever it is mostly capitalistic, it survives...

[Alan Goldhammer]

Interesting that Singpore is brought up.  They provide universal healthcare for all their 5M plus citizens.  they do so with some of the most stringent price controls on medical products and procedures.  Hardly the free market in this case!

[JoeKitchen]

Interesting that Singpore is brought up.  They provide universal healthcare for all their 5M plus citizens.  they do so with some of the most stringent price controls on medical products and procedures.  Hardly the free market in this case!

As does Cuba, but they lost so many good doctors due to the Wet Foot Dry Foot Policy and the now booming Paladars, where one can make more waiting tables then practicing medicine. 

Still, overall Cuba has dropped off of a cliff after it became mostly socialistic.  Did you know the average Cuban in the 1950s was just as wealthy as the average Southerner of the time.  After visiting in January, I would say they are far from that now. 

I tell you another thing about Cuba, it's quite annoying to do any night photography there.  More then a 1/3 of all the street lights don't work

[pegelli]

DPRK, Venezuela, Mao's China

Remember, I said pure, or near pure, socialism.

As Jeff has pointed out in his own posts, the Nordic countries are mostly capitalistic (even more so then the USA, although he did not explain how) with some markets socialized.

Neither of those three are pure or near-pure socialist (more communist dictatorships) as well as that in neither of them you see only shantytowns. For me this is more proof that pure or near pure socialistic states don't exist, just like there are no pure or near pure capitalistic states. There's very little black and white, but plenty shades of grey (more then 50 )

[JoeKitchen]

Neither of those three are pure or near-pure socialist (more communist dictatorships) as well as that in neither of them you see only shantytowns. For me this is more proof that pure or near pure socialistic states don't exist, just like there are no pure or near pure capitalistic states. There's very little black and white, but plenty shades of grey (more then 50 )

Okay, shades of grey, I agree. 

With that being said, I think it needs to be stated (for the benefit of this conversation, not a knock on you) that governance does not imply economic policy.  Yes, I know, civics is not very sexy, but maybe we should brush up on it. 

Just because a country is a dictatorship does not automatically rule them out of being socialist, nor any other economic policy; it's an erroneous red herring to bring it up. 

Socialism is defined as the government owning all and using central planning; the definition never mentions what type of government needs to be in place. 

Cuba is socialist and a dictatorship.  Venezuela is socialist, but a democracy.  (You could argue on the way to dictatorship since Maduro did jail his opponent over made up charges to keep him from winning.)  Hong Kong (prior to China rule) was a dictatorship, although benevolent, and capitalist. 

[Raul_82]

As does Cuba, but they lost so many good doctors due to the Wet Foot Dry Foot Policy and the now booming Paladars, where one can make more waiting tables then practicing medicine. 

Still, overall Cuba has dropped off of a cliff after it became mostly socialistic.  Did you know the average Cuban in the 1950s was just as wealthy as the average Southerner of the time.  After visiting in January, I would say they are far from that now. 

I tell you another thing about Cuba, it's quite annoying to do any night photography there.  More then a 1/3 of all the street lights don't work

A little correction here, the (now defunct) Wet Foot Dry Foot Policy is not the main reason why doctors leave. They leave because it's Cuba and it sucks, they also leave to other countries, not only the US.

 

[JoeKitchen]

A little correction here, the (now defunct) Wet Foot Dry Foot Policy is not the main reason why doctors leave. They leave because it's Cuba and it sucks, they also leave to other countries, not only the US.

The sad thing is there is such potential!  They are highly educated (better literacy rate then the USA) and healthy, great resources too. 

If ever Cuba reopens its stock market, I would certainly invest in the country. 

[Alan Klein]

Three good things regarding Cuba:

1. You need that free health care after the police beat the crap out of you for opening your mouth against the 55 year old Castro regime.

2. You also have an almost 100% literacy rate in the country.  Of course, if you try to read what you want they beat the crap out of you again.  See 1.

3.  there is no 3.  All you get is 1 and 2.