Wealth of Nations

[Kharakov]

Hmm, yes, that would explain why it was in the chapter entitled "On the Expense of the Institutions for the Education of Youth".

Ah well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Enjoy your faith.

You can put lead in a kid's drinking water, and the goat will still be hilarious. Enjoy your brain.

 

[untermensche]

Are you seriously suggesting they don't exist?!?

I'm seriously suggesting the police lie. All the time.

Are you suggesting they don't?

It is about GIVING people freedom in their retirement. It is about adding a freedom to the lives of people.

"Giving"? This is Social Security we're talking about, not welfare. You have to pay into the program to be eligible, you have a personal account, and the more you pay the more you get back. So what they're "giving" you is your own money back. Without SS you were already free to save that money for retirement anyway, probably at a better rate of return. So that's not freedom they're giving you; that's security from making a stupid mistake that far too many people would make if the government didn't put a damper on short-sightedness. It's probably why they call the program "Social Security" and not "Social Freedom".

You are not collecting the money you put in. The money you put in is the same as paying for an insurance policy. A policy you begin collecting on at 65. And many people collect a lot more than they put in.

It is an inter-generational insurance plan.

And everybody who puts in collects. And they collect for as long as they live.

The biggest problem with the program was that when it was designed they thought that the wages of workers would increase as the economy grew, but wages for most have stagnated in real terms for over 40 years. Since SS relies on taxes from wages when wages stagnate the program stagnates as well.

The problem is the failure of wages to advance as the wealth of the nation advances and profits skyrocket. The problem is the economic system, not SS.

Good grief! This, from the guy who calls employees "the working slaves of others". Have you ever considered laying off the hypocrisy for a while?

Who is it that wants to get rid of SS? The average working guy? If he does he's a moron.

It's the rich that want to destroy the system. And perhaps their sycophants.

They want the only option for retirement to be to pump money into the caprice and corruption of Wall Street. They want to replace a system where everybody collects with a system where some collect a lot and some collect a very little. A rigged game.

Hmm, yes, that would explain why it was in the chapter entitled "On the Expense of the Institutions for the Education of Youth".

Maybe you should try reading the quote.

It begins:

The man whose whole life is spent...

Do you want me to believe that Smith thought men spent their WHOLE life in school?

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm seriously suggesting the police lie. All the time.

Are you suggesting they don't?

It is about GIVING people freedom in their retirement. It is about adding a freedom to the lives of people.

"Giving"? This is Social Security we're talking about, not welfare. You have to pay into the program to be eligible, you have a personal account, and the more you pay the more you get back. So what they're "giving" you is your own money back. Without SS you were already free to save that money for retirement anyway, probably at a better rate of return. So that's not freedom they're giving you; that's security from making a stupid mistake that far too many people would make if the government didn't put a damper on short-sightedness. It's probably why they call the program "Social Security" and not "Social Freedom".

You are not collecting the money you put in. The money you put in is the same as paying for an insurance policy. A policy you begin collecting on at 65. And many people collect a lot more than they put in.

It is an inter-generational insurance plan.

And everybody who puts in collects. And they collect for as long as they live.

The biggest problem with the program was that when it was designed they thought that the wages of workers would increase as the economy grew, but wages for most have stagnated in real terms for over 40 years. Since SS relies on taxes from wages when wages stagnate the program stagnates as well.

The problem is the failure of wages to advance as the wealth of the nation advances and profits skyrocket. The problem is the economic system, not SS.

Good grief! This, from the guy who calls employees "the working slaves of others". Have you ever considered laying off the hypocrisy for a while?

Who is it that wants to get rid of SS? The average working guy? If he does he's a moron.

It's the rich that want to destroy the system. And perhaps their sycophants.

They want the only option for retirement to be to pump money into the caprice and corruption of Wall Street. They want to replace a system where everybody collects with a system where some collect a lot and some collect a very little. A rigged game.

Hmm, yes, that would explain why it was in the chapter entitled "On the Expense of the Institutions for the Education of Youth".

Maybe you should try reading the quote.

It begins:

The man whose whole life is spent...

Do you want me to believe that Smith thought men spent their WHOLE life in school?

When SS was created there was a ratio of 16 workers for every 1 retired worker and now it's getting to to 3 to 1 and who knows in the future it might be 1 to 1. So we're getting to a point where we are mostly working to pay people not work and I think this burden will crush western society.

 

[bilby]

I'm seriously suggesting the police lie. All the time.

Are you suggesting they don't?

"Giving"? This is Social Security we're talking about, not welfare. You have to pay into the program to be eligible, you have a personal account, and the more you pay the more you get back. So what they're "giving" you is your own money back. Without SS you were already free to save that money for retirement anyway, probably at a better rate of return. So that's not freedom they're giving you; that's security from making a stupid mistake that far too many people would make if the government didn't put a damper on short-sightedness. It's probably why they call the program "Social Security" and not "Social Freedom".

You are not collecting the money you put in. The money you put in is the same as paying for an insurance policy. A policy you begin collecting on at 65. And many people collect a lot more than they put in.

It is an inter-generational insurance plan.

And everybody who puts in collects. And they collect for as long as they live.

The biggest problem with the program was that when it was designed they thought that the wages of workers would increase as the economy grew, but wages for most have stagnated in real terms for over 40 years. Since SS relies on taxes from wages when wages stagnate the program stagnates as well.

The problem is the failure of wages to advance as the wealth of the nation advances and profits skyrocket. The problem is the economic system, not SS.

Good grief! This, from the guy who calls employees "the working slaves of others". Have you ever considered laying off the hypocrisy for a while?

Who is it that wants to get rid of SS? The average working guy? If he does he's a moron.

It's the rich that want to destroy the system. And perhaps their sycophants.

They want the only option for retirement to be to pump money into the caprice and corruption of Wall Street. They want to replace a system where everybody collects with a system where some collect a lot and some collect a very little. A rigged game.

Hmm, yes, that would explain why it was in the chapter entitled "On the Expense of the Institutions for the Education of Youth".

Maybe you should try reading the quote.

It begins:

The man whose whole life is spent...

Do you want me to believe that Smith thought men spent their WHOLE life in school?

When SS was created there was a ratio of 16 workers for every 1 retired worker and now it's getting to to 3 to 1 and who knows in the future it might be 1 to 1. So we're getting to a point where we are mostly working to pay people not work and I think this burden will crush western society.

This could be a problem, but only if the ratio of average taxpayer disposable income to average SS payout remained, and remains, fairly constant. How have taxpayer disposable incomes changed since SS was introduced? Have SS payouts kept pace with those changes?

 

[coloradoatheist]

This could be a problem, but only if the ratio of average taxpayer disposable income to average SS payout remained, and remains, fairly constant. How have taxpayer disposable incomes changed since SS was introduced? Have SS payouts kept pace with those changes?

Not quite sure what you are asking, but the original tax was 1% and now it's 12% between employer and employee.

 

[bilby]

This could be a problem, but only if the ratio of average taxpayer disposable income to average SS payout remained, and remains, fairly constant. How have taxpayer disposable incomes changed since SS was introduced? Have SS payouts kept pace with those changes?

Not quite sure what you are asking, but the original tax was 1% and now it's 12% between employer and employee.

In 1937, when SS started, US real disposable personal income per capita in 2009 dollars was $6,990; In 2014 it was $37,407 (source). So if the same proportion of disposable income goes to SS in both years, the guy in 1937 supporting 1/16th of a retiree is suffering the exact same proportional imposition as a person in 2014 who is supporting 1/3rd of a retiree.

He is paying more dollars, even when we calculate using inflation adjusted 2009 dollars; but he is also earning more dollars, so he can afford it.

This burden that you worry will 'crush western society' is pretty much unchanged since 1937 as a proportion of the real disposable income of those who contribute. So your fears seem to be unfounded.

In simple terms, working Americans in 1937 were very poor, when compared to working Americans today. They could afford fewer luxuries - by a ratio of about 37:7 - which is rather more than 5:1. For every luxury an average working American could buy in 1937, his counterpart in 2014 could buy five of them, and still be better off.

He was tasked with supporting 1/16th of a retiree; his counterpart in 2014 can afford to support 5 times as many retirees, and still be better off; and 5 x 1/16 is about 1/3.

The maths is clear; SS is almost exactly as affordable in 1937 with a worker:retiree ratio of 1:16 as it is in 2014 with a ratio of 1:3.

A possible future ratio of 1:1 is still just as affordable, as long as US real disposable personal income per capita in 2009 dollars is around $111,840 by the time that point is reached.

Looking at the ratios of retirees:workers in different years is only showing us half the picture; we must also look at the ratio of disposable incomes in different years, if we are to judge the relative affordability of the scheme. When we do, the scheme turns out to be equally affordable in the two time periods; there is no crisis, nor even any cause for concern.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm seriously suggesting the police lie. All the time.

Are you suggesting they don't?

Of course they don't lie all the time. Only a character in a logic puzzle lies all the time. Some of the police lie some of the time. Some of the people the police say they arrested for crimes were actually committing those crimes. Some of the people who got arrested because they were committing crimes lie and say they weren't. Some of the people who got arrested because they were committing crimes admit it. See how it works? Why are you so committed to uttering ridiculous overgeneralizations? Do you feel it makes your arguments more convincing?

Do you claim that every one of the arrested people in my examples in post #140 was framed?

You are not collecting the money you put in. The money you put in is <rest of quibble snipped>

None of that addresses the point. People already had the freedom to buy analogous annuities privately if they chose to. We compel them to participate in SS because there are so many morons who won't make preparations for retirement.

And there is nothing compulsory about it. You are free to not work and therefore not pay anything.

Good grief! This, from the guy who calls employees "the working slaves of others". Have you ever considered laying off the hypocrisy for a while?

Who is it that wants to get rid of SS? The average working guy? If he does he's a moron.

Why do you keep trying to change the subject from your illogical claims? Nobody advocated getting rid of SS here. Or are you suggesting that if you make somebody do something that's good for him then it doesn't count as compulsory?

It's the rich that want to destroy the system.

Have you polled the rich on that, or did you just feel an uncontrollable urge to stereotype somebody again because you'd let eight seconds go by since the last time you did it?

Hmm, yes, that would explain why it was in the chapter entitled "On the Expense of the Institutions for the Education of Youth".

Maybe you should try reading the quote.

Maybe you should try reading the quote in context.

It begins:

The man whose whole life is spent...

Do you want me to believe that Smith thought men spent their WHOLE life in school?

What on earth gave you that silly notion? Do you want me to believe that you think spending your whole life in activity A is the only way to avoid spending your whole life in activity B? Has it occurred to you that Smith could have thought education would give people skills and habits that would let them keep their minds sharp? When a guy goes home from his non-mentally-taxing job he can read the newspaper, provided at some point we took the trouble to teach him to read.

 

[laughing dog]

Has it occurred to you that Smith could have thought education would give people skills and habits that would let them keep their minds sharp? When a guy goes home from his non-mentally-taxing job he can read the newspaper, provided at some point we took the trouble to teach him to read.

That was Smith's entire point. Smith realized that the division of labor helped to numb the minds of labor. So, education should be subsidized in order to prevent that outcome. See http://egwestcentre.com/2005/03/11/adam-smith-on-education/ for elucidation on this subject.

 

[untermensche]

Do you want me to believe that Smith thought men spent their WHOLE life in school?

What on earth gave you that silly notion? Do you want me to believe that you think spending your whole life in activity A is the only way to avoid spending your whole life in activity B? Has it occurred to you that Smith could have thought education would give people skills and habits that would let them keep their minds sharp? When a guy goes home from his non-mentally-taxing job he can read the newspaper, provided at some point we took the trouble to teach him to read.

What gave me that notion was your refusal to read the quote in the full context of the book and Smith's moral thinking.

The quote describes how the division of labor is harmful to many people trapped in a capitalist economy.

And yes, they are harmed by the educational system that prepares humans to be non-thinking tools of others.

Today of course we have many more harms.

From not even having a job or the hopes of finding one to becoming a victim of the for-profit prison system.

Massive economic crashes due to malfeasance not punished and the destruction of the environment.

 

[arkirk]

How can one be serious about a system that relies on a mystical "invisible hand?" That is about as absent as Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War or our current plans to regain the position of "shining city on the hill." Smith was bullshit and not the worth the trouble of rubbing a couple of his sticks together to make fire.

 

[bilby]

How can one be serious about a system that relies on a mystical "invisible hand?" That is about as absent as Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War or our current plans to regain the position of "shining city on the hill." Smith was bullshit and not the worth the trouble of rubbing a couple of his sticks together to make fire.

Contrary to what the US right-wing claim for Adam Smith, his ideas do not rely on a mystical "invisible hand".

The "invisible hand" claim is a very powerful metaphor for "I have no clue what Smith actually said, but I support/oppose* it anyway".

Perhaps you should leaf through a copy before you chuck it on the fire.














*Delete as applicable

 

[laughing dog]

How can one be serious about a system that relies on a mystical "invisible hand?" That is about as absent as Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War or our current plans to regain the position of "shining city on the hill." Smith was bullshit and not the worth the trouble of rubbing a couple of his sticks together to make fire.

Smith helped revolutionize they way people viewed economic policy in the late 18th century. Smith showed that the "Wealth of Nations" was the well-being of the people and that increased production of goods and services not the accumulation of precious metals was the best way to increase the "Wealth of Nations". The world was much different then than it is today. Regardless of what one may think of the applicability of Smith's views in today's world, it is a mistake to dismiss his importance to the economic and intellectual history of the world.