Archived from groups: soc.culture.usa,rec.photo.digital,rec.video.desktop,alt.woodworking,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/ [...] &position=

"The fight over Social Security is, above all, about what kind of society we
want to have. But it's also about numbers. And the numbers the privatizers
use just don't add up.
Let me inflict some of those numbers on you. Sorry, but this is important.

Schemes for Social Security privatization, like the one described in the
2004 Economic Report of the President, invariably assume that investing in
stocks will yield a high annual rate of return, 6.5 or 7 percent after
inflation, for at least the next 75 years. Without that assumption, these
schemes can't deliver on their promises. Yet a rate of return that high is
mathematically impossible unless the economy grows much faster than anyone
is now expecting.

To explain why, I need to talk about stock returns. The yield on a stock
comes from two components: cash that the company pays out in the form of
dividends and stock buybacks, and capital gains. Right now, if dividends and
buybacks were the whole story, the rate of return on stocks would be only 3
percent.

To get a 6.5 percent rate of return, you need capital gains: if dividends
yield 3 percent, stock prices have to rise 3.5 percent per year after
inflation. That doesn't sound too unreasonable if you're thinking only a few
years ahead.

But privatizers need that high rate of return for 75 years or more. And the
economic assumptions underlying most projections for Social Security make
that impossible.

The Social Security projections that say the trust fund will be exhausted by
2042 assume that economic growth will slow as baby boomers leave the work
force. The actuaries predict that economic growth, which averaged 3.4
percent per year over the last 75 years, will average only 1.9 percent over
the next 75 years.

In the long run, profits grow at the same rate as the economy. So to get
that 6.5 percent rate of return, stock prices would have to keep rising
faster than profits, decade after decade.

The price-earnings ratio - the value of a company's stock, divided by its
profits - is widely used to assess whether a stock is overvalued or
undervalued. Historically, that ratio averaged about 14. Today it's about
20. Where would it have to go to yield a 6.5 percent rate of return?

I asked Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, to help
me out with that calculation (there are some technical details I won't get
into). Here's what we found: by 2050, the price-earnings ratio would have to
rise to about 70. By 2060, it would have to be more than 100.

In other words, to believe in a privatization-friendly rate of return, you
have to believe that half a century from now, the average stock will be
priced like technology stocks at the height of the Internet bubble - and
that stock prices will nonetheless keep on rising.

Social Security privatizers usually defend their bullishness by saying that
stock investors earned high returns in the past. But stocks are much more
expensive than they used to be, relative to corporate profits; that means
lower dividends per dollar of share value. And economic growth is expected
to be slower.

Which brings us to the privatizers' Catch-22.

They can rescue their happy vision for stock returns by claiming that the
Social Security actuaries are vastly underestimating future economic growth.
But in that case, we don't need to worry about Social Security's future: if
the economy grows fast enough to generate a rate of return that makes
privatization work, it will also yield a bonanza of payroll tax revenue that
will keep the current system sound for generations to come.

Alternatively, privatizers can unhappily admit that future stock returns
will be much lower than they have been claiming. But without those high
returns, the arithmetic of their schemes collapses.

It really is that stark: any growth projection that would permit the stock
returns the privatizers need to make their schemes work would put Social
Security solidly in the black.

And I suspect that at least some privatizers know that. Mr. Baker has
devised a test he calls "no economist left behind": he challenges economists
to make a projection of economic growth, dividends and capital gains that
will yield a 6.5 percent rate of return over 75 years. Not one economist who
supports privatization has been willing to take the test.

But the offer still stands. Ladies and gentlemen, would you care to explain
your position?"

Archived from groups: soc.culture.usa,rec.video.desktop,alt.woodworking,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Tom Joad wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/ [...] &position=
>

....

shhhh

Archived from groups: soc.culture.usa,rec.photo.digital,rec.video.desktop,alt.woodworking,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Tom Joad" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:Xb6dnTlEFpxklmLcRVn-ig@comcast.com...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/ [...] &position=
>
> "The fight over Social Security is, above all, about what kind of
> society we want to have. But it's also about numbers. And the numbers
> the privatizers use just don't add up.
> Let me inflict some of those numbers on you. Sorry, but this is
> important.
>
> Schemes for Social Security privatization, like the one described in
> the 2004 Economic Report of the President, invariably assume that
> investing in stocks will yield a high annual rate of return, 6.5 or 7
> percent after inflation, for at least the next 75 years. Without that
> assumption, these schemes can't deliver on their promises. Yet a rate
> of return that high is mathematically impossible unless the economy
> grows much faster than anyone is now expecting.
>
> To explain why, I need to talk about stock returns. The yield on a
> stock comes from two components: cash that the company pays out in the
> form of dividends and stock buybacks, and capital gains. Right now, if
> dividends and buybacks were the whole story, the rate of return on
> stocks would be only 3 percent.
>
> To get a 6.5 percent rate of return, you need capital gains: if
> dividends yield 3 percent, stock prices have to rise 3.5 percent per
> year after inflation. That doesn't sound too unreasonable if you're
> thinking only a few years ahead.
>
> But privatizers need that high rate of return for 75 years or more.
> And the economic assumptions underlying most projections for Social
> Security make that impossible.
>
> The Social Security projections that say the trust fund will be
> exhausted by 2042 assume that economic growth will slow as baby
> boomers leave the work force. The actuaries predict that economic
> growth, which averaged 3.4 percent per year over the last 75 years,
> will average only 1.9 percent over the next 75 years.
>
> In the long run, profits grow at the same rate as the economy. So to
> get that 6.5 percent rate of return, stock prices would have to keep
> rising faster than profits, decade after decade.
>
> The price-earnings ratio - the value of a company's stock, divided by
> its profits - is widely used to assess whether a stock is overvalued
> or undervalued. Historically, that ratio averaged about 14. Today it's
> about 20. Where would it have to go to yield a 6.5 percent rate of
> return?
>
> I asked Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, to
> help me out with that calculation (there are some technical details I
> won't get into). Here's what we found: by 2050, the price-earnings
> ratio would have to rise to about 70. By 2060, it would have to be
> more than 100.
>
> In other words, to believe in a privatization-friendly rate of return,
> you have to believe that half a century from now, the average stock
> will be priced like technology stocks at the height of the Internet
> bubble - and that stock prices will nonetheless keep on rising.
>
> Social Security privatizers usually defend their bullishness by saying
> that stock investors earned high returns in the past. But stocks are
> much more expensive than they used to be, relative to corporate
> profits; that means lower dividends per dollar of share value. And
> economic growth is expected to be slower.
>
> Which brings us to the privatizers' Catch-22.
>
> They can rescue their happy vision for stock returns by claiming that
> the Social Security actuaries are vastly underestimating future
> economic growth. But in that case, we don't need to worry about Social
> Security's future: if the economy grows fast enough to generate a rate
> of return that makes privatization work, it will also yield a bonanza
> of payroll tax revenue that will keep the current system sound for
> generations to come.
>
> Alternatively, privatizers can unhappily admit that future stock
> returns will be much lower than they have been claiming. But without
> those high returns, the arithmetic of their schemes collapses.
>
> It really is that stark: any growth projection that would permit the
> stock returns the privatizers need to make their schemes work would
> put Social Security solidly in the black.
>
> And I suspect that at least some privatizers know that. Mr. Baker has
> devised a test he calls "no economist left behind": he challenges
> economists to make a projection of economic growth, dividends and
> capital gains that will yield a 6.5 percent rate of return over 75
> years. Not one economist who supports privatization has been willing
> to take the test.
>
> But the offer still stands. Ladies and gentlemen, would you care to
> explain your position?"
>
>

I don't know why you insist on sending this dribble to this site. You
obviously can't read and/or understand what you do read as if you were
capable of reading and understanding things that you read, you would
know with out any doubt that this site (rec.photo.digital) is for
discussing digital cameras not a Social Security debate forum. Your
issue and your thoughts about it are perfectly valid but PLEASE do it
in the proper forum not this one. Please respect this forums concept and
purpose and place you political agenda at the forums that probably
abound in great numbers that are more appropriate for your topic.

Thanks,

Ken Miller

Archived from groups: soc.culture.usa,rec.video.desktop,alt.woodworking,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Kenneth Miller wrote:
> "Tom Joad" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:Xb6dnTlEFpxklmLcRVn-ig@comcast.com...
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/ [...] &position=
>>
>> "The fight over Social Security is, above all, about what kind of
>> society we want to have. But it's also about numbers. And the numbers
>> the privatizers use just don't add up.
>> Let me inflict some of those numbers on you. Sorry, but this is
>> important.
>>
>>

shhhhh

Archived from groups: soc.culture.usa,rec.photo.digital,rec.video.desktop,alt.woodworking,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Tom Joad" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:Xb6dnTlEFpxklmLcRVn-ig@comcast.com...
>
> "The fight over Social Security is, above all, about what kind of society
> we

This has nothing to do with digital photography, which is where I'm reading
it. So why don't you take your 6Kb of drivel and stick it up your arse.

Archived from groups: soc.culture.usa,rec.photo.digital,rec.video.desktop,alt.woodworking,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

What about the mice? Its a little know fact, but mice are
anti-communist. They are slowly eating away at the Social Security.
As the rodent population grows in the world, more money is needed to
spend to feed people because mice are eating everything. Hell, theyre
eating everyones Social Security checks causing constant reissues.
Government employees are going missing every day, persumably in the
belly of large packs of mice. The longer the Social Security exists,
the larger the mouse population will continue to grow. Now really,
who would perfer to be ruled by mice so that Social Security can
continue.

This can all be validated by watching "An American Tail" of coarse.
Mice are strongly anti-communist and really hate stuff like Social
Security and Food Stamps.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:56:23 -0800, "Tom Joad" <nospam@nospam.nospam>
wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html?pagewanted=print&position=
>
>"The fight over Social Security is, above all, about what kind of society we
>want to have. But it's also about numbers. And the numbers the privatizers
>use just don't add up.
>Let me inflict some of those numbers on you. Sorry, but this is important.
>
>Schemes for Social Security privatization, like the one described in the
>2004 Economic Report of the President, invariably assume that investing in
>stocks will yield a high annual rate of return, 6.5 or 7 percent after
>inflation, for at least the next 75 years. Without that assumption, these
>schemes can't deliver on their promises. Yet a rate of return that high is
>mathematically impossible unless the economy grows much faster than anyone
>is now expecting.
>
>To explain why, I need to talk about stock returns. The yield on a stock
>comes from two components: cash that the company pays out in the form of
>dividends and stock buybacks, and capital gains. Right now, if dividends and
>buybacks were the whole story, the rate of return on stocks would be only 3
>percent.
>
>To get a 6.5 percent rate of return, you need capital gains: if dividends
>yield 3 percent, stock prices have to rise 3.5 percent per year after
>inflation. That doesn't sound too unreasonable if you're thinking only a few
>years ahead.
>
>But privatizers need that high rate of return for 75 years or more. And the
>economic assumptions underlying most projections for Social Security make
>that impossible.
>
>The Social Security projections that say the trust fund will be exhausted by
>2042 assume that economic growth will slow as baby boomers leave the work
>force. The actuaries predict that economic growth, which averaged 3.4
>percent per year over the last 75 years, will average only 1.9 percent over
>the next 75 years.
>
>In the long run, profits grow at the same rate as the economy. So to get
>that 6.5 percent rate of return, stock prices would have to keep rising
>faster than profits, decade after decade.
>
>The price-earnings ratio - the value of a company's stock, divided by its
>profits - is widely used to assess whether a stock is overvalued or
>undervalued. Historically, that ratio averaged about 14. Today it's about
>20. Where would it have to go to yield a 6.5 percent rate of return?
>
>I asked Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, to help
>me out with that calculation (there are some technical details I won't get
>into). Here's what we found: by 2050, the price-earnings ratio would have to
>rise to about 70. By 2060, it would have to be more than 100.
>
>In other words, to believe in a privatization-friendly rate of return, you
>have to believe that half a century from now, the average stock will be
>priced like technology stocks at the height of the Internet bubble - and
>that stock prices will nonetheless keep on rising.
>
>Social Security privatizers usually defend their bullishness by saying that
>stock investors earned high returns in the past. But stocks are much more
>expensive than they used to be, relative to corporate profits; that means
>lower dividends per dollar of share value. And economic growth is expected
>to be slower.
>
>Which brings us to the privatizers' Catch-22.
>
>They can rescue their happy vision for stock returns by claiming that the
>Social Security actuaries are vastly underestimating future economic growth.
>But in that case, we don't need to worry about Social Security's future: if
>the economy grows fast enough to generate a rate of return that makes
>privatization work, it will also yield a bonanza of payroll tax revenue that
>will keep the current system sound for generations to come.
>
>Alternatively, privatizers can unhappily admit that future stock returns
>will be much lower than they have been claiming. But without those high
>returns, the arithmetic of their schemes collapses.
>
>It really is that stark: any growth projection that would permit the stock
>returns the privatizers need to make their schemes work would put Social
>Security solidly in the black.
>
>And I suspect that at least some privatizers know that. Mr. Baker has
>devised a test he calls "no economist left behind": he challenges economists
>to make a projection of economic growth, dividends and capital gains that
>will yield a 6.5 percent rate of return over 75 years. Not one economist who
>supports privatization has been willing to take the test.
>
>But the offer still stands. Ladies and gentlemen, would you care to explain
>your position?"
>

Archived from groups: soc.culture.usa,rec.photo.digital,rec.video.desktop,alt.woodworking,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <a0vuv09bvnmgvllbsek3l1b4id3av5vscq@4ax.com>,
Iamevil@noaddress.net says...
> Subject: Re: More truth about Social Security
> From: Anymous <Iamevil@noaddress.net>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa, rec.photo.digital, rec.video.desktop, alt.woodworking, rec.photo.equipment.35mm
>
> What about the mice? Its a little know fact, but mice are
> anti-communist. They are slowly eating away at the Social Security.
> As the rodent population grows in the world, more money is needed to
> spend to feed people because mice are eating everything. Hell, theyre
> eating everyones Social Security checks causing constant reissues.
> Government employees are going missing every day, persumably in the
> belly of large packs of mice. The longer the Social Security exists,
> the larger the mouse population will continue to grow. Now really,
> who would perfer to be ruled by mice so that Social Security can
> continue.
>
> This can all be validated by watching "An American Tail" of coarse.
> Mice are strongly anti-communist and really hate stuff like Social
> Security and Food Stamps.
>

The answer is clear then, invest your own money in Warfin mouse baits.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com

Archived from groups: soc.culture.usa,rec.video.desktop,alt.woodworking,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Des Perado wrote:
> "Tom Joad" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:Xb6dnTlEFpxklmLcRVn-ig@comcast.com...
>>
>> "The fight over Social Security is, above all, about what kind of
>> society we
>
> This has nothing to do with digital photography, which is where I'm
> reading it. So why don't you take your 6Kb of drivel and stick it up
> your arse.

and trim the to line, while you're at it

Archived from groups: soc.culture.usa,rec.video.desktop,alt.woodworking,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Anymous wrote:
> What about the mice? Its a little know fact, but mice are
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Archived from groups: soc.culture.usa,rec.video.desktop,alt.woodworking,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <a0vuv09bvnmgvllbsek3l1b4id3av5vscq@4ax.com>,
> Iamevil@noaddress.net says...
>> Subject: Re: More truth about Social Security
>> From: Anymous <Iamevil@noaddress.net>
>>

ssssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh