Another crash in 2012? Any thoughts?

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]Yes, start by seizing all the assets of everyone on Wall Street. (Ignore the fact that more than 99.999% of them have broken no laws.)

Let’s start with Rich T. – he’s one of them investment guys, right? I hear he makes good money trading and hedging and all that fancy stuff that causes booms and busts. Hell, the bubble didn’t even put a dent in his income – just look at that chart!

Of course, now that there’s no Wall Street, there’s no place for CalPERS or CalSTRS to put their money, so there’s no growth which means the shortfalls are now gonna be ten times bigger.

And since the public-sector employees have already taken a cut it wouldn’t be right to take any more from them, so we’ll have to go to Wall Street…oh shit we just took all the Wall Street money but still need lots more – so where we gonna get the money to pay Park Ranger Smith her $70K a year for life? (after all, she just turned 50 – you don’t expect her to still have to work the entry kiosk at Anza Borrego, do you?)

(hint: it’s taxpayers).[/quote]

Firstly, I’m not talking about Rich. He had nothing to do with causing the financial crisis. As a matter of fact, he was trying to warn everyone about it well before the “housing bubble” issue became mainstream. I also have made 100% of my income from investments, so am clearly not biased against *everyone* in the financial industry. That being said, there is no question that what many “investors” (including myself) do is completely unproductive and simply takes money from the more productive part of the economy.

No, not *everyone* on Wall Street, but you’re naive to think that only .001% knew what was going on.

Let’s start with those who absolutely knew what they were doing. Their actions are already well documented by multiple investigators and journalists. The only reason they are still sailing around the world on their yachts and making *record* profits is because they have corrupted our legal system. Start with those first.

CalPERS and CalSTRS are capable of making money without having to use massive leverage and without having to take on enourmous risks. Yes, yields would be lower, contribution rates would be higher, and benefit amounts would be lower. I have no problem with that at all. But in a world like that, there would also be far less asset price appreciation (the least productive, but most lucrative, type of income). This would make workers’ paychecks go much further than they do now, and it would have the added benefit of reducing the wealth disparity that is causing so many of our economic and social problems.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]CAR,

Before going any further with the “get the money from Wall Street” argument, please provide a short list of names of people who should “lose everything and then some.”

Along with their names, give an estimate of their net worth.

I’ll bet you a fireman’s pension that you that you can’t come up with a list of people that “deserve to lose everything” whose combined net worth equals even half of the public-sector pension shortfalls in the US.

In other words, “Wall Street” doesn’t have enough money to “give back” even if you took every single cent of it.

But please do try – but no fudging!

This can help you get started:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/54/400list08_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

You may have to click a few times before you find any evil Wall Street types.

(BTW: It seems that many of those awful “one-percenters” are computer types – do you use any of their products?)

I look forward to you demonstrating your “above average” knowledge of economics and finance.[/quote]

Pri_dk,

Have you ever managed to debate a topic without resorting to childish and completely unproductive personal attacks? I ignored the first attack on this thread, but you make it extremely difficult to have a civil, fact-based discussion about things when you keep trying to attack posters personally vs. staying on topic. It shows that you are incapable of making an intelligent argument.

Unless you can show us why you feel you’re so much more “knowledgeable” than everyone else here regarding economics, I suggest you try to stick to facts and logic to make your point.

[CA renter]

dup

[CA renter]

“The government’s $182 billion bailout of insurance giant AIG should be seen as the Rosetta Stone for understanding the financial crisis and its costly aftermath.

The five-member COP, chaired by Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, has produced the most devastating and comprehensive account so far. Unanimously adopted by its bipartisan members, it provides alarming insights that should be fodder for the larger debate many citizens long to hear—why Washington rushed to forgive the very interests that produced this mess, while innocent others were made to suffer the consequences. [including public employees who had NOTHING to do with causing the financial crisis -CAR]”

http://www.thenation.com/article/153929/aig-bailout-scandal

Check this book out:

http://www.tradersnarrative.com/bailout-nation-by-barry-ritholtz-book-review-2602.html

………………….

CEO’s at the top banks and financial institutions are some of the highest paid executives in the country. A recent study found that bailed-out executives received nearly $1.6 billion in compensation last year. Here’s a list of CEO compensation for the top recipients of the bailout funds:

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4923233

……………

Again, I never said that seizing the assets of those responsible would cover 100% of the pension fund losses, just that they should take the hit before anyone else does. Why would you belive otherwise?

[CA renter]

More, but not sure whether or not this has been updated recently:

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/bankbailout/

…………..

A conservative estimate of California’s pension shortfall is ~$500 billion, and that’s coming from those who want to dismantle the public pension plans.

Why are the most vicious attacks directed at public employees who had nothing to do with causing the crisis vs. those who DID cause the crisis? Think there might be some intentional manipulation of public thinking going on?

I’ll bet you a fireman’s pension that dismantling every public union in the country would not result in material savings for Joe Sixpack the taxpayer. The attacks on public unions are not directed by taxpayer advocates; they are directed by private interests who would benefit from getting govt contracts and private control of public resources and services — those who would be taking money/resources OUT of the local economy and public control (the money would be going to corporations and executive compensation — which can be spent anywhere in the world and would likely be used to buy up more assets, further reducing workers’ purchasing power) vs. money being recirculated in local states/communities via govt-employed local workers.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Firstly, I’m not talking about Rich. He had nothing to do with causing the financial crisis.[/quote]

But he profited from it (and many of us admire him for doing so, btw.)

[quote]there is no question that what many “investors” (including myself) do is completely unproductive and simply takes money from the more productive part of the economy.[/quote]

You believe that? Wow.

[quote]No, not *everyone* on Wall Street, but you’re naive to think that only .001% knew what was going on.[/quote]

So simply “knowing what was going on” is the crime? You mean like Rich (see above) and most of the other folks here?

[quote]Let’s start with those who absolutely knew what they were doing. Their actions are already well documented by multiple investigators and journalists.[/quote]

Can you name any names? Do you have any actual FACTS? Or just vague references to “investigators?”

And now that the “journalists” have found the bad guys for us, exactly what legal principle do we use to take all of their wealth? (as you have suggested as a solution.)

[Anonymous]

CAR,

You really need to learn a little more about the numbers before you start spouting them off. “A $182 billion dollar bailout” does not mean that Uncle Sam transferred that money to some executive’s private account. In most cases, the “bailout” represents loan guarantees for the investors (which likely includes CalPERS/CalSTRS, BTW) that must be paid back (And in many cases they already have – with a PROFIT to the taxpayers.)

So your examples are completely bogus.

Pension payments, however, are DIRECT payments from the government, TO INDIVIDUALS. They will never be paid back. And there are many hundreds of billions of dollars that need to come from somewhere.

If you want to claim we can collect that much money simply by taking it from individual Wall Street folks (and only the bad ones, of course) then give us some names (i.e. provide some FACTS, not links to tangential articles.)

Let’s see a short list of actual names with a simple sum of the amounts we seize from them. If you can’t provide that, then please give up, because up to now your arguments are hopelessly weak and repetitive.

Or perhaps your plan all along is to get the money from the bogey man?

[CA renter]

Let’s point the accusatory finger in the other direction for a moment.

Social Security (which most public employees who have public pension plans to not participate in) is a much bigger problem than the public pension plans. Why should public employees bail YOUR Social Security system out?

If you feel so strongly about not having publicly-backed retirement systems, put your money where your mouth is and fight against the SS system.

How many Piggs would give up their Social Security in exchange for public employees giving up their retirement plans?

They are essentially the same thing: employers pay a share, employees pay a share, add in some magic investment income and recipients get a defined benefit. The only difference is that public pensions are EARNED as a part of the employees’ compensation packages, they are negotiated for, and employees give up other types of compensation in order to get their pensions — it’s a form of deferred compensation. Social Security is not “earned,” it’s an insurance program, and recipients were not asked to sacrifice one type of compensation in order to get SS.

[sdrealtor]

Ummm…SS is essntially an entitlement program. Last time I checked the max benefits were around 20K per year and to get that you as an individual fund much more than that to support those on the lower end of the wage scale. I dont see people collecting better than 60% of pre-retirement income on SS. I dont see deep 4 figure monthly checks coming out of SS either. Apples and oranges.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]CAR,

You really need to learn a little more about the numbers before you start spouting them off. “A $182 billion dollar bailout” does not mean that Uncle Sam transferred that money to some executive’s private account. In most cases, the “bailout” represents loan guarantees for the investors (which likely includes CalPERS/CalSTRS, BTW) that must be paid back (And in many cases they already have – with a PROFIT to the taxpayers.)

So your examples are completely bogus.

Pension payments, however, are DIRECT payments from the government, TO INDIVIDUALS. They will never be paid back. And there are many hundreds of billions of dollars that need to come from somewhere.

If you want to claim we can collect that much money simply by taking it from individual Wall Street folks (and only the bad ones, of course) then give us some names (i.e. provide some FACTS, not links to tangential articles.)

Let’s see a short list of actual names with a simple sum of the amounts we seize from them. If you can’t provide that, then please give up, because up to now your arguments are hopelessly weak and repetitive.

Or perhaps your plan all along is to get the money from the bogey man?[/quote]

Perhaps YOU ought to do some research, Mr. Financial Genius. Pension benefits are absolutely NOT direct payments from the government/taxpayers to individuals. The only portion paid for by taxpayers are the employers’ share of the contribution amounts.

Once again, taxpayers DO NOT make benefit payments to retirees. Get your facts straight before you make yourself look like an even bigger idiot.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Social Security (which most public employees who have public pension plans to not participate in) is a much bigger problem than the public pension plans. Why should public employees bail YOUR Social Security system out?[/quote]

I don’t think that taxes should be raised to make up for any Social Security shortfalls. If there is a shortfall, I believe retirement eligibility ages should be raised and benefits should be cut (and yes I am aware that this scenario will very likely impact my personal payments.)

Plus, like sdr said, the contribution and benefit ratios of Social Security vs. most public pensions are so dramatically different, it really is an “apples and oranges” comparison.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Once again, taxpayers DO NOT make benefit payments to retirees. Get your facts straight before you make yourself look like an even bigger idiot.[/quote]

Read my words. The ones you highlighted in bold.

I said pension payments are payments from the government to the individuals. I did not say they were payments from taxpayers to individuals.

I did say that taxpayers are on the hook to make up the (massive) shortfalls.

(Or are you trying to claim that a check that comes from CalPERS is not coming from the government? So I guess grandma’s Social Security check doesn’t come from the government either…)

The issue here is the shortfall and who is going to pay for it.

I’m still waiting on the details of your proposed “take it from Wall Street” solution…

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Ummm…SS is essntially an entitlement program. Last time I checked the max benefits were around 20K per year and to get that you as an individual fund much more than that to support those on the lower end of the wage scale. I dont see people collecting better than 60% of pre-retirement income on SS. I dont see deep 4 figure monthly checks coming out of SS either. Apples and oranges.[/quote]

That’s because SS is an **entitlement/insurance program** vs. deferred **compensation** that was earned.

Not only that, but public employees (especially the public employees who get the “generous” benefits everyone likes to whine about) and their employers contribute **far more** to their retirement plans than SS recipients and their employers do.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Once again, taxpayers DO NOT make benefit payments to retirees. Get your facts straight before you make yourself look like an even bigger idiot.[/quote]

Read my words. The ones you highlighted in bold.

I said pension payments are payments from the government to the individuals. I did not say they were payments from taxpayers to individuals.

I did say that taxpayers are on the hook to make up the (massive) shortfalls.

(Or are you trying to claim that a check that comes from CalPERS is not coming from the government? So I guess grandma’s Social Security check doesn’t come from the government either…)

The issue here is the shortfall and who is going to pay for it.

I’m still waiting on the details of your proposed “take it from Wall Street” solution…[/quote]

You are trying to imply that *taxpayers* are paying direct benefits to public retirees, and nothing could be further from the truth. The money in the pension plans is set aside specifically for retirement benefits. It is not part of the General Fund or any other funding source used by the govt. It does not belong to “taxpayers,” as it is already allocated for a specific purpose.

If there are shortfalls, public employers **and employees** will have to make larger contributions to their retirement plans.

If public employers have to make greater contributions, that will be used in negotiations to take more from the employees. There is no reason to think that taxpayers will be 100% responsible for the shortfalls.

Again, are you (and everyone else) willing to give up Social Security in exchange for a 100% self-directed retirement plan with NO social safety net in the event of huge losses or other unforeseen circumstances? Public sector workers don’t want to bail out your retirement system any more than you want to bail theirs out.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]Ummm…SS is essntially an entitlement program. Last time I checked the max benefits were around 20K per year and to get that you as an individual fund much more than that to support those on the lower end of the wage scale. I dont see people collecting better than 60% of pre-retirement income on SS. I dont see deep 4 figure monthly checks coming out of SS either. Apples and oranges.[/quote]

That’s because SS is an **entitlement/insurance program** vs. deferred **compensation** that was earned.

Not only that, but public employees (especially the public employees who get the “generous” benefits everyone likes to whine about) and their employers contribute **far more** to their retirement plans than SS recipients and their employers do.[/quote]

I contribute about 15% of my gross income. What do public employees contribute. The problem with their “employers” contributing far more than SS recipients is exactly the problem. We the taxpayers are their employers so not only do we pay for our retirements via Social Security but we pay for theirs too via taxes.

I would gladly give up SS if I could self direct the money I contribute every year.

[Author]

Posts