A “defined benefit” pension could pay out immediately, especially for early retirees.
Anyways, I think we’re using “insurance” a different way than FDR’s phrase “social insurance.” He envisioned it working more like a pension that you don’t get if you die early.
And what in the world is a “real” default? You think governments send out press releases saying, “Today, we screw you over by disowning our debts!”
To “default” on a debt or bond is any of the following games:
–delaying, stretching, suspending debt payments
–swapping old bonds for new bonds
–debt “restructuring”
–adding more restrictions/limitations on redemption that were not there at origination
–printing money at high velocity to pay the “face value” of the debt
–…any dozen other creative accounting tricks I can’t think of at the moment.
The end result is all the same: the people holding the bond are screwed out of the anticipated value of the debt repayment.
For example, let’s look at the wording from Russia’s 1998 financial crisis (the debt default):
"(iii) a temporary 90-day moratorium would be imposed on the payment of some bank obligations, including certain debts and forward currency contracts[6]. "
Only a simpleton child who reads things literally would insist that, “Russia didn’t default, they simply enacted a moratorium!”
No, the USA isn’t going to just plainly say, *“well, we’re out of money and therefore we default on our debt!” *
Of course not. The USA will play the same “debt restructuring” game using obtuse language that all the other governments use. However, the investors holding the debt know it’s a default on the debt regardless of the weasel wording you put around it.
The threat of USA debt is real and has central bankers from around the world (e.g. China and Japan) worried about it.
You may not be able to recognize a “real” default (whatever that is), but those central bankers and other investors can.
I have a defined benefit pension from when I worked at AT&T. If it buys me a newspaper a month I’ll be happy. But you didn’t qualify for it immediately, and the payout depends on your salary during the time you worked. I don’t know of any pensions that pay you if you work for a month and then retire - but I also don’t discount the stupidity of businesses and politicians.
However, as I said Social Security is more like a pension, with different initial conditions from the usual since it had a different purpose than normal pensions. Which is why it has always paid from current revenue, like insurance policies - not counting reserves, which both things have.
Exactly. If I default on my mortgage, the bank doesn’t get the money in a different form, they get zippo. The holders of those bonds could have used the money to buy gold - except it was no longer allowed, which was the point. Do you think holders of those bonds could have legally written off a single penny of loss? If not, then it was no default.
Here is the wiki definition. You didn’t list violating the terms of a covenant in your list. These things done unilaterally probably could be considered as default, but not done through agreement with lenders.
Default or violation of contract? But certainly something like requiring a notarized signature for redemption, while annoying, is not default.
Nope. Inflating the money supply can be done for reasons other than devaluing debt. A company who borrows and then repays after a period of high inflation is not defaulting. I got to do that for my college loans.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
For example, let’s look at the wording from Russia’s 1998 financial crisis (the debt default):
[/quote]
I don’t remember disputing that the Russians defaulted. I won’t dispute that California (temporarily) defaulted when it issued scrip. The North Koreans defaulted also.
If international bankers considered any form of default on US debt the slightest bit possible, there would be a run on the dollar. There is of course concern about inflation, but no one expects inflation at the level of the early 1980s, and I’d need a pretty solid cite to even think that was a condition of default. In fact money few to the dollar when there was concern about Greece defaulting, and thus weakening the Euro.
The Fed has already announced the process of taking money out of the system when that is needed. IIRC, that got greeted warmly by Wall Street. I’d love to see some cites (not coming from right wing paranoids) discussing anything that could be considered a restructuring of the US debt.
And nothing you have said in the slightest way supports the position that the US defaulted in 1933.
The better analogy is that Voyager offers Voyager-tokens as substitute for money. The determination of the equivalency between Voyager-tokens and money is at Voyager’s discretion.
This is a bizarre circular reasoning for dismissing the meaning of “default.” You’re saying that the very government that *defines *the allowable deductions for losses as the reason that government can say it’s not a loss because of changing the redemption rules?
You seem to be hung up on hyper-exact definitions of words like “default” instead of understanding the equivalent scenarios that are interpreted as default.
For example, the phrasing, “inflating the money supply to ‘default’ on the debt” is not uncommon. It is used here:
“It is not literally impossible that the Federal Reserve could unleash the Zimbabwe option and repudiate the national debt indirectly through hyperinflation, rather than have the Treasury repudiate it directly.”
We have a 5-4 split decision about this debt repayment game. The other 4 justices were just idiots writing about nothing?
Justice McReynolds, writing on behalf of the four dissenting justices, left no doubt about their view:
• “The enactments here challenged will bring about the confiscation of property rights and repudiation of national obligations.”
• “The holder of one of these certificates was owner of an express promise by the United States to deliver gold coin of the weight and fineness established.”
• “Congress really has inaugurated a plan primarily designed to destroy private obligations, repudiate national debts, and drive into the Treasury all gold within the country in exchange for inconvertible promises to pay, of much less value.”
Out of thousands of words to pull out of thesaurus or dictionary, Justice McReynolds chooses the word “repudiate.” Why did he do that? Because he’s a uneducated drooling idiot that doesn’t understand the English language? Any creative game to lower the value of a debt is a “default” in the eyes of investors. If it walks like duck, talks like duck, it’s a duck-default.
You’re relying on exact literal definitions of “default” and government weasel words to make the case that USA has never defaulted and will not default in the future.
I’m sorry to say I was not clever enough to see where you were going with this. I propose we debate something really useful, like the existence of Bigfoot instead.
If I was the owner of the company town, and my scrip has always been good, and my scrip can be converted into scrip good in other company towns, people would for the most part be happy to get it. I don’t know about accounting principles back then, but did any company write off a loss due to this on their books? If there was an actual loss, they’d be obligated to, no matter what the tax implications were.
I agree, the Fed could destroy the economy through hyper-inflation. Other likely possibilities are that Obama was really born in Kenya and that Sarah Palin will someday say something that makes sense. Or that JFK could have been assassinated by space aliens. I do not deny the presence of paranoia on the right.
Yes, we know the court was not happy with the New Deal. You must think the five judges who were the majority are drooling idiots, right? 70 years of economic progress has shown us that the economy can do quite well not being tied to gold. And while they repudiated one method of payment, they did not default - otherwise, show me the loss.
Irrelevant if buyers expected gold, cattle, wheat or whatever instead of scrips when they bought the debt. Now, take away the gold, and pay in scrips at the future date of bond maturity in which the scrips are worth less than their equivalence in gold at the time you decided to rewrite the rules. Nice.
My explanation was not about predicting the immediate possibility of inflation. I was simply listing an example of a “default” that may not APPEAR as a default to the naked eye.
Likewise, if I say a plague that kills half the children would be categorized as a “tragedy”, it does not mean a plague will sweep the nation tomorrow or ever.
My comments have nothing to do with staying on or off the gold standard. I don’t believe staying on the gold standard has any meaning anyways since the govt can always lie about the amount of gold in Ft. Knox or add numerous restrictions on conversion which renders “gold standard” meaningless.
The “loss” can be seen using economics 101:
–Issue a bond payable in money or gold in 1930.
–The gold equivalence in that bond buys at the time buys 100 loaves of bread.
–Government finances are running thin so issue a resolution in 1933 to remove the gold redemption.
–Pay the bond with money (“face” value) but only has have enough “real” value to buy 90 loaves of bread.
–The “loss” is 10 loaves of bread.
Ok, forget the 5 justices in favor and the 4 in dissent. Let’s say all 9 of them are stupid idiots. Let’s talk about the bondholders bringing the lawsuits against the government? What exactly are they complaining about? Are they complaining because they’re getting wealthier from the 1933 deal?
I think a better equivalence is if you promised pay to them in marijuana, only to have it be made illegal. Since the price of gold was fixed at the time, I’m not sure if it is true that the money there were given was any different from the price they were promised. They would be able to buy exactly the same goods with it. Now, after Nixon let gold float would be another story.
The value of things fluctuate all the time. If you are being paid in Euros, and the price of the Euro drops relative to your home currency, you have a loss but not an instance of a default.
Only if the government was responsible. Deliberate hyperinflation would look like a default, but it just isn’t a realistic possibility. There are well known problems with gold backed currency, and those real problems outweigh by far the remote possibility of hyperinflation. The gold standard did not prevent the Depression, and I’d much prefer some mild inflation to that. We now have far more flexibility in managing the economy through the Fed, and a much more stable economy thanks to it.
Now I’m confused as to what you are going for. Is it that big a deal that the investors did not get their gold.
Do you have a cite showing that the bondholders suffered a real loss, given that the price of gold was fixed back then? In 1933 this was radical economics, and I can’t really fault the investors for wanting the security they had expected. But that doesn’t mean they suffered an economic loss.
And sure the government could lie about Fort Knox - unless someone saw them removing gold. They can lie about the deficit. They can lie about tax revenue. So can companies.
Let Republicans run things for long enough and anything is possible. Of course they’ll blame the government as if it weren’t them, and say that they’d have done it right but some evil left winger on a message board somewhere forced them not to.
Then they’ll celebrate for having starved the beast.
Even the GOP wouldn’t default on US debt.
Unless it was right at the end of a GOP president’s term in a cynical move because the GOP knew that after five minutes of the Democratic prez’s term everybody would forget who defaulted and blame the Democratic guy for the ensuing catastrophe. And that’d give the next GOP prez nominee the opportunity to run on a platform of fiscal prudency and budget balancing and allow him to call the Democratic guy a huge-spending huge-deficit-creating disaster.
Well, I guess I’m a cynic. I don’t believe in a just world at all. I believe people are inherently selfish, even the ones who do their best to be good, like me. The only reason I care about people is because it makes me feel good and I want to create a world where I am less likely to be homeless on the street. I always see myself in other people–I have too much empathy. People are selfish. Especially in cases where survival is at stake, and that’s what I look at this problem as: an issue of survival.
It’s also an issue of people being terrible at predicting the consequences of their actions and failing to grasp things like long-term happiness vs. short-term gratification. Social psychologists have noted this trend in people for a long time. We make decisions against our own best interest on a regular basis, and we’re terrible at predicting what is going to make us happy in the long-term. We all do it, even successful people. That’s why there are so many threads on the straight dope that warrant the admonition not to ‘‘stick your dick in the crazy.’’ As long as there are people on this earth, they will be sticking their dicks in the crazy.
Then there is the phenomenon of learned helplessness. If you’ve never actually been helpless, maybe it’s hard to grasp how you can generalize your helplessness in one circumstance to life in general, but it’s certainly possible–psychologist Martin Seligman discovered that years ago. People like to call that ‘‘entitlement,’’ but I don’t see it that way. People do what they know. And since educational opportunities are so limited in some parts, the odds of even being exposed to alternate ideas about how to live life are dramatically reduced.
The fundamental problem I have with conservativism is that many conservatives fail to see the way in which their environment contributed to their successes. Sure, give yourself credit for your hard work, your ingenuity, your perseverance, but ignore that book you happened to stumble across that changed your understanding of finance, or that uncle who taught you how to invest, or whatever. Assume that everyone has equal access to that information or those opportunities to utilize it.
Some of us born into bad situations, like myself, who happen to be academically talented or supported intellectually in some way, or who enjoy any number of other advantages which many people lack, some of us manage to get ahead. We have advantages we rarely think about, like that guy who hooked us up with our first job or that book we read or whatever, and some of us decide that everyone else should be able to do it too. (Those are the conservatives I personally have the hardest time with–the ones who should know better.)
Now THIS I can get behind, because frankly, I don’t think liberals really want to help the poor either. Policy hasn’t really moved on this issue in a long time.
Let’s look at a dramatic change in our social welfare system – the shift from AFDC to TANF under the ‘‘Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Act’’ of 1996. (A Clinton administration piece of legislation.) Gone are the days when people can just live off the system forever, and gone are the days where single parents can sit on their lazy ass all day and do nothing while they rake in dollars from the government. Now benefits have a lifetime limit and they are explicitly tied to employment requirements or job training requirements (sorry, if you were hoping to go to college, that doesn’t count.)
This piece of legislation succeeded in dramatically altering our social welfare system both ideologically and structurally. It decentralized the federal government by giving more power to the states. It slashed the amount of people on welfare rolls nearly in half.
What did it do, then for our poverty rates? Basically nothing.
So why didn’t it work? It certainly increased the incentive for people to get jobs, since without them, they would be homeless. And yet, people are still poor… and most of the people who are poor are employed. Why is this?
Most people who don’t have much never had a chance of getting it. That’s what YOU don’t get. We, the hard workers who got lucky and raised ourselves out of poverty, we are the minority not because we have better character but because we were lucky. There is a cap on how hard you can work, and plenty of rich people and poor people alike meet that cap every day. The idea that people who make 100x more than the poor are working 100x harder is not very rational.
And no, I don’t think wages must necessarily be directly proportional to hardness of work. It’s not wealth inequality that bothers me, per se, it’s poverty, and the fact that there are huge swaths of people dying earlier, watching their babies die earlier, living in the streets due to mental illness, at a higher risk of being victimized by any number of social problems, that is not right in a country where I can own three computers. I think it should be fair enough that everyone who works can have a reasonable standard of living. I don’t care whether you make that happen through liberal or conservative legislation, I don’t care whether you deconstruct our entire government and build it over from scratch, just fucking do it.
Interesting book I read by an economist named Joseph Hacker, called ‘‘The Great Risk Shift.’’ It’s about how risk used to be shared in this country, but the shift of our economy to service-based industries, among other things, has contributed a significant portion of the employer’s risk onto the employee. So instead of secured pensions we have 401(k)s. Instead of building a career at one company, we have a mobile and volatile labor market, one where the employer has all the bargaining power and the employee is pretty much at the whim of that volatile market.
According to Hacker, ONE HALF of the people in this country are going to experience poverty at least once in their lifetime–and that is excluding college students who usually look poor on paper. It also accounts for factors like level of education that might skew the results. Gone are the days when having a good education protected you from economic disaster. And remember, our current poverty rate of 14% or whatever is based on a poverty line calculated in the 1960s that does not even begin to reflect the current economic reality of most people today.
The simple fact of the matter is this. Throughout history, economic productivity and median family income growth have been pretty much neck and neck --in fact, representing those values on a graph they would basically be a single line.
In the 1970s, incidentally, around the same time as the conservative backlash to the War on Poverty came into being, economic productivity has begun to significantly outperform median family income growth. Take a gander at this chart and you tell me something hasn’t changed.
You seriously think this growth is because wealthy people are working harder? I don’t even understand the logic on this one. Something has happened to the structure of our economy. You talk about how offended you are by the notion of ‘‘redistributing the wealth’’ but you don’t get that this is EXACTLY what conservatives have been doing for decades.
Talk all you want about how the wealthy ‘‘deserve’’ all that wealth – we’ve got a very real problem on our hands. Family income is not increasing, even though the average number of hours worked per household has increased significantly due to women entering the workforce. Cost of living is rising and wages are not. Families are forced to take on increasing amounts of financial risk to try to stay afloat. This imaginary world where working hard = financial stability no longer exists. Oh, and we’ve got a massive federal deficit.
So, Starving, when you say you long for better days, I have to admit, excluding the whole ‘‘racism’’ and ‘‘sexism’’ thing, I agree with you. Our economic system is a lot more risky than it used to be. As a current graduate student slated to enter the labor force, thinking about having children, trying to save for retirement, I find this absolutely terrifying. Shit-my-pants terrifying.
So what do we do? Our middle class are becoming the new poor. What do we do?
Even I don’t think they’d intend to, but the Captain of the Titanic didn’t mean to hit that iceberg either. "But the Chicago School said this wouldn’t happen, and they can’t be wrong, so it’s not our fault… "</whine>
It seems to me, a non politician/pundit, that no matter what you think of the truth of the story or the people in it, it seems smart to couch it in terms that don’t make you look like you’re trying to be callous or throwing blame. How about something like “I sympathize with this woman, and think that the system has obviously failed her. However, I simply do not think that Obama’s plan will do anything to help her. Let’s find a plan that’ll work for her and all Americans.” Or, as a pundit: “What happened to this woman is terrible. You’ll see more of it if Obama’s plan passes. How about <policy X, Y, and Z> that’ll actually get this woman what she needs instead of draining her dry?”
It’s not like default would sneak up on anybody. There’d be very high and increasing interest rats, huge tax increases etc. long before any default situation and it still wouldn’t happen because the long term result of default, borrowing from the rest of the world at punitive rates in their own currencies, [$]500-1000 a barrel oil etc. would cost America even more. Even if the government remained deadlocked and refused to put taxes up or cut spending we’d never get anywhere near a default situation due to bond vigilantes, peace be upon them.
Like the great conservative financial pro ,Bernie Madoff said, " all I needed was a couple more years". He was ripping off everybody and as he aged, he was thinking’ I just might get away with this".
Paulson gathered an 800 million dollar personal fortune off the questionable market creations. He knew he was selling insurance he could not pay (swaps). Then instead of being drawn and quartered, he was put in charge of fixing the mess. His first move was incredibly bold, get himself put in charge of the whole treasury, make it so nobody could oversee him and his staff, and make sure he was protected from the law. He damn near pulled it off.
Why do I not trust them? They are looters of the highest order. How about 3 strikes and out for some of those pimps?
Well, I think that many of those responses are examples of (i) compassion fatigue (many on the left love trotting out someone to pull the heartstrings and justify increasing the role of government, and this gets tiresome after a while) and (ii) showing how the left doesn’t ever think about the role of government, they just see a bad situation and think “the government must do something.” Also, the conservatives quoted in the article are entertainers, by and large, so they are trying to get a rise out of people.
First part: I don’t think “increasing the role of government” is necessarily the direct purpose. As I mentioned in your Pit thread, there are many out there (including, of course, many mentioned in my link) who deny that there is any problem at all with the health care and insurance system as they stand today. These stories serve two purposes: to refute that, and to make the claim that these stories are common enough that they warrant action of some kind. The point they’re trying to make, I think, is that if you get “compassion fatigue” from hearing that kind of story SO OFTEN, maybe that says something about the state of affairs as they are today.
As for the second part, part of entertainment is “giving the people what they want.” If that many entertainers of that kind of prominence are approaching the situation the same way, is it not reasonable to conclude that their audience (or at least a significant part of it) also approach the situation the same way? (To try to make sure I’m clear, I’m talking specifically about a combination of number of pundits, the prominence each has individually within their community, and the reach each has within said community.)
If you can come up with a solution to the 45,000 deaths every year from lack of health coverage that doesn’t involve government, I’d be very interested to hear it.
