Tweet
Sorry, I meant to say SA. (though you could include its neighbours)
That's only because your reference point is Belgium
(In non-PPP-adjusted terms)
-
Sure, but then the other OPEC members (including some of its neighbors) would starve worse than would Russia. They would pump as much as possible to compensate, killing the quotas and leaving SA to get crappier prices for its oil.
Hey, Belgium is big stuff! Its economy is almost as large as Russia's!
(In non-PPP-adjusted terms)Last edited by DanS; June 22, 2004, 20:18.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891 -
Yeah well, they're never going to be swing producers either.Originally posted by DanS
Sure, but then the other OPEC members (including some of its neighbors) would starve worse than would Russia.
Yeah well, maybe PPP isn't all that great and we should stick to exchange rates.Hey, Belgium is big stuff! Its economy is almost as large as Russia's!
(In non-PPP-adjusted terms)DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.Comment
-
Just read this in the paper. The German opposition (CDU/CSU and FDP) is furious about the administration's budget for 2005 because it plans to sell govt stakes in Deutsche Telekom and Deutsche Post to cover part of the deficit that year. Eichel defends the plan stating it's necessary because there's no alternative, as the opposition previously blocked plans to decrease subsidies and tax deductions.
This is the reform-minded opposition you're counting on Dan?DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.Comment
-
Throw out Schroeder. See how CDU/CSU does. If they don't turn things around either, then try SPD. Repeat as necessary.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Here's an interesting commentary in the WaPo about social security (i.e., public pensions) in the US and how the demographics are stacking up. Like the UN Population Division, apparently the Social Security managers go with a lower immigration and fertility figure than has been demonstrated recently. On the other hand, I've read that they understate longevity, although I haven't confirmed this myself.
By Thomas J. Healey
Friday, June 25, 2004; Page A29
Social Security is in dire straits and must be fixed now. How many times have we heard that refrain from government leaders and bipartisan commissions? To be sure, strengthening the Social Security system has become a national priority, driven by the common perception that the system cannot survive in its current form and that dramatic measures such as an increase in payroll taxes, a rollback in future benefit payments or the introduction of personal investment accounts are the only workable remedies.
It may come as something of a surprise, then, to learn that the Social Security program, which pays benefits to 47 million Americans, has actually shown significant financial improvement in recent years. How can that be in the face of so many doomsday forecasts? Consider:
• In their latest report, released in March, the Social Security trustees estimate that the system's trust funds (its pool of assets from which benefits are paid) will not be exhausted until 2042. This is 13 years later than the 2029 depletion date envisioned in the trustees' 1997 report. The Congressional Budget Office report on Social Security earlier this month showed a similar direction.
• In like fashion, the estimated year in which Social Security's annual benefit obligations begin to exceed its tax revenue has also receded, from 2012 in the 1997 trustees' report to 2018 in the most recent accounting.
• A crucial indicator known as the "actuarial balance" (the difference between the program's income and cost expressed as percentage of payroll) has fallen from a deficit of 2.23 percent in 1997 to 1.92 percent today.
• In 1997 it appeared that Social Security would go bust before the last of the baby boomers had retired. Now the youngest boomer will be 78 by the projected depletion date, which means the system as it stands will be able to cover the bulk of the baby boomers' benefits. In 1997 this was not expected to be the case.
What does this mean in terms of the long-range health of Social Security, once described by President Bush as "the single most successful program in American history"? Is the prognosis not nearly as bleak as the public has been led to believe?
The honest answer is that no one knows. After an increasingly pessimistic outlook for Social Security in the early 1990s -- which intensified calls for reform -- there has been a noticeable improvement in the past seven years. This trend can be traced in large part to favorable economic factors in which real wages grew significantly (reflecting the dramatic increase in productivity) and the unemployment rate declined significantly (to less than 5 percent). The cumulative effect was more and better paid workers remitting payroll taxes, hence greater surpluses for Social Security.
If the tide seems to have turned in Social Security's favor, no one can say with certainty whether the improvements are permanent. Indeed, looking at a relatively short seven-year period may lead to incorrect conclusions about the pattern of long-term changes in the actuarial projections. If we are truly interested in ensuring the future viability of a program on which so many millions of Americans depend, we must search for more fundamental answers based on a thorough analysis of the long-term assumptions around key demographic and economic indicators, and the uncertainty inherent in these assumptions.
One of those indicators is the anticipated reduction in the worker-to-beneficiary ratio -- the steamroller behind Social Security's projected deficits. (The lower the ratio, the fewer workers available to support the system and the heavier the burden each worker must bear.) The Social Security actuaries project a permanent drop in the number of workers per beneficiary from its current level of 3.3 to 2.0 by 2040, and ultimately to 1.9. Most of the decline takes place from 2013 to 2030 as baby boomers retire.
How reliable, though, can such long-term projections be given the historical variability in fertility rates and immigration levels, both of which have an enormous impact on the worker-to-beneficiary ratio? While birthrates showed significant variation in the 20th century, Social Security projections are based on a conservative, "below-replacement" rate over the next 75 years. Likewise, the level of immigration assumed by the government over that period is well below current levels. Given that immigration is in large part under government control, any program that increases immigration levels should increase the worker-to-beneficiary ratio, helping to offset projected Social Security deficits.
Complex though these issues are, they must be at the heart of any national debate over the future viability of Social Security. The recent strengthening of the system's financial vital signs is encouraging, but it should also serve to reinforce the inherent uncertainty of long-term actuarial projections and encourage vigilance to keep Social Security sound. It's in this context that the modest changes Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan recently suggested to Congress -- to index the age at which retirement benefits are paid and rethink the inflation measure used to adjust those payments -- should be seriously considered. Before we make any dramatic changes to forestall an impending Social Security crisis, let's make sure we know just how broke the existing program really is.
The writer is a retired partner of Goldman Sachs and a senior fellow at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. He was assistant Treasury secretary under President Ronald Reagan.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Here's the assumptions. I find the intermediate assumptions rather conservative.
Table II.C1.—Ultimate(1) Values of Key Demographic and Economic Assumptions
(1) Ultimate values are assumed to be reached within 5 to 25 years. See chapter V for details.
Ultimate assumptions (I) Intermediate (L) Low Cost (H) High Cost
Total fertility rate (children per woman) : (I) 1.95; (L) 2.2; (H) 1.7
Average annual percentage reduction in total age-sexadjusted death rates from 2028 to 2078: (I) .71; (L) .33; (H) 1.24
Annual net immigration (in thousands) : (I) 900k; (L) 1,300k; and (H) 672.5
Annual percentage change in:
Productivity (total U.S. economy) : (I) 1.6; (L) 1.9; (H) 1.3
Average wage in covered employment: (I) 3.9; (L) 3.4; (H) 4.4
Consumer Price Index (CPI): (I) 2.8; (L) 1.8; (H) 3.8
Real-wage differential (percent): (I) 1.1; (L) 1.6; (H) .6
Unemployment rate (percent): (I) 5.5; (L) 4.5; (H) 6.5
Annual trust fund interest rate (percent): (I) 5.8; (L) 5.5; (H) 6.0Last edited by DanS; June 25, 2004, 13:51.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Here's an FT article regarding German unemployment benefits. It's a real shame that Germany didn't take the opportunity to do this when the unemployment rate was relatively low (as the US did in the 90s). Also, the terms of this revised unemployment insurance don't seem to make sense to me -- i.e., unlimited duration but a pitifully small amount. Lastly, it seems like opening up labor to greater competition is the proper thing to do -- the unemployment problem is incidental to the employment problems, not the other way around.
But overall, and over the long run, it is important that people work where they can get work. This will help some.
Regarding the job creation, that seems silly to me.
Germany to slash unemployment benefit
By Hugh Williamson in Berlin
Published: July 9 2004 13:42 | Last Updated: July 9 2004 13:42
Germany's upper house of parliament adopted the most radical overhaul of the country's jobless benefits system in 50 years on Friday.
The measures, to come into effect next January, will mean benefit cuts for many of Germany's long-term unemployed, and increased pressure on them to accept work.
They are a central pillar of the chancellor Gerhard Schröder's controversial Agenda 2010 economic reform package. Wolfgang Clement, economics and labour minister, said the changes were necessary because the "present employment policies had been alarmingly unsuccessful, despite the enormous expenditure" on jobless benefits and employment-creation schemes.
The changes mark a break with Germany's traditional insurance-based benefit system, whereby jobless benefits are linked to previous earnings. People who are unemployed for over a year receive 40-50 per cent of their previous net wages for unlimited periods.
From next year such long-term unemployed people will only be eligible for a flat-rate benefit called unemployment benefit II, worth €345 a month in west Germany and €331 in the east.
They will receive extra allowances for housing and children, and there are transitional top-up payments, but overall benefit levels will be set the level of social assistance, the lowest of Germany's welfare payments.
Access to unemployment benefit II will be means-tested, so those with significant savings or partners who are working may receive little or no money. Employment offices will also be able to withhold benefits if jobless people refuse employment offers.
Welfare groups attacked the changes on Friday. Adolf Bauer, president of the SoVD social welfare alliance said the measures were a "deep cut into the welfare state" that would leave 565,000 unemployed people with no benefits from January onwards, and an additional 979,000 with reduced benefits.
The six eastern German regional states either voted against or abstained during the upper house vote, due to concerns that local authorities in their regions would not be compensated fairly for administering the new benefits.
Unemployment rates are also higher in eastern than western Germany.
The changes were adopted by the parliamentary lower house last week.
The government fears a new wave of protests later this year as the significance of the changes sink in. Unemployment remains Germany's most pressing economic and social problem, with 4.37m without work, according to seasonally adjusted figures for June published this week.
In a move to reduce the impact of the changes, the cabinet is expected to use a two-day retreat starting on Friday evening in a castle near Berlin to launch job-creation programmes involving around 400,000 posts for the youngest and oldest unemployed people.
Trade unions and left-wing members of the chancellor's Social Democrats complained that most employees who have built up years of unemployment insurance contributions will, from 2006 onwards, only be eligible for one year of earnings-related benefits if they become jobless.
Mr Clement said the changes were necessary to ease the financial burden on the welfare state, and to provide incentives for the jobless to find work. He said parallel measures to improve supervision and support for job seekers would cut the jobless total by 15-20 per cent.
He said the ratio of job centre staff to unemployed people would be increased, in order to facilitate quicker job placements. The ratio for jobless people under 25 years old would be 1:75 from next January onwards, he said, compared with around 1:300 today.Last edited by DanS; July 9, 2004, 12:38.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Reducing jobless benefits may put more pressure on the jobless to get jobs, but it doesn't mean that there will be jobs for them to get. They need to make legal reforms that will encourage risk taking by entrepreneurs and the sources of money that fund them.“It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of ManComment
-
Or make it easier to hire and fire people (like the US). Don't know how the Japanese do it, but it doesn't seem like they are an entrepreneurial society.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
I finally found an answer to the question about optimal skyscraper height on another forum in a post by our very own
Smiley.
Elevator technology is the limiting factor. That is why buildings have been getting taller but not being built with more floors since the 1920s.
With current elevator tech, 80 floors is height of maximum profitability for a full-floorplate building. Above around 60 floors, elevator space usage increases faster per floor than new floorspace is being added at the top. Buildings go up to 80 because higher floors can sell for more.
Residential buildings should be able to go up higher, due to their lower ceilings and less frequent and less concentrated elevator usage, but for some reason they don't.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Does anybody have Sten's contact information, since he doesn't come around here anymore? I would like to ask him for an informational interview regarding securities analysis.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
I guess you tried to email him with the address he gave poly, huh?Originally posted by DanS
Does anybody have Sten's contact information, since he doesn't come around here anymore? I would like to ask him for an informational interview regarding securities analysis.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Dan, try contacting George, he has Sten's phone number.
BTW, regarding Russia and oil: I always thought Russia doesn't have the potential to be swing producer, but I hadn't expect them to start shutting down their biggest oil firm either.
DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.Comment
-
Kid: I'll check that out. It didn't occur to me.
Colon: Thanks! I owe him a call anyway.
Re Russia, they're really screwing this one up, aren't they? On the other hand, the government is showing that they won't be bullied by the captive business interests.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
--"Re Russia, they're really screwing this one up, aren't they? On the other hand, the government is showing that they won't be bullied by the captive business interests.'"
yea, so they'll cook up charges and tear a multibillion dollarra company with the largest tax bill apart. REAL SMART, but hey, even Russians say, Rossiju umom neponiat
Originally posted by Serb:Please, remind me, how exactly and when exactly, Russia bullied its neighbors?
Originally posted by Ted Striker:Go Serb !
Originally posted by Pekka:If it was possible to capture the essentials of Sepultura in a dildo, I'd attach it to a bicycle and ride it up your azzes.Comment
Comment