Inventing a Crisis

[DanS]

I think it depends a lot on the city. DC city real estate has gone up rather substantially.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
i assume Baltimore, Detriot, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Oakland, etc. all face similiar problems as Philadelphia.

Detroit definately. Baltimore? [i]possibly, but I hear it's making a comeback.

Chicago, Dallas, Houstan, are you outta your freakin' mind? Those markets are hot, Hot, HOT!

Don't know about Oakland.

Face it, Speery, Philly is a pit. It isn't a typical American city.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
i assume Baltimore, Detriot, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Oakland, etc. all face similiar problems as Philadelphia.

And Manhatten, Gepap? you're mentioning Manhatten? apples and oranges. of course there's some gentrifying or already wealthy areas where real estate values continually rise but for much of america, real estate has been plummeting for decades.

Real Estate everywhere in NYC is up signifcantly- Manhattan just leads the way, even in the poor neighborhoods of the island.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

huh? real estate in the city always goes up? it's been falling dramatically for the past 50+ years. and that's not even mentioning the inverse relationship between real estate values and property taxes. In a city like Philadelphia, real estate values have been plumeting continuously for decades in all but the gentrifying neighbourhoods all while property taxes have been raised to restore the balance.

even some parts of oakland are up. (east/north Oakland)

[Spiffor]

Privatizing retirement funds won't improve anything if your aim is to provide a decent income to the old who don't work anymore.

The rich and the upper-middle class can already save their money to add a very nice extra income by the time they're old. And the poor or lower-middle class won't be able to save what little taxes they pay for SS, meaning they'll spend their old age either at work, or in some charity for impoverished old.

The privatization of retirement funds doesn't restrict the part of the GDP that goes to the old. It just favors leaving the poor out of the system, and the rich to get more money.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
So Krugman is correct: the Social Security System itself is not the problem- its that the past few admins have raided the pension fund to finance their ideas.

obviously then the problem is raiding the pansion fund- massive restructuring of the fund, which will be very constly itself, won't actually solve the problem at all, which is Krugman's point.

Krugman is an economist. He understands that leaving assets in the fund is nothing more than draining the economy, and taking those assets out would be nothing more than injecting into the economy. Funds like this are not the same as private funds.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


of course I'll have money. ill invest the money that goes to SS (10% a year) into the stock market on the lowest performing least risk stocks, and by the time I retire, I can retire an millionaire.

@ libertarians

[Kidlicious]

Because in it's present incarnation it's a Ponzi scheme.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No one cares.

Nor should they.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
just like everything else though, GePap

You'll come up with reputable economist who say everything is alright

and

I'll come up with reputable economist who say it's the end of the world

No you won't.

all income tax should be elective anyway, everything else should be taxed based on use

:rollyes:

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DanS
Moving to private accounts won't change the basic demographic problem. It will just take the assets and liabilities off the government's books and put them onto the people's individual books.

What assets? It's a pay as you go system. Creating assets is going to have consequences. Some people are going to have to go without, so that others can have assets.

There are at least two reasons why it's a good idea to do private accounts anyway. The first is to cushion the impact of the basic demographic problem somewhat, since the private economy pays 2 or 3 percent better per annum on each dollar in saving than does the government. In this sense, part of the extra that you are paying now is to make up for the amount that the government is taking from you by forcing you in to a lower interest rate investment.

What's going to happen to interest rates when all of our social security is invested in the private sector? They will fall. Right not they aren't invested at all. They are used to finance current spending.

The second reason is that a private account will be a huge family asset. If a husband dies, then the widow or their kids will inherit what is in the private account. Research indicates that people see what would become forced retirement savings as an incentive to go to work rather than the current system where social security taxes are seen as a huge disincentive to go to work. There will be ways for poor people to leverage this asset to do things that were previously very difficult for them to do.

Maybe you don't know that widows get their husbands SS, and it doesn't matter how much he has put into it. And what research are you talking about. People work because they have to. Jeez.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap




Says someone who quotes from the National Review or the WSJ Editorial page and other such rags

Krugman is partisan- so what? Unless you can challenge the numbers, you got no case.

Sorry my ire should have been directed at the rag called the NYT for spotlighting his hackness.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by el freako
Well be carefull, it sounds like housing costs are outpacing incomes - and that situation is not sustainable long-term.
How much of the property market is driven by people such as yourself who are using this as a retirement vehicle? and what will happen to prices when they have finished making their investments?

So true. Housing costs are definitely outpacing incomes. The California housing market will stablize at best.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Originally posted by Kidicious


@ libertarians

im sorry, im not gonna sit on my ass all day and wait for someone to feed me or take care of me, the same person who can then claim that I owe them something.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Sorry my ire should have been directed at the rag called the NYT for spotlighting his hackness.

When you quote soley from the Christian Science Monitor, I might give a crap.

[Arrian]

CSM

-Arrian