# Fantastic Anti-Boomer Website



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

It's called Generational Helots.

It explores how the Boomers "voted themselves a leisurely retirement, not to be paid for by slaves but by their descendants."

A post on how John Edwards' idea of "mandatory service" is an unabashed call for state-regulated slavery.

Another post quoting PJ O'Rourke:



> Social Security is a government program with a constituency made up of the old, the near old and those who hope or fear to grow old. After 215 years of trying, we have finally discovered a special interest that includes 100 percent of the population. Now we can vote ourselves rich.


As a member of the generation that was nearly aborted out of existence and is therefore _*half*_ the size of the Boomers, who is expected (at gunpoint) to pay for an ever-growing Social Security boondoggle, plus Medicare, and now prescription drugs (whose prices are inflated due to ever-lengthening patents), a victim of the Boomer Student Loan Plan ("Let's make them the first generation in history to pay for their own educations!"), and the Boomer Housing Price Plan ("Let's artificially expand mortgage credit and triple housing prices!"), all I can say is: _bravo_.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Interesting site. I plan to explore it a tad. The Boomers are the best example yet of de Tocqueville's famous quote. I have to say, I too have noticed that retirement planning commercial where the Boomers are told how they "changed everything". I think most generations feel that way, they are just the first one that have been able to enshrine their _hubris_ and never reach the level of maturity needed to understand their youthful _hubris_ was just that.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Phinn,

Thanks for posting. Made my day. 

Cheers


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I will gladly take my SS payments in a lump sum with modest interest. I attended University on the G.I.Bill, the 50% savings of my enlistedman's pay part time work during the semesters and 60 hour weeks in the summer. My one modest student loan was paid off in full within one year of graduation. I've been told repeatedly university educated, military veteran white men over 6' are the top of our social heap. If thats true, I want all the people who iinsulted my service, my ethnicity and now my age to divy up. Most of them are snivelling Gen X kids expecting a beemer from mom and dad.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav said:


> I will gladly take my SS payments in a lump sum with modest interest. I attended University on the G.I.Bill, the 50% savings of my enlistedman's pay part time work during the semesters and 60 hour weeks in the summer. My one modest student loan was paid off in full within one year of graduation. I've been told repeatedly university educated, military veteran white men over 6' are the top of our social heap. If thats true, I want all the people who iinsulted my service, my ethnicity and now my age to divy up. Most of them are snivelling Gen X kids expecting a beemer from mom and dad.


I promise to stop snivelling if that Beemer shows up! It will be a far cry from providing the sole family car at 16, after working all summer and September to buy it, like I did.

I'll take the best of the 700 series please....

Kav, Viet Nam vets are one of the small groups of Boomers that truly gave some service to this country. I applaud your service and mourn any negative impact it has had on your life.

Regards


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

No BMW here either! I would gladly give up any claim to the money I've contributed to the Social Insecurity program if I could just opt out now. You have to be careful when you talk about Social Security though, because people get all up in arms when you start threatening their welfare.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I will gladly take my SS payments in a lump sum with modest interest.


Unfortunately, there is nothing for you to "take" other than what I and my fellow helots may pay. The part about how you were paying into the "system" and that you would get a "return" on these "investments" someday ... 'twas a big lie. The portion of your "contributions" that were invested in productive economic activity = 0%.



> My one modest student loan was paid off in full within one year of graduation.


The price of college has gone up since then. A _lot_. That's what happens when you subsidize something.

See also re: houses. The house I own is smaller and in a worse neighborhood than the one I grew up in. But mine cost me 6.8 times more than that house cost him. My income is not 6.8 times higher than his was in 1971. Our old house sold last year for nearly 9 times what my father paid for it in 1971.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Too dumb to bathe?*

In 1968, in San Francisco, I came across a curious footnote to the psychedelic movement. At the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic there were doctors who were treating diseases no living doctor had ever encountered before, diseases that had disappeared so long ago they had never even picked up Latin names, diseases such as the mange, the grunge, the itch, the twitch, the thrush, the scroff, the rot. And how was it that they had now returned? ... The hippies, as they became known, sought nothing less than to sweep aside all codes and restraints of the past and start out from zero... And now , in 1968, they were relearning... the laws of hygiene... by getting the mange, the grunge, the itch, the twitch, the thrush, the scroff, the rot.​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I propose a new system called "moral security"


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

A little cranky today, huh Phinn? Whatsamatter, your boomer boss tell you not to bring your dog to work, or ask you to show up at the crack of noon?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Brooksfan said:


> A little cranky today, huh Phinn? Whatsamatter, your boomer boss tell you not to bring your dog to work, or ask you to show up at the crack of noon?


I always thought it was Boomers that started things like "flex time" and "Bring Your Dog To Work" days


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

No, I'm not cranky at all. I'm actually quite chipper today, despite the fact that I got up at 5:30 this morning so I could drive my daily one-hour commute, which I have to do because the first affordable house my wife and I could find was 40 miles away from my office, a situation caused in no small part by the fact that older generations inflated the crap out of the mortgage credit system. 

Were it not for the fact that these same people voted in various forms of taxes that seize upwards of 45% of my income so that I can support Boomers and FDR-groupies, pay for their retirements, medical care and prescription drugs, my wife and I might be able to afford to have more children. 

But, hey, so long as the richest age group of the American population doesn't have to spend ONE LOUSY DIME more than they absolutely have to for life's necessities, I'm glad to impair my family's quality of life so that the Boomers can spend their golden years trolling eBay for Beatles and Jimmy Buffet albums and polishing their classic cars.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

Peace, Love and Rock and Roll. Love to chat awhile longer but I've got to go to the 40th anniversary celebration for Sgt. Pepper's.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I always thought it was Boomers that started things like "flex time" and "Bring Your Dog To Work" days


Maybe out west, but in New York we bought into the careerist, work late - greed is good scenario. :icon_smile:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> Maybe out west, but in New York we bought into the careerist, work late - greed is good scenario. :icon_smile:


"If you need a friend, buy a dog" ==> Gordon Gecko, founder of Bring Your Dog To Work Day


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

agnash said:


> No BMW here either! I would gladly give up any claim to the money I've contributed to the Social Insecurity program if I could just opt out now. You have to be careful when you talk about Social Security though, *because people get all up in arms when you start threatening their welfare*.


I would argue that Social Security is a threat to our welfare.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I'm in my 50's. Reading around on that Web site reminded me of the contempt I have always had for my generation, starting when I was in ROTC in college. The most distinguishing characteristic of the Boomers, other than narcissism, seems always to have been hypocrisy. Their embrace of these two characteristics has stressed the American System to the breaking point while washing away at its underpinnings. And they will deny to their graves that they have done anything but good. After all, they recycle.

I particularly liked the Blogger's reference to Gatsby on his May 21 post.


----------



## eg1 (Jan 17, 2007)

Well, this *IS* democracy in action. And the old vote, disproportionately, no less.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Ida May Fuller was the first social security recipient. She paid in a total of $24.75, retired in 1939, lived to be 100 years old in 1975, and in the process collected $22,888.92 in benefits.
https://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/11/the_social_secu.html

It's not hard to view the entire Social Security "underfunding" as the inevitable revealing of the Ponzi scheme. 
However, it's insurance, and like home insurance, health insurance, car insurance, etc. the buyers really don't want to benefit (life insurance, anyone?.
The alternatives: sidewalks messy with elderly beggars, starving children and cripples pleading for succor.

-healthy, working and able-bodied


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

tabasco said:


> The alternatives: sidewalks messy with elderly beggars, starving children and cripples pleading for succor.


tabasco:

Interesting link, thanks for providing it.

One point though: SS was never, *NEVER*, meant to be a person's sole source of income in retirement and if that is one's plan, one should not be surprised that their fate is to be an elderly beggar on the sidewalk. Even the socialist that put SS in place stated quite specifically that SS was not meant to do anything more than supplement.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> However, it's insurance, and like home insurance, health insurance, car insurance, etc. the buyers really don't want to benefit (life insurance, anyone?)


It is _*not *_insurance. It is welfare. Genuine insurance premiums are invested in profitable economic activity. They are _*not*_ consumed immediately (except for the insurance company's administration costs, which are kept low because the company wants to maximize its profit).

Almost every insurance company, every year, takes in less in premiums than it pays out in benefits and administrative costs. They still manage to make a profit because of the time value of the money -- they invest your premiums between the time you pay them and the time they pay out benefits.

The government does none of this. It takes from A, immediately gives to B, for B's immediate consumption. Like all Ponzi schemes, it depends on an ever-expanding pool of new contributers to be sustained. At this particular moment in time, the pool of contributers is shrinking.

Unfortunately, unlike a Ponzi scheme, it won't collapse the moment it is bankrupt. SS is already bankrupt, and so it just feeds off other sources of money that the government takes by force, kind of like a Ponzi scheme perpetrator who robs banks to keep his Ponzi scheme going.



> The alternatives: sidewalks messy with elderly beggars, starving children and cripples pleading for succor.


The alternatives: low taxation, low (or non-existent) inflation, savings that aren't depleted by taxation and inflation, family support, _*voluntary*_ charitable donations, etc. Even a strict poverty test for Social Security wold be better than the "Welfare for Everyone" approach we have now.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> .... I have to say, I too have noticed that retirement planning commercial where the Boomers are told how they "changed everything".


*After falling for more than 100 years, the retirement age chosen by working Americans is edging up once again, and the trend could have broad consequences for households and the economy.*

_*In the mid-1980s, just 18% of people in their late 60s still had jobs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. That figure is now up to 29%, and experts believe the level will continue to rise as people confront the prospect of a lengthy and expensive old age with limited retirement benefits. More than 1 in 4 baby boomers - the huge generation born from 1946 to 1964 - plan never to retire, a recent survey by the National Assn. of Realtors shows*_

Interesting implications:
1. older workers tend to earn more than younger ones (and save more)
2. more people will "max" out Social Security contributions
3. more people working AND NOT taking SS payments

- The Times They Are a Changin' Bob Dylan


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

tabasco said:


> *After falling for more than 100 years, the retirement age chosen by working Americans is edging up once again, and the trend could have broad consequences for households and the economy.*
> 
> _*In the mid-1980s, just 18% of people in their late 60s still had jobs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. That figure is now up to 29%, and experts believe the level will continue to rise as people confront the prospect of a lengthy and expensive old age with limited retirement benefits. More than 1 in 4 baby boomers - the huge generation born from 1946 to 1964 - plan never to retire, a recent survey by the National Assn. of Realtors shows*_
> 
> ...


Are you claiming this is a bad thing or a good thing? I know some people see all that as negative. As a 38 year old, I'm actually wishing more boomers would retire from those cushy executive jobs.

AFAIK people are living longer, more active longer, and the nature of work has changed drastically in the last century. IMHO why shouldn't the majority be expected to work longer? Should 65 year olds have to walk to the train to go dig ditches and climb telephone poles? No, but they can certainly drive their Honda civic with air-conditioning to an air-conditioned office and work a spreadsheet or make phone calls. Even working in a factory is not what it once was.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Are you claiming this is a bad thing or a good thing? I know some people see all that as negative. As a 38 year old, I'm actually wishing more boomers would retire from those cushy executive jobs.


I definitely think it's a good thing. Retirement holds no appeal to me. Also, as a matter of simple economics, expecting people to stay in the work force and contributing to the economy longer can only benefit society as a whole.

Naturally, there are some people who physically can't continue to work, or whose jobs are so demanding that they can't keep up with them (Roger Clemens, for instance?), but otherwise, even if you did retire, what would you do with all those hours?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I definitely think it's a good thing. Retirement holds no appeal to me. Also, as a matter of simple economics, expecting people to stay in the work force and contributing to the economy longer can only benefit society as a whole.
> 
> Naturally, there are some people who physically can't continue to work, or whose jobs are so demanding that they can't keep up with them (Roger Clemens, for instance?), but otherwise, even if you did retire, what would you do with all those hours?


Ha Ha on Clemens.

I had an interesting thing with my M-I-L. She was a poor, single-mom and really didn't take care of herself. At 61, she was tired and broken down. I feel she was functionally incompetent. She doesn't really have anything, but she's diabetic, about 300 pounds, and just dis-engaged from how the world operates. She won't pay her bills for months at a time and is very entitlement minded if they shut the power off, etc. She can't hold a job with any benefits and can't afford the insurance or the $70 bottles of insulin. She needs a hip replacement. It goes on and on. However, because she wasn't 65 we had very few options. There was just no subjective approach to means testing any services for her. It was 'under 65 see ya'. OTOH my Mother is 61. Her last job was as a bank teller when she was 18-21. She rollerblades about 10 miles, 3 times a week. My Dad makes more now than at any time in his life. In fact, he's really just now starting to command whatever he wants to charge. When I was in college (the first time) he once gave me $315 to pay a book fee so I could register for the next semester, but made a point of letting me know that was all I could expect.

I can tell you it was bitter-sweet to find myself rejoicing when the M-I-L just turned 65 in January and went on medicare and got into a subsidized, baptist tower apartment building that charges $310 for rent w/utilities included instead of the $750 plus utilities for her single bedroom apartment. My Wife has an older brother, but he has not been able to help us take care of her as much as we would like/expect. It's sort of all fallen on my Wife as the youngest and therefor the last one to left with Mom.

All that said, I have sympathy for those that can't work. Or; those that are caught in the paradigm shift as my M-I-L was. I think she thought everything would be fine if she made it to 55. We survived, but it's a real kick in the teeth to pay taxes and then watch 20 year olds on SS and prozac getting assistance while buying your M-I-L insulin she has to have and can't possibly afford.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

tabasco said:


> Ida May Fuller was the first social security recipient. She paid in a total of $24.75, retired in 1939, lived to be 100 years old in 1975, and in the process collected $22,888.92 in benefits.
> 
> Here's to you Ida May, and I can ...benefit to cumulative payments ratio she did.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Are you claiming this is a bad thing or a good thing? I know some people see all that as negative. As a 38 year old, I'm actually wishing more boomers would retire from those cushy executive jobs.


I brought up the link as *partial *refutation of the chicken little approach to the current Social-Security-is-bankrupt discussion; and also to illustrate that nothing stays the same. 
Maybe for all the Gen X, Millenium Gen.....(whatever they're called) there is a possibility that things are not as bleak as they currently appear.

I agree that people working longer is a good thing...all that experience and wisdom walking out the door, etc. A society wants happy workers. I'm a a mature worker, able to retire (and shall do so at some point), but currently happy at the opportunity to learn, practice, and perhaps prosper.

-a boomer


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

tabasco said:


> I brought up the link as *partial *refutation of the chicken little approach to the current Social-Security-is-bankrupt discussion; and also to illustrate that nothing stays the same.
> Maybe for all the Gen X, Millenium Gen.....(whatever they're called) there is a possibility that things are not as bleak as they currently appear.
> 
> I agree that people working longer is a good thing...all that experience and wisdom walking out the door, etc. A society wants happy workers. I'm a a mature worker, able to retire (and shall do so at some point), but currently happy at the opportunity to learn, practice, and perhaps prosper.
> ...


Thanks for the clarification. Keep prospering!


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

What surprises me most is how little the average baby boomer is even preparing for their retirement. It is almost as if boomers are consuming most of their income, saving nothing, and expecting to be supported by a nanny-state forever. Look at this from FDIC: 



Those average 401k balances are almost pitiful, with the highest being amongst those in their 50s with job tenures between 20 and 30 years, at $138,000!!! How can someone expect to retire with a nest egg of $138,000? Also, the study points out the fact that this is average is likely skewed by the top 10 percent of income earners, who may have very large nest eggs. This is scary stuff, picture the enormous tax increases we will be facing over the next 2 decades...


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Yes, I agree it's scary stuff. I've seen the same sort of analysis in a variety of venues. lead the horse to water, but.....
IRA, SEP, SIMPLE, 401-K, 403-B, deferred comp, 457, ROTH, etc. good grief! Plenty of opportunity to take responsibility for the risk of growing old.. 
Who was it that said "live fast, die young, leave a beautiful corpse".

Financial services industry now emphasizes "distribution planning" vs the prior "wealth accumulation". Lots of insurance products on the table now:
let someone else manage the risks.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

That's sad. My Wife teases me because I am always putting money away - between the Roths, the 401(k), and even Emigrant-Direct. I plan on having at least $2M by 65.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I would be happy if all the Boomers kept working. It will not happen though. People at 65 are going to be the exact same people they were at 64....or 34. If you are into success, affluence, and hard work prior to age 65, you will not suddenly cease to be so. Ditto the inverse, if you were a lazy spendthrift, or a union schlub that did his/her 40 and nothing more, you will want to be the same. 

I plan to "retire" early but never stop working. I just want to work on my terms vs. being a wage slave with golden handcuffs.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That's sad. My Wife teases me because I am always putting money away - between the Roths, the 401(k), and even Emigrant-Direct. I plan on having at least $2M by 65.


Haha, you'll need it. Think of where the tax rate will go to pay for these unfunded liabilities? Heck, the boomers may even do away with 401k plans once they hit retirement when they realize they need that tax revenues for themselves to expand medicare, make prescription drugs free, and sustain social security, all without having to sell their second home or classic Mustangs.

Here in Georgia, our illustrious Governor is seeking to eliminate income taxes for all senior citizens (he will be one within a few years) but he vetoed a property tax cut that would have reduced my property taxes by $100. Talk about self-serving.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

tabasco said:


> Yes, I agree it's scary stuff. I've seen the same sort of analysis in a variety of venues. lead the horse to water, but.....
> IRA, SEP, SIMPLE, 401-K, 403-B, deferred comp, 457, ROTH, etc. good grief! Plenty of opportunity to take responsibility for the risk of growing old..
> Who was it that said "live fast, die young, leave a beautiful corpse".
> 
> ...


The problem is the caps. What is it next year? 20k in a 401k or 403b, 5k in an IRA. Cannot contribute, period, to a Roth after a fairly low income limit, traditional IRAs lose their tax exemption at an even lower income limit. Thus the need for investments with high costs such as deferred annuities, to try and shelter some more income. It is pretty clear, the last thing the US government wants is for someone to be able to sock enough away to get out of the rat race at an early age.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc- you understand some of the sorrows of life while some others babble on as small children.

Wayfarer- you finally discovered caps. What about before we were even allowed caps?

What the Boomers were taught is Don't invest for the future, have 1 or 2 children at most and believe in SS, daddy government will take care of you. Which is why I can't stand the Democrat party. The Democrat party intentionally inslaved us to the governmnent. Any personal responsibility is almost impossible to get throught the government because there are too many Democrats. The Democrat party has perverted the word liberty to government slavery. And the liberal media helping all the way.

Just try to get the first bill through that allows you to save money tax free for your personal medical insurance. The Democrat party will not allow it to happen.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Wayfarer- you finally discovered caps. What about before we were even allowed caps?


LOL WA, I have been talking about them since I started posting here. They are nothing new to me.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> No, I'm not cranky at all. I'm actually quite chipper today, despite the fact that I got up at 5:30 this morning so I could drive my daily one-hour commute, which I have to do because the first affordable house my wife and I could find was 40 miles away from my office, a situation caused in no small part by the fact that older generations inflated the crap out of the mortgage credit system.
> 
> Were it not for the fact that these same people voted in various forms of taxes that seize upwards of 45% of my income so that I can support Boomers and FDR-groupies, pay for their retirements, medical care and prescription drugs, my wife and I might be able to afford to have more children.


You'd be able to have even more children if we weren't flushing $600+ billion down the toilet every year on defense budgets. I hope your whine list extends at least as far as the Pentagon.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> You'd be able to have even more children if we weren't flushing $600+ billion down the toilet every year....


Wow, that's some expensive sperm!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Wow, that's some expensive sperm!


I think he's using this - from the War Resisters League 

https://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

You have to jump around a bit to find the main point.

"Current military" includes Dept. of Defense ($585 billion), the military portion from other departments ($122 billion), and an unbudgetted estimate of supplemental appropriations ($20 billion). "Past military" represents veterans' benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*

*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page.

Past Military Spending. If the government does not have enough money to finance a war (or spending for its hefty military budgets), they borrow through loans, savings bonds, and so forth. This borrowing (done heavily during World War II and the Vietnam War) comes back in later years as "hidden" military spending through interest payments on the national debt.

How much of the debt is considered "military" varies from group. As mentioned above, WRL uses 80% whereas FCNL uses 48%. Consequently, FCNL reports that 41% of the FY2006 budget is military (28% current military and 13% past military). WRL's figures are 51% of the FY2008 budget (31% current - which includes 7% for Iraq & Afghanistan wars - and 20% past).


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 28, 2005)

*Property and the Baby Boomers*



Phinn said:


> As a member of the generation that was nearly aborted out of existence and is therefore _*half*_ the size of the Boomers, who is expected (at gunpoint) to pay for an ever-growing Social Security boondoggle, plus Medicare, and now prescription drugs (whose prices are inflated due to ever-lengthening patents), a victim of the Boomer Student Loan Plan ("Let's make them the first generation in history to pay for their own educations!"), and the Boomer Housing Price Plan ("Let's artificially expand mortgage credit and triple housing prices!"), all I can say is: _bravo_.


It's worth remembering that the "artificial expansion of mortgage credit", as you call it, led to a vast increase in the number of people who could afford to buy property and therefore led to a considerable expansion of the "middle class".

Certainly, the price of property has expanded dramatically over the past few decades - as a result of demand as many more people were able to purchase property. When my parents bought their house forty years ago, they had to have a 50% deposit before the bank would lend them the balance - the equivalent of two years' gross salary. Now you can obtain a mortgage with a deposit of 10% of the total, or less. This has resulted in the "democratisation" of the housing market, as many more people have been able to afford homes than was previously the case. Further, many more people have been able to acquire investment properties.

The increase in ability to acquire investment properties has both positive and negative qualities - it's led to an increase in the amount of, and variety of, rental accommodation available. However, it's also led to property speculation and booms of varying size, which has helped to push up the price of property in general.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I think he's using this - from the War Resisters League
> 
> https://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm


I think Phinn said he was a complete anarchist. Rules out the possibility of any organized war campaign, doesn't it?

Always wondered: In a family of anarchists, who decides where to go for dinner?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Always wondered: In a family of anarchists, who decides where to go for dinner?


The biggest. BTDT.

When you eat at home the answer is: The cook.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Always wondered: In a family of anarchists, who decides where to go for dinner?





ksinc said:


> The biggest. BTDT.


My guess is the wife. "I don't care if you don't recognize any political authority, dear. If you want me in the sack later tonight, get your butt over here now and get ready for dinner."

BTW Does anyone know what happens to marriage, birth and divorce rates in an anarchistic society? Are families even possible?

Sorry for the diversion, but Phinn is the first anarchist I've ever seen who wasn't wearing a Malcolm McLaren t-shirt, so I'd appreciate his opinions.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

I get the distinct feeling that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and all the other founding fathers would take a look around the U.S. today and say "no, no, this is what we fought *against*..."


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> You'd be able to have even more children if we weren't flushing $600+ billion down the toilet every year on defense budgets. I hope your whine list extends at least as far as the Pentagon.


Yes, I am opposed to war socialism as much as any other kind of socialism. Please try to free yourself from your self-imposed small-mindedness and see the big picture.

Leftists get their welfare state. Rightists get their warfare state. They trade with each other for the opportunity to get their share of the wealth they steal from productive people.



> It's worth remembering that the "artificial expansion of mortgage credit", as you call it, led to a vast increase in the number of people who could afford to buy property and therefore led to a considerable expansion of the "middle class".
> 
> Certainly, the price of property has expanded dramatically over the past few decades - as a result of demand as many more people were able to purchase property. When my parents bought their house forty years ago, they had to have a 50% deposit before the bank would lend them the balance - the equivalent of two years' gross salary. Now you can obtain a mortgage with a deposit of 10% of the total, or less. This has resulted in the "democratisation" of the housing market, as many more people have been able to afford homes than was previously the case. Further, many more people have been able to acquire investment properties.
> 
> The increase in ability to acquire investment properties has both positive and negative qualities - it's led to an increase in the amount of, and variety of, rental accommodation available. However, it's also led to property speculation and booms of varying size, which has helped to push up the price of property in general.


There are so many fallacies and errors in this, I don't know where to begin.

The artificial expansion of housing credit has led to a boom in the sub-prime lending market, and a huge distortion of consumer debt. It has created a housing bubble. What happens when this bubble bursts? What happens to the $7 trillion (with a "t") that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac carry when this sub-prime segment can't make its mortgage payments? Do they fail? Or will we see yet another BAILOUT that will make Amtrak and the S&L debacle look like a day at the park?

Besides, what makes _*you*_ so all-seeing and all-knowing that you *know* what the mortgage credit rate _*ought*_ to be? What ratio of savings and debt is economically optimal? Do you have some special insight that the market as a whole does not? _*How do you know*_ that a 10% cash deposit is somehow more economically sound than 50%? Just because it sounds good to your ears? Because it is politically popular?

How do you measure these supposed economic "benefits" against the inevitable losses in the form of increased consumer debt, increased rates of defaults, and the bust that follows within days or weeks of the next hike in centrally-controlled interest rates? You blindly applaud the program of tossing cash and mortgages out the windows to anyone with a pulse, but how many of these people's mortgages are YOU willing to pay when the unsustainable debt load comes around to bite them in the ass? Will you let them move in with you? Or will you just say, "Sorry!"?

Also, speculators don't drive up any prices. They perform a key service -- their successes and failures indicate, for everyone's benefit, where a market is heading. They correct false estimations of prices, and in doing so, their successes and failures reveal economic realities that are otherwise hidden.

The true origin of the boom (and the bust it causes) is the governmental manipulation of the money supply and credit.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Does anyone know what happens to marriage, birth and divorce rates in an anarchistic society? Are families even possible?


The rise of the modern State has marched hand-in-hand with the destruction of the family. Look what Social Security has done to families. (See here and here.) Look what welfare has done to families in the so-called "inner city."


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I always thought it was Boomers that started things like "flex time" and "Bring Your Dog To Work" days


It was started by Boomer management to get GenX employees to show up. Same with Casual Everything.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

David V said:


> It was started by Boomer management to get GenX employees to show up. Same with Casual Everything.


Good thing about the Casual Everything. Cheaper than dressing well, more money to pay FICA.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gnatty8 said:


> I get the distinct feeling that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and all the other founding fathers would take a look around the U.S. today and say "no, no, this is what we fought *against*..."


Totally agree.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

This might be interesting.

Moody's Economy.com Webconferences

U.S. Demographic Dynamics: Changing Age Distributions and New Migration Patterns
Host: Steven Cochrane 
Date: June 14, 2007 
Time: 2:00 p.m. ET / 6:00 p.m. GMT 
Cost: US$ 95.00

https://www.economy.com/home/produc...00080-01&src=webconference_june_14_email_medc


----------



## jimbabwe (Jan 15, 2006)

I've worked since I was 16 and paid my own way through college and blah blah blah blah blah! It's all true mind you and now that I've been at it for over 30 years I realize I belong to the filthiest generation that has ever existed in this great country.

We are morally, socially, politically and ethically filthy. Strong words and from someone who has experienced all of it. Sometimes on the receiving-end and sometimes on the giving-end. I'm not depressed by it and in reality find myself in a very comfortable position because of the aforementioned.

I was struck by the most recent Democrat debate and how the issue of open homosexuality in the military has been twisted into a pillar of that party and very representative of our generations view on life. Our constant ranting about the seperation of "church and state" (I am so fed up with hearing that ridiculous statement/position.) 

OUR ACLU. It's all OURS you know. 

The "filthy" generation is now in charge of everything in this country including the minds and directions of our children and in many cases grandchildren. Yes, we have passed on our filth to the future generations. 

History is boring to our generation - always has been. Ever wonder why it is so much more enjoyable to read about history in books written prior to 1960? WE cannot write a book unless it is filled with some self-serving ideology that usually entails some form of CURRENT sexual, social or political context. 

So just how "filthy" are we? Let me leave you with an order issued from President Abraham Lincoln (Yawn!!! from the elitist of OUR generation) regarding the military, conduct and religion. You draw you're own conclusions from it.

November 16, 1862

The President, commander-in-chief of the army and navy, desires and enjoins the orderly observance of the Sabbath by the officers and men in the military and naval services. The importance for man and beast of the prescribed weekly rest, the sacred rights of Christain soldiers and sailors, a becoming deference to the best sentiment of a Christian people, and a due regard for the Divine will, demand that Sunday labor in the army and navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity.

The discipline and character of the National forces should not suffer nor the cause they defend be imperilled, by the profanation of the day or name of the Most High. "At this time of public distress," adopting the words of Washington in 1776, "men may find enough to do in the service of God and their country, without abandoning themselves to vice and immorality." The first general order issued by the Father of his Country, after the Declaration of Independence, indicates the spirit in which our institutions were founded, and should ever be defended. "The general hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."

A. Lincoln


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

jimbabwe said:


> Our constant ranting about the seperation of "church and state" (I am so fed up with hearing that ridiculous statement/position.)


While I agree that some legal actions on this issue are pretty ridiculous, the issue itself is anything but. There are reasons why the prohibition against state-established religion comes at the very beginning of our Bill of Rights instead of somewhere else in that document.


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 28, 2005)

Phinn said:


> Besides, what makes _*you*_ so all-seeing and all-knowing that you *know* what the mortgage credit rate _*ought*_ to be? What ratio of savings and debt is economically optimal? Do you have some special insight that the market as a whole does not? _*How do you know*_ that a 10% cash deposit is somehow more economically sound than 50%? Just because it sounds good to your ears? Because it is politically popular?
> 
> How do you measure these supposed economic "benefits" against the inevitable losses in the form of increased consumer debt, increased rates of defaults, and the bust that follows within days or weeks of the next hike in centrally-controlled interest rates? You blindly applaud the program of tossing cash and mortgages out the windows to anyone with a pulse, but how many of these people's mortgages are YOU willing to pay when the unsustainable debt load comes around to bite them in the ass? Will you let them move in with you? Or will you just say, "Sorry!"?
> 
> ...


Phinn,

Firstly, thanks for the ad hominem attack.

I should perhaps have prefaced my remarks by stating that I don't live in the US, and thus I have next-to-no knowledge of the FNMA and the role that it has played/plays in the US economy. My experience is with Australia, which, whilst not having a body like the FNMA, has still experienced dramatic increases in accommodation values since the turn of the century.

I don't know if a 10% cash deposit for housing is more economically sound than a 50% one, and I certainly don't regard myself as being all-seeing and all-knowing. However, I do know is that the economic soundness of any particular deposit amount largely depends on the prevailing economic mood and on people's individual capacity to pay. There are some people out there who will stump up a 50% deposit, or even more, because they can afford to and because they wish to save on repayments. However, there are others who will stump up the minimum, not because they can't afford to save more, but because they want to stop paying rent to a landlord and they want to start owning their own home.

I note that you posted a link to mises.org. I don't agree with a lot of Ludwig von Mises's ideas (although as a philosopher, I do find him interesting to read). As I've said above, I don't know what the situation is in the US, but in Australia it is the banks and the (relatively) free market that determine the amount of deposit that is necessary to secure a loan. If the bank doesn't think that you're credit worthy, it will refuse your application or it will ask you to put up a higher deposit. A self-employed friend of mine was recently asked to provide a 20% deposit (as opposed to the more typical 10%) as the bank regarded him as more of a risk than a salaried worker (despite the fact that his average earnings were higher). Surely this accords with von Mises's outlook - the market is looking after itself by assessing the relative risk of transactions. If financial institutions consider that the market is tightening, they will take steps to protect themselves by demanding higher deposits or by refusing loan applications.

I don't deny that the market might crash, or deflate and I realise that will have a human cost, and that people will suffer as a result. However, that is the reality of our economic system. I certainly don't condone "tossing cash and mortgages out the windows to anyone with a pulse", and I dare say that most financial institutions don't either, although they certainly lend unwisely at times (the heady, entrepeneurial 1980s springs to mind...).

You've made some interesting statements in your posts in this thread that sometimes seem to contradict each other. Given that you seem to prefer a unfettered market, why do you have a problem with banks lowering the amount necessary for a mortgage deposit? After all, such a decision should be up to the individual or institution offering the loan.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> There are reasons why the prohibition against state-established religion comes at the very beginning of our Bill of Rights instead of somewhere else in that document.


The First Amendment is not a prohibition against state-established religions. It is a prohibition against the _*federal*_ government from enacting laws that interfere with the religious laws of the several states. There were three states that had official state-established religions at the time the First Amendment was enacted, and they remained in effect for decades thereafter, and only disappeared because of action within those states, not as a result of action by the federal government. The plain language and meaning of the First Amendment is that the federal government could not prohibit the states from having these laws, nor establish an official religion of its own.

I agree that this is a major flaw in the Constitution. But we should at least be honest about what it actually says and means.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Firstly, thanks for the ad hominem attack.


Thanks are not necessary because it was not an ad hominem attack. I am attempting to draw your attention to the limits of the ability of any one person (whether it's you, me, or anyone, whether private or government employee) to know what prices ought to be, other than what a free market determines them to be.

These economic factors (what prices should be, what interest rates should be, what mortgage terms should be, etc.) are UNKNOWABLE, except through the market process. Mises called this the "calculation problem" -- economic calculation and decision-making is only possible in a market based on the exchange of private property. Hayek described it in terms of the vast amounts of information contained in the price system. Others use different descriptions. But the application here is largely similar -- forcibly manipulating prices to match what some politician thinks they _*ought*_ to be always leads to economic dislocations, surpluses, shortages, inefficiencies and an overall economic decline.

We can no more ignore this economic law any more than we can ignore the law of gravity. I know that this fact is eternally frustrating to politicians, all of whom make their living promising things they can't deliver, but there's no arguing with laws of nature.



> If the bank doesn't think that you're credit worthy, it will refuse your application or it will ask you to put up a higher deposit.


That's economic calculation in action.

Now, if the banking system is out of whack, and there is a lack of intense competition in the banking sector resulting in excessive prices for loans (i.e., interest rates), you can be sure that this situation is the result of some other, prior governmental interference. Nationalized banking schemes (in the US we have the "Federal Reserve") are protectionist mechanisms for making bankers a lot more comfortable. So, one possible explanation for the reduced competition in banking for mortgages that your parents experienced with their 50% deposits is that the banks had grown fat and lazy on the effective subsidy of nationalized currency and bank regulations, and thus had no incentive to offer better mortgage products to retail consumers.

This is similar to how the regulated interstate trucking system in the US gives us excessive prices today, and how the once-regulated airline price system in the US gave us inflated air ticket prices, which fell in real dollars when this price-fixing scheme was partially dismantled back in the 1980s.



> You've made some interesting statements in your posts in this thread that sometimes seem to contradict each other. Given that you seem to prefer a unfettered market, why do you have a problem with banks lowering the amount necessary for a mortgage deposit? After all, such a decision should be up to the individual or institution offering the loan.


There is no inconsistency. My point is that the government should not interfere with the market, in this case the housing mortgage market. The government's manipulation of mortgage loans, fixing the range of "conforming" and credit ratings, and other terms of these loans, causes huge distortions in other areas, most notably house prices.

When was there a vote in Congress on this subsidy? As you pointed out, my inflated house price is subsidizing the sub-prime mortgage borrower. If this had been accomplished in the form of a direct tax and welfare payment, there would be rioting in the streets. But when it is done in the form of loan and price manipulations, it's slightly hidden, so a lot of people blithely go about their lives and scratch their heads when faced with 2-bedroom houses that suddenly cost $400,000, not fully realizing that these high prices are the result of policies they never voted for.

It is impossible to make the housing market better as a whole by forcibly adjusting some price that you don't like. If the market dictates that the deposit for a given customer be 50%, 20% or -10%, then that's what it should be. I have no personal preference whatsoever. But the policy of making housing more "affordable" by artificially loosening credit has been the direct cause of a bubble in housing prices, and will cause an eventual housing market bust. It's really pretty simple -- prices are signals about economic conditions. When you manipulate the prices, you send inaccurate signals, and people are deceived into acting in ways that are not economically sound.

A lot of these bad policies, and sneaky currency and price manipulations, started under Nixon in the early 1970s, and have continued unabated ever since. This is the reason that my generation (born 1969) is taking it on the chin these days.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://money.cnn.com/2007/06/06/pf/retirement/social_security_early/index.htm

Social Security is such a wonderful system, is it not?!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The U.S. mortgage companies have been giving 5,10,85%, "jumbo", and "super jumbo" loans. It wouldn't take you three minutes to find this information. Certainly less than it took to write what you prefaced on your admitted lack of familiarity with the U.S. mortgage system.

These are not traditionally viewed as the 'subprime market' as they involve a shortage of downpayment/cash not necessarily low credit scores.

However, most of the 10% are 1/5 ARMS and other 'garbage'.

When we built our first house 2.5 years ago. We used one of the 5,10,85% loans. We put a little over $15k cash down, but we also had another $15k in equity made from our old apartment complex rents that was part of this deal https://www.equityapartments.com/content/rentwithequity.asp that came off the top and they doubled it because they had a promotion for 1:2 on upgrades. So we spent $15k on upgrades and got $30k worth.

We did roughly a 5,10,85 and bought a $250k home for $220 with a first of $175 and second of $30 and cash of $15. We have FICOs over 800 and the HELOCs at the time were 4.375%. I went with a fixed 2nd at 6%, the first is at 5.375%. However, a lot of neighbors and friends have HELOCS, and within the first year the HELOCs were at 8-9% again I've even heard of 11.25%. Converting a HELOC to a fixed HEL can cost from $700-$1400 in fees in the U.S. market. So, some of these people are trapped. The house two-doors down from us is for sale because the people can't afford the 2nd payment on their HELOC. They had a garage sale last month and are living with basically nothing hoping the house will sell. Of course, nothing is selling in our neighborhood right now. There's four houses for sale on my street including one directly across from us.

There's a real life experience for you. In our case, we have had steady cash flow and are on-plan to pay the 2nd off by the 5 year mark, but most people I know in the neighborhood also ran up the HELOC on furniture and trips to Home Depot, etc.. One guy I know used it to make a down payment on a 2nd property (I don't know who let him do that) in Louisiana that was destroyed in the hurricane.

We are somewhat fortunate (smart) in that the only other credit payment we have is for my Wife's Volvo. It took me the first 5 years of marriage to get it to that as she brought in about $40k in debt at 21-23% (on store cards: Dillards's, Talbot's and Ann Taylor). I refused to buy a house until that was all gone and she was fully funding her retirement accounts. Many rumbles over that one! 

The houses like ours (most without as nice of trim and upgrades inside) are sitting at $360k and they will move at $340k. So, we feel like we are 'ok', but who knows? I'm willing to throw a sign for $320 in the front yard and walk away if I have to, but clearly the Wife is emotionally connected to the house. OTOH we'd probably be in the last 5% of our area that ever had to make that decision. The same houses were still selling for $390 when the music stopped. They were all sold out and there was a waiting list of over 800. The builder actually closed and sold the models and sales office, and then recently put a new sales office up because so many buyers backed out and the waiting list dried up. At $390 the builder had even completely stopped letting people even pick options (they were all spec) or buy extra as we did. When I saw the flier for $390 I immediately said "We should sell, some idiot would probably give us $420 with all the stuff we have (like we have the same cherry cabinets with full moulding and they are full-size that match our kitchen cabinets in the laundry room - $900 - sigh!). Rents are low. We should go rent for a year or two and then buy a bigger home when the market falls apart." I was just about shot by my Wife. I should have done it anyway. I guess I'm not quite as callous as I thought!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JRR said:


> https://money.cnn.com/2007/06/06/pf/retirement/social_security_early/index.htm
> 
> Social Security is such a wonderful system, is it not?!


Good lord. I might need to throw up!

I don't know anyone under 50 - maybe even under 60 - that wouldn't still opt-out of SS if they could.

What a country!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Some very good points are getting raised. As with any business, the mortgage companies are rolling the cost of their bad debt risk into their overall operating plan, and this means higher prices for all. Credit card companies do it with interest rates and fees, just like the mortgage lenders. Retails stores cover that risk, plus others such as theft, in their prices, etc. Everyone should understand that.

So it is therefore logical, with lenders being forced to knowingly accept poor credit risks, for fear of "red lining" or minority discrimination charges, that good credit risks will incure an added burden. We are seeing the results at this time, of basically fostering lenders to give out high risk loans. Anyone with their eyes open has seen the development of this "credit bubble" and has realized it will burst at some point. I am afraid we are at that point.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JRR said:


> https://money.cnn.com/2007/06/06/pf/retirement/social_security_early/index.htm
> 
> Social Security is such a wonderful system, is it not?!


I like the typical government math. Two x $25k = $35k and two x $44k = $54k. And with 13k being the cap you can earn from wages before you start getting SS deducted, who here will actually collect anything? If your benefit is say, 15k, earning 43k = $0.00 SS that year (13k cap to start the deductions, then $2 earned per $1 deducted).

I agree, keep the money I have already had stolen and I'll chalk it up as a sunk cost. Just stop taking more and I'll never ask for a nickel.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I like the typical government math. Two x $25k = $35k and two x $44k = $54k. And with 13k being the cap you can earn from wages before you start getting SS deducted, who here will actually collect anything? If your benefit is say, 15k, earning 43k = $0.00 SS that year (13k cap to start the deductions, then $2 earned per $1 deducted).
> 
> I agree, keep the money I have already had stolen and I'll chalk it up as a sunk cost. Just stop taking more and I'll never ask for a nickel.


"Brother", can you spare a dime?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Phinn said:


> The First Amendment is not a prohibition against state-established religions. It is a prohibition against the _*federal*_ government from enacting laws that interfere with the religious laws of the several states.


+1

There are some really excellent explanations in the Federalist Papers about what the writers of the Constitution actually meant when they wrote the Constitution, but unfortunately most in Congress and the Courts have never bothered to read them. I have to laugh when I see the typical "talking head moron" asking "What did the founders really mean?", when the answer is readily available to anyone who is not to lazy to look, nor to stupid to understand.

I apologize, I know this was off of the original topic of the tyranny and oppression inflicted by the Great Socialist in his development of the greatest Ponzi shceme ever thought up.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> "Brother", can you spare a dime?


Does "dime" mean about 14% of all my wages up to the current cap (which will soon get removed)? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Does "dime" mean about 14% of all my wages up to the current cap (which will soon get removed)? :icon_smile_big:


You only have to pay 7%. We'll make your evil, blood-sucking, big corporation match your contribution. So, it's not that bad. Every dime you contribute is also sticking it to "the man".


----------

