Correspondence and Coherence blog


merjet

Recommended Posts

On 11/15/2019 at 4:34 PM, merjet said:

Big Other is watching, hey? Yes, their methods have improved dramatically, recently. I take it all as a necessary hassle for going online, but admit I can't stand being tracked (stalked) and analysed (even if it's only by a dumb algorithm). An incessant flood of items and services I `might` need, according to my interest profile, actually has had the opposite effect. I don't recall ever buying anything I saw in those ads, mostly photographic goods, and perhaps there are many others who are also stubbornly resistant to the charms. People are odd about being constantly hard-selled, to do with their freedom of choice ultimately. Something like those plentiful ad hoardings on the freeway, you don't look at them after a while and may put you off the product. Is this modern capitalism, proportionately as much money being earned by mass-marketing a product, as maybe the sales of the product itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Talking about stock options prompted me to look for some key words and this brief thread popped up. I hope no one minds if I put this here, (Merjet.)  I think rather than stock options (as the first option) a company could just “gift” $15,000 to a worthy employee just as individuals can do without taxation. OMG! Ayn Rand had a Social Security Number! Peter

From: AchillesRB To: objectivism Subject: Re: OWL: Rand & Social Security Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:42:28 EST. On December 22, 2004, Ari Armstrong wrote: "It distresses me to see Objectivists support forced savings controlled by Congress. If Bush's plan for Social Security appeals to you, please read the following essay: The Objectivist Response to Social Security  http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/12/objectivess.html"

I agree completely with Ari's position on this. I opined to other members of this list (privately) that "privatization" of Social Security, if still government controlled, amounts to a ~fascist~ program, as opposed to the present (essentially) communistic program. (I use these terms in the same way Rand did when distinguishing between fascism and communism.) (And I find it someone oddly ironic that Bush's proposal, supported by Cato and many others, is fascistic, while the program run in Germany under the Nazis was actually communistic.)

One more item that may interest list-members who are not already aware of it. Ayn Rand was on Social Security! Perhaps she justified this in the same way that she justified taking government scholarships, employment, etc. -- if you speak out against it and are willing to do without it once it's repealed, then you are justified in taking it. (See "The Question of Scholarships.") Nevertheless, here are the details on her Social Security membership, taken from the online death index of Social Security recipients:

Ayn RAND Birth Date: 2 Feb 1905 Death Date: Mar 1982 Social Security Number: 571-32-9405 State or Territory Where Number Was Issued: California Death Residence Localities ZIP Code:  10019 Localities:  New York, New York, New York Radio City, New York, New York

I post this more for people's information, but discussion would be welcome. Best to all, Roger Bissell

From: Weingarten To: OWL Subject: Fwd: OWL: Rand & Social Security Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:06:28 -0800. Roger Bissell finds it questionable that "Ayn Rand" was on Social Security. Perhaps he takes the position of Leonard Read (the founder of FEE) who refused to receive financial benefits from that Administration. I do not however see a contradiction between recognizing that Social Security is fundamentally wrong, and receiving its benefits. Although I accept the imperative to fund the government for its few basic functions, that is a minor portion of our payments. Most payments are unjustified, and aim at wealth distribution, which constitutes theft. Yet let us suppose that a thief has stolen money from many of us, and that our position that the money should be returned is not followed. Instead, we are given a choice, that either we receive some of that money or none of it. I would choose the former.

My argument is that whether or not we receive some of the loot will not abrogate the Social Security Administration. Rather it penalizes the few who recognize the immorality of the system, so that there are more spoils for those who advocate it. Rather it should be those who are against the system who deserve to be compensated, while it is those who are for that system who deserve to lose out. So I advocate the elimination of virtually all governmental services, but in the interim believe in paying as little taxes as is feasible, while receiving whatever benefits are advantageous. Weingarten

F

rom: Eyal Mozes To: Subject: Re: OWL: Rand on Social Security Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 20:26:40 -0500. Ari Armstrong criticizes Bush's plan for partially replacing the social security system by private accounts, and criticizes the Cato Institute and some ARI writers for supporting Bush's plan. I agree with Ari on many points, but overall I disagree with his conclusion that the plan is not a step in the direction of liberty at all and that Objectivists should not support it.

Some points on which Ari is clearly right are: that mandatory private accounts will not solve all the problems with the current system; that the only way to solve all the problems with the current system is to abolish it completely, probably in several stages through a phase-out plan; that any free-market advocates who support the private-accounts plan should publicly and explicitly endorse abolition of the system and make clear they support the plan only as a partial improvement over the current situation; and that the Cato Institute, and some ARI writers, have been remiss in not making  this clear.

Ari claims that the private-accounts plan is in fact a combination of two totally separate and unconnected proposals: allowing workers a partial opt-out out of social security, and setting up a system of mandatory private retirement accounts. On this, I disagree. As long as we have income taxes that make it difficult to save for retirement, the only way individuals can effectively save for retirement is through special accounts that allow savings to grow tax-free. We have some provision for this today with 401(k) plans and IRA accounts; but any plan to eliminate or reduce the current social security system, whether through phase-out or opt-out, since it will mean individuals can no longer expect to receive social security benefits after retirement, will have to be accompanied by some additional provision for individual saving for retirement. I do completely agree with Ari that there's no justification for making such new savings provisions mandatory; the most reasonable solution would be a phase-out of social security, along the lines that Ari has suggested, combined with some provision for additional voluntary saving, e.g. through a drastic increase in personal IRA contribution limits. But the point is, some form of provision for private retirement accounts has to be an inseparable part of social security reform; the link between the two is not arbitrary as Ari claims.

Given that Bush's private-accounts plan clearly does not solve all the problems with the present system, there are three main questions we need to answer in order to evaluate it:

1. Is it a significant step towards solving at least some of the problems with the system?

2. Is it likely to lead to further reform towards greater liberty in the future, or is it likely to block such further reform?

3. Will it be in any respect worse than the current system, causing new problems and new impingements on freedom?

To answer question 1, we should identify that the current social security system has two basic problems: a. The coercion problem. The system is a coercive, paternalistic system, forcibly taking individual's earnings, preventing them from using it according to their own judgment, and employing this coercion allegedly for their own benefit.

b. The pyramid-scheme problem. The system is a pyramid scheme (sometimes referred to as a "Ponzi scheme"), in which current "contributors" are promised future benefits not from any productive investment but from the contributions of future "contributors".

Note that these are two separate problems. The Ponzi-scheme problems has serious consequences in addition to its coercive nature. It is the cause of the financial unsustainability of the system. It is also the cause of a grave injustice towards those who die young; those people have been forced to "contribute" to the system during their working years as much as anyone else, but they and their heirs are deprived of the promised benefits.

A system of mandatory private accounts will be no better and no worse than the current system as far as the coercion problem. But it will help in solving the pyramid-scheme problem (a complete conversion to mandatory private accounts would completely solve the pyramid-scheme problem; a partial conversion, as Bush is proposing, would partially solve the problem). For that reason, I think it would be a significant, though incomplete, step towards greater liberty and towards solving the problems of the current system.

Regarding question 2, Ari claims that Bush's plan threatens to block meaningful reform in the future. I disagree. On the contrary, I think that if Bush's plan is implemented, further reform would become much easier. The biggest political hurdle, that must be faced by any attempt to reform social security, is the problem pointed out by George Bernard Shaw: "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." In this case, younger workers are Peter, retirees and people close to retirement are Paul, and any attempt at reform must overcome opposition from a very large number of Paul’s whose ability to receive benefits at Peter's expense is threatened. Private mandatory accounts will overcome this hurdle; once they are in place, proposals for further reform, by making contributions to these accounts voluntary rather than  mandatory, and by easing regulation on these accounts, will not be a threat to anyone's benefits, and will thus be accepted much more easily.

On question 3, Ari notes that because the private accounts will include stock-market investments but will be subjected to heavy regulation, their investment decisions would be subject to political pressure, perhaps even made by government officials. This would be a new problem, a problem that does not exist in the current system and could be created by private accounts. Because the total amount of money in social-security private accounts is likely to quickly become very large, it could become a significant portion of the total money invested in the stock market, and having the investment of this money directed by government officials would create a lot of opportunities for political manipulation of the financial markets and of corporations.

I agree with Ari that this is a serious concern. But I don't think it is unavoidable. From what I have read about the Chilean system, it looks like they successfully avoided this problem (I don't claim to be an expert on the Chilean system, and I may have the wrong impression here, but this is my impression from what I have read). The mandatory retirement accounts are managed by private companies. Workers are required to put a certain portion of their payroll in these accounts, but they have a genuine choice in choosing among the companies. The accounts are subjected to heavy regulations restricting what percentage of the funds can be invested in stocks, and the managing companies are not allowed to engage in any other investment or banking business outside of managing retirement accounts; these regulations certainly make the system less than ideal; but as far as deciding what stocks to invest in, the decisions are made privately, no different from those of any mutual fund manager. This is far from a fully free system, but it is clearly more free than the US social security system, and does avoid the problem of government-directed investment.

In contrast, the plan proposed by Cato (in the paper written by Michael Tanner; http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-32es.html) would not avoid this problem. Cato propose a three-tier system, and in tier II (which will contain most of the accounts) individuals will have a choice among three funds; each fund will be invested in a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds, each with a different ratio of stocks to bonds. This means presumably that the social security administration will appoint the managers of each of these three funds, who will then control the investment decisions of most of the social security private accounts. It is likely that the total of these accounts would quickly become very large, thus creating a lot of opportunities for these government-appointed fund managers to exert control over the financial markets and over corporations through their investment decisions. I find it shocking that a free-market organization like Cato would propose such a plan.

Roger Bissel says that a private accounts plan would amount to a fascist program. Regarding Cato's proposal, I agree. The defining characteristic of fascism is that property is nominally private but decisions about its use are made by government officials; Cato's plan - accounts which would be nominally owned by individuals but invested according to decisions made by the government-appointed managers of three funds - clearly fits this definition. But regarding the Chilean system, I think Roger's characterization is wrong. Under the Chilean system, individuals are required to put a certain portion of their payroll into the mandatory retirement accounts, but have a genuine choice among companies to manage their accounts, and the investment decisions in these accounts are subjected to a lot of regulation but are still made privately; this is not fascism, it is a government-hampered market system, and it is clearly preferable to the socialist system we have in the US today.

At this point we have no way of knowing whether Bush's plan will be more similar to the Cato plan or to the Chilean system; so far he and his advisers have not come up with any details about how the private accounts will be managed. If he comes up with a plan in which all private accounts are required to be in one of a designated small number of funds, then his plan, by creating government-directed investment in the stock market, may create more problems than it would solve.

However, if Bush comes up with a plan for private accounts managed by private companies, with individuals having a genuine choice in choosing the company to manage their account, and with the companies, even though subject to regulation, still making their own investment decisions and not having these decisions dictated by regulators; then I think Objectivists, and other free-market advocates, should enthusiastically support the plan. In supporting the plan, we should denounce its coercive aspects, explicitly endorse full freedom, and make clear that we support the plan only as an improvement over the current system; but we should also recognize that such a plan will indeed be a significant step towards liberty compared to the current system, and will make it easier to achieve further reform towards greater liberty in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course she had a social security number, it was not her choice. Cashing the checks was her choice, and she made clear her whole life why getting back some of what was taken is ok.

Subhuman bankers want  social security privatized so they can steal from us, too.

It is stupid to add the banks to the list of those who would then resist elimination of the program, indeed this would absolutely guarantee that the program lasted forever. Stupid crony fascism is what that idea is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the net. In the year 1963, the United States minimum wage was $1.25. This is equivalent to $10.33 in 2019 dollars. end quote

I worked for The Union City leader in California when I was 13, 14, and 15 years old. Mr. Folger (yes the coffee family) started out paying me one cent each for delivered circulars and then I started working as a collator and a not so good proofreader inside the shop, for a buck and a quarter. We put the circulars in the mail box and the postal service didn’t care, or we put them in the newspaper box. Guard dogs were terrible back then. I kicked one in the nose damaging it, and the owner ratted me out to Mr. Folger. I felt that I was rolling in money but I had no idea the purchasing power of that amount is worth over ten bucks an hour today! When we moved, I had my own money for over a year before I spent it all. The prophecy has always been that minimum wage will lead to fewer jobs and higher prices but I appreciated the minimum wage back then. Peter

Notes. New Jersey enacted AB 15 in February, which will gradually increase the minimum wage rate to $15 by 2024. (The minimum wage for tipped employees will increase to $9.87 over the same period.) The schedule of annual increases was delayed for certain seasonal workers and employees of small employers, and a training wage of 90 percent of the minimum wage was created for certain employees for their first 120 hours of work. What is federal pay increase for 2020? Legislation was introduced today to give federal employees a 3.6% pay raise in 2020. The bill is known as the  Federal Adjustment of Income Rates (FAIR) Act and was introduced in both the House (H.R. 1073) and Senate (S. 426) by Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-MD) and Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), respectively. Minimum wage is a guaranteed minimum amount that all California non-exempt employees are entitled to receive for every hour of work. The California minimum wage for 2019 is $12.00 per hour. In 2020, California’s minimum wage will increase to $13.00 an hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now