What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[alfred russel]

It is completely true. In January I was discussing the timing of the impeachment trial with a couple posters, I gave various reasons I thought February was not ideal, at the end of February I posted to point out that the guesses I made about what would happen with a February trial indeed occurred.

You jump in with absurd diatribes against me and that I deserve a brown star for my shirt.

[The Minsky Moment]

It is completely true. In January I was discussing the timing of the impeachment trial with a couple posters, I gave various reasons I thought February was not ideal, at the end of February I posted to point out that the guesses I made about what would happen with a February trial indeed occurred.

We had this discussion before.  You predicted that mathematics would not magically cease to operate if there was an early impeachment trial.  Not exactly prophecy there.

We now know that the farther away we are from the events of Jan 6 the greater the pressure on GOP legislators and the less likely to take any action perceived inimical to Trump; 7 voted to impeach back then but now only  would vote to take the simple step of forming a fact-finding commission. The underlying reasoning was not sound, at least as to what the Democrats in the Senate should do, as opposed to what would be optimal for your betting positions on cabinet confirmation timing.

[alfred russel]

It is completely true. In January I was discussing the timing of the impeachment trial with a couple posters, I gave various reasons I thought February was not ideal, at the end of February I posted to point out that the guesses I made about what would happen with a February trial indeed occurred.

We had this discussion before.  You predicted that mathematics would not magically cease to operate if there was an early impeachment trial.  Not exactly prophecy there.

We now know that the farther away we are from the events of Jan 6 the greater the pressure on GOP legislators and the less likely to take any action perceived inimical to Trump; 7 voted to impeach back then but now only  would vote to take the simple step of forming a fact-finding commission. The underlying reasoning was not sound, at least as to what the Democrats in the Senate should do, as opposed to what would be optimal for your betting positions on cabinet confirmation timing.

My point was that if the trial was held in February, it would have to be rushed due to the pressure of getting Biden's cabinet in place, and even if a rushed trial was held the cabinet confirmations would be delayed. We ended February with Trump acquitted, a rushed trial, and a historically slow pace of cabinet confirmations. Now maybe you still disagree with the merits of my arguments -- I don't mind that -- I just don't think that arguments about how to arrange the senate's calendar should result in Berkut saying i deserve a brown star for my shirt.

[The Minsky Moment]

The fact that Trump was acquitted is meaningless because there was never any probability he would be.  But the fact that 7 GOP senators voted to convict was historically unprecedented and of real significance.  If the trial had been delayed and dragged out, it would have risked losing some of those votes. Note that Burr and Toomey, who both voted to convict, recently abstained from voting on the 1-8 commission rather than expose themselves to more attacks.

Meanwhile the cabinet was put into place and no damage done.

[Berkut]

Yeah, the idea that it would have been ever so much better to delay the trial until roughly now...well, I would not be bringing THAT up as evidence of your brilliance. As everyone said, delaying it would just allow the GOP to obscure what happened and give them all more cover...and look, that is *exactly* what has happened. There is no way a trial held today would result in a better outcome.

And this was all to allow the Senate to focus on other, super duper critical items, that them NOT focusing on would result in utter disaster for the Biden administration. Uhhh....what were those critical items they did not focus on because the trial? Anyone remember the multiple disasters that befell America because they were not taken care of (although of course they COULD have been, absent McConnell sabotaging them). Something about getting some administration officials confirmed, the delay of which turned out to critically damage something or other...right?

What a load of bullshit

[alfred russel]

It isn't about me being brilliant. You and MM disagree with me. Good for you; maybe you are right.

It is about you being a piece of shit.

[Jacob]

It is incredibly risky. Sure all is fine so long as it goes up but the second it falls everybody would have to bail the system out or face political suicide. Also I worry about the obvious opportunities for corruption.

I would prefer we just scrap everything and just have a UBI and some kind of universal health care system myself. If you want more money for retirement get a 401k or something.

But I guess privatizing Social Security has the advantage of something that might some day actually happen.

What does privatizing Social Security entail? And what advantages is it supposed to bring?

[Admiral Yi]

Yes it is.

It's a hugely popular program with immense buy-in from the general public. Wanting to privatise it is the definition of zany. You might as well want to privatise the military or nationalise cows. It's fringe as they come.

It's nothing like privatizing the military.  The military is a public good and if it were privatized you would immediately have a free rider problem and hence produce less than the optimal amount.  Social Security is a private good.  Each individual gets their own check that they can spend how they please.  By definition you can't free ride off my Social Security check.

It has been a long time since I read that the average return on Social Security contributions is 2% but I also haven't read anything that says the return has changed.   I don't believe their is any annuity (which is essentially what SS is, a government administered annuity) which has a return that low.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's a two percent *real* return - i.e. above inflation.

In addition, because social security is pay as you go, you cannot compare that return against a current market annuity return.  If SS were privatized you'd have to account for the legacy commitments - which are in the trillions - and that would drag down those returns. You also have to adjust for solvency risk unless there is a government backstop guarantee - which would be another hidden cost that would have to be adjusted.

Social security is very efficiently run as government programs go and would certainly have lower admin and transaction costs than competing private annuities. The program does what it supposed to do and does it reasonably well.  It's a simple case of ain't broke, don't fix.

[The Minsky Moment]

See Jason Furman's paper on this from 2005
https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/6-2-05socsec.pdf

[Sheilbh]

It's nothing like privatizing the military.  The military is a public good and if it were privatized you would immediately have a free rider problem and hence produce less than the optimal amount.  Social Security is a private good.  Each individual gets their own check that they can spend how they please.  By definition you can't free ride off my Social Security check.

It has been a long time since I read that the average return on Social Security contributions is 2% but I also haven't read anything that says the return has changed.   I don't believe their is any annuity (which is essentially what SS is, a government administered annuity) which has a return that low.

But it's pretty zany right - it's an idea that is miles from the mainstream of popular opinion and very fringe was the point I was making.

There's a really good case for banning cars - I acknowledge that my view on that is zany and on the fringe.

[Admiral Yi]

It's a two percent *real* return - i.e. above inflation.

In addition, because social security is pay as you go, you cannot compare that return against a current market annuity return.  If SS were privatized you'd have to account for the legacy commitments - which are in the trillions - and that would drag down those returns. You also have to adjust for solvency risk unless there is a government backstop guarantee - which would be another hidden cost that would have to be adjusted.

Social security is very efficiently run as government programs go and would certainly have lower admin and transaction costs than competing private annuities. The program does what it supposed to do and does it reasonably well.  It's a simple case of ain't broke, don't fix.

Yes, I am aware of the transitional legacy costs.  Chile managed to pay them.  And one thing the Furman paper fails to mention is that they are transitional: the country has to pay them for a while, but then gets to enjoy market returns in perpetuity.

[Barrister]

Social security is very efficiently run as government programs go and would certainly have lower admin and transaction costs than competing private annuities. The program does what it supposed to do and does it reasonably well.  It's a simple case of ain't broke, don't fix.

Except that social security has been paying out more than it receives for more than a decade, and is projected to run out of money entirely by 2035.  Kind of sounds like it is broke, even if you disagree about how to fix it.

[The Minsky Moment]

Except that social security has been paying out more than it receives for more than a decade, and is projected to run out of money entirely by 2035.  Kind of sounds like it is broke, even if you disagree about how to fix it.

You are mixing up the accounting fiction with the reality.  There is no money to run out of.

[Admiral Yi]

But it's pretty zany right - it's an idea that is miles from the mainstream of popular opinion and very fringe was the point I was making.

Zany is not a synonym for unpopular.  Zany has to have some connection to irrationality.

And I would argue that the unpopularity is at least somewhat a function of the scaremongering about "the stock market casino."