The irrational nature of Libertarianism

[RandomGuy]

I believe all laws attempting to regulate markets should be repealed.

I do not believe attempting to analyze a government distorted industry of cartels and monopolies can produce information that reflects upon anything but these distortions.

How convenient for you that anything that might call into question your preferred solution is unfalsifiable.

There is a market for people who want other people killed.

Supply and demand exists for that service.

There is a market for child sex slaves along the same line.

When you say "all laws" attempting to regulate markets, do you mean this, or are there limits to the amount of free market even you will tolerate?

[Poptech]

How convenient for you that anything that might call into question your preferred solution is unfalsifiable.
In this case it is because you are starting from a flawed premise.


There is a market for people who want other people killed.

Supply and demand exists for that service.

There is a market for child sex slaves along the same line.

When you say "all laws" attempting to regulate markets, do you mean this, or are there limits to the amount of free market even you will tolerate?
Those have nothing to do with market regulations. Where did I suggest laws should not exist protecting human life and property from the aggression of others?

[RandomGuy]

In this case it is because you are starting from a flawed premise.


Those have nothing to do with market regulations. Where did I suggest laws should not exist protecting human life and property from the aggression of others?

I didn't say you did suggest such.

I just wanted to know how much free market you want, as you seemed to balk at discussions of morality for some reason.

"Protecting human life and property from the aggression of others" seems pretty subjective to me.

What if I am really wealthy and want to use the creek on my property to dump my sewage that flows into the poor community downstream.

Do we regulate that?

What if that land owner wants to dam up the stream and sell the water?

[RandomGuy]

In this case it is because you are starting from a flawed premise.


A flawed premise according to you. Let's leave it at that.

[RandomGuy]

Charity hospitals providing these services for free is not socialism.

Cost shifting is cost shifting, free market or goverment.

You still haven't told me how you would prevent costs from being shifted by a non-charity hospital that spends $200,000 treating an elderly heart-attack victim that staggers in the door, and can't pay.

Will you penalize a hospital that chooses not to accept such a person? What if the hospital loads up that person in an ambulance to ship them to a charity hospital, and the delay kills the person?

What penalty do you propose for that hospital? finger wagging?

You think that a hospital that watches costs by these subtle things would really face all that much ostracism?

[ElNono]

With healthcare you are making me financially responsible for the bad lifestyle choices of my neighbor.

This is a terrible take. Even the healthiest person gets sick and eventually dies.

Your neighbor chooses to have cancer? That's a new one.

[RandomGuy]

I kind of wanted a system of governance fleshed out with some concrete proposals fleshed out for how a libertarian system would handle important issues.

I haven't gotten anything that approaches that.

While I am generally sympathetic to libertarian ideals, they are just that. Ideas with no substance.

Honestly it seems like the economic version Christian Scientists to me.

Hand-wavy "free market will fix it" doesn't really seem like a way to organize a society that would work.

[RandomGuy]

This is an economic fallacy.

Hand waving.

He who asserts must prove.

If you can't prove, then the only logical thing is to reject it.

Can you show how/why anything you have claimed to be an "economic fallacy" actually is?

Other than circular reasoning or tautologies?

[RandomGuy]

Managing cost shifting is a part of doing business and in some cases can only be minimized. Medicare and Medicaid are a form of cost shifting that is making healthcare more expensive for everyone else,

Why is Medical Care so Expensive? (http://mises.org/daily/2285) (Hans F. Sennholz, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)

I would thus also eliminate medicare and medicaid.

Not reading the link. Can you explain it in your own words?

So, you just want to replace government cost-shifting with free-market cost shifting.

That doens't really solve the problem of having to pay for other people, does it?

What would you do about people who can't afford health insurance?

Is charity is going to pick up the tab for 25% of our GDP?

[RandomGuy]

Dammit. Read the link, despite not wanting to bother.

It is vacuous hand waving.

No solutions or viable working alternatives, just propaganda/cult literature. Shocker. :bang

[RandomGuy]

A cartel of sufficient resources would have the ability to sue in civil avenues any potential rival. It seems this statement is not really reasonable.

This would only require enough goverment to enforce the courts' determination.

Do you want to get rid of the courts?


Sue for what?

Any kind of lawsuit. The bar for torts is not all that high to file lawsuits. Does it matter?

Again, how do you prevent cartels and monopolies in a purely free-market system?

They are inevitable results of capitalism.

[Wild Cobra]

What I "want" in this case is not really relevant as it turns out.

But:
I do happen to support denying life-saving care to people being made illegal.

I agree that emergency life saving procedures should not be denied. I would think you may want to clarify "life-saving care" as this can be construed to mean so much more than emergency care. Am I right?

I know people have a hard time with me calling myself a conservative libertarian, but is anyone really just one of anything? I am mostly either conservative or libertarian with my viewpoints. I believe most of my viewpoints are tempered with both disciplines.that doesn't mean I cannot agree with limited socialized system. I don't think anyone here will deny I have stated numerous times I am all for helping the elderly and handicapped with tax dollars. By the same token, I'm perfectly fine with emergency services.

[Wild Cobra]

Laissez-faire has nothing to do with anarchism. Laissez-faire still include a constitutionally limited government that provides for defense and the court system.
Thanks... I guess... for a term I had to look up.

I acknowledge that we need a certain degree of regulations, I guess your response means you do also. Looks like we are going to disagree where that line needs to be set. I believe a nearly unlimited free to do as one pleases attitude is as bad as the communist or socialist concept. May as well be anarchy in my view. People will do what's best for them at the time. I think we need enough laws and regulation that make a point of protecting one persons freedom from the unethical conduct that others do in the name of their freedom.

I do understand your point, and agree with it in general. I will contend that emergency care in hospitals are different. Emergency transport services need to take someone to the closest available care. Now... What if... a person is unconscious, can pay, has no idea, and there is no means to know if they will get paid?

Do you deny care to an unconscious John/Jane Doe? Still, a choice the hospital can make under a right of freedom. I will make the contention that emergency care is a different circumstance than most trade related interactions.

[Wild Cobra]

Using this argument, non-poisoned food is directly supportive of life but again you are changing the argument. Pay for what treatment exactly? Why should a hospital be forced to treat those who's conditions are caused from overeating and not exercising? Why should I pay for my neighbor's irresponsible behavior?
LOL...

Random, see what I mean by "life saving care?"

I wonder if by the time I read the rest of this thread, if you changed it to emergency care?

[Wild Cobra]

Your historic facts all involve government intervention. So I take it you also support the Post Office?

I have to start wondering about you. The Post Office is one of the few organizations required under our constitution.

[RandomGuy]

I agree that emergency life saving procedures should not be denied. I would think you may want to clarify "life-saving care" as this can be construed to mean so much more than emergency care. Am I right?

I know people have a hard time with me calling myself a conservative libertarian, but is anyone really just one of anything? I am mostly either conservative or libertarian with my viewpoints. I believe most of my viewpoints are tempered with both disciplines.that doesn't mean I cannot agree with limited socialized system. I don't think anyone here will deny I have stated numerous times I am all for helping the elderly and handicapped with tax dollars. By the same token, I'm perfectly fine with emergency services.

By that I mean emergency room services where someone will most likely die within a day or so.

It is, to be sure, a complex issue.

[RandomGuy]

I was kind of hoping for a bit more here.

I have asked some serious, albeit predictable questions, that would seem to merit some concrete policy solutions.

What I have gotten looks nothing so much like religious dogma.


A: "that idea is wrong because it is an economic fallacy"

B: "oh really, why is that?"

A: "It is an economic fallacy, because it contradicts what I say economics is"
Uh-huh. Where have I heard this kind of stuff before...? Oh yeah.



"That idea is wrong because it goes against God"

"oh really, why is that?"

"because it goes against the bible, and the bible is what God says"

:bang


------------------------------------------------


"if we just lived our lives according to libertarian principles everything would be great, see here is a website all about it"

"um, ok, so how would you apply those principles in these real world scenarios? it would be nice to have some concrete working solutions"

"we would apply libertarian principles, and not accept any ideas that contradict them as valid, see read this essay about how good those principles are"

***


"if we just lived our lives according to Christian/muslim/hindu principles everything would be great"

"um, ok, so how would you apply those principles in these real world scenarios? it would be nice to have some concrete working solutions."

"we would apply Christian/muslim/hindu principles, and not accept any ideas that contradict them as valid, see here is a passage from my/our holy book"

***

:bang

Once again, I give up.

It is just too hard to have meaningful discussions about irrational dogmatic beliefs.

If libertarianism were an actual working way of organizing society, it would be able to present solutions to these things, and its proponents would be able to do a bit more than hand waving and saying "LOOK OVER THERE" when you ask them about these things.

[RandomGuy]

In this case it is because you are starting from a flawed premise.


Those have nothing to do with market regulations. Where did I suggest laws should not exist protecting human life and property from the aggression of others?

Laws against murder for hire has everything to do with limiting what can be bought or sold on a free market.

[Poptech]

Laws against murder for hire has everything to do with limiting what can be bought or sold on a free market.
Strawman argument, as no free market proponent supports removing laws protecting human life and property from aggression by others. This also has nothing to do with market regulation or free markets.

[Th'Pusher]

^ lol @ poptech's google alerts :lol

[RandomGuy]

Strawman argument, as no free market proponent supports removing laws protecting human life and property from aggression by others. This also has nothing to do with market regulation or free markets.

Strawman argument.

I didn't say that was the position of any free market proponent, merely that some laws can be said to limit free markets.

Why do you feel it necessary to lie about what I say?

[RandomGuy]

Perhaps I can get an honest answer now.


A cartel of sufficient resources would have the ability to sue in civil avenues any potential rival. It seems this statement is not really reasonable.

This would only require enough goverment to enforce the courts' determination.

Do you want to get rid of the courts?


Sue for what?

Any kind of lawsuit. The bar for torts is not all that high to file lawsuits. Does it matter?

Again, how do you prevent cartels and monopolies in a purely free-market system?

They are inevitable results of capitalism.

[RandomGuy]

^ lol @ poptech's google alerts :lol

I am sure he googles it daily.

[RandomGuy]

Monopolies are an irrational boogie man, the irony being that government regulation create monopolies.


Monopolies are historical facts.

You can't say they are boogie men, without telling me how they would be avoided in a purely free market system.

Large companies that got large enough to corner any market would be large enough to do quite a few things that would be anti-competitive without any govermental regulation at all.

Hiring away key players from a small company, for example.
Accepting prices at deep losses where smaller rivals are operating to drive them out of business.

How would your system keep this from happening?



I have no idea how to keep economic fallacies from happening.

He who asserts must prove.

If you can't prove, then the only logical thing is to reject it.

Can you show how/why anything you have claimed to be an "economic fallacy" actually is?

[Poptech]

I didn't say that was the position of any free market proponent, merely that some laws can be said to limit free markets.
If it is not a position of a free market proponent than it is a strawman argument <- go look up the definition of the phrase.

[Poptech]

Again, how do you prevent cartels and monopolies in a purely free-market system?

They are inevitable results of capitalism.
Incorrect, cartels are an inevitable result of government regulation, since in a pure free market collusion for price control would inevitably attract third parties to that market and under-cut the cartel thus making them futile.

It is only theoretically possible to have a resource monopoly but it may be impossible to determine when this is reached.

[boutons_deux]

Incorrect, cartels are an inevitable result of government regulation, since in a pure free market collusion for price control would inevitably attract third parties to that market and under-cut the cartel thus making them futile.

:lol goddam, you're one stupid motherfucker. And of course you can't give any examples to support you stupidity.

[DarrinS]

:lol goddam, you're one stupid motherfucker. And of course you can't give any examples to support you stupidity.

Meh, too easy.

[Poptech]

:lol goddam, you're one stupid motherfucker. And of course you can't give any examples to support you stupidity.
An example of a lack of a university education.

[boutons_deux]

An example of a lack of a university education.

You Lie.

and you got no evidence of "cartels are an inevitable result of government regulation,...."

[RandomGuy]

If it is not a position of a free market proponent than it is a strawman argument <- go look up the definition of the phrase.

I am more familiar with the definition than you are. No need to look it up.

You might want to, though, look up what a reductio ad absurdum is.

Lastly, you can't bitch about people trying to figure out what your position is, if you are unable, or unwilling to spell out your terms, answer honest questions directly, or clarify things.

That is not honest.

[RandomGuy]

Incorrect, cartels are an inevitable result of government regulation, since in a pure free market collusion for price control would inevitably attract third parties to that market and under-cut the cartel thus making them futile.

It is only theoretically possible to have a resource monopoly but it may be impossible to determine when this is reached.

Bullshit.

Cartels are the inevitable result of private entities colluding to set prices in a free market without government regulation. They have existed since capitalism itself. Drug cartels, LIBOR price fixing, Coffee or spice monopolies are not, and have not been theoretical.

Such cartels would act to exclude the third parties attracted to that market, and squash new competition in a way similar to monopolies.

Cartels exist now, have existed, and will always exist where you have free markets.

Your God is not infallible.

[RandomGuy]

There would have to be a law they could sue about. Large companies frequently sue using government regulations against their competition.

I do not claim cartels could not exist in a laissez faire system, rather they could not last long. What you are concerned with legal abuse though relates to a company using the regulatory environment against their competitors. Without these regulations they could only sue for things like theft.

You don't need "laws" to sue about, you merely need actionable torts, i.e. theft and contract disputes. Anybody who has ever taken a business law class with an introduction to contracts and UCC understands that.

A single farmer's right to use the water on his land can easily be inpinged by the large corporate farm next door, for example.

You still have not told me how this farmer would prevail against the army of lawyers that corporation could field, barring any redress through governmental action.

[Poptech]

Cartels are the inevitable result of private entities colluding to set prices in a free market without government regulation. They have existed since capitalism itself. Drug cartels, LIBOR price fixing, Coffee or spice monopolies are not, and have not been theoretical.
None of those are examples of free markets but rather the result of government regulation.


Such cartels would act to exclude the third parties attracted to that market, and squash new competition in a way similar to monopolies.
How exactly do they do this?


Your God is not infallible.
Another strawman argument.

[angrydude]

lol at the dumbasses not understanding the solution to the problems they bitch about daily

[Th'Pusher]

Can libertarians name a single society where libertarianism has been successfully implemented? Spare me the Hong Kong bullshit as we all know the state owns all land, offer social medicine and welfare

[RandomGuy]

Wow.

0Psp0A-zJgU

You can't make this stuff up.

[RandomGuy]

"he wants people to have licenses to drive cars"

GASP.

[RandomGuy]

Another ongoing failure of an ideology.

PopTech

[RandomGuy]

Bam.

[sickdsm]

Bam.
Bailing from one thread to bump another when you didn't respond to my comment yet?

[RandomGuy]

Bailing from one thread to bump another when you didn't respond to my comment yet?

Didn't bail. Just had a meeting. This thread is one of my subscriptions, so it makes a convenient vehicle when the subject of libertarian philosophy comes up.


Your Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.1

Libertarian left.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

I have some fairly strong libertarian leanings as well. I just don't think its purest form is any more rational than communism.

[sickdsm]

Didn't bail. Just had a meeting. This thread is one of my subscriptions, so it makes a convenient vehicle when the subject of libertarian philosophy comes up.



Libertarian left.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

I have some fairly strong libertarian leanings as well. I just don't think its purest form is any more rational than communism.


Sounds like we agree. So why the hostility towards libertarian then? Majority of people in america are libertarian leaning. They either don't know it or refuse to embrace it.

[RandomGuy]

Sounds like we agree. So why the hostility towards libertarian then? Majority of people in america are libertarian leaning. They either don't know it or refuse to embrace it.

I think we likely agree on many things. The compass.org website is interesting. I am a social liberal, and fiscal conservative.

What bothers me are the nutters who are hard line zealots. PopTech was one and Parker another.

[boutons_deux]

"Majority of people in america are libertarian leaning."

link?

WTF is libertarianism? and how is it different from conservatism? I'm interested differences that result in different policies.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sounds like we agree. So why the hostility towards libertarian then? Majority of people in america are libertarian leaning. They either don't know it or refuse to embrace it.

:lol speak for yourself. Not everyone thinks like you.

[RandomGuy]

Sounds like we agree. So why the hostility towards libertarian then? Majority of people in america are libertarian leaning. They either don't know it or refuse to embrace it.

True "pure" libertarianism is not dissimilar to communism. Shit sounds good on paper, but fails miserably when applied in the real world.

[RandomGuy]

Can libertarians name a single society where libertarianism has been successfully implemented? Spare me the Hong Kong bullshit as we all know the state owns all land, offer social medicine and welfare

https://www.texasobserver.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-freest-little-city-in-texas/
The Rise and Fall of the “Freest Little City in Texas”
How a libertarian experiment in city government fell apart over taxes, debt and some very angry people.

It is actually a pretty funny/tragicomic read.

[RandomGuy]

See you just don't get it. It would be in the interest of a private individual or corporation to care of the land they own and they would do a better job of it than the government. So if our national parks, take Yosemite for example, were returned to private ownership then it would be kept even more pristine because that would generate more tourism/profits. Well unless they realized they could just flood it like it's sister valley Hetch Hetchy and make more money selling the water to Califorinia. But they wouldn't be able to do that because it's public land, no wait it's private, no wait it's....


RG, the correct description of libertarians is "politically irrelevant". Why spend time arguing with them?

This is a 2010 post that didn't age well, given the libertarian influences on the GOP in the interim.

[boutons_deux]

Libertarians are pawns of the oligarchy. Everything they want empowers the oligarchy.

I bet most libertarians have no fucking idea.

[TheGreatYacht]

Libertarians are pawns of the oligarchy. Everything they want empowers the oligarchy.

I bet most libertarians have no fucking idea.

This. Libertarians want to privatize every public institution and let the elites have full control. They want to put the fox in charge of the hen house.

[RandomGuy]

This. Libertarians want to privatize every public institution and let the elites have full control. They want to put the fox in charge of the hen house.

That isn't what they want, but it is what would happen.

[RandomGuy]

Libertarians are pawns of the oligarchy. Everything they want empowers the oligarchy.

I bet most libertarians have no fucking idea.

They don't. Gotta hand it to the effectiveness of the oligarchy's propaganda machine though.

[benefactor]

That isn't what they want, but it is what would happen.
Yep. I have libertarian leanings but I understand what the outcome would be. I want less regulation, but at what cost? Grim business.

[RandomGuy]

Yep. I have libertarian leanings but I understand what the outcome would be. I want less regulation, but at what cost? Grim business.

True that. I agree mostly.

Government should regulate as little as possible and still serve the public.

There is a balance between laissez-faire and good government.

At the moment though, we have neither. We have a government captured almost completely by special interests, and that happened well before Trump was in office.

I hope his presidency will spur some change in getting money out of the equation or at least making things fairer.

[TheGreatYacht]

Dr. Richard Wolff Debates Libertarians

https://youtu.be/-UUkFrRoKh8




benefactor RandomGuy
I think you will find this debate very interesting. I personally loved it.

[spurraider21]

nobody's gonna watch a random 1 hour youtube :lol

[RandomGuy]

nobody's gonna watch a random 1 hour youtube :lol

I have long commutes, and listen to such things pretty often.

RandomGuy will definitely watch (or rather listen to) random youtubes. :lol

[boutons_deux]

They don't. Gotta hand it to the effectiveness of the oligarchy's propaganda machine though.

They are very smart people, skim the cream of the best graduates, insanely motivated to amass wealth and the political power that wealth enables, without limit.

Capitalists don't GIVE A FLYING FUCK about USA, the planet, democracy, people, or anything except inhumane Capitalism making them wealthy and powerful.

Then poison the American stew even more with Christian Taliban dominionists who have every intent of destroying the Constitution and terrorizing everybody to conform to their Biblical ethics and morality, OR ELSE (you DIE, like untreated LGBT)

America is fucked and unfuckable.

[spurraider21]

I have long commutes, and listen to such things pretty often.

RandomGuy will definitely watch (or rather listen to) random youtubes. :lol
i stand corrected

[RandomGuy]

Dr. Richard Wolff Debates Libertarians

https://youtu.be/-UUkFrRoKh8




benefactor RandomGuy
I think you will find this debate very interesting. I personally loved it.

Started it this morning on my drive. It was good, and will finish it tonight. Thanks!

[TheGreatYacht]

Started it this morning on my drive. It was good, and will finish it tonight. Thanks!

I love Richard Wolff. He has his own YouTube channel called "Democracy At Work."

[Spurtacular]

This. Libertarians want to privatize every public institution and let the elites have full control. They want to put the fox in charge of the hen house.

Name these public institutions that they want privatized.

[TheGreatYacht]

Name these public institutions that they want privatized.

Pretty much everything that is public that you can think of. Public education, USPS, Social Security, Utility companies, etc.

‘Privatization has failed repeatedly’
https://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2018/05/10/public-ownership-cat-hobbs

[Spurtacular]

Pretty much everything that is public that you can think of. Public education, USPS, Social Security, Utility companies, etc.

‘Privatization has failed repeatedly’
https://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2018/05/10/public-ownership-cat-hobbs

Okay, I guess your wording is just weird. In many cases, they're about abolishing public institutions or limiting their scope to what's needed. For instance, social security would be abolished; and this is because people can ultimately save more money without a reckless govt. spending their hard earned money.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, I guess your wording is just weird. In many cases, they're about abolishing public institutions or limiting their scope to what's needed. For instance, social security would be abolished; and this is because people can ultimately save more money without a reckless govt. spending their hard earned money.

unless there is a stock market downturn the year they start drawing down.

The government is vastly more efficient than private companies at most things, especially things that have "free rider" problems.

All private companies offer services at "cost + profit", meaning you are starting off paying 20-40% more than what it cost to begin with. Easy for government to beat that.

[Spurtacular]

unless there is a stock market downturn the year they start drawing down.

The government is vastly more efficient than private companies at most things, especially things that have "free rider" problems.

All private companies offer services at "cost + profit", meaning you are starting off paying 20-40% more than what it cost to begin with. Easy for government to beat that.

Govt. rips people off on their retirements; I have no doubt you know this. If you don't, you're a really shitty accountant.

[TheGreatYacht]

Govt. rips people off on their retirements; I have no doubt you know this. If you don't, you're a really shitty accountant.

I don't trust the government for the simple fact that they are paid and bought for by the same elitists. That's why we need to put the right people in charge and regulate these fuckers from rigging the system in the first place. The elites pay politicians to write the laws in their favor. Right now government is an extension of corporations and we need to fix that problem first.

[Spurtacular]

I don't trust the government for the simple fact that they are paid and bought for by the same elitists. That's why we need to put the right people in charge and regulate these fuckers from rigging the system in the first place. The elites pay politicians to write the laws in their favor. Right now government is an extension of corporations and we need to fix that problem first.

You don't have to trust social security based on the numbers. You take the contributions of a guaranteed annuity vs. the unguaranteed much lower amount you'll get with social security. It's being a millionaire vs. maybe not even having enough to cover basic living expenses. People like Random Dickface know this and they still shill.

[RandomGuy]

Govt. rips people off on their retirements; I have no doubt you know this. If you don't, you're a really shitty accountant.

:lol

Explain what you mean, in your own words derp.

Define "rip people off".

[TheGreatYacht]

unless there is a stock market downturn the year they start drawing down.

The government is vastly more efficient than private companies at most things, especially things that have "free rider" problems.

All private companies offer services at "cost + profit", meaning you are starting off paying 20-40% more than what it cost to begin with. Easy for government to beat that.

I'm not against free market on certain things such as technology, auto industry, social media and business management. Competition is actually good under these circumstances.

But certain things like prisons, healthcare, and education should not be public institutions. That is a recipe for disaster and we are seeing seeing the consequences today.

[Spurtacular]

:lol

Explain what you mean, in your own words derp.

Define "rip people off".

You should calm down on the derp talk; your head couldn't be further up your ass.

Take what you pay in SS and put it into an annuity and tell me the difference on the payout.

[RandomGuy]

You should calm down on the derp talk; your head couldn't be further up your ass.

Take what you pay in SS and put it into an annuity and tell me the difference on the payout.

Pick an annuity to measure it against. SS is itself an annuity, and backed by the full faith and credit of the US government.

[RandomGuy]

Because I am not lazy, I went looking for analysis, and found several good ones, as this is an area of a lot of academic work it seems.

First one noted, as I did above, one of the features of SS that allows it to payout at slightly less than private companies.



The National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Association (NOLHGA) and National Conference of Insurance Guaranty Funds (NCIGF) jointly reported 74 insurance company insolvencies among member insurers over the period 1988–2009, with average recoveries on annuities of 94 percent (NOLHGA/NCIGF 2011). In contrast, 465 banks failed from 2008 to 2012, with 157 alone in 2010. Annuitants' premiums are typically protected up to a maximum amount, which is set by each state's insurance guaranty fund.15


There is no default risk for SS.

Further, SS benefits themselves recieve a COLA. Most annuities do not have this feature. You get a fixed payment, and the value of that fixed payment drops over time. The time value of money is a bitch that way.

I will see if I can gather some data for a quick spreadsheet analysis at some point. This is fascinating. Anyone want to take bets that Derptacular won't even try to defend his statement? ;)

[RandomGuy]

First paper that outlines some of the issues involved. (quoted above)


https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/issuepapers/ip2017-01.html

[RandomGuy]

You should calm down on the derp talk; your head couldn't be further up your ass.

Take what you pay in SS and put it into an annuity and tell me the difference on the payout.


Social Security: The Best Annuity Money Can Buy


With an implied payout rate of 9.5%, Social Security delay provides a higher payout rate, stronger inflation protection and less credit risk than commercially available annuities.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadepfau/2015/11/17/social-security-the-best-annuity-money-can-buy/#704d9feb5fc7

Next bit. Note the part at the end I talked about above. "less credit risk". Almost as if that is an important part of determining return. :D

[RandomGuy]

You should calm down on the derp talk; your head couldn't be further up your ass.

Take what you pay in SS and put it into an annuity and tell me the difference on the payout.


Social Security: The Best Annuity You Can Buy
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4267174-social-security-best-annuity-can-buy


Summary
Delaying the start of Social Security past age 62 means the foregone income is reinvested in the system.

The increased income later can be interpreted as a lifetime annuity over and above what was available at age 62.

The annuity return on the reinvested income is 7-9% in the first year, depending on age, and growing with inflation thereafter.

This is very favorable compared to other annuity options.

[Spurtacular]

Pick an annuity to measure it against. SS is itself an annuity, and backed by the full faith and credit of the US government.

No. Annuities have steady monthly payments and guaranteed payouts. SS is a shit man's annuity even if you want to make that argument.

[RandomGuy]

No. Annuities have steady monthly payments and guaranteed payouts. SS is a shit man's annuity even if you want to make that argument.

You didn't really read any of the analysis I posted, and obviously don't understand the financial concepts. Your statement here pretty much confirms that, since you completely ignored d the fact of fund/company/default risk, as if you don't even know about it.

Sokay. I kinda knew that already.

[Spurtacular]

You didn't really read any of the analysis I posted, and obviously don't understand the financial concepts. Your statement here pretty much confirms that, since you completely ignored d the fact of fund/company/default risk, as if you don't even know about it.

Sokay. I kinda knew that already.

I didn't need to. Annuities make people into millionaires. Social security doesn't.

[TheGreatYacht]

"Now, the Libertarian Party, is a capitalist party. It's in favor of what I would regard a particular form of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an extremely rigid system of domination - people have to... people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them very sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the fundamental doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner."

- Noam Chomsky

https://seattleducation2010.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/11377129_377891525734082_3814919793007449897_n.jpg

[boutons_deux]

That's exactly what the oligarchy's whores the Repugs have been doing

they MISgovern, fuck up government, piss people off, tell people "govt IS the problem" and Repugs do everything to MISgovern.

Why? To corrupt and enfeeble govt so the oligarchy can rape and pillage the people and the environment unencumbered by "the administrative state"

[RandomGuy]

You didn't really read any of the analysis I posted, and obviously don't understand the financial concepts. Your statement here pretty much confirms that, since you completely ignored d the fact of fund/company/default risk, as if you don't even know about it.

Sokay. I kinda knew that already.


I didn't need to. Annuities make people into millionaires. Social security doesn't.

:rollin

RG: "your statement proves you don't understand the topic or concepts related to the topic"

Spurty: "hold my beer"


In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability.

Sure man. If you say so. I'm not even going to argue with you at this point. Watching you flail is more fun. Keep talking. :lol

[Spurtacular]

:rollin

RG: "your statement proves you don't understand the topic or concepts related to the topic"

Spurty: "hold my beer"



Sure man. If you say so. I'm not even going to argue with you at this point. Watching you flail is more fun. Keep talking. :lol

Hold my beer.

Only an idiot believes a compulsory system like SS is giving a better return than a solid annuity. Of course, you fit the bill.

I'll take my beer back now.

[RandomGuy]

Hold my beer.

Only an idiot believes a compulsory system like SS is giving a better return than a solid annuity. Of course, you fit the bill.

I'll take my beer back now.

Sure. You are 100% right. No doubt about it. Keep talking and share the knowledge.

[TheGreatYacht]

Annuities vs Social Security

My right-brained, accountant husband stayed home yesterday because it snowed. We started talking about the number of people who attack Social Security as an inefficient retirement fund and insist they could do much better on their own.

Just for the heck of it — because he loves math and me — my hubby unearthed his most recent annual Social Security statement and plugged the numbers into a spreadsheet to test how his accumulated Social Security compares to a conservative investment of the same amount of money outside Social Security. He was surprised to learn that Social Security isn’t such a bad deal after all.

Hubby listed his taxable wages beginning in 1963 on the spreadsheet. In the second column, he put the annual percentage of Social Security deducted from his wages — it’s changed over time, from 3.32 percent the first year he paid in to 6.2 percent last year. He calculated his annual contributions and his employers’ annual contributions based on his wages. Then he totaled the contributions.

Next, he assumed that Uncle Sam would invest the money in 30-year Treasuries, and he plugged in interest on the accumulated money based on the Treasury rates, calculating a purchase every six months and reflecting the actual change in rates. Finally, he added up the annual totals and a grand total.

He took that grand total and plugged it into ImmediateAnnuties.com and got a monthly payout for a single male, age 66. He compared that number to what Social Security says he’d get at 66.

According to ImmediateAnnuities.com, he would be able to take his total accumulated savings and purchase an annuity worth $3,427 paid monthly beginning at age 66 for the rest of his life. If he wanted to share the money with me, he could get a joint-lives payout that would pay $2,828 until we both died. There are no inflation adjustments during that time, and when both of us die, the insurance company gets to keep what’s left.

By comparison, Social Security will pay my husband $2,415 monthly beginning at age 66. If I didn’t have my own Social Security, I could claim half of his — $1,207 — for a family total of $3,622. That’s $794 more than the private annuity would pay us. Plus, the Social Security money is indexed for inflation. When one of us dies, the other gets the highest amount of the two payments. When both of us die, the government keeps anything that’s left.

By my lights, Social Security is clearly the better deal.

The Bush administration wanted to partially dismantle Social Security and let people invest at least some of their contributions in the stock market. I haven’t heard much about that plan since the market went south in 2008. But some regular posters here still suggest that they could do better on their own. And maybe they could. But Social Security is a program designed to protect all of us, including those of us who don’t have what it takes to save and invest money on our own. I think that’s a retirement planning blessing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/annuities-vs-social-security/amp/

[TheGreatYacht]

Chris Hedges: Corporate Capitalism in Decline [Part 1/2]

https://youtu.be/1GS-0OPxc_I
Chris Hedges: Corporate Capitalism in Decline [Part 2/2]

https://youtu.be/XJOyU3PnSGY

[TheGreatYacht]

Laura Ingraham Is Against Closing For-Profit Prisons

https://youtu.be/u7gcm0VPn4E

[RandomGuy]

Hold my beer.

Only an idiot believes a compulsory system like SS is giving a better return than a solid annuity. Of course, you fit the bill.

I'll take my beer back now.

Guessing you are still doing the analysis. :lmao

[Spurtacular]

Guessing you are still doing the analysis. :lmao

You posted a hack link. Anyone who's taken a college finance class knows a private annuity kicks SS's ass. Govt. not in the business of giving premium returns, jack ass.

[RandomGuy]

You posted a hack link. Anyone who's taken a college finance class knows a private annuity kicks SS's ass. Govt. not in the business of giving premium returns, jack ass.

I have taken quite a few grad level finance and economics classes.

You have yet to show the barest glimmer of the the knowledge required to make that determination.

You are an idiot and every mocking post where you can't back up.your bullshit proves that.

[Spurtacular]

I have taken quite a few grad level finance and economics classes.


And yet you have your head that far up your ass.

Govt. ain't in the business of giving premium returns, jackass.

[RandomGuy]

You are an idiot and every mocking post where you can't back up your bullshit proves that.


[mocking post with no evidence to back up claim]


:rollin

[Spurtacular]

CuckoldGuy lashing out.

Sorry, but the gov. ain't in the business of giving premium returns to non-cronies, RandomCuck.

[RandomGuy]

You are an idiot and every mocking post where you can't back up your bullshit proves that.


[mocking post with no evidence to back up claim]


:lol

Cuck Cuck.[mocking post with no evidence to back up claim]

:lol

[Spurtacular]

How come your wife doesn't post here any more, CuckoldGuy?

[RandomGuy]

You are an idiot and every mocking post where you can't back up your bullshit proves that.


[mocking post with no evidence to back up claim]


:lol


Cuck Cuck.[mocking post with no evidence to back up claim]


Cuck [mocking post with no evidence to back up claim]

That doesn't look like you attempting to back up your shit. That looks like more tourrettes.

Please, keep explaining to me about annuities.

At this point, you probably don't even remember what your claim is, do you? :rollin

[Spurtacular]

At this point, you probably don't even remember what your claim is, do you?

:lol You come back two months later with this.
:lol CuckGuy

[RandomGuy]

You are an idiot and every mocking post where you can't back up your bullshit proves that.


[mocking post with no evidence to back up claim]


:lol


Cuck Cuck.[mocking post with no evidence to back up claim]


Cuck [mocking post with no evidence to back up claim]


That doesn't look like you attempting to back up your shit. That looks like more tourrettes.

Please, keep explaining to me about annuities.

At this point, you probably don't even remember what your claim is, do you? :rollin


Cuck [mocking post with no back up to his bullshit]

You are an idiot and every mocking post where you can't back up your bullshit proves that.

[TheGreatYacht]

British People SHOCKED By American Healthcare Prices

https://youtu.be/NmXzWkG_ZLI

We need Medicare 4 All

[Winehole23]

1161356924216107008

[TheGreatYacht]

That Time FDR Owned The GOP So Hard They Bent The Knee

https://youtu.be/HcHu119J_H8

Spurtacular

[boutons_deux]

British People SHOCKED By American Healthcare Prices


We need Medicare 4 All

will NEVER happen in USA.

BigInsurance / BigHealthCare are too powerful to defeat.

Americans prefer to get fleeced, raped, impoverished (esp in old age) by for-profit BigCorp for the entire lives than M4A

and the docs are worth every penny :lol

https://blog.nomadhealth.com/complete-list-of-average-doctor-salaries-by-specialty-locum-tenens/

[TheGreatYacht]

will NEVER happen in USA.

BigInsurance / BigHealthCare are too powerful to defeat.

Americans prefer to get fleeced, raped, impoverished (esp in old age) by for-profit BigCorp for the entire lives than M4A

and the docs are worth every penny :lol

https://blog.nomadhealth.com/complete-list-of-average-doctor-salaries-by-specialty-locum-tenens/

Can't allow illegals, brownies and blacks to have healthcare. They prefer high premuims, copays and deductibles, medical bankruptcy and sky rocketing drugs over helping those in need. Give billions of foreign aid Israel. Use tax payer money for illegal Zionist wars. That's Murica in a nutshell.

[Spurtacular]

That Time FDR Owned The GOP So Hard They Bent The Knee

https://youtu.be/HcHu119J_H8

Spurtacular (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615)

We're talking about the guy who presided over the only economic period called The Great Depression?

[RandomGuy]

We're talking about the guy who presided over the only economic period called The Great Depression?

:lol

... started by a Republican, you fuckwit. wow, just wow.

[RandomGuy]

I think the essay, Libertarianism Makes You Stupid (http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php) is just as applicable today as 20 years ago.

Millenial Messiah Feel free to educate me as to how your superior economic/social system works. I would love to hear it, you chickenshit.

or fold. also whatever. I don't expect much.

[Spurtacular]

:lol

... started by a Republican, you fuckwit. wow, just wow.

:cry A Republican not in office is the one responsible for more than a decade of sh** :cry

[RandomGuy]

:cry A Republican not in office is the one responsible for more than a decade of sh** :cry

:lol

Spoken like someone who has no idea about how free market macro- and micro-economics works. But hey, you are so smart, what specifically did FDR to "be responsible for a decade" of shit?

[Spurtacular]

:lol

Spoken like someone who has no idea about how free market macro- and micro-economics works. But hey, you are so smart, what specifically did FDR to "be responsible for a decade" of shit?

:cry It wasn't FDR's fault :cry

[RandomGuy]

But hey, you are so smart, what specifically did FDR to "be responsible for a decade" of shit?



:cry It wasn't FDR's fault :cry

I asked you to prove it was, as you claimed. You folded, instantly.

[spurraider21]

1280254438503047169

[baseline bum]

1280254438503047169

:lmao

[Spurminator]

In all seriousness, has anyone ever met a female libertarian?

[spurraider21]

In all seriousness, has anyone ever met a female libertarian?
no, i never met ayn rand

[Spurminator]

no, i never met ayn rand

You missed out, she was super fun at parties.

I've honestly never even met a female who liked Ayn Rand books.

[spurraider21]

posted this elsewhere earlier today, fits here a lot better


:lmao

1280217058677084160

[ElNono]

1280254438503047169

:lol

[RandomGuy]

no, i never met ayn rand

Speaking of Ayn Rand...

Vocal Opponents Of Federal Spending Took PPP Loans, Including Ayn Rand Institute, Grover Norquist Group
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/07/06/vocal-opponents-of-federal-spending-took-ppp-loans-including-ayn-rand-institute-grover-norquist-group/

:lol

[RandomGuy]

You missed out, she was super fun at parties.

I've honestly never even met a female who liked Ayn Rand books.

Best birth control ever:

"I was reading this Ayn Rand book"

Guarantees you not getting laid. :lol

[RandomGuy]

HTN64g9lA2g

[DMC]

In all seriousness, has anyone ever met a female libertarian?

Wasn't cucking funt a libertarian? Oh wait, that was librarian. Same dead end.

[Adam Lambert]

Incidentally I have met female libertarians since I posted that. The anti-vax movement either created them or brought them more out in the open.

Like their (mostly male) cohorts they have very little to say about the government regulating pregnancy.

[RandomGuy]

Wasn't cucking funt a libertarian? Oh wait, that was librarian. Same dead end.

jmT7nLDinhY

[RandomGuy]

Incidentally I have met female libertarians since I posted that. The anti-vax movement either created them or brought them more out in the open.

Like their (mostly male) cohorts they have very little to say about the government regulating pregnancy.

I just wish we could harness hypocrisy as an energy source.

[Thread]

I just wish we could harness hypocrisy as an energy source.

Harness this, sport...

https://i2.wp.com/www.bostonherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/GettyImages-1234946450.jpg?fit=620%2C9999px&ssl=1

[DMC]

jmT7nLDinhY

Didn't watch

[DMC]

I just wish we could harness hypocrisy as an energy source.

You'd finally be self sustaining.

[SnakeBoy]

How many of you are former libertarians turned democrat socialist turned Biden bros?

[ElNono]

How many of you are former libertarians turned democrat socialist turned Biden bros?

Nathan

[RandomGuy]

Didn't watch

Don't care.

Long since come to the realization that trivial things like reason and evidence don't matter to you.

[Thread]

Don't care.

Long since come to the realization that trivial things like reason and evidence don't matter to you.

You ain't no picnic, son.

[RandomGuy]

How many of you are former libertarians turned democrat socialist turned Biden bros?



The more I read up on whatever "Libertarianism" is, the more it looks to me like a quasi-religion, ala 9-11 Truth movement and so forth.

Here is another link:
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid

Don't really know of many former libertarians.

It is a hard religion to shake, it seems.

[RandomGuy]

Nathan

Chickenshit Nathan ain't gonna touch nuthin with a ten foot pole.

[Adam Lambert]

Don't really know of many former libertarians.

I know plenty. I considered myself a libertarian at one time.

Then I turned, like, 20?

[SnakeBoy]

How many of you are former libertarians turned democrat socialist turned Biden bros?

Whinehole
SR21
Adam

Keep em coming

[Adam Lambert]

Whinehole
SR21
Adam

Keep em coming

Never been a DS or a Biden Bro though.

Also never been a never-Trumper turned MAGAtard, what's that like?

[RandomGuy]

I know plenty. I considered myself a libertarian at one time.

Then I turned, like, 20?

Flirted with it for a while, then I took some economics classes and realized how stupid it is.

[RandomGuy]

Whinehole
SR21
Adam

Keep em coming

Speaking of someone who needs economics classes...

[spurraider21]

1800334439127642478

[Thread]

Harness this, sport...

https://i2.wp.com/www.bostonherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/GettyImages-1234946450.jpg?fit=620%2C9999px&ssl=1

ha, ha.

[Proxy]

libertarianism in the US is a joke... thinking free market capitalism/laissez-faire economics could somehow lead to more freedoms lol. Look where that ideology has us. they're just neo libs that want to be called something else as they regurgitate ayn rand bs

og libertarians were just on their way to becoming anarchists

[Thread]

libertarianism in the US is a joke... thinking free market capitalism/laissez-faire economics could somehow lead to more freedoms lol. Look where that ideology has us. they're just neo libs that want to be called something else as they regurgitate ayn rand bs

og libertarians were just on their way to becoming anarchists

Plain spoken truth.

[RandomGuy]

libertarianism in the US is a joke... thinking free market capitalism/laissez-faire economics could somehow lead to more freedoms lol. Look where that ideology has us. they're just neo libs that want to be called something else as they regurgitate ayn rand bs

og libertarians were just on their way to becoming anarchists

03GYzR0LyQM

[Thread]

03GYzR0LyQM

Biden fucked around and found out over a week ago.

Trump did that.