Contributors

Friday, May 11, 2012

'Tis A Wonder

It is absolutely uncanny the ability the right has to take a simple fact in reality and completely turn it around so it's all the government's fault.

Take Kevin Baker's recent post about 401Ks. 

The naivete here is so monumental that someone seriously needs to commission a study on how one falls for a colossal amount of bullshit. He's actually doing the Rove on himself! Let me see if I can cut through it.

Kevin, the government doesn't want to take your retirement money. In fact, the reverse is true. The private financial institutions of this country want to take PUBLIC money (that's the money you have been paying into Social Security, Medicare etc) and play casino with it. These same private financial institutions want you to believe..well...what you erroneously believe in your (ahem) paranoia.

Let's review the six steps, shall we?

1. Go directly after the other side’s strengths.

2. Do not accept the truth or the obvious.

3. Instead, make claims that cloud the issue.

4. Some will believe you.

5. Others will be confused.

6. Your opponent’s strong point will be neutralized.

20 comments:

juris imprudent said...

To be fair to all, the source he quoted was an SEIU local president, not any politician. You utterly miss (as usual) the absolute stupidity in the discussion - that there must be a guaranteed retirement income that everyone is entitled to.

Now, if you are going to propose such a thing, you certainly aren't going to get that from the private sector.

Haplo9 said...

Eh, I'll wait until I'm confident that Mark understands the difference between defined benefit plans, defined contribution plans, and the relative risks of each type of plan before talking about this subject. Every time this sort of conversation comes up it ends up in trying to figure out just where it is that our understanding of these concepts wildly differs.

Mark Ward said...

Eh, I'll wait until I'm confident that Mark understands the difference between defined benefit plans,

As Ronald Reagan once famously said, "There you go again." A quick pivot back to me with the childish testing game in avoidance of an obvious truth: Kevin is being paranoid and has it all back asswards.

Make a point if you agree with Kevin and explain why you do.

Haplo9 said...

Wah. You have a history of incoherence here, so spare me. What strength is Kevin going after, btw? Surely you don't mean the "strength" of defined benefit plans, do you?

Mark Ward said...

Clearly, it's impossible for you to make a point unless it contains a childish testing question, no? Here, let me help you out.

Mark, you are wrong about Kevin and here's why. He's not being paranoid and here are some examples that show that the government is indeed trying to get his 401K.

(Insert Examples here with supporting evidence)

Here are some other examples of how private financial organizations are NOT trying to fuck Kevin out of his money.

(Insert Examples here...although I'd stay away from JP Morgan after last week...Yipes!)

That's how it works, dude. Good luck!

Haplo9 said...

You're serious? You say this:

>1. Go directly after the other side’s strengths.

And it's a childish testing question to ask you what strengths you think Kevin is going after? Mkay perfessor. Truly, your intellect shines.

Anyway, your comment leads me back to my first comment. You don't seem to quite understand how things work:

>Here are some other examples of how private financial organizations are NOT trying to fuck Kevin out of his money.

This makes no sense. You see Mark, today, once Kevin pays Soc Sec or Medicare money, it's not his anymore. He has no legal claim to it. So saying that private orgs want to take Kevin's money is misleading. What they would no doubt like to do is have Kevin be allowed to keep the money he currently pays in Soc Sec taxes and have him invest it with them, which would work.. why, it would work like 401k's and IRA's work today. Kevin might even be able to choose what things he wants that money invested in! Oh the humanity! Btw - does that mean that you think that todays 401k and IRA's are "playing casino"?

The point is this - there is no free lunch. 401k's are subject to the ups and downs of the market, it is true. Defined benefit plans have their own set of issues. If they are public, they are subject to future taxpayers being willing to pay them, regardless of the tax increases required, or if private, on the ability of the company in the future to pay them. If you haven't noticed, private defined benefit plans have all but disappeared, and public defined benefit plans are in a mess of red ink. I'd rather take my chances on the 401k style TYVM. At least I won't be signing my kids of up for the inevitable tax increases needed to keep the train rolling.

Now - all that said, I don't think the govt is going to try to take 401ks, because while possible, it would be profoundly stupid. It would precipitate a very large flight of capital away from US IMO and cause a depression - so yes, I think Kevin is being overly paranoid there. Or perhaps more to the point, if the govt is really thinking about confiscating 401ks, its probably all over already.

There you go - you might even learn something if you read closely. Now, are you going to take a go at clearing up the incoherence of the last 70% of your post, or is that goop just standard issue filler that you think makes you sound smart?

Mark Ward said...

You don't seem to quite understand how things work

Of course I don't. I never do, right?:) After all, it simply HAS to be that way.

you might even learn something if you read closely.

You know, I think the whole right wing blog arrogance thing comes from a fairly deep insecurity. For example, it's quite obvious that someone like Paul Krugman, for example, as well as many of the folks who offer testimonials in "Inside Job" are much more intelligent than you and the other denizens of TSM when it comes to economic matters. But they are all idiots because they don't adhere to your ideology. They HAVE to be because they have so much on folks like you and Kevin that it just makes your head batshit!

, once Kevin pays Soc Sec or Medicare money, it's not his anymore. He has no legal claim to it.

Not really true. When he reaches a certain age, he can start collecting the money that was taken out. So, it becomes his again. Oh, and spare me the whole meme about IOUs and all that faux "did you know?" garbage. I'm well aware of how the trust fund operates.

What they would no doubt like to do is have Kevin be allowed to keep the money he currently pays in Soc Sec taxes and have him invest it with them, which would work.. why, it would work like 401k's and IRA's work today.

That's right, they sure would like him to invest it with them. Why? Because that's how they make money. The question at this point is...which is more important to them...Kevin's well financial being or making money? I say the latter and I offer as proof the simple truth that businesses are amoral. You could say that if they fuck up Kevin will just take his money elsewhere. But what if they ALL do it? That's what lead to the financial crisis that somehow is now all Obama's fault.

does that mean that you think that todays 401k and IRA's are "playing casino"?

Yes. I guess I must have imagined all of this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/business/retirementspecial/recovering-from-a-crash-to-make-a-second-act.html?pagewanted=all

Like Jonnie Worth, many Americans lost tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars, when the markets and their 401(k)’s swooned in 2008 — all told, 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts lost $2.8 trillion in value.

401k's are subject to the ups and downs of the market, it is true.

But those ups and downs were due to people being greedy and taking a lot of risk. They did it willingly. It wasn't just the nature of the market.

so yes, I think Kevin is being overly paranoid there.

I'm relieved that you think this. Since he won't listen to me, you should tell him this. The other thing to consider is that this paranoia isn't new.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/iras-401ks-and-you/

One other point...the financial institutions of this nation would like nothing more than to get their greedy mitts on that public retirement fund money and "invest" it. This is the ultimate goal of folks like Scott Walker and his ilk and this is what I mean by going after the other side's strengths. Public retirement funds are low risk and very safe investments for the golden years. Now, there is a massive effort underway to shit all over that and scare people into thinking that the government is going to fuck it all up. But the friendly financial dude at JP Morgan is going to take care of you, right?

GuardDuck said...

Public retirement funds are low risk and very safe investments

For who?

Haplo9 said...

>Not really true. When he reaches a certain age, he can start collecting the money that was taken out.

Factually incorrect. The amount of money you get out of defined benefit plan is only tangentially related to how much you put in. Soc Sec is an example. The amount of money you get out of it is dependent on how long you live. This is why defined benefit plans tend to cost more than projected, because life expectancy, on average, goes up.

>Public retirement funds are low risk and very safe investments for the golden years.

Wrong. This appears to be the source of your problems understanding this. Public retirement funds are often not investments, or funds, at all. They are promises to pay something in the future, using tax money collected in the future. Again, those promises are only safe so long as those future taxpayers are willing to foot the bill, and whatever politics are going on at the time don't change the payout. As you may have noticed, taxpayers especially at the state levels have not been willing to foot the bill, and the political calculus has led to benefit cuts. How are those safe, again? What do you think will happen to Soc Sec and Medicare when their lack of solvency becomes undeniable? Still safe?

In the case that a public retirement plan has an actual fund associated with it, it is functionally indistinguishable from 401k's, which tend to be dominated by investment options managed by (gasp!) financial companies. Those can tank just as easily as the market can. Again - there is no magic pixie dust option here. Either your retirement is subject to the market, or it is subject to the whims of whatever entity is funding your retirement (which tends to also be subject to the market, even if it is the government, since tax collections ebb and flow with the market too.) Neither is a guaranteed proposition. I understand that you really really want one option to be guaranteed and clearly better than the other. I'm sorry, it just isn't so.

>But those ups and downs were due to people being greedy and taking a lot of risk.

I like how blithely you throw this out as if it is meaningful. Newsflash - everyone involved in the market is greedy, and trying to make money. You included. Me included. The worst problems occur when people either don't understand the risk they are taking, or some other entity steps in that allows people to offload their risk.

>This is the ultimate goal of folks like Scott Walker and his ilk and this is what I mean by going after the other side's strengths.

That only makes sense if you take it as a given that public retirement options like paygos or managed funds are a "strength." That is not even close to being true, as I've pointed out.

Mark Ward said...

For who?

Everyone.

This is why defined benefit plans tend to cost more than projected, because life expectancy, on average, goes up.

But you said the money is no longer his. That's not really accurate because it implies that he's never going to get it back. He is getting money back, right?

How are those safe, again? What do you think will happen to Soc Sec and Medicare when their lack of solvency becomes undeniable? Still safe?

Yes. Obviously, adjustments need to be made to SS and Medicare. At some point, those adjustments will be made and all this silliness will go away.

I understand that you really really want one option to be guaranteed and clearly better than the other. I'm sorry, it just isn't so.

To a certain extent, I agree with this. I guess I'm talking about degrees of safety. I trust these types of accounts more than I do the ones a Wall Street guy is peddling. Obviously, you trust the government less. But that speaks to each of our perceptions. I'm basing mine on the outcomes of events in reality. You seem to be basing yours on an emotional issue with government even though reality says otherwise.

Ask yourself this (no need to answer if you wish)...why are T bonds a safe bet? If the government is such a stinker at managing money, why do people flock to them when the market is down? Or uncertain?

The worst problems occur when people either don't understand the risk they are taking, or some other entity steps in that allows people to offload their risk.

Well, it depends on who you mean when you say "people." I think customers don't understand but the financial guys sure do. They also know they have us by the balls, really, because if they fuck up the government has to bail them out. I know you probably don't agree with this last bit but I don't see any other recourse with the way the world economy is structured.

GuardDuck said...

Everyone.

Really? Since the people putting the money into the 'investment' aren't the people who are receiving the benefits of the 'investment' then even calling it an 'investment' is silly.

Calling it a 'safe investment' then later saying "Obviously, adjustments need to be made" shows how silly you are.

You will complain if 'evil wall street brokers' cause someone to lose 25% of their 401k - but if SS has to reduce payouts, delay payouts, eliminate payouts to people who make too much money and increase taxes to stay afloat you still consider that safe?

No mention whatsoever that those 'adjustments' can also be termed 'broken promises' to people who've paid into SS for their entire life under the assumption that it was a 'low risk' very safe investment'.

Stercosaurus Rex said...

Unpossible, GD. It hasn't happened yet, therefore it can't ever happen. Just because the math is all upside down is no reason to doubt. Like California considering assuming it's pension fund will be earning 7.25% interest per year, which is actually slightly more realistic that the 7.5% they currently assume. Just because they're living in a cloud cuckoo land is no reason for people to be worrying that they've been sold a bill of goods. After all, these aren't some greedster-run private funds, these are run for the Public Good by veritable angelic souls.

"The Roman Empire hasn't never fallen before, therefore it can't fall. It's a fact of history." -- Marcus Daffiyus, 400 A.D.

juris imprudent said...

Not really true. When he reaches a certain age, he can start collecting the money that was taken out.

Wrong. Totally, completely, factually incorrect. The money that Kevin will collect is not what he paid in, it is receipts from then-current workers. There is no pot of money with his name on it.

You want the Mother Jones link on this again?

Mark Ward said...

Yeah, juris, I understand that. Sadly, we're now back to colon-rectals about what words mean etc...snore.

You. Guard Duck and Hap are trying to spin a tale about how Kevin has given up his hard earned money and will never see any return. That's simply not true. For over 70 years, Social Security has worked very well for our nation's retirees. It's a low risk way to have money in the golden years but because it's the government, it's the devil and something HAS to be wrong with it. Commence the fiction!!

Dr. Froncknsteen said...

"The Roman Empire cannot fall because it's never fallen yet." --Marcus Maxidaffiyus, 400 A.D.

GuardDuck said...

"Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns"

juris imprudent said...

about what words mean

Only because you attempt to be so unbelievably dishonest and childish about what words fucking mean. Shall we call you Humptydelphia from now on?

SocSec is not an "investment". It is not "savings". It is a tax. Period. If you don't like what those words mean that is your fucking idiot problem. It says you wish to perpetuate a lie in the vain attempt to make it true. I just don't see how you can be more intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt - but I'm sure you'll give it a go.

Mark Ward said...

Actually, it's not as you describe at all. It's a social insurance program that has been in continuous operation since 1935.

Now, obviously, YOU don't like the word tax hence the bowel blowing. I don't have a problem classifying it as a payroll tax that funds a social safety net for the future.

I suppose it's time to start howling about Ponzi Schemes again, eh?

GuardDuck said...

I don't have a problem classifying it as a payroll tax

Then you should do that, and stop mis-characterizing it as an investment.

it's not as you describe at all

In what way has it been improperly described by someone other than you?

juris imprudent said...

I don't have a problem classifying it as a payroll tax

Yes you do - as you just lied about what it is earlier in this thread. This is one of those times that I think you are some kind of spoof - someone putting on an act of Party loyalty and doublethink that even Orwell couldn't create. You say two things in rapid succession without the slightest shame that they are diametrically opposite - then complain about how impossible we are to discuss anything with.