Typo: Within a few years time (before 2010)

Bob Graham said on CSpan this morning, their report isn't due until Dec. 15, 2010. We will probably have to convene another panel of inquiry before then to investigate why we weren't able to roll over our debt this year, followed by another to investigate whether China is communist. We are indeed too far behind the eight ball to effect these changes deliberately, however it is likely they will end up being adopted after the second financing crisis. I'm still thinking our only sliver of hope is to delay Bernanke, pending Fed audit and successful subpoenas by Towns.

Mike is a great analyst. Now if only he can stop getting fired for being right all the time....

I hate to say it but I am starting to feel that Glen Beck might be correct. The govt's policies are intentionally destroying our country.

Even back in the optimistic days of 1999 there were accurate models which showed that market in-flows would go net-negative sometime near 2011 ... based upon retiring boomer demographics.

I can't believe that date has been pushed out any by the results of the last 10 years. If anything, the data showing that SS is now in the red on a cash flow basis (basically about 10-15 years ahead of "recent" model predictions) there must clearly be significant net-market outflows now.

To me, the thing that is most glaringly obvious is the extent to which the moneyed interests have taken over our government. I wonder whether it is realistic to expect our elected representatives to act in the national interest anymore, without some radical reforms involving the role of money in politics.

Widg, my original models showed 2025ish for when the flows went "overcenter."

This has now been pulled in to 2020 or earlier, maybe a lot earlier. I am still re-jigering some of the numbers, and unfortunately there is a lot of assumption in those models.

A long time ago I published a paper that discussed what I call "Investable Capital." I'm working on updating it, and my preliminary work is not encouraging at all - there's some evidence that we may run into the kneepoint as soon as 2013 or thereabouts.

I understand that there are many assumptions underlying these estimates. It would be clear (to me) though that TPTB are definitely in favor of making it impossible for Americans to get any return on savings at all; except as "risked" in the stock market. That's been very apparent for well over 10 years.

IMO, when the foxes are assigned to regulate the foxes you get dead chickens. That is the basic problem: politicians and insiders guarding corruption, not preventing it. That is a cleaner explaination than "I don't understand why they aren't doing something about it!", as if through some "oversight" these folks just can't seem to do their job.

If Congress refuses to listen to testimony such as Mayo's, we will know for certain that they are complicit in the intentional destruction of the nation.

ABC:

A = Accounting
B = Bankruptcy
C = Capital

Even a congressional moron can understand that.

Brilliant testimony! Thanks for this post---his paper (and your emphasis) will get wide circulation!

Quote:

I hate to say it but I am starting to feel that Glen Beck might be correct. The govt's policies are intentionally destroying our country.

It is becoming increasingly hard to come to any other conclusion. Don't forget "never let a crisis go to waste".
They're going to try and construct their wet dream of a Marxist State out of the ashes of our once great nation.

"I hate to say it but I am starting to feel that Glen Beck might be correct. The govt's policies are intentionally destroying our country. "


GB must have read my posts re that issue... For a year...

Glenn Beck is showing his first documentary next Fri and it is a blockbuster.

Here is the trailer for what happened when Big Gubmit went on Steroids in the 30's.

http://www.youtube.com/user/therightscoo....

Quote:

In a predatory economy, the rules imagined by the law and economics crowd don’t apply. There’s no market discipline. Predators compete not by following the rules but by breaking them. They take the business-school view of law: Rules are not designed to guide behavior but laid down to define the limits of unpunished conduct. Once one gets close to the line, stepping over it is easy. A predatory economy is criminogenic: It fosters and rewards criminal behavior.

For in a predatory regime, nothing is done for public reasons. Indeed, the men in charge do not recognize that “public purposes” exist. They have friends, and enemies, and as for the rest—we’re the prey.

That a government run by people rooted in this culture should also be predatory isn’t surprising—

No moonbat Glen Beck conspiracies, it's all just kleptocracy.

J.K Galbraith wrote about it almost four years ago before GFC.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/....

Quote:

Mr. Mayo asserts that there is such a thing as "too big to fail." I argue that if JP Morgan is too big to fail then anti-trust law says they're too big to legally exist, as they continue in business with a de-facto unlawful "put" from the federal government, acquired through what amounts to extortion, that smaller institutions do not enjoy. This is the essence of anti-trust law

Yes it is, from a former antitrust person.

Quote:

I'm working on updating it, and my preliminary work is not encouraging at all - there's some evidence that we may run into the kneepoint as soon as 2013 or thereabouts.

I've been watching the boomer issue also. One thing I would note is that many are retiring earlier than they wanted to and going private defense. Especially those close to retirement. I've discussed it with many of my .gov couterparts. Many decided to do so to hopefully avoid post-facto changes in their pension and health plans. Average age: 55 of those who I've discussed this with. The old .gov pensions (like if you worked their for 20 years and are not 55) were fabulous. I don't know for sure, I'm guessing, but I think those folks might be under the same health care plan as Congress. The risk before of going private was instability. I can understand now why many are choosing this option. that could affect the boomer impact. Don't know how to measure it.

The other risk was inflation - but deflation makes that moot.
Nice Ticker, nice testimony.

Quote:

The old .gov pensions (like if you worked their for 20 years and are not 55) were fabulous.

The fed retirement system changed in 1985. If you started before then you started under the "fabulous" old system. If you started after it's a essentially a 401k based program.

<<I hate to say it but I am starting to feel that Glen Beck might be correct. The govt's policies are intentionally destroying our country.>>

The government policies on both wings.