Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Right. I should not have said "provide better pensions," but "spend more on SS," which is what we have to do as the population ages and life expectancy increases.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Wow. Either you don't want to admit any possible error or you are really bad at reading charts.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

More fun with numbers! Increased life expectancy is a very small part of it (again, because life expectancy at 65 has increased only moderately over time).

The bigger issue is the proportion of the population that is elderly.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Wow. You combine arrogant and stupid in equal quantities.

Insults are fun! And really help prove your point -- that I'm right, but only by a little.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Part of reducing costs should be to reduce unnecessary care. I'm just saying that the government is in a much better place to figure out which care is effective and which is not than are individuals who lack coverage and are on their own.

Also, Obama and the Democrats voted for Medicare cuts when they passed HCR, and the Republicans then used it as a political issue against them in the 2010 elections.

They can't say yes to anything. They are so motivated by an anti-Obama sentiment that they don't want to do a deal that he backs. (And then they criticizing him for not leading if he lets Hill Dems take the lead.) I don't think Boehner could have taken the deal because it's not clear he has the votes. It's not clear that he has the votes for his own proposal.

eta: As Josh Marshall says, it's a game of chicken, and one of the cars has no driver.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Tell me, oh great one -- what percentage of the working population was expected to live to 70 in the 1950s? And what percent now? (Note that you have to consider working population, and therefore have to include a higher proportion of women now than you did several decades ago.)

And, yes -- lower birth rates are also part of the problem. Very good. Did you have a point to make with that?

OOOH, I know -- your point was that you are incapable of understanding that the phrase "as the population ages" refers exactly to the fact that a bigger proportion of the population is elderly. Thanks!

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I'm sorry, but I have to comment on this again.

Thank you, so so much, for pointing out that the issue is not "as the population ages", like I said, but rather "the proportion of the population that is elderly." You use words as effectively as you use charts to prove a non-point.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Yes, clearly you are right that the only catch up Europe has done is in the last few years. :rolleyes:

Now, if you wanted to make a smarter critique of that chart (and the blog post), you would note that reductions in U.S. employment over the last decade account for roughly half the closing of the gap. But of course that would be inconsistent with the notion that Europe grows slower due to higher taxes.

Or you could note that a good part of Europe's gains in employment ratio reflects greater employment by women, suggesting that the effect is really endogenous changes in social attitudes toward women in the work place that tell us little about the effect of policy. Maybe, as Sebby would say, Europe just had a bubble (or low hanging fruit) left when the U.S. doesn't.

But instead you went with, "it doesn't say that!" So, you know, bravo!

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

eta:

Here's what Yglesias says, and I agree with every word:

Moreover, some political realism is in order. This is one of the biggest issues to a lot of voters. Voters will not like it if government tries to dump this problem in their lap, for the same reasons that voters in most other industrialized countries have agreed to have government play a substantial role in health care markets. Any effort to more to 3) would seem to me doomed to fail, in part because it's not the poor and elderly -- it's anyone in the middle class (using club's broad definition) who needs much medical care, or whose parents need much medical care, etc.

I personally am healthy, knock on wood, and no one in my household has needed much care in the last few years. Even so, I am acutely aware of the risk that my parents will deteriorate, notwithstanding their good health, or that someone may get hit by a bus, and I am extremely averse to those risks. I want the insurance that only the government can provide, and I think a lot of voters do.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I don't know. Feel free to google. I don't think mortality for working-age adults has declined massively, but I don't know.

But what does it have to do with increased life expectancy making social security more expensive? What makes it more expensive, on this dimension, is how long people live after they start collecting benefits. That has increased, but not that much.

Yes, what we have is a demographic problem. Too many old people and not enough young people. Assuming that we don't want to implement Less's plans, we should get some more young people. More immigration would help considerably.

What does "life expectancy increases" mean, Sidd?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

This would be a great time to introduce a carbon tax in tandem with spending cuts. If only we had a better GOP.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

That is Western Europe, as defined by the chart. Eastern Europe is a very different story because (over the last 20 years) there has been huge flight of the younger, employable people from East to West. If this chart was normalized for all of Europe, the line would be much flatter.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Far too complicated to explain to you, apparently.

Let's start with an easier question: What does "and" mean, Adder?

As in, if I say "as the population ages and life expectancy increases", does that indicate to you that I am saying that "life expectancy increases" is the main issue? Or does it indicate that I recognize that something else, like an aging population, is also an issue?

Think extra hard on this one.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

More importantly, since I noted already that Germany was at least a possible exception, what would that line look like if Germany were taken out?

I know -- Adder would continue admitting that I was right (or, as he cleverly put it, that he has no evidence to make a stronger statement), and maybe acknowledge that the difference was more than a little.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

It means you said two things and I responded to one of them, to which you responded by stressing the other. Clearly I'm the dumb one.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I could also say "we're still doing better." I could say "the gap is quite large until very recently." I could say "take out Germany, which I already acknowledged is potentially different, and what do you get?"

Of course, I said all those things.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Oh, I see -- when you said "more fun with numbers!", that meant "you sure were right, Sidd, to put the part about an aging population first."

Got it.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I don't know. If I had made the chart, I'd re-run it for you again so you could see. But if Germany can match our performance with higher taxes and a stronger safety net, why can't we?

As to Less's point, yes, Eastern Europe would not look as good. We can conclude that's because they have the same levels of taxation and social programs as Western Europe (assuming they do, I'm not sure it's true for all), or we can question whether something else is going on.

But to jump off from Less's point, that these 15 are improving in employment ratio despite absorbing greater immigration from their eastern neighbors again suggests that maybe they aren't handicapped by their taxes and social programs.

I can't tell if you are just emotional and therefore sloppy, or if you're really not capable of avoiding all of the mistakes you keep making.

I'm not admitting that you are right. I'm saying that I suspect that Europe doesn't grow more slowly than the U.S. because of its tax and social policies. But given that it is counter-intuitive and counter much political dogma, and given that I'm not an economist and don't spend all my time keeping up on the literature, I don't have evidence to back up my opinion. So instead I've stuck to the more modest claim for which I have evidence.

And just so we're clear (because I can already hear your response), I'm not saying that Europe didn't grow more slowly than the U.S. for a significant period of time.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Somebody make a note. Hank: you might be right. He might be crazy.

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

I'd be for a WPA of some sort. I'd happily pay more taxes to put more people to work because that would put consumer dollars into the system, which we desperately need. But I don't see that happening. And barring that, there is no way for the govt to create enough jobs to dent unemployment.

I don't know how to "fix this shit." I fear the answer may be what it appears both parties intend to do: Nothing. Leave a huge sector of society to simply be... lost. It's fucked up, I know. But tell me, does it appear the GOP or Democrats plan to do otherwise? I think the unspoken truth believed in DC is, "We can't fix the job problem." And I think I have to agree. No WPA type program, no govt jobs fix.

DC's a fucked up mess, but it's not stupid enough to try to tackle what it can't cure. That's a recipe for everyone to lose their seats. Instead it gives us what we have now - a fistfight one side can walk away from and proclaim victory, on a matter just enough voters think has something to do with boosting the economy immediately. It's quite cynically brilliant. They profess to be at each others' throats, but in terms of bullshitting the American people they're working on the most important issue at hand, these parties are working together in perfect harmony.

O: "I'll compromise."

B: "The hell you will. You just want to look like the winner!"

O: "And you?"

B: "I started this fight."

O: "You did."

B: "And you should be happy I did. Otherwise, people would be all over your administration about unemployment."

O: "They would. And thank you. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to kick your ass."

B: "Oh yeah. I demand the following--"

O: "Before you even finish... I agree."

B: "The hell you do!"

O: "We're going through this again?"

B: "You know of anything else you'd like to fight about? Perhaps a jobs policy?"

O: "Touche."

B: "Where were we?"

O: "Smoke break?"

B: "I thought you'd never ask."

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

I think that's right. Leaving the Fed as the only hope. Unfortunately it also seems to want to do nothing, so we may not test the theories of those who think inflation (NGDP growth) or inflation expectations can trigger growth.

ETA: It just occurred to me that I couldn't be more literally the anti-Tea Party. I think that right now we need inflation, immigration, higher taxes and higher spending (although not even I would waste time trying for the latter).

I don't think you really mean that.

Re: Fine, you guys win
 

I agree, although today I was resisting outright cynicism and enjoying the conversation* on here about what should be done, instead of acknowledging the entirely valid point that neither party looks like doing it.

*If you squint really hard, in certain light, from the right angle, the PB can indeed look like a conversation sometimes.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

Just to revisit some ancient history, Kevin Drum posted this today. It's from the Tax Foundation, which if memory serves is a anti-tax group (i.e., not horrible liberals shilling for progressive taxation):

http://www.motherjones.com/files/ima...al_taxes_0.gif

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Why can't anyone else?



I'm not being emotional. You made a stupid point -- that I was right that the European economies are not objects of envy, but a little less right than I would have been a few years ago.* Then we argued over when that changed -- from very right to a little less right -- based on a chart. Then you decided to be a dick in support of your stupid point.

I did make several mistakes, namely each time I continued the discourse. Other than that, no. If you cannot see that the trend you point to is markedly different after 2007, according to your chart, than it was before, I cannot help you. I'm done with this.



*I acknowledge that you really think I'm wrong, and that you have no evidence to support that. Very good.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

eta: never mind

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

That's not fair. They said yes to a massive increase in the deficit just a few months ago.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Yes, it's truly stupid of me to suggest that the conventional wisdom that Europe is a backwater, eternally destined for slow growth do it its social policies might not be right. Even worse, I used evidence.

I'm sincerely chastened.

If you can't see that the gap was cut in half between 2000 and 2007, as is helpfully labelled on the chart, and that Europe was growing in the direction of the U.S. for the decade before, that, and that these longer term-changes have more to say about the relationship between taxation and growth than do short term changes in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the depression, I really can't help you.

Other than to suggest that you open your eyes.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Nice chart.

Don't show that one around Washington.

Re: We're always in the 1970s.
 

Is it really helpful to the current discussion to post tax burden data from 2004?

I recognize you noted it was ancient history; it's a rhetorical question for Drum, in case he stops by.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

They include projections through 2017, as if there will be no other new programs between now and then (never minding the reelection thingy). It's as BS as the R Caucus's anti-spending position.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

If I had repeated that conventional wisdom, you would have a point. I didn't, and I don't agree with that so-called conventional wisdom, and feel free to search high and wide for someplace where I made such a statement.

If I had realized that your reply to me was directed at someone else, I would have taken that into account.



Yes, cut in half from 2000 to 2007. Again, look at what I actually said -- only in the past 2-3 years is the trendline such that it appears that, within a decade, that the lines will cross. Cutting the gap in half over 8 years doesn't so indicate. Only the rapid closing after 2007 does.


Likewise. For chrissake, you concluded Ty and I were discussing health care only, and not social security, despite references to "benefits" and "SS".

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

2.

Also, I'm sorry, but Obama now owns the Bush tax cuts, having failed to do a damn thing to reverse them when he should have.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Owns the portion starting 1/1/2011, only.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

OK then. He can show it around Washington.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

An Intrade Market is now open on John Boehner's demise.

There are three people ready to bet on his demise. So far, no takers betting he'll still be here at the end of the year.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

True. And it's a joint tenancy.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I see you are have engaged Full Dickwad.

I was going to point out that, yeah, you did say that, and yeah, you are rationalizing, but after a few beers, I no longer have the energy. Let me just say, you are full of shit.


Yes, after having it pointed out three times that you were wrong, you made up an arbitrary rule with no basis in any logic other than making you right. Congrats.

Btw, I generously didn't point out the first time that you are wrong about your test, but you are. Go look at the trends in 2000-2003. They satisfy your test.

Which is not to say that your test has any validity for this discussion. It doesn't. And no, there is no reason for us to look down our nose at most if not all of the economies included in the Euro 15 in the chart.


Yes, you nonsensically said, "we can't pay the taxes that Europeans pay because we pay separately for stuff that's included in their taxes" without recognizing that the discussion was about bringing stuff onto your tax bill and off your private bill. I can come up with no more charitable conclusion that you are either dim or easily confused by "conservative" talking points. Or both.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I'm a buyer.