[econ] What will the gvrnmnt do? Maher?

Jesse

Membership Revoked
G'mornin' folks:

Last day on ezboard...

I realise the following subject isn't exactly "sexy" but it *is* of sufficient import as to merit discussion IMHO.

I keep reading about how one way or another the markets are going to "tank," or the "bubble(s)" will burst inevitably in one way or another in the near future.

I have two questions.

1. What does the government do when that happens with regard to paying out old age and disability pensions for example? Do we know? As far as I know there were no Social Programs in the States during the last depression so we have no precendent. Do we have a policy or policies in place that would be enacted during that scenario?

Do we have someone who feels sufficiently qualified to address this question, not just for the U.S. but for Canada too. Specifically I'm interested in Canada, but I'd like to hear the rational re: any Western country.

Bottom line: Will pensions cease if there is a stock market crash, or economic disaster of any kind?

2. I read widely varying "reports" of the liklihood of a significant economic "crash" happening "soon." Some say in the spring of 2002, some say not for five years or so, and some say not at all... Why the differences in opinion?

Can our present economy REALLY float for another 5 years? Please say *why* you think as you do.

Thank you in advance, - Jesse.
 

Lee P. Lapin

Inactive
Jesse,

Those are very good questions. I wish I could give you some very good answers to them, but I'm afraid I can't. I doubt anyone else, even the Maestro (AGreenspan) himself could at this point.

There is no real way of telling what is going to happen as far as the economy/monetary system is concerned, or when it will happen.

Just between you and me (and don't tell anybody) there are in actuality NO experts at this. We are off all the mapsheets in our current situation, everybody's compass is pointing in a different direction and everyone's clocks are set to a different time zone. This thing is going to play out in ways almost no one expects.

The best thing you can do IMHO is to complete the preps we have talked about here for so long- get out of debt, be as self sufficient as possible, get away from major population centers etc. Even then there are no guarantees, but not doing what you can ahead of time will certainly help make your eventual situation worse than it has to be.

Lee
 

lynnie

Membership Revoked
Jesse...(Lee is the real expert, not me.)

A recent case is Russia when the ruble collapsed. The are on a fiat money system, same as us. The govt continues to print money and pay all the pensions. Problem is, the ruble is worth so little now that most old folks can barely buy bread and tea and a few potatoes. Hyper inflation is a real possibility. I read about a lot of factories that take trades in goods only....swap a huge truckload of tires for logs let's say. Barter has value but not the paper money. Remember this is within the last five years.

Govt can step in and freeze prices like they did in CA with energy costs. That just creates more bankruptcies even though temporarily the little old ladies can still afford a can of coffee and the heat the house in winter.

Imports get very expensive when a currency collapses, assuming another currency gains value ( the Euro lets say). Of course we might all go under together. " Currency war" is a very real part of present strategy in China/ Asia and the ME being talked about, with the USA as the enemy.

As said above, prep prep prep IMO.
 

Maher

Inactive
Jesse: There is a real possibility that the government won't be able to do anything. I am suspect of the government because they have been understating inflation for years, and, as we all know, many corporate and government pension funds, Social Security, and other government benefits and programs are tied to the BLS stated rate of inflation which is bogus.

If the money isn't there or doesn't exist, as many suspect, how can we rely on government promises and assurances to comfort us?

If the markets here in the USA fail, it will plunge the entire world into chaos and then anything is possible.

Sorry - Jesse! You know me – I’m a cynic; and, I just don't trust TPTB.

[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Maher Shalalhashbaz ]
 

Jesse

Membership Revoked
Thanks for all the insight folks. Bottom line question is really...

What do you think will happen to those who carry a small mortgage on a property that NO ONE is going to buy because it's too far out (geographically)? That it won't sell, I know for a fact. Just trying to decide whether or not to take out a small mortgage to put in some more solar etc.

Is it better to be properly "prepped" and owe a little, or less prepped and be debt free, taking into account that TPTB can take your house anyway "just because." - Jesse.

Edited to add: would YOU risk a four year loan?

[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Jesse ]
 

stillprepping

Membership Revoked
well i would NOT take out another mortgage to buy solar panels. put them on a credit card or *anything* but your mortgage. this way if tshtf and you cant pay they cant take your house from you.

u can always go ch7 or 11. its really not a big deal unless you're a worry-wart.

i like your idea about getting solar panels.
 

lynnie

Membership Revoked
Jesse, ever read the depression stories about people who lost their land that had been in the family for generations? They lost their jobs and couldn't pay the property taxes. I don't know what it is where you live, but we are going from nearly 3,000 a year to a new house at 3,500. If Markus lost his job, even with preps to live off of, and selling our gold, eventually we'd be on the street because of the taxes, even if we have no mortgage.

I would mortgage to survive- a wood stove for example. But you can live without electric can't you, if you absolutely had to? How about a cheap gasoline generator for the computer and forget everything else electric.
 

Jesse

Membership Revoked
My only problem would be if the government stops paying pensions. I get a government owned PRIVATE disability pension, - not a "hand-out."

My taxes are already paid up, or will be next month just in case we go cashless in a hurry.

As long as the government keeps using DIRECT DEPOSIT to put my pension in the bank, I can easily pay back a 4 year loan, which they'd also take out AUTOMATICALLY. I don't even need to be in the country.

Question is, - do I believe the Canadian government is still going to PAY pensions for 4 more years...

BTW, - We don't have chapter 7 or 11. Here, either you're bankrupt or you're not. No in-between areas. - Jesse.
 
Sunday's newspaper had an article saying that Social Security benefits may be cut from 20-50%. Sen. Moynihan recommends a 20% cut, but some of the special commission that Bush as asked to study S.S. reform (8 of the 12 members!) are recommending a 50% cut in benefits, as well as a 20% cut in disability pymts.

And they're not talking about down the road---this is for the near future, tho no dates were mentioned.

This would mean a terrible hardship on seniors. Granted, there are many who could still survive pretty well, what with other investments. But, my guess is that most seniors depend on their social security pymts., and if they were cut so drastically (even 20%), it would make life really tough----compounded by the fact that energy and food costs are going thru the roof!
 

Jesse

Membership Revoked
I can't account for the U.S. but in Canada we all just got a cost of living raise. Just a few dollars of course, but it sure doesn't look as though they are planning any major reductions in the near future. Still, y'never know...

It was less than a decade ago when they DID cut SS in almost half, and they did it overnight! I don't think pensions were affected though.

Jesse.
 

Coast Watcher

Membership Revoked
Good questions, Jesse, and as you can see as many different answers as there are people. : ) Concerning your original question about taking out a loan, a lot depends on if we see an inflationary or a deflationary collapse. Deflation is what they're experiencing in Japan right now -- prices drop because there's no demand. Wages stagnate or even drop. The American experience with that is the Great Depression.

Under those circumstances, a loan is a bad idea unless you have a *guaranteed* fixed income. Is your pension linked to stock market prices (which drop during deflation) through an investment fund that would lose most of its value in a Depression, for example? Let's say you have a $1,000/month income now and you're getting a loan that calls for $200 monthly payments. What happens if your income drops to $500 due to deflation and your payment is still $200?

If we see inflation and your pension has a cost of living adjustment or your spouse has a salary that realistically would increase to offset inflation, as salaries did in the 1970s, then a loan isn't such a bad idea. You'll be paying off "now" debt with cheaper dollars down the road after inflation. (Your $1,000 increases to $1,500, but your $200 payment remains the same.)

I lean toward an inflationary scenario (which automatically means we'll see deflation ; ) )simply because of all the liquidity Greenspan has been injecting into the economy and the huge amount of dollars held by foreign investors. When that money comes home to roost, there will be hell to pay. JMHO, YMMV.
 

Jesse

Membership Revoked
G'mornin' coast watcher: :)

Thank you for your easy to understand reply. (I need the "dummy version" when it comes to stock markets and such!).

My situation is a guaranteed fixed income.

My reason for borrowing now is because I don't think many of the even small things we'd like to do/aquire now, will be available soon and if they ARE available we believe the buying power of the Canadian dollar will be pitiful, and so they will be obtainable only at a premium.

Better to get done what needs doing NOW, and still only have to pay back the dollars we borrowed. By the looks of things, the only way we can lose in this scenario is if the government quits paying my pension which it is right now legally obligated to pay.

I just need them to keep paying me for 4 years and then it won't matter so much what they do or don't do. Thing is, as I said above I'm not so sure we HAVE 4 years of anything resembling normal living conditions in Canada OR the U.S.

I guess any way you slice it it's a crap shoot! Oh well, if I lose my house I'll just move into our teepee. We've been that route before and it's not bad at all. We *would* prefer to keep the house though...

Thanks for all the advice folks. You're the best!

Love in Jesus, - Jesse.
 

SmartAZ

Membership Revoked
Well of course there are experts, you just don't see them on network tv! Here is a link to essays from a couple hundred experts: (click here). Notice that they all agree on what will happen and why, but not one can predict when.
 
Suzy, I don't know how to give you a link to the story about Social Security, since I took it out of our local newspaper. It is written by James Toedtman, and listed Newsday under his name. The article is quite lengthy. The heading says, "Social Security panel may recommend benefit cuts."
 

suzy

Membership Revoked
"Sunday's newspaper had an article saying that Social Security benefits may be cut from 20-50%. Sen. Moynihan recommends a 20% cut, but some of the special commission that Bush as asked to study S.S. reform (8 of the 12 members!) are recommending a 50% cut in benefits, as well as a 20% cut in disability pymts."

Any chance of finding a link to that article?
Thanks. suzy
 
In a very real sense, all "forward looking" promises by ANY entity to steal your money NOW and pay you back something in the future is based on so many suppositions and uncertainties as to render them [the promises to PAY in the future] almost worthless UNLESS & UNTIL delivered.

The soc. (in)security article indicates that the tax & spend govt. (which has robbed working stiffs of 15% for years now - don't forget your employer's 'contribution') is about to reneg on its promise to fully (re)pay the taxpayers.

What was the title of "that book" about the female Jr. Senator from NY "Hell to Pay"??? That's what will happen when TPTB play their final cards in the great (welfare) society scams during the next 10-30 years.

As others suggest - personal preps + 'other' items may prove to be much more important to survival in the not-too-distant future.
 

Jesse

Membership Revoked
CC: Why of COURSE I liked your response. Best one yet! ;) Shhhhhh though, - don't want to make the others jealous! - Jesse.
 

suzy

Membership Revoked
Here's the article:
http://www.newsday.com/coverage/current/news/sunday/nd4498.htm

A Weekly Look at People and Issues In the Nation's Capital Debating Privatized Social
Security Moynihan plan requires making system solvent first

By James Toedtman. CHIEF ECONOMIC CORRESPONDENT

Washington-President George W. Bush and Richard Parsons, the New York business leader co-chairing the latest Social Security reform commission, may be surprised when the commission finishes its work, especially if former Sen.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the other co-chair, has his way.

Eager to fulfill his campaign promise to establish private investment accounts as part of Social Security, the president filled his new commission with politicians, academics and experts who have endorsed the concept. To enforce the point, the private account feature was prominent among the objectives he listed for the commission as he introduced the panel during the Rose Garden ceremony on May 3. Bush also said any overhaul should not reduce benefits for those nearing retirement or for 45 million retired and disabled Americans currently receiving monthly checks.

Yet eight of the 12 commission members who have studied the current system have recommended doing just that. Just two days before he was announced as the commission's co-chairman, Moynihan went further, stressing not just the changes needed to make the system solvent but also the sequence of those changes. At a Capitol Hill speech, Moynihan repeated the core of a restructuring proposal he has advocated for three years. It involves adjusting the formula for determining future benefits-which would effectively cut benefits 20 percent, gradually raising the eligibility age to 70, extending the payroll tax to 5 million state and local workers and raising the cap on payroll taxes from the current $80,000 to $90,000. Once that is done, the payroll tax would be cut from 12.4 percent to 10.4 percent to give taxpayers the option of diverting the savings into individual investment.

Moynihan insists on the sequence. "Don't talk about privatized accounts until you first make the system solvent," he said. "This is crucial. We must absolutely guarantee that the present benefit structure will continue in place before we start devising a thrift savings component. To do otherwise is to invite the most shrill protests of raiding a sacred trust for the benefit of Wall Street." Two other appointees, Fidel Vargas, a California Democrat, and Carolyn Weaver were both members of former President Bill Clinton's Advisory Council on Social Security, which could not reach consensus and published three separate reports in 1996. Vargas endorsed Weaver's proposal to carve out 40 percent of the current payroll tax for privately maintained accounts. To pay ongoing costs of the system, Weaver proposed cutting benefits by more than half, to an average of $410 a month, cutting disability benefits by 20 percent, increasing payroll taxes and borrowing up to $2 trillion from the federal Treasury.

Another study, endorsed by two other commission members-Estelle James, a World Bank economist, and Robert Pozen, president of Fidelity Investments-proposed raising the retirement age and cutting benefits for spouses and for middle-income retirees.

These solutions highlight the central problem facing Bush's privatization proposal-continuing to pay a growing number of recipients at the same time the pool of available funds would have to be reduced to finance new private accounts. That's atop of the overall problem facing the system as some 40 million Baby Boomers reach retirement age in the next decade. With no changes in benefits or eligibility, the system will no longer take in more funds than it spends in 2018, and by 2038, the system will no longer be able to pay full benefits.

The commission, which expects to hold its first meeting early next month, is evenly balanced politically-eight Democrats and eight Republicans. While White House officials insist they are open to other suggestions, the commission members have all agreed with the partially privatized system Bush has advocated since he launched his presidential campaign.

Still Moynihan, a lifelong Democrat, seemed an unlikely recruit for helping a new Republican president realize a campaign promise. "When the president calls, he answers, 'yes,'" Moynihan's former chief of staff, Tony Bullock, explained. Indeed, Moynihan has known a few presidents: He served in the administrations of four, from John F. Kennedy to Gerald Ford, and worked with the past four-from Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton-as New York's senator.

Moynihan says he also believes the current political balance might facilitate a bipartisan solution.

As for Parsons, the former Dime Savings Bank president and now chief operating officer of AOL-Time Warner, his surprise is that there actually may be a Social Security check for him when he reaches retirement age in 14 years.

"Until this point in time, I've never believed that I was going to get anything out of Social Security," he said.

IN THE SENATE The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval, 62-38, to President George W.

Bush's 11-year, $1.35 trillion tax relief package, the largest tax reducation in two decades.

Charles Schumer (D) No Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) No IN THE HOUSE Before passing President George W. Bush's No. 1 domestic priority to overhaul education, the House on Wednesday rejected, 273-155, a drive by Republican conservatives to include a plan for the government to provide vouchers for students to attend private schools.

Steve Israel (D) No Felix Grucci (R) No Peter King (R) Yes Carolyn McCarthy(D) No Gary Ackerman (D) No Gregory Meeks (D) No Joseph Crowley (D) No Jerrold Nadler (D) No Anthony Weiner (D) No Nydia Velazquez (D) No Carolyn Maloney (D) No Charles Rangel (D) No Nita Lowey (D) No
 
CC----I don't know who you were addressing your reply to, but I could not find the one you referred to.

Suzy.....I'm impressed that you found "my" article! Thanks ever so much for posting it!

I just don't know how seniors can subsist on such a drastic cut in their S.S. The govt. can spend like drunken sailors on boondoggle projects like foreign aid that doesn't reach the intended recipients, but ends up in some fat cat's pockets. They can spend a fortune bombing the heck out of fake tanks in Kosovo. The list is endless. They've even spent the Social Security funds on other projects- without dipping into it, they WOULD have the necessary money to pay us.

Yet, it can't keep its pledge to pay Social Security, after it taxes its citizens all their working lives. If this goes thru, the seniors should rise up and revolt! After all, they are supposedly the largest voting block.
 

Jesse

Membership Revoked
You'll never see a politician who is in any way aquainted with debilitating illness support a "cut" in disability benefits.

Something should be rigged up to make those who propose such things live for an entire month through a severe and chronic illness. I guarantee that one month living with my particular disability and they'd be doubling the cheques, not halving them! :rolleyes: - Jesse.
 

suzy

Membership Revoked
Jesse, I don't know about Canada, but here in the US, it the gubment tried reducing retirement benefits, they would find out about the grit that some of our older people have. I seriously doubt that the politicians would have their cush little political feed troughs for long. suzy

[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: suzy ]
 

Jesse

Membership Revoked
Lynnie:

While I *have* gone into this in detail in the past I'd really rather not re-hash it if you don't mind. It's very long and involved and doesn't have a particular "label."

It's genetic and goes back five generations in my family, and there's nothing anyone can do about it in terms of cure.

I ask our Father all the time to heal me, and He hasn't yet so I figure He must have His reasons. He DID heal our youngest daughter though (females born to a parent with this have an 80% or better chance of getting it. All 3 of our daughters had it, now only two do. Boys have a minute chance of getting it, and my boys don't have it) instantly in our own living room during a particularly intense prayer session. HALLELUJAH! That was about two years ago now, and she's absolutely fine and as healthy as a horse. :)

Our Father is AWESOME!

In the love and peace of Christ, - Jesse.
 
Top