Tuesday, July 27, 2010

2005 -2020 part 2

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too." – Somerset Maugham

Oil exports from the exporting countries are going to continue to decline. Period. Still, that begs the question: "At what rate?"

For American imports, I like my .7% per month guestimate - with periods of as much as 1.5% per month declines in 2013 to 2015 (depending on Iraq's production profile...) The other major industrialized importers should track the U.S.

Is that as big a problem for America as our unfunded pension liabilities and intractable deficits? I am not even sure that that is the proper way to frame the discussion. In the end I think what really matters in the West and in America in particular is the political and policy response. The practical responses will come. Not enough milk or eggs in the stores? Cows and chickens will show up in backyards and neighborhoods. Not enough money in the financial system because of mass defaults? That might actually be the more intractable problem.

People are already making adjustments, or as Jimmy Kuntsler is so fond of saying - "other arrangements". Well, Jimmy they ARE making other arrangements. Fewer households are forming, young people are putting off parenthood, and for many, many various and sundry forms of businesses... restaurants, stock brokers, realtors, lawyers... business really stinks, and it stinks because many people are unemployed and those that are employed have suddenly found humility... and while this is good for the individual it is not so hot for Social Security and Medicare revenue collection. Is it really necessary to point out that Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and hundreds of commercial and savings banks no longer exist. Head count in the financial services and banking has declined 3 years running, and will likely continue to decline for the next 20 years (or so).

The simple fact is this - the government's take of GDP grew from 3% in 1929 to 26% last year, it has grown steadily as a percentage of GDP for decades, and it has reached terminal growth velocity. Irrespective of what the Left has led people through the media to believe, the government simply cannot gain MORE revenues by increasing tax rates and real tax collections. I don't know why this is, but hey just cannot seem to grasp some simple economic concepts. Now throw in declining Oil imports... not some time in the future, not some silly doomer-disaster de jour, but REAL and RIGHT NOW Oil availability in the U.S. is declining. This is input (or lack thereof) is probably (almost certainly... even if nothing is certain) what set off the termination of government's ability to increase its GDP take.

Still with me?

Ok, so the People ARE responding. The People ARE making other arrangements (no, not fast enough... YET, but people will surprise you when their hand is forced). What about the governments? Have you seen any "making of other arrangements" by any state, city, county, or the Federal Government? Nope. Actually, there was one "other arrangement"... our idiotic federal government expanded the medicare tax to investment, interest, and dividend income. Right in the middle of biggest economic cluster f*** since the 1930's. I know this pleased the tye die and sneaker and Leftie set... but those folks were embarrassingly short changed in the economics section of the brain. Again, politics rears its ugly head.

The tax revolt cometh. The political outcome is far from certain.

"A man will sooner forgive the slaying of his father than the confiscation of his patrimony." - Machiavelli

And therein lies the rub... American's have no patrimony. Americans are broke, with nothing to start their lives with - the old folks can barely provide for their old age let alone patrimony for their children. There really is no middle class left... certainly not in the private sector... if there is anything resembling a middle class I think it would best be described as the public sector class or bureaucrat class. America has its professional class: Doctors, lawyers, financial professionals, CPA's, Engineers... and for the most part these are the rich that the Left and the Media despise so vigorously (I always refer to them as the middle-class-millionaires. Funny thing is, they don't think they are rich... likely from the daily indoctrination injected into our lives courtesy of the Media... Flying from Four Seasons to Cruise and back to the Four Seasons makes it difficult to see how billions of people live around the world... may I suggest a back pack tour of the country side in some third world nation?), in addition to the outrageous rich... and then we have our poor-as-a-church-mouse-deluded-into-thinking-they-are/were-middle class because they aren't on food stamps and don't live in the projects... and those that do.

The People were always broke down through history but now they have been collectively deceived into believing that they can all have a 25 year "retirement" of leisure and travel, and if they don't get it... somebody did it to them. Somebody is at fault. Somebody has to pay, and a lot of somebodies also want to benefit politically.

And that's where we are now. The People are either unable to grasp, or the Media are unable to explain the problem with Social Security and Medicare. What you hear is that "people are living longer" - and that is partially part of the problem. Very partially, if you will. The problem is far more the lack of population growth than life expectancy... as regular commentator "Coal Guy" so elegantly said after I pointed out that Social Security and Medicare were governed by "e" every bit as much as compound interest is:

A note on government Ponzi schemes and population growth. There is a vast difference in available funding for Social Security associated with a seeming small range of growth rates in population. Consider that if the population grows at 3% per year, it will double every 23 or so years. That means that every 70 year old retiree has two 46 year olds and four 23 year olds to support him. If all are to have an equal share, each of the seven would get 1/7th of the earnings of the working six. Social Security tax would be 14%. Of course attrition improves the situation for the survivors, but this is just for example.

If there is zero population growth, each 70 year old retiree has one 46 year old and one 23 year old to support him. In this case, each would get 2/3rds of the earnings of the working two and SS tax would be 33%.

If population declines by 3% per year, four seventy year old retirees would have two 46 year olds and one 23 year old to support them. Each would get 1/7th of the combined earnings of the working three, and the SS tax would have to be 57%. This is what China has done with their one baby rule.

The implications of exponential math are astounding and ignored and misunderstood.

As of today, nearly 19 percent of all Americans receive some form of Social Security. Compare this to 1970 when only 12 percent of all Americans received some form of Social Security.

The Left desperately NEEDS to have the level of acrimony and belligerence now passing for discourse in the political air in order to silence the rational mathematical analysis that might ensue. They need a contra Party, the Right, that spouts off with unimportant Bull Sh*t - gay marriage, flag burning, freedom fries, and "under God" - to fight about so that they, the Left, can go on about their business of destroying the country, the constitution, and the currency. And the morons on the Right are the unwitting dupes going bang for bang with sledge hammers provided by the Left to destroy the country and the rest of the West.

The People were always broke down through history, but for the most part they got by. The People were almost NEVER free, not in the way the American's were granted our freedoms by our Constitution. Now, many Americans are only too willing to give up those freedoms in exchange for something most never had and were never going to have.

How can we be this f***ing dumb?



30 comments:

PioneerPreppy said...

I read two articles yesterday. One about city governments selling off property they have somehow gotten either by tax lien or whatever. They were selling it sometimes for nothing just to get more property taxes. This left me wondering why these cities kept this land in the first place. Governments sitting on land is a sure sign of too much power IMO. The second was about several counties In New York I believe that are threatening to withhold medicare or medicaid (I always get them mixed up) payments to Albany.

Local and state governments are trying all kinds of things it seems, except what is really needed like pay cuts for the top not just more police layoffs. In some cities like Bell, Kalifornia these state governments are being forced to.

Dextred1 said...

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/admiral-allen-says-gas-seep-rigel-gas-field-did-bp-accidentally-tap-rigel-gas-field

Jeffers, can you explain

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

I know about as much as you.

Perhaps if Westexas is reading here he can shed a little light. If we don't hear from him in a couple of days, I will email him.

John said...

Real Americans are not that dumb. The problem is twofold. Number one: The massive drug use going on in this country by what otherwise might be sentient beings, and number two: Unrepentent legal and illegal immigration.
Drug use changes ones perception of reality,thus making users more susceptable to the constant brainwashing going on by NWO types (example, Multiculturalism is good, when in reality it is responsible for the collapse of every human civilization including our own).
Immigration can only be tolerated in doses small enough to not change the culture the immigrants are joining. How ironic (using Mexicans as an example)is it when a group leaves an absolute dump of a country for a golden oppurtunity country, and then does everything they can to turn their new adopted country into the shithole they left? The damage has already been done. Energy is a solvable problem for a restricted population( we can make biodiesel for about 2.72 a gallon, right now.). For the most of the American population, I guess you could say, You buy the NWO's line of B.S., you can kiss your country and easy living Goodbye.

Dextred1 said...

Mirror, mirror on the wall,
Can you see our nation fall?
Headlines scream of our decay.
Is there any hope today?
Smog doth blind and traffic choke,
Wages bind and buildings smoke.
Welfare roles are soaring high,
And hard drugs cause one young to die.
Villains are heroes on TV
While legal loopholes set them free.
“Morality” is a foreign word,
Love with marriage is absurd.
Campus riots, no-win wars,
Highjacked planes, a lefty press,
Schools are in an awful mess.
Mirror, mirror on the wall,
Is there any hope at all?
–Author unknown

Anonymous said...

John,

Illegal immigration is permitted to prop up SS and used to help support the housing bubble. Worse than what it has done here is what it has done to Mexico. There would not be the huge drug/arms trade if the border were not left unguarded. It is on the verge of collapse into anarchy. It is a disgrace.

Regards,

Coal Guy

bureaucrat said...

News this morning is a big rise in oil in storage, and it is now WAY above the 5 year range. All this lack of oil and oil products coming to our shores (per Jeffers) is NOT having the desired effect. The amount of oil in America is going up -- WAY up. And we are using more of it (except for industrial).

Now, if that is because of collapsing demand, that is an explanation. However, gasoline demand isn't dropping at all (per EIA charts). Hmmmmm ...

So we have reduced oil imports (per Jeffers), growing oil reserves (Per EIA), dropping domestic production (a la the Gulf) (must be true) and high oil products (gasoline) demand (per EIA).

Someone has to be wrong. We are still consuming and overflowing in oil and oil products. Where is it coming from?

bureaucrat said...

Preppy, you (and Jeffers) never did say what items in the Federal and state budgets you'd like to cut.

Please, indulge me. :)

Donal Lang said...

Seems to me there's an easy way to fix the drug problem - flood the market with counterfeit drugs. This would mean street sellers wouldn't know if they were selling good stuff or junk, dealers would collapse, junkies would shoot up something harmless, and very quickly the prices and hence the drug market would collapse.

Use the power of the markets!

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

Bur:

In terms of "days of supply" the inventory is only slightly bearish.

BTW, nothing is "per Jeffers" when it comes to data. I get ALL of it from the U.S. Department of Energy.

Lastly... what you are seeing is that the U.S. is NO LONGER the Axe in Oil.

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

Bur:

I never said which items I would like to cut?

Bull Sh*t!!

I would cut:

The military by 65%. I would eliminate all of the social programs PRO RATA - you'd get back based by what you paid in - even if I had to print the money.

THe Departments of: Homeland Security, Energy, Commerce, Labor, health & Human services, transportation, HUD and a some other non-departments wouldn't last the week if I had any say about it.

The CIA, NSA, the FBI and a few others would have a great many less public servants working there because there would quite a few less laws to run afoul of.... The FDIC, the SEC, Commodities Commission wouldn't be very crowded, either.

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

It would be laissez faire and caveat emptor for almost anything financial. People would understand what risk meant very quickly. Food, too... but not drugs. Anything terribly safe about McDonalds or any other fast food?

Stephen B. said...

Bur, I think that the US is cutting petroleum consumption in other areas such as distillates much more than gasoline, if that answers your question as to how to reconcile the crude/oil/gasoline numbers.

Distillate use (diesel, jet fuel, fuel oil, but especially diesel) points to a soft economy and lack of demand while gasoline use is more personal. The latter use has always seemed to me, to be less price elastic, so I'm not really surprised gasoline usage is holding up (also due to population increases.)

In time, as the price of oil products continues to rise in real terms, gasoline use will decline too, but I'd still expect distillate demand to lead the drop.

PioneerPreppy said...

Wow phone (even cell phones) and internet have been out all day here. Haven't seen that happen in almost 10 years. I am NOT gonna use it as a doom thing lol, Nextell said thier computers were down when I finally got through so who knows if that was true?

As to your question Bur.

Jeffers has some good ideas and I agree with most of his cuts even military but I have some old time ideas on the military anyway.

First thing I would cut is education. The government should have NO and I mean NO stake in any education after high school, period, except maybe a few government schools like Westpoint. After that cut a huge path through social spending especially gender biased agencies like womens health, VAWA and domestic violence spending etc.

That would be a good start.

bureaucrat said...

Mr. "EIA" Jeffers ;) ...

Now, as you know, as I have mentioned it a dozen times ..

80% of the Federal budget is in five programs (and the state budgets are similarly concentrated in their programs): Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (Federal portion), Interest and Defense. And a good chunk of the rest is in Ag programs, Vet programs, paying off student loan defaults, civil service retirement and unemployment.

While Defense is easiest to cut, there are repercussions that you would also have to then address: unemployment of millions for starters -- soldiers and factory workers.

I'm glad you didn't mention stiffing our creditors (China comes to mind) of the interest on the Treasuries they so nicely buy every month. They will appreciate that and not declare war on us.

The agencies you mention (DHS, DOE, DOC, DOL, DHHS (not including benefits), DOT, HUD, CIA, NSA, FBI, FDIC, SEC, CFTC, don't account for SQUAT in the Federal budget. They are teeny agencies that cost nothing in the grand picture.

So, here is where you get to put your money where your mouth is. Please tell your older readers that you would cut their Social Security and Medicare (and Medicaid for the poor ones) by 50%. Go ahead. You won't as they would run you out of town on a rail, as Mr. Potter would say.

So, why don't we stop talking about pennies, and you tell me where you're gonna realistically get $5 TRILLION dollars to cut.

The answer to my own question is: you can't. :)

bureaucrat said...

federalbudget.com

Live it, learn it :)

bureaucrat said...

Pioneer, we talking about reality or are we talking about imaginary cutting of programs cause YOU are not the beneficiary of them? :)

Every college would be on you from sunup to sundown if you try to not back college loans anymore (what almost all Federal money goes to). That's not reality.

Some of the kids are destined to do something other than repair air conditioners. Some of us actually have to WRITE! How about doctors, lawyers, entrepeneurs? They usually start in college, right?:)

bureaucrat said...

Pardon me .. all Federal Dept. of EDUCATION money.

Anonymous said...

"So, why don't we stop talking about pennies, and you tell me where you're gonna realistically get $5 TRILLION dollars to cut."

Interesting perspective by Max Keiser on this topic-

"It is only through the kindness of the Chinese and ME people buying US bonds that America has been propped up. When they tire of America's wars and cultural imports, they will pull the plug and it will be ADIOS MUCHACHOS. America will cease to exist."

Something to ponder. We better find the cuts somewhere. And pretty damn soon.

Cheers,
Marshall

PioneerPreppy said...

I suppose there would be some need for a dept. of Education to oversee accreditation and other aspects.

But Yes...

Student loans, government finance etc has no place in higher education. If someone wishes for a degree they should have to pay for it themselves in whatever way the institution and they can work out. As they go. There would be some room for grants as well I suppose but it should be minimal certainly not the mess we have created and certainly no "minority" preference.

Higher education is a business. Government can have a hand in making it flourish but not at such a cost to the average tax payer.

PioneerPreppy said...

Oh and as for agencies that I am not the beneficiary of that includes pretty much all of them.

I applied for 1 student loan when I went to college for like 1K. I did get 2 pell grants after I reached the age where the salaries of my parents didn't figure into it. That was another 1K each.

Other than those I paid cash up front for my classes and books. I worked my a$$ off one Summer just to pay for my last semester.

Higher education has never been so financed by a government before and we had plenty of writers, scientist, etc who had the will to put themselves through "university" in the past.

The only other government pay out I have ever gotten, besides my paycheck when I was in the Army, would be an unemployment check from time to time. Typically if my employer extends the seasonal layoff a week or so I do apply once in a great while.

So yes if I had to cut spending the first move I would make before hitting socially biased "community re-investment" crap and gender biased VAWA based departments would be education.

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

Bur:

I don't know why I let you under my skin...

I just said I would eliminate the social programs going forward, and come up with a pro rata "return of capital" based on what folks paid in...

I would cut the military a minimum of 65% and end the empire.

I cannot control interest on debt and I wouldn't default - too many unintended consequences to consider.

The budgets for the departments? They are not small potatoes my friend - and they would be GONE.

bureaucrat said...

I believe you have grasped the problem, Marshall. :)

bureaucrat said...

Pioneer, you are aware that this country HUGELY benefitted by the low-cost college tuition programs of the 1940s (the GI Bill). Millions of middle class guys, for the first time, came home from WW2 and, thru the GI bill, could afford college ($600 per year, I believe), something that only the rich people, like Jeffers :), could ever hope for. It was the first time the middle class had even been allowed to even get near a college ... all because of Federal education assistance.

Make sure you don't cut off your nose to spite you face. :)

bureaucrat said...

Jeffers, you look up the Federal budget. I gave you a link for pretty color bar charts that make it simple (federalbudget.com). You can see where all the real money goes. $5 billion for an agency is chump change. And while the enforcement of regulations can be very expensive for the private sector, the public overwhelmingly wants clean air, clean water, and drugs that won't kill you. But paying for regulations is someone else's problem. Here I'm talking about where the FEDERAL dollars go. 80% = five programs. Everything else is just lunch conversation.

If you thought I was going to parrot you, worship you and make you into a lazy blog writer, you are mistaken. :) I don't do that for anyone. There is enough bad information and sloppy thinking already these days, costing us money and time. When I agree with you, I'll say so Most of the time, I do.

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

"bad information and sloppy thinking"?

I can't take it anymore....

Anonymous said...

I have to say bad information and sloppy thinking applies most often to you Bur. Your occasional rants that are racist in tenor, or scapegoating and using over-generalizations. Such as of course your efforts to pin Urban decentralization and the plight of the urban poor on rural people--or your ridiculous notion that it was rigid patriarchal white father's who caused the shift from the farmlands in this country--which is sheer idiocy.

Where's that proof that 20% of rural people somehow use up the majority of welfare/social service monies? I know this is factually untrue in my state, since study after study showed that the rural poor were the MOST under-served population in our state, and did not take advantage of many of the "benefits" that were given the more urban poor--including lack of community health centers, social services, and participation in welfare programs that they were eligible for.

Discussing the re-arrangement of the deck chairs of the Titanic seems to be of interest to many, but is an exercise in futility in my Opinion. We don't have a real republic, nor a real democracy, nor real free market capitalism. The real controller's are not those who play Monopoly, but rather those who change the rules of the game and control the bank--and use division and simplistic Hegelian tactics, meanwhile Multinational Corporations and Financial Oligarch's pull the strings on all the big issues, I think our current President's policies and continuation of all the anti-liberty policies and corporate handouts make this fairly obvious.

-Meiyo

bureaucrat said...

See the movie "The White Ribbon" (new movie) to see white patriarchy in action in Europe before WW1.

And when I find another article saying the rural poor use up a good chunk of the welfare services, I'll be sure to let you know.

Didn't say YOU were a lazy thinker Jeffers. But there are plenty of others, starting with my mom. :)

Anonymous said...

Not admitting that your wrong, is why arguing with you is an utter waste of time. You even backpedal on your statement going from the "majority" to a 'good chunk'. So instead of just admitting you were just doing emotional rants based on your strong personal biases, and issues with white daddy's that clearly have something to do with your own 'issues'--what we wait forever till you can find some data to make up your false premise? And a movie now proves that white rigid father's, not mechanization and economics were the 'real' cause of the move toward cities in the past century?

That's it for me there is no real discussion with someone who is "always right" enjoy your narcissism and egomania.

Fare thee well all,
Meiyo

Anonymous said...

Bur,

Explain to me how we continue to pay for your five favorite programs when demand for Treasuries at low interest rates dries up? How do you do it, once the expectation of inflation rears its ugly head? This may be two years or five years down the road, but how would you do it? Given the growing deficits, it is going to happen.

In an inflationary environment, monetizing the debt raises interest rates due to increased expectation of inflation. Tight money raises rates too, in the shorter term, but cuts tax revenue. How will you do it?? Royal Decree?

Regards,

Coal Guy