Didn't know where to post this, but if you believe the reporting from the BLS, the revised first quarter show that the rich got even richer, and the rest of us got poorer:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm
The difference between the previous and revised unit costs, real hourly compensation, and productivity says it all. Compensation down, productivity up
…and the beat goes on…
Agreed. The point is that they needed to get off the gold standard in order to go global and do the derivatives thing. That's why Nixon got us off gold.Plain and simple. While we talk about breaking the social safety net here at home, we are promising billions to the African nations. Why?
We need new places to go in the infinite growth model. We use the tax-payer money to devolop and open the new markets for the corporations–too big for one nation-state.
darbikrash -
At least under my definition, social security isn't insurance. An insurance company charges premiums that are high enough to cover the costs of payouts that it will be burdened with, and it keeps a pot of money around to do just that.
Social Security does the first bit (it charges premiums - which look a lot like taxes) but it doesn't keep around a pot of money. The government spends the premium money on a bunch of other things instead of saving it in that pot.
Other countries don't do this. They actually save money for their retirees in a real pot of money that isn't spent by the government as soon as it comes in.
So since its not insurance, it must be something else. Given that current revenues are used to pay current beneficiaries, that better fits the definition of a welfare program. People pay taxes in, and different people receive benefits. Welfare. That's not a bad thing, and I'm in favor of having it - but it is not insurance.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a welfare program. So to speak.
The distinction between insurance and a welfare program is critical. As other posters have mentioned, since its not insurance (no pot of money) the only way benefits get paid is on the backs of someone else working today, a true zero sum game. And when resources start to get thin, it probably makes sense for everyone to get cut back, likely starting with the more well-off people who don't need the welfare program quite as much as the folks on the bottom.
If it were insurance, then the reaction "I paid in dammit" would be perfectly sound. But that's not reality.
I question just how much different insurance funds are from SS funds. The little googling around I've done shows that the insurance industry has fractional reserve requirements based on odds of having to pay out and actuarial tables predicting how often they have to pay out. These reserve requirements have come under scrutiny lately due to suspicions that they have underestimated how much they might need, and appear to be similarly small to banks reserve requirements.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203707504577010211496055718.html
So, assuming the numbers are adequate, where are these reserves kept? In bank accounts.
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4564291_insurance-company-set-reserves.html
Read more: http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4564291_insurance-company-set-reserves.html#ixzz2XpmWrsfG
I wasn't able to determine whether those accounts are gov't insured or not, but it doesn't take much imagination to see big problems arising from catastrophic events like Katrina or Sandy. If the reserves aren't insured, the banks' financial stability could be threatened if the accounts are sufficiently large, particularly since they are undoubtedly also fractionally reserved. If they are insured, the money supposedly comes from guess where. That's right, gov't trust funds which are, like the SS trust funds, immediately loaned into the fed treasury for general expenditures. And what if the banks and gov't trust funds can't handle the load, then the insurance companies turn to the gov't anyway for bailouts.
The bottom line for me is that the insurance policies may be marginally more secure than SS payouts, but I wouldn't get all warm and fuzzy about their security either. In fact, they may be less secure than SS trust funds which are backed by what has long been considered 'good as cash' treasuries.
Doug
come, insurance funds - all of it, cash values, deposits, loan values, everything anyone here is quietly relying on are the easiest thing to seize next to money market funds. Fun fact, how many of you sold and went to cash in your IRA, 401K's, etc…and think you're in a cash account? Nope, you are in a money market fund, with a stock trading symbol to boot, as in, marketable security. Then, go back and archive an older piece off of Jim Quinn's, "The Burning Platform" (awesome site, check it out), titled "What you don't know". Then, pour yourself a stiff drink (no white wine) and ask your spouse to sit down.
[quote=davefairtex]darbikrash -
At least under my definition, social security isn't insurance. An insurance company charges premiums that are high enough to cover the costs of payouts that it will be burdened with, and it keeps a pot of money around to do just that.
Social Security does the first bit (it charges premiums - which look a lot like taxes) but it doesn't keep around a pot of money. The government spends the premium money on a bunch of other things instead of saving it in that pot.
Other countries don't do this. They actually save money for their retirees in a real pot of money that isn't spent by the government as soon as it comes in.
So since its not insurance, it must be something else. Given that current revenues are used to pay current beneficiaries, that better fits the definition of a welfare program. People pay taxes in, and different people receive benefits. Welfare. That's not a bad thing, and I'm in favor of having it - but it is not insurance.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a welfare program. So to speak.
The distinction between insurance and a welfare program is critical. As other posters have mentioned, since its not insurance (no pot of money) the only way benefits get paid is on the backs of someone else working today, a true zero sum game. And when resources start to get thin, it probably makes sense for everyone to get cut back, likely starting with the more well-off people who don't need the welfare program quite as much as the folks on the bottom.
If it were insurance, then the reaction "I paid in dammit" would be perfectly sound. But that's not reality.
[/quote]
I agree with your objecting to the way the $2.7 trillion trust fund is "invested", I'm sure most of us would feel better if the money were available as cash reserves as opposed to what amounts to encumbered IOU's. It is not however, immediately obvious to me how one goes about investing $2.7 trillion dollars with the objective of capital preservation and liquidity.
Not sure there is a good answer to this.
But kibitzing about how money earmarked for reserves is invested, in my view, does nothing to indicate whether or not this is an insurance policy or a welfare program. All insurance companies invest pooled money, in fact, the dominant revenue stream in the insurance business model is interest income, interest from the policy holder's payments. We may reasonably disagree as to how this money is invested, but this schema is hard wired into the insurance business.
The determinant for this question (welfare or insurance) is the numerical framework used in the model. This is pretty straight forward, the SSI model (specifically, the social security component of SSI) is based on actuarial tables. As you know, actuarial tables use statistics combined with mortality information to determine the relationship between premiums ( or taxes if you prefer) and payouts.
This is the dominant model used for any insurance business. It is a model based on several key principles, a. Loss of "dollar to dollar" associativity, e.g policy premiums are pooled and payouts are distributed from the general fund, and the individual policy holder is disconnected from any net drains of the fund, and b. Probability is used to determine the statistical likelihood of the number of payouts, and as a rule there is often insufficient funds to pay all policyholders for simultaneous claims.
Although welfare does use demographic data to calculate likely distributions, it does not use the same numerical framework to calculate benefits or taxes.
Besides, the government calls this "insurance" so it must be true.
[quote=gillbilly]To me, If/then statements like these seem logical only hindsight, and "the allure of high profits" is a structural component of our capitalist models of utility and risk. It is impossible to know what was really going through the minds of the bankers of that time. There wasn't electronic trading, a global reserve currency, hypothecating, etc. Do you think if we changed back to a gold standard that bankers would miraculously be honest now?
[/quote]
gillbilly,
I believe that the rule of law must be adhered to. I also believe that certain groups should be held to a higher standard - law enforcement, judges, bankers, and others in a "trust" position. If a licensed engineer designs a faulty building and it fails, he is held culpable. What recourse do you have against a crooked banker? The reason we are where we are is because of what we have done. That includes the laws and the loopholes that moneyed people can hire expensive lawyers to widen.
HFT would disappear if they had to pay a fee to make their trades. Why do they get special treatment? They're skimming pennies or fractions thereof. It simply wouldn't be worth it to them.
Fractional banking is allowed by the law. Now, otherwise intelligent people believe that it is a necessary condition of modern living. It is the basis for dishonest money. Does a banker deserve to make more money than the builder by loaning you the money to buy a house? What is the real risk here that justifies their interest?
I'm not sure if rehypothecation is illegal. Jon Corzine did it. What has happened to him?
Businesses come and go. New businesses spring from the ashes of the dead.
I agree. I look at it as a relative unit. For instance, gasoline cost less than a quarter per gallon when we had 90% silver quarters. You can still get a gallon of gas for the melt value of a "junk" silver quarter $3.55 (almost.) If gold goes to $10K, there will be many other dislocations as well. The relative value should still be there.
I'm experiencing "collapse" fatigue as well. I've switched gears in line with your assessment. Frankly, the system is on life support, but can the life support continue through my life time? I don't know. I do know that nothing drastic will change until the current system fails. Realistically, I expect more gnashing from the commoners and the upper echelons will continue cheating and it will be glossed over. They are literally above the law.
Grover
Grover, I agree with most, if not all, of what you wrote. It all would work… but after a collapse, and it would work for awhile until those who look to manipulate the system would begin again. Sorry, maybe I'm just being a wee bit cynical.
Moral hazard seems to be an integral part of our system (I'm talking our entire system…finance, govt., legal, education, research, etc). I'm not saying it's right or that it has to be that way, but just that it is that way. I think Darbikrash would say it is a part of free-market capitalism. Profit above all else seems to be where we are at. And the division of labor (specialization) allows the responsibility of a failure, whether it is a building or bank, to be completely obscured, so in the end no one is to blame. How many engineers have been held responsible for a failed building?..too many eyes and hands on any one project. The persons "in charge" merely point their fingers away from themselves. This is how CEOs externalize their own failures, but of course they are happy to take credit for the gains. The top-down beauracratic organization of the system is crucial for all of this to work, and so,… everything continues to get bigger. Corporations learned long ago when they were developing and perfecting their technostructures that externalizing costs was the only way to survive. Our accounting books don't have a line for this externalization Where would you even begin? It merely becomes "everyone's problem." (TBTF anyone?) I think every ideology has it's negative side, and this is the pathological side of "free-market" capitalism. We just don't want to confront it, we just continue to relabel it (mature capitalism, neo-liberalism, et al).
I get your point on gold, but there is a large cultural component in the tradition that seems to have continued in some parts of the world and not in others, so I agree, dislocations would be inevitable.
Thank you for your reply.
[quote=gillbilly]Moral hazard seems to be an integral part of our system (I'm talking our entire system…finance, govt., legal, education, research, etc). I'm not saying it's right or that it has to be that way, but just that it is that way.
[/quote]
gillbilly,
I'm reading Secular Cycles and have nearly finished it.
http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/people/turchin/SEC.htm
After reading about 2 English, 2 French, 2 Roman, and 1 Russian cycle some common themes have emerged. The poor have always been exploited by either the elite class or the state in every cycle covered. They didn't need a Federal Reserve to accomplish this. Or fiat money. Or a fractional reserve system. Or Democrats. Or Republicans. The problem is not 'the system' - the problem is man. Man is inherently evil. And the really bad apples seem to get into positons to do serious damage to the masses.
You aren't cynical - you're spot on. The cycle will continue.
I had a chance to quickly view and download the pdf. It looks interesting. Thank you for passing it along. I agree it is man, but I also think the system that man creates can take on a propelling force of its own, just like a mob/mass of people can act in a unified way, taking on a life of its own. It reminds me of the end of this TED talk by Don Tapscott where he shows a video of starlings in murmuration. He's way more optimistic than I am in his view of the future, but it's always good to get a periodic dose of optimism. The starling segment is at 14:30 if you don't want to watch the entire video. http://www.ted.com/talks/don_tapscott_four_principles_for_the_open_world_1.html
gillbilly,
You are correct that there are many eyes looking at failures and lots of folks jump on the finger-go-round (pointing to the next chap.) I remember (fadingly) a dance hall sky bridge failure in KC around 30 years ago. Lots of injuries and some deaths. It came down to a series of bolts that were designed to be in double shear, but were installed with single shear. Blame was shifted from the designer to the construction quality control. Had the bolts been designed for single shear, the engineer would have been liable. We don't have these same safeguards for other trusted positions in authority. If a banker leverages your life savings on a risky bet that doesn't pay off, you have no recourse. The only way you'll get your money is A) it is an isolated event and the FDIC can cover your losses or B) enough bankers are in trouble that congress decides to bail out the entire system. Why do we "the people" accept the shenanigans? I had an account at a local bank that was doing well enough to be bought by one of the big 4 banks. Recently, I went in to notarize a document and "my personal banker" took the opportunity to try to sell me additional services. I asked what would happen to my account balance if the bank went bankrupt. I was told that FDIC would cover all my account (well under the limit.) I asked how large the FDIC reserves were? <crickets> Then I asked how the paltry amount in FDIC could possibly cover the deposits if one of the 4 largest banks in America went bankrupt? <more crickets> So, I asked my personal banker for a personal guarantee. "That's not our policy." was the reply. I said that I have no control over what they do with my deposits, yet the interest rate I receive is less than 1/10th of 1% per annum. Shouldn't the risk be reflected in the interest rate - higher rates entailing greater risk? A rambling response was uttered that basically said - they were following the law and that's the way it is. Take it or leave it. By the way, they wanted to charge me $15 to get my signature notarized. They graciously waived the charge when I told them I would pay after closing my account. I didn't close my account, but I now only keep a few months of living expenses in there. The rest is in a credit union savings account. I believe that there is something in human DNA that recognizes gold. Keynes' "barbarous relic" comment made the culture forget while good times roll. When the roll hits the rocks, I'm betting that memory will be reawakened rapidly. Besides, at <0.001 interest, the opportunity costs are minimal. Grover
I said: If a licensed engineer designs a faulty building and it fails, he is held culpable.
Hey Grover (and it is you, right?!? LOL)Your comment re the bank trying to sell you "additional services" reminded me of other areas where we are now being constantly offered additional services in the form of extended warranties and other such insurance. It seems like we are being whacked with service fees from every angle. At lunchtime today I went to RadioShack to buy a watch battery. It was $6.89. Much to my astonishment, the cashier asked me if, for only $1.99, I would like to buy an extended warranty against the battery "in case it craps out or something". Hmmm… it would seem a new income stream has been found on even the lowest end products. Who woulda thunk? I was completely amazed that such a thing would be put in place for such a miniscule item, but then again, an instant 29% profit from those suckers who buy it is not too shabby, if multiplied in the thousands or millions of customers - which we know is what the banks are doing with all the "fees" and "service charges". And sadly, few hold the banks accountable in the manner you did.
I think you are right about human DNA and gold. If it is as useless as so many like to claim, why are such tremendous efforts made to control/manipulate it? Why are TPTB so threatened by such a barbarous relic? And why, in spite of the manipulations, has physical demand gone bananas? My guess is that people intrinsically know it is real money, and regardless of manipulations, will return to it time and again as the only secure medium of commerce they can trust.
Jan
Hi Jan,Yes. It really, really is me this time. I may change later. 
You are right about the extended warranties being offered. I expect the onslaught with cars and tools. I didn't know that it has gotten down to that level. Sheesh. Have you noticed that all the "associates" have to paint on a fake smile and treat you like a long lost friend? I know they're being watched and critiqued by management, but it is just too over the top. I wonder if it is a Millenial thing. I don't remember that behavior even a decade ago. Makes an ATM or self checkout appear attractive.
Perhaps management is trying to drive us to automation so they can get rid of the associates who just can't fake sincerity. Now, that's a diabolical plan.
TPTB have to disparage gold or their fiat won't look good. I'm wondering how they will justify confiscation if it is just a barbarous relic. Somehow, there has to be some magic up their sleeve. Take a slot machine for instance. Coins clang when they drop into the metal tray. However, when you take one of those coins and raise it above your waist, it magically becomes a token (not a coin) that allows you to play the game again. Have you ever noticed that most people will say they won 2 coins if the payout is 2. They either don't remember dropping a coin in the machine, are horrible at math, or consider the bet coin as a token. I vote the latter.
So, how will gold be changed from a barbarous relic to a matter of national interest? They have to do that before they confiscate. How many central bankers can dance on the head of a pin?
Grover
darbikrash -
I hate to argue-by-assertion, but I will anyway. Ha! If there's no pot of money that accumulates a surplus to pay beneficiaries, it's not insurance. Social Security has no pot of money for the accumulated surplus. Therefore, it's not an insurance plan, its a welfare program. If you are particularly charitable, you might consider the slips of paper in the Social Security Trust Fund to be a pot of money. RIght up until you try and actually pay beneficiaries with those slips of paper. Good luck selling those non-redeemable bonds. They are, after all, non-redeemable. They are simply markers to show social security taxes that was spent by the government on something else; when it comes time to pay beneficiaries, either the money to pay them must come from taxes paid during that same year, or new treasury bonds will have to be created and sold in order to fund the payments. How does that differ from a welfare program, which also must fund payment to lucky recipients by selling new treasury bonds or from taxes paid? Answer: it doesn't. They are functionally equivalent. If those slips of paper didn't exist, nothing about the budgeting of the government would change. So I must conclude those slips of paper mean nothing. If they were corporate bonds, or equities, or the like, then those would be real assets that could be sold to finance retirees. But it's not, so it isn't. In essense, I'm making the claim that to be considered a legitimate asset for a pot of money, it must be someone else's liability. Why isn't a US government liability a legitimate asset? A simple thought experiment will illustrate why. During my working years, I make $100k per year. I spend ALL of it. In addition, each year, I write on a slip of paper Pay to the Order Of Dave Fairtex, $10k - signed, Dave Fairtex, and I put it in my pocket. At the end of 30 years of work, I have slips of paper totalling $300k. When I retire, I take those slips out of my pocket and think, "wow, now I've got $300k to spend. Now I just need to get this guy Dave Fairtex to cough up that money and I'm golden!" That's the Social Security Trust Fund. Even more bizarrely, the US government wants to have it both ways. It doesn't want to include the SS Trust Fund liabilities in calculations on how large the debt is, but at the same time it wants to pretend that the trust fund exists, perpetuating the myth that the pot of money exists. Here's the entry for the CIA World Fact Book on the US on "Public Debt" to illustrate: Public debt: 73.6% of GDP (2012 est.) country comparison to the world: 35 67.8% of GDP (2011 est.) note: data cover only what the United States Treasury denotes as "Debt Held by the Public," which includes all debt instruments issued by the Treasury that are owned by non-US Government entities; the data include Treasury debt held by foreign entities; the data exclude debt issued by individual US states, as well as intra-governmental debt; intra-governmental debt consists of Treasury borrowings from surpluses in the trusts for Federal Social Security, Federal Employees, Hospital Insurance (Medicare and Medicaid), Disability and Unemployment, and several other smaller trusts; if data for intra-government debt were added, "Gross Debt" would increase by about one-third of GDP So...no pot of money containing the paid-in surplus for beneficiaries means, social security is a welfare program.
But kibitzing about how money earmarked for reserves is invested, in my view, does nothing to indicate whether or not this is an insurance policy or a welfare program. All insurance companies invest pooled money, in fact, the dominant revenue stream in the insurance business model is interest income, interest from the policy holder's payments. We may reasonably disagree as to how this money is invested, but this schema is hard wired into the insurance business.
Too much reliance is placed on this concept in your analyses. Let's be clear, there is no pot of money in the insurance industry, in gov't trust funds or, for the most part, in banks. As I have read this blog over the years, the generally accepted number for the proportion of USDs that are in the form of cash you can carry in your pocket is about 3%. The rest are all digital entries in some accounting scheme. Except for actual cash kept on hand by banks and businesses for day to day needs, or by taxpayers/consumers, they are all digital entries. Does it really matter whether the digital entries are in fractional insurance reserves kept in fractional reserve bank accounts or in gov't trust funds designated as treasuries that are claims on general funds? They can all be whisked away with a keystroke. Arguing whether this or that digital entry is more or less secure than another is semantics. In the final analysis the question comes down to which is more secure, the "full faith and credit of the United States" or the insurance industry's promise to pay out of a fractional reserve system under certain deliniated circumstances?Then, of course, the whole question arises of how reliable any of that fiat money is. It's value is out of our hands. Our entire financial infrastructure is built on shifting sands.
Oh, btw, SSI (supplemental security income) is a gov't welfare program for poor aged or disabled people and is means tested. There is no trust fund. It comes out of general funds. SS retirement insurance and SS disability insurance have trust funds into which we pay our payroll taxes. Those digital entries are immediately loaned to the treasury for general expenditures until the payouts exceed the income, at which point we start drawing down the trust funds. i.e., the Treasury starts redeeming the securities it has issued the trust funds in return for use of their digital entries.
Here it is early on Independence Day and my head hurts already.
Doug
Doug -
Banks have assets that offset their liabilities (i.e. deposits). If they could liquidate them slowly enough, they could actually return all those bank deposits. Same with the insurance companies. When I say "pot-o-money" I'm really talking about a collection of assets, rather than actual cash deposited at the Fed, or Federal Reserve Notes. Bank assets consist of loans to their customers. Insurance industry assets consist of bonds, equities, and real estate. Sovereign wealth funds consist of the same thing - bonds, equities, and real estate. I'm guessing they have cash bank deposits too, but they aren't so large. However, the critical distinction we're missing with the US Social Security Trust Fund is, its "assets" are simply liabilities of the US government. That's not right, because it doesn't work. To be legitimate store of wealth for a government trust fund, contributions must be stored in assets that are either real property, fractional ownership of companies, or someone else's liability. These would include: corporate bonds equities real estate bank deposits sovereign bonds of other nations Why do I insist that the liability be someone else's rather than, say, US Treasury bonds? For the same reason you don't simply write a check to yourself and call yourself wealthy. Someone else is on the hook to come up with the cash when the asset matures, in the case of bonds. Unless you understand this key point, you will imagine that the contents of the Social Security Trust Fund are real, and you will fall for their trick. If you like the government's trick, for the next step, I suggest that you write yourself a $10,000,000 check and stuff it in a box marked "my retirement savings". Ultimately if the assets of your fund are actually just your own liabilities, you end up owning nothing.
Let's be clear, there is no pot of money in the insurance industry, in gov't trust funds or, for the most part, in banks.
There is no way in heck that SS, the retirement protion, can be construed as "welfare", no matter how twisted your logic is. AFDC, aid to families with dependent children as it was called, real welfare, made payments based on the "need" of the individuals receiving benefits. Payments were based on the number of children that the single mother had. No payments were made by these individuals in taxes to cover the costs of the program nor were they ever expected to.
SS is qualitatively different, the payments that you receive are based entirely the payments that you have made over your working life time. If you did not work for monetary compensation in the system, you get no benefits, period. The perceived "need" of the individual by the government has nothing what so ever to do with the payments you receive. Please explain to me how these two systems are equivalent.
By the proposed logic of the "pot o money", if I hire a cabinet maker to build me a set of cabinets and pay him 100% up front for the job and he spends all the money on a drinking and gambling binge and builds no cabinets, then when I sued him to provide me with cabinets, then I would be getting "welfare"? Please.
I am not defending SS, it was poorly conceived and badly managed to say the least. Whether it should ever have been created is certainly debatable, probably not. Excess funds payed were not invested to cover the difference in payments received by the government and the payments made. In my own case, if I retired at the standard standard age of 66.5, I would have paid in about $250,000 and if I lived 20 years past retirement, I would have received about $575,000. Yes, money has been stolen out of the fund and paid to current retirees turning it into a Ponzi like scheme. Yes, if the SS were actually to last until I died, the difference between what I paid versus I would have received would need to be payed to me out of the general fund like welfare because of the way SS has been run.
SS is a retirement program? Yes. Has it been run like a ponzi scheme in the past resulting it needing to be run like a welfare program in the future? Yes. Perhaps you think I quibble, but why waste the intelectual energy debating terms when the nuances behind the terms can be describe in one paragraph and we can move on to more interesting discusssion?
Treebeard -
If your personal opinion is that this discussion is a waste of time, why on earth are you...wasting your time discussing it? Five paragraphs, no less! Perhaps next time you feel that sense you should resist...just don't comment! Save your energy for more interesting things! If at some later date you change your mind and actually want to hear my response, I'd be happy to spend energy constructing it. After all, it is modestly disconcerting to have a discussion with someone who launches into a critique of something you wrote, and ends the critque with "and boy, that was such a waste of time."
why waste the intelectual energy debating terms when the nuances behind the terms can be describe in one paragraph and we can move on to more interesting discusssion?
[quote=treebeard]In my own case, if I retired at the standard standard age of 66.5, I would have paid in about $250,000 and if I lived 20 years past retirement, I would have received about $575,000. Yes, money has been stolen out of the fund and paid to current retirees turning it into a Ponzi like scheme. Yes, if the SS were actually to last until I died, the difference between what I paid versus I would have received would need to be payed to me out of the general fund like welfare because of the way SS has been run.
[/quote]
hi Treebeard,
You have assumed a 0% rate of return in the senario you have described. Assume a 2% compound annual return on your paid in portion and see how quickly 'your' pot of money grows. And if you want to ruin your weekend, use the 8% ROR pensions have historically used.
Nate
That was a little out of line, was a little acid this morning, perhaps its all this heat. Maybe a lot out of line. I'm a little down on the human project as of late.
I am aware of the profit that could of been had if the money was "properly invested". What's important is that I have my pile of cash as the planet dies and failed state america descends into police state america. The brutality and ugliness of it all. Yet all our time is spent painting a veneer of respectability on it all.
Corruption is endemic in both the public and private sectors. The largest banks caught red handed money laundering for the most brutal drug cartels and the response, crickets. Hey, whats their yeild curve, who cares where the money has come from. Can I make some money here?
As resources wither and the game of musical chairs comes to an end everybody is scrambling for a seat, few ever question the game to begin with. You can have my seat.
We pick through the dead corpse of SS telling ourselves the pleasant lies about its creation even though the darkest motivations in human nature are typically at play in most large scale human projects. Was SS ever intended to help your average working stiff stave off hunger in retirement, whether you agree with the concept or not, or was it pasted together hastily without a thought to save the status quo after the last great collapse.
This time around as the economy implodes there is no money to toss at the working poor (aka "the middle class"), this time there will be no misbegotten government program offering a bowl of soup, just expect the jackboot.