Were two of the early computer languages, each intended to more easily write programs in their specific area of expertise, vs. writing direct for the machine.
You have confused the computer language used with the ease/complexity of writing a program that correctly implements a very complex problem.
With all due respect, this is an intergenerational dynamic fiscal policy (See kotlikoff.net for a book with that title) that redistributes from young and future generations to contemporaneous older generations -- what economics views as a Ponzi scheme. You can have your own opinion. You can't have your own economics. That lives outside of you and me. Yes, we could use different words to make the 89 year-old redistribution game, which is part of a bigger take-from-the-young enterprise, but it wouldn't change anything about the reality of postwar U.S. fiscal policy. We've spent 75 years screwing future generations. It's clear in the data, particularly the age-consumption profile. best, Larry
Dan, I don't hate the market. I just moved out of the market a couple of weeks ago because I sensed that the uncertainty Trump was generating would produce a major correction. Also, TIPS were and remain very inexpensive. We'll get back in the market when the economic weather calms down. My best, Larry
Fred, I'm not surprised and agree with you fully that this is a dysfunctional agency and has been so for decades. See socialsecurityhorrorstories.com. But Musk is taking a blowtorch to SSA because he's not actually interested in doing the hard work needed to fix anything. I think most of government policy needs to be tossed and radically reformed/simplified. See You're Hired -- my book at kotlikoff.net. best, Larry
Perhaps the idea is to get rid of the deadwood and then reform SS. I don't honestly see that happening since Dems oppose everything despite the merits.
Hi John, He "made money" for some close associates who told others who "invested," and on it went. So, it was a chain-type/dynamic process. best, Larry
Hi Gunnar, It would clearly have turned out well. AI is no answer. You can't guess at the right answer when it comes to SS benefits. They could just use our software. We've caught mistake in their code -- decent sized. best, Larry
Gunnar wasn't suggesting you use AI to calculate benefits. AI is a reasonable approach to offer suggestions for updating code, because LLMs have hoovered up a lot of code in training. If you have a program that does something in one way, AI can look at it and offer up other ways of doing that thing.
My wife worked at social security HQ for 9 years. She would come home and tell me stories about many employees doing nothing all day or disappearing at lunch and not returning in the afternoon. These employees faced no consequences. Many stories of employees having sexual relationships with their immediate supervisor for special favors and promotions This crap is going on in every federal agency. I saw the same waste and fraud working as an engineer for a defense contractor in cahoots with their DOD counterparts to make sure there were coat overruns that would line the pockets of the contractors with big promotions for the DOD officials. I applaud what Trump and Musk are doing. I like your SS proposals and maybe it will happen but only if the DemoRATS get on board but I highly doubt that will happen.
My wife and I are very satisfied users of MYSS. likely the best investment ROI I've ever had. Thanks for all the work I'm sure it took.
fwiw-in 1968 I took my first and only programming course--COBOL. It was fun in its way.
I hope you will contact Elon Musk et all and offer some of your services. (easy for me to give away your time :) )
I actually have confidence in what they are doing, even if it is not a straight line.
and a few mess-ups are not all bad. it gets headlines and that get attention. public acknowledgement there is a problem with the size of government is important in the political context. like they say in entertainment, all publicity is good.
With all due respect, SS is NOT a Ponzi scheme, it is an actuarially underfunded income insurance program with one hand tied behind its back. Actuarially, it failed to anticipate declining birth rates and a dramatically aging population with lengthening life expectancies, where there are now insufficient numbers of young workers paying premiums relative to the number of seniors receiving their benefits. As for the hand tied behind its back, for decades the program had an astronomical surplus that was by law not allowed to be invested in equities and other financial investments, as private insurance programs are allowed to do with their surpluses. Had the program been allowed to properly invest its surplus, an aging population and lower birth rates would not have caused this insurance program to become so underfunded.
So please reconsider your decision to label a legitimate public income insurance program a Ponzi scheme, where early entrants get wildly rich and late entrants lose their shirts while the evil creator of the scheme laughs all the way to the bank. That’s not what happened here, AT ALL. Your unfair labeling gives support to politicians who want to end the program, rather than fix it. Thank you for your attention and for your otherwise very reasonable analysis, with the deep understanding you have of this program as your products help ordinary people make wise choices. I know your product helped me and my wife ten years ago.
This is entirely wrong. Social Security is not anything resembling a Ponzi scheme. Stop repeating this nonsense.
It’s insurance for old and unwell people. When people work, they pay in through their tax dollars. When they reach a sufficient age, it pays out to them. It’s not complicated. There’s a bunch of fearmongering around it from dishonest people who want to dismantle it and foolish people who can’t grasp what’s really not a complex system.
Ostensibly, there’s a dedicated capped tax that’s dedicated to it. That tax exceeded paid benefits for a long time. Opponents wanted to pretend that the accumulated surplus didn’t count because it was funds the government owed to itself. But then they turn around and declare that there’s some catastrophe if the “dedicated” taxes exceed outlays. That’s incoherent. If the government wants to pay promised benefits, it can… tax or borrow to pay those benefits. You could get the accounting fiction right if you wanted to by hiking the payroll tax cap. Problem solved. Or you could raise taxes some other way to raise funds. Or you could borrow.
The disinformation merchants want people to panic that payment at current benefit levels might exceed the current amount of dedicated taxes plus inflows from bonds ostensibly owned by the SSA. To fix this “problem,” they want the government to commit to slash future benefits. Which is by itself incredibly dumb. If you need to slash future benefits, you can… slash future benefits. Promising to do so a decade ahead of that makes less than zero sense. You could also fix this “problem” by having the government make payments out of general tax revenue or by borrowing. Believe it or not, no one’s head will explode if you do that.
I hear someone crying wolf before all of us have the facts. Musk does not make the final decisions and Trump has tightened his collar a bit. SS is way past due for a complete overhaul and understanding of just what your and my representatives have done to the SS without considering long or short impacts to the SS $$$$ and its owners, us the citizens!😡😡😡
Uh, it’s spelled COBOL not colbol. You’ve got an extra L in there.
COBOL ... COmmon Business Oriented Language
FORTRAN ... FORmula TRANslation
Were two of the early computer languages, each intended to more easily write programs in their specific area of expertise, vs. writing direct for the machine.
You have confused the computer language used with the ease/complexity of writing a program that correctly implements a very complex problem.
Hi Jeff, The link is in the above paragraph. But I added it again below. It's fixed online. best, Larry
With all due respect, this is an intergenerational dynamic fiscal policy (See kotlikoff.net for a book with that title) that redistributes from young and future generations to contemporaneous older generations -- what economics views as a Ponzi scheme. You can have your own opinion. You can't have your own economics. That lives outside of you and me. Yes, we could use different words to make the 89 year-old redistribution game, which is part of a bigger take-from-the-young enterprise, but it wouldn't change anything about the reality of postwar U.S. fiscal policy. We've spent 75 years screwing future generations. It's clear in the data, particularly the age-consumption profile. best, Larry
2 AM typo. Fixed online, John. Thanks. best, Larry
Dan, I don't hate the market. I just moved out of the market a couple of weeks ago because I sensed that the uncertainty Trump was generating would produce a major correction. Also, TIPS were and remain very inexpensive. We'll get back in the market when the economic weather calms down. My best, Larry
Hi Masum, I think my proposal has what you want. best, Larry
Good to hear. That would help a novice a bit.
Fred, I'm not surprised and agree with you fully that this is a dysfunctional agency and has been so for decades. See socialsecurityhorrorstories.com. But Musk is taking a blowtorch to SSA because he's not actually interested in doing the hard work needed to fix anything. I think most of government policy needs to be tossed and radically reformed/simplified. See You're Hired -- my book at kotlikoff.net. best, Larry
PS, Try maxifi.com if you haven't already.
Perhaps the idea is to get rid of the deadwood and then reform SS. I don't honestly see that happening since Dems oppose everything despite the merits.
Hi John, He "made money" for some close associates who told others who "invested," and on it went. So, it was a chain-type/dynamic process. best, Larry
Hi Gunnar, It would clearly have turned out well. AI is no answer. You can't guess at the right answer when it comes to SS benefits. They could just use our software. We've caught mistake in their code -- decent sized. best, Larry
PS, running MaxiFi.com?
Gunnar wasn't suggesting you use AI to calculate benefits. AI is a reasonable approach to offer suggestions for updating code, because LLMs have hoovered up a lot of code in training. If you have a program that does something in one way, AI can look at it and offer up other ways of doing that thing.
Edit: Also, you can paste a snip of COBOL code into AI with the prompt: What does this code do? And thus get an even more readable understanding.
My wife worked at social security HQ for 9 years. She would come home and tell me stories about many employees doing nothing all day or disappearing at lunch and not returning in the afternoon. These employees faced no consequences. Many stories of employees having sexual relationships with their immediate supervisor for special favors and promotions This crap is going on in every federal agency. I saw the same waste and fraud working as an engineer for a defense contractor in cahoots with their DOD counterparts to make sure there were coat overruns that would line the pockets of the contractors with big promotions for the DOD officials. I applaud what Trump and Musk are doing. I like your SS proposals and maybe it will happen but only if the DemoRATS get on board but I highly doubt that will happen.
I would not trust anything that Elon Musk would “build”! (NOTE: he did not build any of his corporations, he bought them)
he built Tesla and Space X....the Boring Company....
Larry-
My wife and I are very satisfied users of MYSS. likely the best investment ROI I've ever had. Thanks for all the work I'm sure it took.
fwiw-in 1968 I took my first and only programming course--COBOL. It was fun in its way.
I hope you will contact Elon Musk et all and offer some of your services. (easy for me to give away your time :) )
I actually have confidence in what they are doing, even if it is not a straight line.
and a few mess-ups are not all bad. it gets headlines and that get attention. public acknowledgement there is a problem with the size of government is important in the political context. like they say in entertainment, all publicity is good.
so, Thanks for everything.
With all due respect, SS is NOT a Ponzi scheme, it is an actuarially underfunded income insurance program with one hand tied behind its back. Actuarially, it failed to anticipate declining birth rates and a dramatically aging population with lengthening life expectancies, where there are now insufficient numbers of young workers paying premiums relative to the number of seniors receiving their benefits. As for the hand tied behind its back, for decades the program had an astronomical surplus that was by law not allowed to be invested in equities and other financial investments, as private insurance programs are allowed to do with their surpluses. Had the program been allowed to properly invest its surplus, an aging population and lower birth rates would not have caused this insurance program to become so underfunded.
So please reconsider your decision to label a legitimate public income insurance program a Ponzi scheme, where early entrants get wildly rich and late entrants lose their shirts while the evil creator of the scheme laughs all the way to the bank. That’s not what happened here, AT ALL. Your unfair labeling gives support to politicians who want to end the program, rather than fix it. Thank you for your attention and for your otherwise very reasonable analysis, with the deep understanding you have of this program as your products help ordinary people make wise choices. I know your product helped me and my wife ten years ago.
This is entirely wrong. Social Security is not anything resembling a Ponzi scheme. Stop repeating this nonsense.
It’s insurance for old and unwell people. When people work, they pay in through their tax dollars. When they reach a sufficient age, it pays out to them. It’s not complicated. There’s a bunch of fearmongering around it from dishonest people who want to dismantle it and foolish people who can’t grasp what’s really not a complex system.
Ostensibly, there’s a dedicated capped tax that’s dedicated to it. That tax exceeded paid benefits for a long time. Opponents wanted to pretend that the accumulated surplus didn’t count because it was funds the government owed to itself. But then they turn around and declare that there’s some catastrophe if the “dedicated” taxes exceed outlays. That’s incoherent. If the government wants to pay promised benefits, it can… tax or borrow to pay those benefits. You could get the accounting fiction right if you wanted to by hiking the payroll tax cap. Problem solved. Or you could raise taxes some other way to raise funds. Or you could borrow.
The disinformation merchants want people to panic that payment at current benefit levels might exceed the current amount of dedicated taxes plus inflows from bonds ostensibly owned by the SSA. To fix this “problem,” they want the government to commit to slash future benefits. Which is by itself incredibly dumb. If you need to slash future benefits, you can… slash future benefits. Promising to do so a decade ahead of that makes less than zero sense. You could also fix this “problem” by having the government make payments out of general tax revenue or by borrowing. Believe it or not, no one’s head will explode if you do that.
I hear someone crying wolf before all of us have the facts. Musk does not make the final decisions and Trump has tightened his collar a bit. SS is way past due for a complete overhaul and understanding of just what your and my representatives have done to the SS without considering long or short impacts to the SS $$$$ and its owners, us the citizens!😡😡😡