• 0 Posts
  • 62 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 9th, 2023

help-circle


  • Though since treasuries are paid by the government is it not then still a ponzi scheme,

    No, social security is investing in treasuries just like any other retirement fund might

    in the fact the bonds must be redeemed to pay for shortfalls, in which case the government must tax the existing population

    Well yeah, kind of. The government issues bonds to finance its debt. Some amount of that is a good thing, to fund large projects. However a poorly run government running a constantly increasing deficit and funding a constantly increasing debt with constantly increasing bonds is mortgaging its future to pay for its present. Think of the analogy of living off your credit cards. At some point you’ll hit a limit, everything comes due and you’re going to have a very bad time.

    This is poor governance, regardless of who is buying the bonds. It has nothing to do with social security.

    This is also why the idea of a smaller government is so compelling: we need to do something about ever increasing debt. However the political party that talks most about that is the one most responsible for that debt. You don’t reduce debt by more and more tax cuts for the wealthy nor ever increasing military.

    There had been the expectation by some that our debt doesn’t matter as long as the dollar acts as the world’s reserve currency, but what happens when this stops? What happens when chaos spite and narcissism disrupts global trade and alliances, driving other countries away from trade with US, away from the dollar as an exchange currency? What happens when those countries no longer buy the enormous amounts of US Bonds they have been and no longer find our debt? And Social Security is at an inflection where it needs to pay out more than it’s bringing in do starts selling the bonds it’s invested in? We might be in for a very bad time, decades of government mismanagement under taxing the wealthy and overspending coming due at once, triggered by the idiot we voted for


  • The argument is it’s not a tax or insurance but a communal retirement fund meant to supplement private retirement benefits or keep the elderly out of poverty. It’s limited in what it pays out so your investment should be limited at the same place

    People who earn $176k get the highest benefit, and they don’t get anymore no matter how much more they earn. They’re not getting more so don’t think they should pay in more.

    I don’t know how the benefit is calculated but presumable if higher earners kick in more, the formula would need to change so it’s not all going back to them












  • I know people like to harp on the self-driving promises, but the technology not fraud at all, except for the promises of how soon it will be self-driving. The early adopters especially must feel taken advantage of, paying for lifetime self driving that was only for as long as they owned the car and never appeared.

    Anyhow, I still think it’s a valid approach to attempt. We don’t know what approach will succeed until one does, and Teslas approach does have advantages. Cameras are cheap sensors now, that can easily blend as part of a car, and humans do succeed in driving based only on sight. Now it’s a software problem - will we be able to create an ai that can drive? I don’t know, but I don’t see other approaches doing any better, and that’s with much more expensive and ugly hardware.

    Until someone succeeds in creating a self-driving vehicle, I’m encouraged that we’re not all jumping into the same hole that may or may not succeed. Let them try something different, and we have a better chance of something working