tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post7387105037503378276..comments2024-03-29T06:44:19.414-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Santa, please bring me the chained CPI!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-3041214727686229472020-06-10T05:30:00.003-04:002020-06-10T05:30:00.003-04:00It is a great article. You will surely like this a...It is a great article. You will surely like this also because it is a great stuff <a href="https://clickerheroes.games/" rel="nofollow">web</a>Victoryahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08142349853449872716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-67545835741451861242012-12-20T13:36:30.983-05:002012-12-20T13:36:30.983-05:00David in Cal: without getting into the weeds, I...David in Cal: without getting into the weeds, I'll just note that using words in their normal sense may be quite misleading under some circumstances. Specifically, when discussing economics, simply comparing a dollar today to a dollar tomorrow can be profoundly misleading - precisely because most people take your comparison in the "normal sense", but the number of dollars is not in and of itself the issue at hand - it's what you can buy with them that matters.<br /><br />To work with your example, if I get a 1% raise and my rent goes up 2%, I might have to run home and tell my loved ones that I got a raise, but it's not enough to keep up with inflation (as reflected in our rent) so we're going to be evicted next month. Your depiction omits the second clause. I think it's a significant omission.<br /><br />-eb53Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-50728195401128925972012-12-19T14:41:32.654-05:002012-12-19T14:41:32.654-05:00Now, a lesson in using words in their normal sense...Now, a lesson in using words in their normal sense.<br /><br />If current SS law provides some level of expected benefit and that benefit will be *lower* under some proposed change, the normal way to explain that is as a *reduction* in benefits.<br /><br />Deceitful scumbags notwithstanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-3088472365880120692012-12-19T14:41:15.196-05:002012-12-19T14:41:15.196-05:00DinC, is there no limit to your mendacity? I use ...DinC, is there no limit to your mendacity? I use the word advisedly, since you clearly DO know what the facts are -- taking, as you do, a great deal of trouble to obscure them, for reasons unknown (are you paid to do this? are your activities in the service of an unacknowledged agenda)?<br /><br />Let's take your example. I might or might not run home to announce that my $1000 increase isn't really an increase, because it won't keep up with inflation.<br /><br />But if the discussion specifically concerned, as it does here, reducing SS benefits, and the way those benefits are adjusted every year for inflation, I certainly WOULD refer to any reduction in benefits as a "cut", relative to what I would receive had that adjustment not taken place. In the same way, for example, that "conservatives" refer to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts are an "tax increase", despite the fact that the program was sold to the public on precisely that feature -- that the tax cut was temporary, and would expire.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-61586300331010925322012-12-19T14:31:52.858-05:002012-12-19T14:31:52.858-05:00Attention class, I will now present today's sh...Attention class, I will now present today's short lesson in Why DavidInCA Is A Scumbag.<br /><br />What people who will retire in some years would like to know:<br /><br />** Will Social Security provide as much value to me as it does to retirees today? **<br /><br />What people who will retire in some years couldn't give a sh!t about:<br /><br />** Will I receive the exact same number of dollars as retirees do today? **Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-39152945909602147552012-12-19T13:48:27.700-05:002012-12-19T13:48:27.700-05:00Even if SS benefits did not decrease in real-money...Even if SS benefits did not decrease in real-money terms, they are held static with respect to any real expansion of the economy and overall improvement in standard of living. At best retirees are frozen into the standard of living when the benefit level was last set by Congress.<br /><br />Benefits should be indexed to the time-averaged nominal GDP. Or at least this should be the starting point for negotiations, not constant real money.skeptonomistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-62463722220786850412012-12-19T13:22:48.163-05:002012-12-19T13:22:48.163-05:00eb, I was using words in their normal sense. Supp...eb, I was using words in their normal sense. Suppose you were earning $100,000/year and got a raise of $1000. Would you run home and tell your loved ones that you just got a salary cut of $1000? That would be true, in terms of spending power, since inflation is around 2%. But it's not what the words mean.<br /><br />And, when I get more SS money next year than I got last year, I'll call that an increase, whether or not it keeps up with various measures of inflation. David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-15211523846459672102012-12-19T01:20:11.257-05:002012-12-19T01:20:11.257-05:00DinC: Because a change is being discussed, the wo...DinC: Because a change is being discussed, the word "reduced" sometimes means "increased, but not as much".<br /><br /><br /><br />It's unbelievable that you keep pulling this shit on this specific site, where I first read "Socrates Reads" over 15 years ago.<br /><br />********************************************<br />A remarkable anecdote casting light on this matter was included by humorist/commentator Al Franken in Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, a best-seller combining humor and satire with policy analysis and personal anecdote. Franken describes Gingrich's performance at Ross Perot's Dallas convention in August 1995, at which Gingrich delivered his standard presentation in a typically aggressive and personal matter. Gingrich, quoted by Franken:<br /><br />Now most of you probably do math well enough that you know if you're at 4800 here at you're at 6700 here, that's called an increase. Now I want to go real slow for a minute because we've got a lot of reporters who are listening... <br />Now I don't want to be too negative, but you might even have one or two liberals who show up who claim that going from 4800 to 6700 is a cut. Now, this is not because they're bad people; this is an early sign of the educational dysfunction which has hit our society.<br /><br />By late 1995, this abusive tone—in support of an indefensible presentation—had become a trademark of the Speaker's appearances promoting the GOP plan.<br /><br />After the evening's session, Franken is luxuriating in a Hyatt lounge with CNN's Robert Novak, NewsHour correspondent Margaret Warner, and House Budget Committee chairman John Kasich (R-OH), a key member of the GOP leadership. In challenging Kasich on the Speaker's argument, Franken—a humorist—manages to display the technical competence which completely eluded the press corps all year. And this evokes a reaction so remarkable that I reprint the anecdote in full:<br /><br />At one point Novak was extolling Gingrich's "masterful" speech, and I objected, especially to the patronizing crap about the $4800 versus the $6700. So I turned to Kasich: <br /> "By the way, are those constant dollars?"<br /> Margaret jumped in. "Of course they're constant dollars. They wouldn't be that dishonest."<br /> "Sure they would," I said. Turning back to Kasich, "Are those constant dollars?"<br /> "Al..." Kasich's voice has a touch of annoyance, "we're increasing funding for Medicare."<br /> "But the $4800 to $6700, has that been adjusted for inflation?" <br /> "Al, the dollars are going up."<br /> "I just want to know if those are constant dollars."<br /> "Al, we're going from 178 billion [total Medicare budget in 1995] to 283 billion [total Medicare budget in 2002]." Kasich gave the others an exasperated look. When will this guy stop?<br /> "Look. Gingrich is going like, 'Hey, you're a fucking moron if you can't see that 6700 is more than 4800.' I just want to know how big a moron am I. Are those constant dollars?"<br /> A pause. Then. "No, Al, they're not constant dollars."<br /> Kasich slumped in his chair and admitted, "I guess we're being a little intellectually dishonest about this one." And I took a few victory laps around the table.<br /> Margaret was slightly embarrassed and begged me not to repeat the part about her assuming it was constant dollars. I knew she was kidding, however. She's a terrific journalist and she knows a good story.<br />http://www.dailyhowler.com/socrates/soc_frame.htmlmmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-56797229235291128582012-12-19T00:58:48.419-05:002012-12-19T00:58:48.419-05:00Uh, no. A common misconception, but an error none...Uh, no. A common misconception, but an error nonetheless. Social Security benefits may increase over time in nominal dollars, but not in inflation-adjusted dollars - that's the whole point of the CPI adjustment. Switching to "chained CPI" would mean that the real value of benefits would actually be reduced over time.<br /><br />To be clear: a switch to chained CPI is not a case of benefits being "increased, but not as much". Social Security benefits do not increase over time, in terms of purchasing power - which is all that matters when you're on a fixed income. If your Social Security payment buys you 30 days of rent and food when you're 65, it will still buy you (roughly) 30 days of rent and food when you're 70 or 80, under the current system. If we switch to chained CPI, then your benefit payment might only buy you 27 or 23 days of rent and food when you're 70 or 80 (the exact magnitude of the proposed cut is not yet known, but it's probably something on that order). That is a real reduction in benefits.<br /><br />-eb53Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-90540828177116026132012-12-18T20:47:41.551-05:002012-12-18T20:47:41.551-05:00Yay! I'm so happy that I may get a .5% raise i...Yay! I'm so happy that I may get a .5% raise in April 2013. After all, my salary will be rising. If I can just get half a percent every year, it won't be too long until I'm rich.<br />Some Guynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-78160963002848410392012-12-18T20:13:41.071-05:002012-12-18T20:13:41.071-05:00Because a change is being discussed, the word &quo...Because a change is being discussed, the word "reduced" sometimes means "increased, but not as much".<br /><br />E.g. "future Social Security <i>benefits would get reduced</i> due to the new measure of inflation" really means future SS recipients would continue to get annual increases, but these increases would be slightly smaller than under current law. <br /><br />And, "The White House is also counting on $290 billion in savings from lower interest costs on a <i>reduced national debt</i>" means the national debt would continue to increase at an alarming rate, but it would increase less than it would without this agreement.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-70072352475538565142012-12-18T19:56:45.028-05:002012-12-18T19:56:45.028-05:00I think Big Eddie goes into the disparity a lot. A...I think Big Eddie goes into the disparity a lot. Agree with you about O'Donnell thoughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-77504814844698395522012-12-18T18:53:52.493-05:002012-12-18T18:53:52.493-05:00I'm with Bob on O'Donnell. I saw that sill...I'm with Bob on O'Donnell. I saw that silliness about Norquist. I also saw that insane attack he made on Alan Grayson way back when he was just starting, and I never heard what that was all about. But I did stop watching for the most part.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-14643107449309274762012-12-18T16:42:23.668-05:002012-12-18T16:42:23.668-05:00While I share Somerby's assessment that O'...While I share Somerby's assessment that O'Donnell is a know-nothing blowhard, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Norquist, Rove, and Abramoff (Remember him? Along with Grover and Karl, all present at the creation of the student conservative movement in the 80s) each have a lot to answer for given their fulsome embrace of the racist South African regime. Here's a link, but I recommend reading Thomas Frank's Wrecking Crew in its entirety if you want the whole sordid story.<br /><br />http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/8/the_wrecking_crew_thomas_frank_oncacambonoreply@blogger.com