Too bad our government totally ignored the Simpson-Bowles report.

[Digressions]

Probably.

View embedded media

Then again, Elon finally got around to posting the numbers and some people apparently are coming around to reality now that the cult leader has shared the figures and they did some of the math. Looking through that thread, there is a whole bunch of MAGA who are taking glee in sticking it to a bunch of GS-11's who were doing the job they were told to do by both sides of the aisle, whose tune suddenly changed when it became really clear that this isn't getting fixed without touching the piece of that big old pie they feel entitled to.

The problem that everyone has is that you could cut everything but the big items I mentioned back to 2019 spending levels (in 2024 dollars) and you would still have $1 T left to cut. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans benefits, and Interest on the debt account for $1T of the $1.4T increase. And oh yeah, welfare (like SSI, SNAP, etc.) is another $50B. You can cut DOD, but keep in mind that 25-40% of their budget is related to payroll and active soldier/sailor/airmen benefits.

Elon did a nice job of laying out reality in one concise table. Credit to him for that. The issue I have is that this all appears to just be a revenge tour that is being done for the cruelty (and the online lols, and attaboys from his sycophants) that is fueling the majority of this.

So look at his chart, still got $1T to cut just to get back to 2019 numbers and everything is on the table except the things driving the debt. Here is where you can cut:

Defense $876B
Welfare $671B
Education, Training, Social Services $305B
Infrastructure $135B
Other Doscretionary $112B
Foreign Affairs $72B

You could cut everything but Welfare and Defense and still have another $400B to go just to get back to 2019 spending levels. And we are still running a deficit even at those levels. So if we aren't going to increase revenue collection you either get to take money from soldiers, veterans, the poor, the disabled, or retirees. Who are we cutting?

As I've mentioned before, everyone in the the healthcare industry. Prices are 5x what they should be across the board.

If you understand compounding interest, then you understand the way things are priced has to change. It took 22 years for prices to double the first time. 18 years for the next. 12 years the next. It will only take about 8 years for the next, and so on.

Another way to look at it is that every procedure is generally priced 5x what it should be. It took 60 years to get there. Over the next 10 everything will be priced 7x what it should be. Procedures that were once considered routine will lead to bankruptcy. And that list will snowball.

It will be changed, whether anyone understands it, or not. Or, if anyone reads about it, or not. It’s simple economics.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Why do you think their purchasing power hasn’t budged?

Should we view 8/15/1971 as one of the key inflection points in America’s history, right alongside…

4/19/1775
7/4/1776
4/12/1861
4/9/1865
10/24/1929
12/7/1941
8/6/1945 etc?

Maybe.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

As I've mentioned before, everyone in the the healthcare industry. Prices are 5x what they should be across the board.

If you understand compounding interest, then you understand the way things are priced has to change. It took 22 years for prices to double the first time. 18 years for the next. 12 years the next. It will only take about 8 years for the next, and so on.

Another way to look at it is that every procedure is generally priced 5x what it should be. It took 60 years to get there. Over the next 10 everything will be priced 7x what it should be. Procedures that were once considered routine will lead to bankruptcy. And that list will snowball.

It will be changed, whether anyone understands it, or not. Or if anyone reads about it, or not. It’s simple economics.

When did this spiral in healthcare prices start? And what was the impetus?

Have they always grown geometrically?

 

[mcmurtry66]

As I've mentioned before, everyone in the the healthcare industry. Prices are 5x what they should be across the board.

If you understand compounding interest, then you understand the way things are priced has to change. It took 22 years for prices to double the first time. 18 years for the next. 12 years the next. It will only take about 8 years for the next, and so on.

Another way to look at it is that every procedure is generally priced 5x what it should be. It took 60 years to get there. Over the next 10 everything will be priced 7x what it should be. Procedures that were once considered routine will lead to bankruptcy. And that list will snowball.

It will be changed, whether anyone understands it, or not. Or, if anyone reads about it, or not. It’s simple economics.

60 plus percent of bankruptcies are a product of medical bills. There are law firms whose entire bulk collection docket is unpaid medical bills. Go to any major city and pop in on the cattle call docket and it’ll take 5 hours with their own language and the issue is unpaid medical bills.

Good Faith Hospital vs Betty Jones
Betty Jones?
Second call your honor.

Three hours pass.

Betty Jones? Betty Jones?
Default your honor

Six months later Betty’s bank acct is frozen

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Why do you think their purchasing power hasn’t budged?

By the way, how the hell can you post these memes and leave out the great Sam Kinison?!

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Stealing this for my exes when we text. They’ll have no idea where it’s from too

Heh.

“Honey, we’re heading towards bankruptcy. Our mortgage, car payments, credit card payments, and utility bills eat up almost all of our income. We have to cut our expenses.”

“OK, I’ll stop getting mani/pedis and cancel Netflix. Will that do it?”

 

[BradStevens]

Plan B? Run inflation hot and default your way out of obligations in real dollars. Keep interest rates artificially low through monetizing debt. Keep current account trade deficits high to support it. Basically more of the same

Most all people in the country will get continually poorer, relatively, but at least you are not on the hook for voting to make it so.

Or you could try to wean people off of govt checks. Which is very hard as most real incomes have done nothing or lost money over the last 60 years and govt checks only things keeping people and the economy puttering along. The govt has picked up the slack for what the private sector hasn't provided

That second point is one that makes it even harder to consider your first option a practical one.

And I agree with your analysis on what has happened. Does that mean US productivity/profits have decreased over that time, or that it is being captured by the top ~1% more than it was in the past, or some combo of both?

In other words, is it possible that through tax/labor policy we could make a majority of people less dependent on govt. and therefore more easily persuaded to vote for the changes that need to take place in order to save the country?

(These are all Devil's Advocate questions. If it matters to anyone, I'm not convinced of the answers to any of these questions.)

 

[twenty02]

That second point is one that makes it even harder to consider your first option a practical one.

And I agree with your analysis on what has happened. Does that mean US productivity/profits have decreased over that time, or that it is being captured by the top ~1% more than it was in the past, or some combo of both?

In other words, is it possible that through tax/labor policy we could make a majority of people less dependent on govt. and therefore more easily persuaded to vote for the changes that need to take place in order to save the country?

(These are all Devil's Advocate questions. If it matters to anyone, I'm not convinced of the answers to any of these questions.)

Wages gains and productivity gains are two different things. There may be some relation there, but could well argue that productivity gains may actually reduce wages... Fewer workers needed to produce the same output.

The labor market is simply supply and demand. The labor supply has increased substantially. Women in the workforce, globalization opening up labor markets elsewhere, etc... Workers typically have little leverage in today's economy, unless they have very specialized skills (or are in a union working for @crazed_hoosier2 )

 

[snarlcakes]

Should we view 8/15/1971 as one of the key inflection points in America’s history, right alongside…

4/19/1775
7/4/1776
4/12/1861
4/9/1865
10/24/1929
12/7/1941
8/6/1945 etc?

Maybe.

Yep. I’d also add 4/5/1933. If Trump starts a SBR it should be added to the list, as well.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Workers typically have little leverage in today's economy, unless they have very specialized skills (or are in a union working for @crazed_hoosier2 )

Ain’t that the damn truth.

For better or worse, virtually all productivity gains we get come from the capital side of the ledger. Businesses invest in things that reduce unit labor costs, always have and always will. And I would agree that these have the effect of working against wage gains.

The single best thing we can do for the wage-earner is figure out ways to get them invested in capital assets. But (amazingly) there are people opposed to that.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Wages gains and productivity gains are two different things. There may be some relation there, but could well argue that productivity gains may actually reduce wages... Fewer workers needed to produce the same output.

The labor market is simply supply and demand. The labor supply has increased substantially. Women in the workforce, globalization opening up labor markets elsewhere, etc... Workers typically have little leverage in today's economy, unless they have very specialized skills (or are in a union working for @crazed_hoosier2 )

One thing I would add to this though is that unionization often ultimately leads to adverse outcomes for workers in the long run.

As much as I’d like to say that the unionized Building Trades industry has a monopoly in construction, we do not.

And, in fact, our market share is shrinking…but our “labor partners” don’t have the will to do anything about that. They suffer from the same affliction as politicians: they’re content to kick the can down the road until they retire and leave it for their successors to deal with the consequences.

There’s a reason private sector unionization has gotten to something like 6% of the workforce. And it’s not because Ronald Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers.

 

[BradStevens]

Wages gains and productivity gains are two different things. There may be some relation there, but could well argue that productivity gains may actually reduce wages... Fewer workers needed to produce the same output.

The labor market is simply supply and demand. The labor supply has increased substantially. Women in the workforce, globalization opening up labor markets elsewhere, etc... Workers typically have little leverage in today's economy, unless they have very specialized skills (or are in a union working for @crazed_hoosier2 )

Ok. Let me rephrase.

Are more people dependent on govt. vs. 1970 because of increased wealth inequality? If so, and we can use US policy to decrease that inequality, will we create a voter environment more likely to result in the solution you have outlined that will save the US from insolvency?

(P.S.--govt. labor policy is about much more than supply and demand. Think FMLA, minimum wage laws, etc.)

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Ok. Let me rephrase.

Are more people dependent on govt. vs. 1970 because of increased wealth inequality? If so, and we can use US policy to decrease that inequality, will we create a voter environment more likely to result in the solution you have outlined that will save the US from insolvency?

(P.S.--govt. labor policy is about much more than supply and demand. Think FMLA, minimum wage laws, etc.)

This is basically what Europe did. Given their chronically anemic growth and high unemployment, etc, I’m not sure we should follow their lead.

But it is true that the Gini throughout the Eurozone is substantially lower than ours is.

Personally, I don’t think a low Gini is the goal we should be aiming for. It comes at a cost. I would much rather be the median earner in the US than I would there.

 

[snarlcakes]

Ain’t that the damn truth.

For better or worse, virtually all productivity gains we get come from the capital side of the ledger. Businesses invest in things that reduce unit labor costs, always have and always will. And I would agree that these have the effect of working against wage gains.

The single best thing we can do for the wage-earner is figure out ways to get them invested in capital assets. But (amazingly) there are people opposed to that.

Just a random thought that popped in my head 😁. Call me crazy, Crazed, but I have an idea to fix the issue. Instead of having a credit based monetary system that constantly needs to be inflated or it will collapse. Maybe, just maybe, a system that can’t be inflated would be better for society. Those productivity gains could then flow to everyone in the form of lower prices.

Hopefully, someone will invent something to do this one day. If they did, I bet that “thing” would really take off. Grow at an unimaginable rate and quickly become intertwined in all financial spaces. There might be even clear signals of its domiance if one looks closely. Anyhoo, cheers to it happening one day😉

 

[BradStevens]

Just a random thought that popped in my head 😁Call me crazy, Crazed, but I have an idea to fix the issue. Instead of having a credit based monetary system that constantly needs to be inflated or it will collapse. Maybe, just maybe, a system that can’t be inflated would be better for society. Those productivity gains could then flow to everyone in the form of lower prices.

Hopefully, someone will invent something to do this one day. If they did, I bet that “thing” would really take off. Grow at an unimaginable rate and quickly become intertwined in all financial spaces. There might be even clear signals of its domiance if one looks closely. Anyhoo, cheers to it happening one day😉

Why do you say Bitcoin "can't be inflated?" Who controls its supply?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Just a random thought that popped in my head 😁Call me crazy, Crazed, but I have an idea to fix the issue. Instead of having a credit based monetary system that constantly needs to be inflated or it will collapse. Maybe, just maybe, a system that can’t be inflated would be better for society. Those productivity gains could then flow to everyone in the form of lower prices.

Hopefully, someone will invent something to do this one day. If they did, I bet that “thing” would really take off. Grow at an unimaginable rate and quickly become intertwined in all financial spaces. There might be even clear signals of its domiance if one looks closely. Anyhoo, cheers to it happening one day😉

I’m not going to be a mark in your BTC pump-and-dump, snarlcakes!

Heh. But there is some merit to what you’re saying.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Ok. Let me rephrase.

Are more people dependent on govt. vs. 1970 because of increased wealth inequality? If so, and we can use US policy to decrease that inequality, will we create a voter environment more likely to result in the solution you have outlined that will save the US from insolvency?

(P.S.--govt. labor policy is about much more than supply and demand. Think FMLA, minimum wage laws, etc.)

Flsa

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Why do you say Bitcoin "can't be inflated?" Who controls its supply?

What’s the total number of BTCs? Something like 21 million. And that’s it. Permanently. There will be no more.

I think around 3/4 of these have been mined into circulation.

 

[BradStevens]

What’s the total number of BTCs? Something like 21 million. And that’s it. Permanently. There will be no more.

I think around 3/4 of these have been mined into circulation.

Why do you say that?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Why do you say that?

It’s at 19.9 million in circulation, BTW.

But you can read about it here.

 

[snarlcakes]

Why do you say Bitcoin "can't be inflated?" Who controls its supply?

Can Bitcoin's Hard Cap of 21 Million Be Changed? | River Learn - Bitcoin Basics

Learn why Bitcoin's 21 million supply cap, known as the hard cap, cannot be changed due to incentive and governance models in the Bitcoin protocol.

river.com

A really good article on the explanation and they do a much better job explaining it than myself. Short story, people have tried to change it by forking the network, that’s what Bitcoin Cash is. It’s worth 6 billion currently. However, I’m never leaving the original Bitcoin network, which is currently worth 2 trillion.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Can Bitcoin's Hard Cap of 21 Million Be Changed? | River Learn - Bitcoin Basics

Learn why Bitcoin's 21 million supply cap, known as the hard cap, cannot be changed due to incentive and governance models in the Bitcoin protocol.

river.com

A really good article on the explanation and they do a much better job explaining it than myself. Short story, people have tried to change it by forking the network, that’s what Bitcoin Cash is. It’s worth 6 billion currently. However, I’m never leaving the original Bitcoin network, which is currently worth 2 trillion.

But this hard limit obviously has no bearing on any other crypto - including things like Bitcoin Cash - right?

 

[BradStevens]

Can Bitcoin's Hard Cap of 21 Million Be Changed? | River Learn - Bitcoin Basics

Learn why Bitcoin's 21 million supply cap, known as the hard cap, cannot be changed due to incentive and governance models in the Bitcoin protocol.

river.com

A really good article on the explanation and they do a much better job explaining it than myself. Short story, people have tried to change it by forking the network, that’s what Bitcoin Cash is. It’s worth 6 billion currently. However, I’m never leaving the original Bitcoin network, which is currently worth 2 trillion.

So, do we have to rely upon "Satoshi's" honesty about "his" coding, that "he" didn't put in a back door, that "he" can't change the code or that "he" doesn't have a bunch of BTC stashed somewhere?

Even if we don't have to, the article says its "unlikely" for the BTC hardcap to be changed. But where money is concerned, I'd paraphrase Jeffrey Goldblum from Jurrasic Park "Greed finds a way."

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

So, do we have to rely upon "Satoshi's" honesty about "his" coding, that "he" didn't put in a back door, that "he" can't change the code or that "he" doesn't have a bunch of BTC stashed somewhere?

Even if we don't have to, the article says its "unlikely" for the BTC hardcap to be changed. But where money is concerned, I'd paraphrase Jeffrey Goldblum from Jurrasic Park "Greed finds a way."

Maybe. I hear what you’re saying. But BTC is open source.

I wouldn’t be so concerned about it getting inflated as I would the virtually open range of alternative cryptocurrencies.

I think Dave Portnoy’s even been out flogging one the past few days. And Hawk Tuah girl. Etc.

 

[snarlcakes]

But this hard limit obviously has no bearing on any other crypto - including things like Bitcoin Cash - right?

Correct. Bitcoin Cash can do other things now. In essence that’s what all the other cryptos are, at some level. It’s why I call them shitcoins. I own Bitcoin because it’s the best money ever invented ( IMO). I don’t need to another money. I already have one.

Think of it as network effects. If someone invented a new language would you adopt it and drop English? A few would people would, but almost all of us would tell them to piss off and keep speaking English. I don’t need a new language, I already have one.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Maybe. I hear what you’re saying. But BTC is open source.

I wouldn’t be so concerned about it getting inflated as I would the virtually open range of alternative cryptocurrencies.

I think Dave Portnoy’s even been out flogging one the past few days. And Hawk Tuah girl. Etc.

Or $Trump

@snarlcakes you seem a little mental like me. Like you have to have something goin to look fwd to. Hope about. What if bitcoin just levels out and doesn’t do much. You got anything else in the hopper? Plan B?

You know I’m going to Austin this summer for a wedding. I texted the Texan and asked if he’s paying for it with bitcoin. He Fanned that text

 

[snarlcakes]

So, do we have to rely upon "Satoshi's" honesty about "his" coding, that "he" didn't put in a back door, that "he" can't change the code or that "he" doesn't have a bunch of BTC stashed somewhere?

Even if we don't have to, the article says its "unlikely" for the BTC hardcap to be changed. But where money is concerned, I'd paraphrase Jeffrey Goldblum from Jurrasic Park "Greed finds a way."

The network is currently valued at 2 trillion. You don’t think someone has tried to hack it already? If someone could, they would have already.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Correct. Bitcoin Cash can do other things now. In essence that’s what all the other cryptos are, at some level. It’s why I call them shitcoins. I own Bitcoin because it’s the best money ever invented ( IMO). I don’t need to another money. I already have one.

Think of it as network effects. If someone invented a new language would you adopt it and drop English? A few would people would, but almost all of us would tell them to piss off and keep speaking English. I don’t need a new language, I already have one.

It’s not the Hawk Tuah and Trump coins that should give you pause. Those will come and go with little impact on anybody but the incurably stupid.

It’s the Ethereums of the world…not to mention the cryptos being planned by major governments.

 

[rivals01]

So, do we have to rely upon "Satoshi's" honesty about "his" coding, that "he" didn't put in a back door, that "he" can't change the code or that "he" doesn't have a bunch of BTC stashed somewhere?

Even if we don't have to, the article says its "unlikely" for the BTC hardcap to be changed. But where money is concerned, I'd paraphrase Jeffrey Goldblum from Jurrasic Park "Greed finds a way."

As governments continue to co opt it,
eventually bitcoin will get forked again, and they'll have it without a finite supply.

 

[snarlcakes]

Or $Trump

@snarlcakes you seem a little mental like me. Like you have to have something goin to look fwd to. Hope about. What if bitcoin just levels out and doesn’t do much. You got anything else in the hopper? Plan B?

You know I’m going to Austin this summer for a wedding. I texted the Texan and asked if he’s paying for it with bitcoin. He Fanned that text

At some point, I’d stop investing in it. I’ll always own it because I’m a sound money person. However, life is short and I want to retire one day. If I’m wrong it means they can print forever and it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t make any sense to me, but if my life is getting better who cares🤷🏻‍♂️ lol…I love the Texan.

 

[snarlcakes]

As governments continue to co opt it,
eventually bitcoin will get forked again, and they'll have it without a finite supply.

And why would I choose to run the new forked network? People own Bitcoin because they want a decentralized scare asset that no one can print more of.

 

[BradStevens]

The network is currently valued at 2 trillion. You don’t think someone has tried to hack it already? If someone could, they would have already.

How do you know they haven't?

 

[snarlcakes]

It’s not the Hawk Tuah and Trump coins that should give you pause. Those will come and go with little impact on anybody but the incurably stupid.

It’s the Ethereums of the world…not to mention the cryptos being planned by major governments.

Why would I want to own a centralized coin that can be inflated at the whim of the creators? The entire purpose of Bitcoin is to get away from those things.

 

[snarlcakes]

How do you know they haven't?

The network is validated on average every 10 minutes. It’s never had a double entry. It’s currently running as designed is my answer. As for the hard cap, we’ll know for sure in 2140.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Why would I want to own a centralized coin that can be inflated at the whim of the creators? The entire purpose of Bitcoin is to get away from those things.

Your concern shouldn’t be with what you personally do.

 

[Spartans9312]

As I've mentioned before, everyone in the the healthcare industry. Prices are 5x what they should be across the board.

If you understand compounding interest, then you understand the way things are priced has to change. It took 22 years for prices to double the first time. 18 years for the next. 12 years the next. It will only take about 8 years for the next, and so on.

Another way to look at it is that every procedure is generally priced 5x what it should be. It took 60 years to get there. Over the next 10 everything will be priced 7x what it should be. Procedures that were once considered routine will lead to bankruptcy. And that list will snowball.

It will be changed, whether anyone understands it, or not. Or, if anyone reads about it, or not. It’s simple economics.

The answer is easy

 

[Spartans9312]

When did this spiral in healthcare prices start? And what was the impetus?

Have they always grown geometrically?

Increased reliance on third party payors

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Increased reliance on third party payors

Yep. When did we start doing that? And why?

 

[Spartans9312]

Yep. When did we start doing that? And why?

Why?….Under the guise of increased “coverage”. When?…with regards to prescriptions it started in the 80s and drastically increased volume