A Radical Critique Of Universal Basic Income

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

This critique reveals the unintended consequences of UBI.

Readers have been asking me what I thought of Universal Basic Income (UBI) as the solution to the systemic problem of jobs being replaced by automation. To answer this question, I realized I had to start by taking a fresh look at work and its role in human life and society. And since UBI is fundamentally a distribution of money, I also needed to take a fresh look at our system of money.

That led to a radical critique of Universal Basic Income (UBI) and an outline for a much more sustainable and just system of money and work than we have now. To adequately explore these critical topics, I ended up writing a 50,000 word book, Money and Work Unchained.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is increasingly being held up as the solution to automation"s displacement of human labor. UBI combines two powerful incentives: self-interest (who couldn"t use an extra $1,000 per month) and an idealistic commitment to guaranteeing everyone material security and reducing the rising income inequality that threatens our social contract--a topic I"ve addressed many times over the past decade.

UBI"s goals - guaranteeing material security and reducing income inequality - are not just worthy; they are essential. The question then becomes: how do we achieve these goals?

The conventional critiques of UBI focus on the practicalities of funding such a substantial universal entitlement. Where will the trillions of extra dollars required come from? Can we pay for UBI by "taxing the robots" or borrowing/ printing more currency?

But a radical critique must go much, much further, and ask: is UBI the best that we can do? If we provide the basics of material security--the bottom level of Maslow"s hierarchy of human needs--what about all the higher needs for positive social roles, meaningful work, and the opportunity to build capital?

This critique reveals the unintended consequences of UBI: rather than deliver a Utopia, UBI institutionalizes serfdom and a two-class neofeudalism in which the bottom 95% scrape by on UBI while the top 5% hoard what every human wants and needs: positive social roles in our community, meaningful work that makes us feel needed, and the opportunity to build capital in all its manifestations.

UBI is the last gasp of a broken, dying system, a "solution" that institutionalizes all the injustices of serfdom under the guise of aiding those left behind by automation. We can do better--we must do better--and I lay out how to do so in this book.

A radical critique must also examine the widely accepted assumption that automation will destroy most jobs. Is this assumption valid? It turns out this assumption rests on a completely false understanding of the nature of work, the economics of automation and the presumed stability of an unsustainable global economy.

Read the first section for free in PDF format.

*  *  *

I"m offering Money and Work Unchained to my readers at a 25% discount ($7.45 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition) through Saturday, December 9, after which the price goes up to retail ($9.95 and $20). If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Will Americans Die Young Enough To Save Pension Plans?

Authored by Doug French via The Mises Institute,

“Pension fund problems worsen in 43 states” says the Bloomberg headline.

Laurie Meisler writes,

New Jersey, Kentucky and Illinois continue to lose ground and now have only about one third of the money they need to pay retirement benefits. And three states had double-digit declines in their pension funding ratios in the past year: Colorado, Oregon and Minnesota - though some of this can be attributed to actuarial changes in the way pension liabilities are calculated.

Nevada PERs is thinking about making a change, from assuming 8% investment returns to 7.5%. The higher the assumed rate, the less future beneficiaries have to contribute.  And, ultimately, Sean Whaley writes for the LVRJ,

The assumptions are used to ensure the solvency of the plan over the long term for the approximately 105,000 active members and 54,000 retired and disabled members. Because the public retirement plan is a defined benefit plan where retirees get a fixed monthly pension, taxpayers are ultimately responsible for its fiscal health.

Nevada PERS Executive Officer Tina Leiss said NvPERs funding ratio of 74.1 could drop if the returns assumption is lowered.

The good news (or maybe it"s bad news) is “Americans are retiring later, dying sooner, and sicker in-between” says Bloomberg. Ben Steverman writes,

Data released last week, reports Bloomberg,  suggest Americans’ health is declining and millions of middle-age workers face the prospect of shorter, and less active, retirements than their parents enjoyed.

The mortality rate increased 1.2% from 2014 to 2015, the first time its increased since 2005 and the first time it"s jumped over 1% since 1980.

Full social security benefits don’t kick in until a person is 66+ now, so,

“Almost one in three Americans age 65 to 69 is still working, along with almost one in five in their early 70s.”

That sounds okay, except, University of Michigan economists HwaJung Choi and Robert Schoeni have studied middle-aged folks and found,

“the number of middle-age Americans with ADL (activity of daily living) limitations has jumped: 12.5 percent of Americans at the current retirement age of 66 had an ADL limitation in their late 50s, up from 8.8 percent for people with a retirement age of 65.”

Then you might say, well, I might not be able to get around, but at least my mind is sharp. Except, “Cognitive skills have also declined over time. For those with a retirement age of 66, 11 percent already had some kind of dementia or other cognitive decline at age 58 to 60, according to the study. That’s up from 9.5 percent of Americans just a few years older, with a retirement age between 65 and 66.”

Maybe that’s why people are either killing themselves quickly - suicide - or slowly with alcohol, drugs, or overeating.  

This is all good news for pension plans...

As life expectancy drops - The Society of Actuaries says a 65-year-old man can expect to live to 85.6 years, and a woman can expect to make it to 87.6.

So - the group calculates a typical pension plan’s obligations could fall by 0.7 percent to 1 percent.

That"s a start but it won’t do much good, in New Jersey, Kentucky and Illinois.

*  *  *

Simply put, we"re gonna need a bigger die-off - or perhaps a few more years of unhealthy living will start to really help.

Guaranteed Income And Living Wage Schemes Cannot Possibly Work

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg Supports Universal Basic Income.

In its basic form, universal basic income means “everyone gets a paycheck, whether they have a job or not.”

Many expect even more. They want a guaranteed “living wage”.

Useless Trials

Such schemes cannot possibly work. But that does not stop fools from trying.

For example, Finland is giving out a guaranteed monthly income of nearly $600 to 2,000 citizens.

Canada’s province of Ontario, which includes Toronto, started a pilot program in April that provides 4,000 citizens with an unconditional income of about $12,600 a year. Applicants must be between ages 18 and 64 and living on a limited income.

Those studies cannot prove anything, no matter what the results.

Free Money Proposals Do Not Scale

Sure, one can do a trial and show that 20,000 or whatever sample size is better off.

However, any benefit to the trial participants must at the expense of a bigger deficit or higher taxes on everyone else.

Imagine giving 200 million people a guaranteed living wage. Who is going to pay for it?

Next, imagine all of Europe doing this coupled with freedom of movement.

Why stop there? Imagine the same program for the entire world? Free money for everyone!

Golden Years... Or Tears: More US Seniors Are Still Working Than At Any Time Since The '60s

Long walks on the beach, holding hands in a hottub overlooking the ocean, working on your golf game...in Hawaii, treating the kids and grandkids to treats and trips - we have all seen the commercials of how great "retirement" can be (or could have been), if you just put a little more money into the stock market via your friendly local asset gatherer.

Well, sad to say, as Bloomberg reports, more and more Americans are spending their golden years on the job.

Almost 19 percent of people 65 or older were working at least part-time in the second quarter of 2017, according to the U.S. jobs report released on Friday. The age group’s employment/population ratio hasn’t been higher in 55 years, before American retirees won better health care and Social Security benefits starting in the late 1960s.

And the trend looks likely to continue. Millennials, prepare yourselves.

Older Americans are working more even as those under 65 are working less, a trend that the Bureau of Labor Statistics expects to continue. By 2024, 36 percent of 65- to 69-year-olds will be active participants in the labor market, the BLS says. That’s up from just 22 percent in 1994.

A number of factors are keeping older Americans in the workforce. Many are healthier and living longer than previous generations. Some decide not to fully retire because they enjoy their jobs or just want to stay active and alert.

Others need the money. One glance at the chart above may help indicate one big driver of pain - notice that as each major market crash occurs, the prime-working-age cohort and the senior-generation cohort inflects and diverges, as the wealthier, older generation comes face to face with reality as their long-term savings are decimated by reality stepping into stock markets.

The share of older people in the workforce is higher than at any point since before the creation of Medicare. Even more older Americans might be out there working, though, if they were healthier and had better job prospects.

And it"s not just Americans that are "not" living-the-dream they were sold by various asset managers...

Around the globe, workers of all ages are moving their retirement goals later and later in life.

If Yellen will just keep the dream alive for another 30 years then the enitre boomer generation can retire wealthy... right?

Handout Nation: Combined Enrollment In America’s 4 Largest Safety Net Programs Hits A Record High Of 236 Million

(image: © Joseph Sohm/Visions of America/Corbis)

Margaret Thatcher once said that the problem with socialism “is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”.  As you will see below, the combined enrollment in America’s four largest safety net programs has reached a staggering 236 million.  Of course that doesn’t mean that 236 million people are getting benefits from the government each month because there is overlap between the various programs.  For example, many Americans that are on Medicaid are also on food stamps, and many Americans that are on Medicare are also on Social Security.  But even accounting for that, most experts estimate that the number of Americans that are dependent on the federal government month after month is well over 100 million.  And now that so many people are addicted to government handouts, can we ever return to a culture of independence and self-sufficiency?

On Wednesday, CNN ran an editorial by Bernie Sanders in which he called President Trump’s proposed budget “immoral” because it would cut funding for government aid programs.

But is it moral to steal more than a hundred million dollars from future generations of Americans every single hour of every single day to pay for these programs?

Of course the answer to that question is quite obvious.

There will always be some Americans that are unable to take care of themselves, and we should want to help them.

But as millions upon millions of Americans continue to jump on to the safety net, eventually we are going to get to the point where it is going to break.

As I mentioned above, the combined enrollment in the four largest safety net programs has reached a new all-time record high…

–More than 74 million Americans are on Medicaid and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program).

–More than  58 million Americans are on Medicare.

–More than 60 million Americans are on Social Security.

–Approximately 44 million Americans are on food stamps.  And even though we are supposedly in an “economic recovery”, this number is still dramatically higher than the 26 million Americans that were on food stamps prior to the last financial crisis.

When you add the figures for those four programs together, you get a grand total of 236 million, and that doesn’t even count any of the other federal programs which are helping people.

Once again, there is overlap in enrollment between these various programs, but even accounting for that most experts believe that well over a third of the country is currently receiving benefits from the government each month.

How far down this road do we have to go before people start calling it “socialism”?

As I was writing this, I was reminded of one of Benjamin Franklin’s most famous quotes…

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

In our country today, many politicians have discovered that one of the best ways to win elections is to promise the voters as much free stuff as possible.  This is one of the primary reasons why Bernie Sanders did so well.  Young people loved his socialist policies, and he received more votes from Millennials in the primaries and caucuses than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton combined.

As older generations of Americans continue to die off, the Millennials will just become even more powerful politically.  And considering the fact that they are far more liberal than other generations, that is a very alarming prospect…

In the minds of 80 percent of baby boomers and 91 percent of elderly Americans, communism was a major problem in years past and remains a significant concern today. But millennials, aged 16 to 20 years, see it differently. Only 55 percent of the younger generation take issue with communism, 45 percent say they would vote for a socialist and 21 percent say they’d vote for a communist.

And millennials made all that clear during the Democratic presidential primary, when many of them cast their vote for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed socialist. In fact, the report credits the New England lawmaker with a “bounce” that led to less than half of millennials — 42 percent — having a favorable view of capitalism.

At this point, the Republic that our founders established is barely recognizable, and if it is going to be saved we need a conservative revolution as soon as possible.

A good place to begin would be to dramatically reduce the size and scope of the federal government, and there are some promising signs in the budget that President Trump has proposed.  He wants to completely eliminate 66 federal programs, and liberals are screaming bloody murder over this.

Of course Trump’s budget is “dead on arrival” in Congress because many among his own party do not support him.  Most Republicans campaign as conservatives but govern like Democrats, and it is high time that we held them accountable for that.  In 2018 we are going get Trump a whole bunch of friends in Congress, and a lot of those establishment Republicans that have been betraying conservatives for years are going to have to find a new line of work.

We simply cannot afford to keep sending the same cast of characters back to Washington time after time.  Just look at the debacle that the effort to repeal Obamacare has become.  According to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, getting any sort of bill through the Senate is going to be extremely challenging…

Referring to behind-the-scenes work among Senate Republicans on a healthcare bill, McConnell said, “I don’t know how we get to 50 (votes) at the moment. But that’s the goal.”

Under a scenario of gathering the votes needed for passage in the 100-seat chamber, Republican Vice President Mike Pence would be called upon to cast any potential tie-breaking Senate vote.

McConnell opened the interview by saying, “There’s not a whole lot of news to be made on healthcare.” He declined to provide any timetable for producing even a draft bill to show to rank-and-file Republican senators and gauge their support.

And yet somehow when Obama was in office the Republicans in the House and the Senate were able to easily pass a bill to repeal Obamacare and get it to Obama’s desk.

Why can’t they get that exact same bill to Trump’s desk?

We definitely need to “drain the swamp” in D.C., and we can start with Congress.

But the alliance between big money and big government is going to be hard to defeat, and so if we want our country back we are going to have to fight harder than we have ever fought before.

They're Killing Small Business: The Number Of Self-Employed Americans Is Lower Than It Was In 1990

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

After eight long, bitter years under Obama, will things go better for entrepreneurs and small businesses now that Donald Trump is in the White House?

Once upon a time, America was the best place in the world for those that wanted to work for themselves.  Our free market capitalist system created an environment in which entrepreneurs and small businesses greatly thrived, but today they are being absolutely eviscerated by the control freak bureaucrats that dominate our political system.  Year after year, leftist politicians just keep piling on more rules, more regulations, more red tape and more taxes.  As a result, the number of self-employed Americans is now lower than it was in 1990…

In April 1990, 8.7 million Americans were self-employed, but today only 8.4 million Americans are self-employed.

Of course our population has grown much, much larger since that time.  In 1990, there were 249 million people living in the United States, but today there are 321 million people living in this country.

What this means is that the percentage of the population that is self-employed is way down.

In fact, one study found that the percentage of Americans that are self-employed fell by more than 20 percent between 1991 and 2010.

And if you go back even farther, the numbers are even more depressing.  It may be hard to believe, but the percentage of “new entrepreneurs and business owners” declined by a staggering 53 percent between 1977 and 2010.

Sometimes I like to watch a television show called Shark Tank, and on that show they make it seem like entrepreneurship in America is thriving.

But the exact opposite is actually the case.  In a previous article, I discussed how the number of new businesses being created in the United States has been steadily falling over the years.  According to economist Tim Kane, the number of startup jobs per one thousand Americans has been declining for several consecutive presidential administrations…

• Bush Sr.: 11.3


• Clinton: 11.2


• Bush Jr.: 10.8


• Obama: 7.8

So why is this happening?

As I mentioned at the top of this article, self-employed Americans are being absolutely strangled by oppressive rules, regulations and taxes.

To illustrate this point, I would like to share with you some quotes from an open letter that was authored by a small business owner named Don Chernoff…

#1 I work for myself and have to pay my own medical expenses. Before the “affordable care act” I was paying about $200 per month for a high deductible policy. It was far from perfect but it got so much worse under the “Affordable” care act.

I now pay over $400 a month, my deductible went from $5,000 to over $6,000 and my out of pocket costs for care have skyrocketed.

#2 I have to spend dozens of hours and thousands of dollars for a tax accountant each spring to prepare my taxes because I cannot possibly understand how to do it myself, and I have a master’s degree in engineering.

#3 Many years ago when I quit a perfectly good job to start my own small business, I was shocked to learn that I had to pay both my share and what had been my employer’s share of Social Security.

#4 Between state, federal and local taxes you’ve probably paid 50% or more of your income in taxes, but that’s not enough for politicians.

If you’ve been lucky enough to have created a business you can sell, now you’ll get to enjoy paying another tax on the capital gain from the sale.

This is another reason why we need a conservative revolution in Washington.  We should demand that our members of Congress lower tax rates dramatically, completely eliminate the self-employment tax, greatly simplify the tax code and get rid of as many regulations on small business owners as possible.

In fact, if it was up to me I would abolish a number of federal agencies completely.

What we are doing right now is not working.  Small businesses have traditionally been one of the main engines of economic growth in this country, but thanks to the left they are unable to play that role at the moment.

It isn’t an accident that over the last ten years the U.S. economy has grown at exactly the same rate as it did during the 1930s.

If we want our economy to be great again, we need to go back and start doing the things that made it great in the first place.  If we continue to suffocate our economy, we will continue to get the same results.

And with each passing day, we get more signs that the economy is heading into another major downturn.  For instance, we just learned that Sears is closing 30 more stores on top of the 150 that had already been announced…

Sears Holdings, which wasn’t shy when it announced at the start of the year that it is closing 150 underperforming stores, has quietly added at least 30 more to the list.

Another 12 Sears stores and 18 Kmarts are among the locations that are closing, from Carson, Calif., to Hialeah, Fla., with most scheduled to shut their doors in July, based on calls to the stores, malls and confirmation in local media.

At the start of the year, the retailer pinpointed the 150 stores it said it would close. But it declined this week to provide a list of additional locations that are slated to shut since then, saying that it update store counts each quarter.

In addition, we just learned that new home sales in April were 11.4 percent lower than they were in March…

If you’re surprised by the collapse in new home sales in April, then you’re not paying attention.

The 11.4% MoM plunge in new home sales in April was 5 standard deviations below expectations and the biggest since March 2015.

Yes, the stock market is holding up for the moment, but for most Americans the “real economy” just continues to deteriorate.  Just because we are at the end of a giant financial bubble does not mean that everything is going to be okay.

The numbers that I brought up in this article are just another example of our long-term economic decline.  In a healthy economy, entrepreneurs and small businesses would be thriving.  But instead, they are being systematically strangled out of existence by a political system that is wildly out of control.

New Theory Behind Stalled Economy: Retirees Are Hoarding Too Much Cash

For years we"ve written about the fact that Americans, young to old, are lousy savers (see "Retirement Crisis Looms As Average U.S. Household Has Saved $2,500 For Retirement"). Of course, they have to be because how else can a mature economy continue to grow unless every single person levers every asset they own to the maximum extent possible and then spends all of that money?  Anything less would mean that all of Janet Yellen"s efforts have been a colossal waste. Meanwhile, this inherent inability to save is awful news for a nation that faces a massive wave of baby boomer retirements over the next 20 years. 

All that said, we were somewhat shocked to come across a report from money manager United Income which effectively argues that American retirees are saving too much money rather than too little.  To summarize the thesis, United Income argues that retirees become more conservative as they grow older which causes them to save more and allocate less to equities...which is, of course, a somewhat self-serving conclusion but never mind that.

Innovations in medicine and technology have extended human life by over 30 years since 1900. This has helped to double the amount of time the average adult now spends in retirement compared to several decades ago. But, the benefits of longer lives and retirement may be limited if older households curb their consumption or investment in preventive health measures because they are overly pessimistic about their future financial health. Overly negative viewpoints toward the future may also create self-fulfilling economic problems if it leads to an overly aggressive fixed-income portfolio. To assess these possibilities, we analyze consumer sentiment and spending data from the University of Michigan that was commissioned by the Social Security Administration and U.S. Commerce Department, among other federal agencies.

The only problem with the theory is that, intentional or otherwise, it"s based on a complete misinterpretation of data.  Per the chart below, United Income referenced the growth in "Mean Net Wealth" as evidence that retirees are hoarding too much cash. 

Unfortunately, when combined with the fact that "Median Net Wealth" is actually shrinking, it"s easy to deduce that while the majority of American retirees are actually spending their retirement income (and then some), there is a group of super wealthy old folks who simply can"t spend enough money to offset annual investment income growth....which speaks more to the growing wealth gap than to some economic fear that is causing retirees to hoard cash.

In this context, it"s not too difficult to understand why aggregate YoY spending trends collapse as old folks get older.  The most wealthy retirees can only find so many ways to burn their massive nest eggs which means that, at least for these folks, YoY spending doesn"t grow but retirement balances do...

...while the overwhelming majority of people simply run out of cash and have to cut every corner possible to survive....

But we"re sure the report from United Income, as misleading as it may be, will undoubtedly convince more retirees to allocate more money to equities...all of which will inflate this ETF-induced equity bubble even more, all while adding to United"s fee income...It"s one of those "win-win" deals.

“The Powers That Be Have Looted Everything.” Greek Farmers Fight Riot Police With Shepherd Crooks

The economic and social disintegration of Greece used to be big news. However it’s largely been overshadowed by the migrant crisis, and the American media hardly reports on Greece anymore. If you’ve been out of the loop, allow me to get you caught up on the financial situation in that country, by giving two answers to the questions you’re probably thinking. Yes, the Greek government still sucks. And yes, the people of Greece are still really pissed off.

Believe it or not, riots are still a common occurrence in that country. In fact there was an incident last week in Athens, after the government tried to increase taxes and social security contributions. In response, over a thousand farmers from Crete, who used to be immune from these taxes, took a ferry to Athens and proceeded to riot outside of the agriculture ministry building.

This however wasn’t an ordinary riot, not even by Greek standards. The farmers fought the riot police with shepherd crooks.

Taxes are being hiked to satisfy inspectors who represent the international creditors who Greece’s debt. If the government can’t pay 7 billion euros by July, then the country will once again face the possibility of default. However, the farmers are determined to change their Leftist government’s mind about the tax hikes. One of the protesting farmers who spoke to The Guardian stated that “We want to have them take back everything they have encumbered us with. To us, it seems like the powers that be have looted everything.”

Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.

Please Spread The Word And Share This Post

Author: Daniel Lang
Views: Read by 258 people
Date: March 13th, 2017
Website: http://www.SHTFplan.com

Copyright Information: This content has been contributed to SHTFplan by a third-party or has been republished with permission from the author. Please contact the author directly for republishing information.

Obama Approved One More Anti-Gun Rule Before He Left Office

Image source: White House

WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment rights of some of America’s most vulnerable citizens are now under attack. During his final days in office, President Obama’s administration ushered in a federal firearms rule deeming tens of thousands of disabled citizens “mental defectives” simply because they receive a Social Security disability check.

Americans with mental disabilities who receive a Supplemental Security Income (SSI) monthly benefit check may now have to decide which is more important to them — money or their firearm.

Be Prepared. Learn The Best Ways To Hide Your Guns.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) fought hard to prevent the Obama administration from creating the new rule, but lost the battle. During the public comment period about the federal gun restriction rule, more than 91,000 Americans stood up in opposition to the plan in comments to the Social Security Administration.

“It will affect those who receive SSI or disability insurance because of a listed mental health impairment and who have been assigned a representative payee to manage the benefits because of the person’s mental condition,” the NRA reported. “The bottom line, however, is that tens of thousands of completely harmless, law-abiding people will lose their rights every year under the rule, a premise the SSA did not even try to refute.”

The Social Security Administration “essentially ignored the NRA’s comments and the tens of thousands of others pointing out problems with the plan,” the NRA added.

“The NRA has already prepared proposals for corrective action, and we certainly hope they will be given favorable consideration by the incoming administration,” the NRA said.

What is your reaction? Share your thoughts in the section below:

Pump Shotguns Have One BIG Advantage Over Other Shotguns For Home Defense. Read More Here.

The Myth Of Authority... "But There'd Be No Roads!"

Submitted by Eric Peters via EricPetersAutos.com,

Along with the Myth of Authority – the idea that being ordered about by other people is legitimate so long as those people have given themselves titles or wear uniforms – there is this idea that, absent government, we’d never have things like roads.

Much less plowed roads.

It snowed hard over the weekend and I got to thinking about it as I watched the government plow trucks do their thing.

They do it very expensively.

It seems “free,” of course. The trucks rumble by and you aren’t sent a bill . . . for that. But you’re sent a bill – via the IRS, via your state-level IRS – for many other things, most of which (unlike roads and plow trucks to clear them when it snows) you probably don’t use, don’t want and – quite reasonably – would therefore rather not have to pay for.

Like, for instance, the estimated 10,000-plus nuclear warheads possessed by the federal government. Even if you’re not a Libertarian, it probably strikes you that a few hundred of them are sufficient for “defense.”

But we’re all forced to pay for as many nukes – and carrier battle groups – as the federal government decides it wants, even though we have little if any use for such.

The “defense” budget amounts to around $610 billion annually – nearly three times what China spends (appx. $216 billion) and more than seven times what Putin-rearing-his-head spends ($84.5 billion).

If the U.S. “defense” budget were to be cut in half, we’d still be spending as much as the dreaded Chinese and 4-plus times as much as the Russian bogeyman. Surely, sufficient for “defense.” Just imagine how much more money would be available for roads and plows to clear them. Things most of us probably would be willing to pay for and would pay for voluntarily.

Because we could afford to do so.

If, that is, we weren’t forced to pay for so many other things – like “defense” spending that amounts to more than what Russia and China and the entire axis of evil spend together.

Oddly, many Americans (especially Republican ones) believe “our military” is mendicant, like the ragtag Colonial Army at Valley Forge. That “we” must rebuild it. Because Putin, et al. Who – with his single operational Typhoon is going to challenge Uncle to nooklear combat, toe-to-toe, per Major Kong all those years ago.

People buy this stuff.

Literally.

They pay for “rebuilding” (endlessly, excessively) the military – and lately, on top of this, the Homeland Security apparat. So there is less available to pay for things like roads and trucks to plow them.

Much less.

How many miles of new road could be paid for with $300 billion dollars – just half the current loony sum burned up on the “defense” budget? America would likely not be invaded or nuked in the meanwhile. The 10,000 nukes in stockpile will keep and if even nine out of ten of them are duds, probably 1,000 Hiroshima-plusses ought to suffice to keep Putin from rearing his head. But most Americans – trained to an extent that Dr. Goebbels, were he still around, would find startling – react exactly as required, siding with the government as it sticks its hands in their pockets yet again. Note that both candidates in the late election worked hard to outdo the other as the greatest champion of “defense.”

Even “small government” conservatives defend the defense budget – not grokking that “defense” is also government.

And very big.

Like the rest of the federal budget. It takes so much from us that we have very little left to spend on ourselves. On the things we need and want.

Most middle class people pay about 28 percent off the top in federal taxes; add more if you are self-employed and have to pay “your share” of the federal tax (it is actually called a contribution) toward FICA, also known as the Social Security tax. These taxes have the effect of making it very difficult to set aside money for retirement – because all your  working life, you are taxed to pay for the retirement of other people, many of whom do not “contribute” much and sometimes nothing at all. Regardless, the point is you could have provided for your own retirement – and probably, retired at a much younger age – if you hadn’t been fleeced at every paycheck to provide money for other people’s retirement.

All of us would be better off; and better able to help people who needed help. Non-coercively, too. Imagine that.

 

The faulty premise behind the anti-Libertarian argument that “we’d have no roads” and other needful things rests on the assumption – almost never questioned – that we would not have the money available to spend on such things, currently taken away from us to spend on other things.

Including “administration” (make-work government “workers”) and so on.

Imagine if you were allowed (vile, isn’t it, that such language is necessary?) to keep what you earned. Not 60 percent of it. All of it. To spend as you see fit, on only the things you need and want.

Probably, there would be roads. Very good ones.

And plow trucks, too.     

Why Social Security Is Doomed: “Birthrate At Lowest Level on Record”… And the Future Is Unfunded

Here’s more evidence that the “recovery” never really happened, and good reason to think that the entire social net structure is doomed to fall apart.

The birthrate, long tied to economic growth, has been dropping to its lowest point in recorded history – both nationally and, in particular, in the state of California.

This demographic shift is bad news for the economy – in terms of housing, consumer markets, and especially for the long-term funding of social security, medicaid, medicare and other obligations that younger generations have typically been expected to pay into.

Whether or not you agree with the system in place, the fact that it is virtually certain to go bankrupt before the generation of baby boomers shift off this mortal coil should be troubling to everyone planning a future in the United States.

Official numbers show that the birthrate began to steadily decline in 2008 when the crisis hit and – unlike even during the Great Depression – hasn’t ever picked back up. 2016 saw the lowest point ever for California, even with higher births from immigrants factored in.

via the L.A. Times:

California’s birthrate dropped to its lowest level ever in 2016, according to data released by the state’s Department of Finance.

Between July 2015 and July of this year, there were 12.42 births per 1,000 Californians, the agency said this week. The last time the birthrate came close to being that low was during the Great Depression, when it hit 12.6 per 1,000 in 1933.

But, unlike after the Depression, birthrates haven’t bounced back quickly as the economy has picked up.

California has been experiencing a years-long downward trend that likely stems from the recession, a drop in teenage pregnancies and an increase in people attending college and taking longer to graduate, therefore putting off having children…

“Eventually you think about having a child and by this point in time you’re in your early 30s,” he said… when women’s fertility begins to decrease…

Similarly, the national birthrate began falling in 2008 and continued to do so through 2013, when it hit a record low of 12.4 per 1,000 people.

Already, states and cities are unable to meet their pension obligations. A very bad game of musical chairs is in the works, and unless something major changes, it could spell ruin for aging generations to come, who will be forced to contend with a shrinking pool of support – both officially and unofficially – from younger generations.

As the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year:

Sales of single-family homes are being weighed down by what Robert Dietz, chief economist at the National Association of Home Builders, calls “the great delay,” the trend of millennials postponing milestones like marriage and having kids. Other ripple effects take years to show up, such as the drag of having fewer young workers paying into Social Security and Medicare…

[…]

“Everything is slower than we expected,” said Sam Sturgeon… he predicts that the total fertility rate won’t go above 1.9 babies per woman for the next five years or longer. An ideal birth rate is around 2.1 babies per woman, demographers say, since that’s the rate that’s needed to replace the current levels of population.

Right now, there is considerable optimism about a renewed age for the free market in America. Business is being wooed back by President-elect Trump.

But in the long term, the demographic pressures could impact the care and survival of the population. All the more reason to prepare for the worst, and reduce one’s dependency on the system as much as possible.

As Michael Snyder explained, the upcoming generation of “snowflake” millenials are, as whole, reluctant to move out of their parent’s basements, have difficulty finding real jobs, are stifled by student loans and a lifetime of debt, are putting off marriage and children – and consequently, will be inadequately prepared to financial support older generations as they age.

What if social security and pensions aren’t there when you need it? What if, even after being forced to pay for Obamacare, health care is adequate or even inaccessible?

At the individual level, this is a clear incentive to prepare, and attempt to build a self-sufficient life that is not reliant on social programs or future-promises of assistance and support.

Promote your own health, and that of your family, and create a back-up plan in case one’s position in the pecking order of society should slip and fall, income should fade or medicines and health care should become out-of-reach.

The same tips to prepare for an emergency can be applied to the long game to prepare for a future of bankrupt and inept social services.

Read more:

Billionaire: “We Are Destroying the Middle Class. That’s What Keeps Me Awake at Night.”

Overpopulation? Economic Ripple Effect From Fewer Babies: “Market Is Not Going to Grow”

“There Will Be Life Altering Ramifications For Those Who Can’t Or Won’t Adapt To New Realities”

Terminal Economy: “Private Sector Will NEVER Recover…This Time, Replacing Humans Altogether”

In the Robotic Near-Future, Most “Will Live Off Government-Provided Income”