I thought this was a fascinating lecture on the way demographics have created the current generational divide. In the context of growing conspiracies and blaming the self-serving rich etc, it's useful to see the wide-ranging effects that can be created by a very simple input variable (a large cohort - the boomers) on a complex system. Willetts is a Tory life peer, but you wouldn't know it from his analysis or conclusions, and I daresay he would have no place in today's party. Also worth watching the q & a which largely consists of him effortlessly batting aside boomers' attempts to blame the young.
Cheers for linking that Adam, I watched both the lecture, and the Q&A linked. Nice to have some stats and a theory to take into arguments with "family friends".
I don’t especially want to get involved in another debate around this.
Quote from: AJM on June 28, 2020, 09:40:15 amI don’t especially want to get involved in another debate around this.Me neither. This is getting dangerously close to work for me, so I’m going to stop.
Good to know I gathered the correct gist. I don’t especially want to get involved in another debate around this, but the scheme actuaries would have been the ones supporting the current method, not Ralfe, because they have no choice but to be compliant with the rules. The article isn’t explicit on what they were doing since it only quotes his method in any detail, but my assumption is that it would have been “gilts plus something” (only based on the fact that that’s the common approach) just a larger “something” than you might get implicitly from the index linked gilt yield. Index linked gilt yields would be “gilts minus” in that terminology (but to use it correctly you would have to use different cash flows in the calculation, so the plus and minus are not immediately comparable).I feel we’ve had the discussion about many of the other elements before so won’t repeat myself. The only thing that’s worth mentioning is that the primary advantage of being 100% bonds would have been that (assuming the right bonds to generate cash flows at the same time as the assumed outgoings) the surplus/deficit would have been largely immune to QE and other interest rate movements. That’s just the way the maths falls through.
. Suffice it to say that I think of the issue of DB affordability as far more complicated/nuanced than you’re making out, Offwidth.
The Miners' scheme actuaries were working for the government and Ralfe was accusing them of not using the standard valuation methodology. ......Yes bonds would have been safer in bad times but overall they grow much less fast over long time periods. A mix is best if you want to safely build assets.
In reply to Sean,I’ve just come back to this thread, after being thoroughly pissed-off by what I perceived was the dismissive and condescending tone of Sean’s reply to what was a genuine question by me.But reading your following reply about anti-vaxxers etc. (which I hadn’t seen) explains a bit more. I share your distaste of people ‘into bullshit’ so thanks for explaining.
We are all so invested in money's legitimacy that pointing out its illusory nature has become something of an revolutionary act. No surprise, then, that people are keen to theorise that it's value rests on more than imagination.
As for the general interest in money (the stuff), perhaps it is a struggle to see something socially created as "real". For sure money exists, and it's value is as a result of us thinking it's real, rather than being linked to gold or silver.
Money may be imaginary, but how else are you going to exchange stuff including your time?
Without comment.Because my irony circuit overloaded: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-ppp-ayn-rand-idUSKBN248026
Quote from: Oldmanmatt on July 07, 2020, 02:23:37 pmWithout comment.Because my irony circuit overloaded: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-ppp-ayn-rand-idUSKBN248026Ayn Rand received at least $11,000 in social security during the last years of her life. She also received Medicare. But this was ok, apparently, because it was "restitution" of her stolen tax dollars, and not an entitlement.
I really should read Atlas Shrugged though. Do the great and elite, wash their own underwear in their retreat? Or do they take staff with them? If so, did they raise and educate those employees from birth? When they built their business empires, did they also build the roads, educate all their employees, provide all their medical and welfare needs etc etc etc, during that time of wealth generation?
Bad Behavior has blocked 1626 access attempts in the last 7 days.