j_b

AND then, you'll claim to be some kind of economic conservative! ROTFL

My next post will be about organic vegetables. ... right, because KKK is so credible when he takes pot shots at others because he thinks they are off topic. Are you sore for some reason? Why don't show us your expertise at reading charts, again ...

j_b is losing one argument so he changes the subject again... and adds some more lame left-wing verbiage to boot. Priceless. check out the Libertarian retard who doesn't like my poking at his zealotry.

What a surprise. You haven't learned a thing. We have gone through 3 bubbles in as many decades (the last one requiring huge government intervention), we have ignored all limits to growth for 30 years, the kleptocrats have pillaged all they could and keep doing so, the economy is supposedly "growing" at 2% per year (much less when accounting for pop growth), we are about to test the ability of our economy to function with much more expensive gas and you claim the stock market is anticipating future growth because it returned near its prior high? Laughable. there is nothing like building strawmen to better demolish them, isn't?

Baker writes a humorous post about the oft-noted hypocrisy of economists who choose a rate of return according to whether it is politically convenient: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/economists-on-stock-returns-it-depends-on-the-weather-or-maybe-politics

Another deregulation fiasco not acknowledged by Laissez Faire zealots: Study Puts Cost of Texas Energy Deregulation at $11 Billion by Jack Z. Smith A report released Monday concludes that electric deregulation has cost Texas residential consumers more than $11 billion in higher rates and that the operator of the state's major power grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, has been poorly managed and industry-dominated. http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/16-4

I find the "go educate yourself" comment quite laughable considering I am doing no more than regurgitating arguments held by people who not only have considerably more education than me and Jim combined in the domain of economics, but also have shown much better judgment than 99% of economists out there. If anything this discussion isn't showing Jim's better side: the level of his argumentation has been overall quite poor and he certainly can't claim to be above the fray in term of personal attacks.

401(k): A Bad Deal for Taxpayers Updated February 28, 2011, 10:23 PM Teresa Ghilarducci, the Bernard L. and Irene Schwartz Chair of Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for Social Research [..] 401(k) plans are bad deal for taxpayers. Dollar for dollar, a traditional pension plan yields more pension benefits than do 401(k) plans because 401(k) management and investment fees are three times higher. And professionals who manage money in pooled pension funds usually get higher returns than workers who manage their own 401(k) accounts. The only clear winners when pensions switch over to the 401(k) plans are brokers and bankers. The form of pension plan influences the type of employee attracted and retained. Want an old cop to retire? Want to offer a career path to a young, earnest would-be teacher? Use a traditional plan. Risk seekers and high turnover workers tend to prefer 401(k) plans; but do taxpayers prefer those characteristics in a public employee? Last, the unintended effect of widespread 401(k) plans is more volatility. In contrast to traditional pensions and Social Security, 401(k) plans fuel bubbles and make recessions worse. When the economy is booming, 401(k) plan asset values soar, making people spend more and work less. Not what you want in an expansion. Worse, when the economy plummets and takes 401(k) assets with it, people do the opposite; they cling to the labor market and rein in spending – again, two things you don’t want in a recession. At least now public sector workers can retire with a guaranteed pension, making way for other people to get jobs. 401(k) plans for public employees will hurt private workers’ chances to get better pensions and make taxpayers pay more for less. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/27/why-not-401ks-for-public-employees/401ks-a-bad-deal-for-taxpayers

Nobody claimed anything you said and you know it. You are starting to look like a sore loser on this. Doesn't the graph show a 4% return? the report never claimed that states based pension returns on 4%, nor did it say that all obligations were funded. In fact, if you really read it, I suspect Baker argues they don't need to be fully funded. it especially wants to debunk regressive talking points about the major cause of the state budget crisis

You still haven't answered the question as to why securities have regained and passed their high values from 2 years ago and explained how that is sustainable. Talk about burying one's proverbial head in the sand ...

Ah yes -reasonable assumptions - that being 1) that states were basing their projections on a safe 4% return - Which is false and 2) that though not addressed - that states were fully funding their debt obligations - also false. So much for that arm waving exercise. Nobody claimed anything you said and you know it. You are starting to look like a sore loser on this.

$857 billion is the difference what these assets would be worth under reasonable assumptions and what they are worth today. I am sorry you can't see it. Your readers will have to assess your understanding of these things. I clearly already have.

The analogy is indeed so gratuitous that you might as well bring the bombers into the picture

The funniest part is that the economists who claim today that public pensions are mostly unsustainable are exactly the same one who never saw the housing bubble coming and the attending speculation on wall street but JayB wants us to suspend disbelief so that fund managers should plan for bubble bursts the "experts" claim didn't exist.

easy on the dubious parallels: the Utah activist didn't destroy any property. Several cases of people making bids they couldn't pay for haven't been prosecuted, which shows the intent of making an example out of him.

Baker got his numbers from figure(1) so I don't see what so arm wavy about it, nor is it hysterical to point out that you didn't understand figure(1) after claiming that you were some kind of expert (talk about shooting yourself in the foot).

So what? like there wouldn't be a huge shortfall but some debt here and there. Can't you tell the difference or is claiming impending doom because of 'unreasonable public employee compensation' too attractive of a talking point for you to tell the difference?

I presume that Baker took freshman economy 101. What do you think? [/clown] and, please give up the know-better-than-thou shtick. The figure $857 billion comes from figure(1), which shows what would be the value of these funds without market crash. Their value would be 857 billion higher than it is today, and most estimates of pension fund liability is smaller than that, which puts your various claims into perspective.

LOL you can't read a damn figure but you'll keep pretending to give lessons, right? priceless!

Actually that is what he says, without any supporting data - point me to the data please. It's right off figure(1), (the difference between risk free and actual in 2010), which puts your claim that only you can read figures into perspective.

No, you are being disingenuous since Baker makes abundantly clear that most of the debt is due to the market crash. Of course it doesn't jive with your talking point. Not my fault.

You also failed to answer this question:

You seem so sure of yourself it should be easy to refute Baker's report point by point. I am waiting.