Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–518 of 518 posts

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#511

Post by marcamillion »

puredemo wrote: post #489
marcamillion wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason yields have been so low is because a) there is no other 'safe haven' for investors to flock to, and b) the markets generally didn't anticipate a downgrade. A downgrade, even if the markets don't raise Yields, can be catastrophic because many financial institutions (mutual funds, insurance companies, unit trusts, etc.) can only hold AAA rated securities in their portfolios - and some central banks can only…

How does this play out with the multiple ratings firms though?

Good question...I think the actual legal rules are probably something like you have to maintain AAA from 2 out of the 3 rating agencies or something of that nature.

They do account for multiple ratings agencies having different opinions.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#512

Post by ChrisLTD »

rmrm wrote: post #437
digikata wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what do we do with people at the end of their working years, who, through bad luck or bad design, ended up with nothing. Do we stand by and let them suffer and die?

You could devise a means tested welfare for elderly people. There are a lot of perfectly wealthy, perfectly capable people who retire at 60 whatever for no apparent reason other than ss and tax advantaged accounts make it seem like its time. I am a big fan of retirement, and I think safety nets for the disadvantaged are a good idea. I don't think we need a retirement safety net, however, or to make a retirement an en…

The trouble with means testing is that you drain support for the program from the parts of the population with the most political clout. In other words, how long does SS last when rich people get nothing for what they put into it?

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#513

Post by billybob »

wisty wrote: post #318
Someone wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think indirect costs are higher than that. Prisons, for example, cost over 60 billion a year. Legalize cannabis, and I guess you can easily cut that by 25% (I know those costs probably are not federal, but do not think that matters. If your kid overspends, your family suffers) Also, the 'It is only a small fraction' argument is weak. If you really try, you can cut the entire budget into smaller parts.

Legalize cannabis, and you can tax it too.

If you tax it much, there will still be a black market for it, with all the associated crime that brings.

It already happens with cigarettes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1299345...

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#514

Post by billybob »

wisty wrote: post #318
Someone wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think indirect costs are higher than that. Prisons, for example, cost over 60 billion a year. Legalize cannabis, and I guess you can easily cut that by 25% (I know those costs probably are not federal, but do not think that matters. If your kid overspends, your family suffers) Also, the 'It is only a small fraction' argument is weak. If you really try, you can cut the entire budget into smaller parts.

Legalize cannabis, and you can tax it too.

If you tax it much, there will still be a black market for it, with all the associated crime that brings.

It already happens with cigarettes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1299345...

And it's a lot harder to differentiate illegal goods from legal ones if the physical item could be either.

I'm not saying whether we should or shouldn't legalize it, but I keep hearing people say "legalize it to remove the criminal element and tax the heck out of it." That doesn't necessarily end the associated crime issues.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#515

Post by jtheory »

cookiecaper wrote: post #493
jtheory wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand this point of view, but at the end of the day, government policy needs to be based on what's going to work out the best for the public. It perhaps goes without saying that there are more than two approaches, but yours is one that I think we can rule out logically. Psychologically, does it work? In general, if you tell a 22-year-old that in 40-something years he's going to really need some of the money he…

And whose idea of "best" do we use? The government is about ensuring a framework of freedom for its citizens to operate within, and if the citizenry refuses to be productive or healthy there's nothing the government can do about it. Do you support alcohol prohibition? Alcohol leads to much more damage than even smoking from an emotional and psychological perspective. What if, one day, the government decides that peop…

We don't use someone's idea of "best" purely based on their opinion. We make changes at a small level, we run studies, we actually find out what works, and stop futzing around with half-baked ideas of what will do what 20 years from now.

This is partly why I hate political discussions as-they-are-played... everyone has such strong opinions based on incredibly tenuous links to actual history, studies, etc.. Just "this is how it is, how it has always been, and if only I were in control I'd have this all tidied up right quick."

Of course I don't support alcohol prohibition. Haven't we tried that? Did it work? Also: we weren't talking about making smoking illegal, just about human psychology, and how people aren't logical. To actually give people better lives requires science, not "more laws" or "fewer laws".

I don't disagree with you on your other examples, generally, but I'll refrain from offering other examples that are obvious in the other direction... it doesn't get us very far.

"I don't vote for people so they can do my thinking for me" -- I half agree with this. I will gladly vote for someone who has thought and researched more deeply on important topics than I have, provided they can explain themselves and advance my own knowledge. In the end we are responsible as citizens for who we elect, so I do agree it's not much use to be snowed by anyone who uses big words or says they have the solutions.

For core principles, though... this is much trickier. Principles, in abstract, are useless. I agree totally with some of my older relatives' politics, when we talk only in terms of principles ("we need better education! critical thinking!"), but when we get into applying the principles we're miles apart.

"Free exercise of conscience", what does that mean in terms of specific issues? We should rely on lynch mobs instead of police? Citizen militias to take out unfair monopolies?

I'm in favor of encouraging responsible citizens who can think critically. I'm not at all convinced that your suggestions (inasmuch as I've seen them) would do that, based on what I know of human psychology.

I also have a suspicion that your idea of what social security payments will cover is a bit overblown. I don't have any living grandparents left, but my father is losing his house and has no medical insurance, in spite of social security.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#516

Post by wmoxam »

georgefox wrote: post #468
18pfsmt wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow, the Federalists have managed to change the conversation from, "should the state provide this service?" to, "should the government provide this service?" I don't quite understand why the state governments should not make their own choices, and people can move to the states that they find have the most acceptable laws to them.

If the discrepancies between state policies were large enough, I imagine you'd basically see white flight on a national scale. Essentially, supporting any type of social safety net would be optional for the people with the resources to move out of state. As a result, middle-class and wealthy people would flock to low-tax states without expensive social programs, leaving behind a higher concentration of needy people i…

That is largely not the case with your neighbors to the north. In Canada only 1/3 of taxes are collected at the federal level, and some of that money is distributed to the provinces to spend (poorer provinces get a larger proportion of payments so they can provide similar services as richer provinces).

While there is some migration to the richest province, that has more to do with jobs related to the oil boom there, and the low taxes there are due to oil revenues.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#517

Post by digikata »

ChrisLTD wrote: post #512
rmrm wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could devise a means tested welfare for elderly people. There are a lot of perfectly wealthy, perfectly capable people who retire at 60 whatever for no apparent reason other than ss and tax advantaged accounts make it seem like its time. I am a big fan of retirement, and I think safety nets for the disadvantaged are a good idea. I don't think we need a retirement safety net, however, or to make a retirement an en…

The trouble with means testing is that you drain support for the program from the parts of the population with the most political clout. In other words, how long does SS last when rich people get nothing for what they put into it?

I've always viewed Social Security more like catastrophic insurance than a future income stream. What do you get out of insurance? Hopefully, nothing because if you find yourself needing to exercise it, something has not gone according to plan.

Re: United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

#518

Post by mcantelon »

epscylonb wrote: post #351
mcantelon wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The problem is corruption. Everything else is a symptom.

The problem is the voters, you get the politicians you deserve. I don't think the american people are dumb or lazy, I think they are very complacent. Americans have become so used to their fairly high standard of living that they are ignoring substantive issues and focusing on trivia. My personal prediction is that the voters will wise up and listen to smart people who understand the issues eventually. At the moment…

>The problem is the voters, you get the politicians you deserve.

The politicians and voters are corrupt: I agree.

Post reply on HN