Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
$23 trillion is "investment assets" which include bonds as well as stocks.
Thats kind of my point, informedconsent trots this out to defend the corporate stock market without comprehending that the retirement plan assets are not as involved in the stock market as directly as he seems to believe.
Its a nice way of misinforming and misleading people that annoys me. It was kind of nice of him to provide me with values separated by date to make this point. I probably should take the time to really pull apart the numbers, but he's got dozens of arguments like this, and I do have other things I enjoy doing.
Excellent...so... 2012-2014 it went from....23.7 trillion to....24.7 trillion. The 23.7 is the ICI link, the second is your link, the dates are the dates indicated in them.
The point is that the $24.7 Trillion American workers and retirees have invested in retirement assets figure I posted is correct.
Quote:
meanwhile the stock market went from 13,000 to...18,000
Hmmmm....Anything look interesting to you? You know like the difference between a 4% increase, and a 27% increase?
Yes. Two things stand out...
1) Not all retirement assets are invested in stocks, so just going by the increase in the market doesn't really tell anyone anything.
2) American workers and retirees need that growth in the value of their pension plans and retirement accounts in order to be able to retire. Eliminating corporate profits is a bad idea.
Open my eyes to what? I don't have an issue with profits. Profits are great. But affordable healthcare with quality outcomes outweighs that when looking at the profit vs. cost issues in health insurance, hospitals, intellectual property, tort law, etc.
Thats kind of my point, informedconsent trots this out to defend the corporate stock market without comprehending that the retirement plan assets are not as involved in the stock market as directly as he seems to believe.
Its a nice way of misinforming and misleading people that annoys me. It was kind of nice of him to provide me with values separated by date to make this point. I probably should take the time to really pull apart the numbers, but he's got dozens of arguments like this, and I do have other things I enjoy doing.
Yeah.. I hear you, but you can't expect people on this forum to always be honest and straightforward.
You're just banking on the typical city-data reader being too dumb to know to read the blue lines (health spending) instead of the blue and red ones (health + social spending).
Inbound with a wall of text after Informedconsent wandered off for a bit. did he IM you? LOL.
The overhead for the IRS is not going to change whether they are collecting for medicare, or for their regular purposes. So no, I dont include that, and you should not attempt to double count it either. And the management of medicare is in fact included in the efficiency data, trying to act like the US treasury department ahs some huge affect on them is utter nonsense. I also could go on and on.
Next argument....total healthcare investment in the US is less. WOW. Look at the BLUE lines labeled healthcare. You know, what we are actually talking about? The US is 16.3%. Higher then ANY other OECD country. The red lines are social services. NOT what we are talking about.
Next nonsense.
Quote:
Healthcare systems such as those in Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are barred by the US Constitution
Good news! Thats leaves about a dozen OTHER systems that are not.
Next! Cancer survival rates. Breast and colorectal. from almost a DECADE ago. anything recent?
Lets look at a couple points to see what nonsense is relevant. Switzerland, and denmark have 73-76% f5 year relative survival rates compared to ours of 83.9% A HUGE difference.
So lets check something else to see if it correlates well. Female life expectancy.
The US? 81. OK, not bad.
Denmark, 80.5. Ouch. Not looking good for my argument there.
Sweden? 83.4. WOOT! Saved by Sweden.
Which one concerns me more? MY odds of surviving specific cancers, or my odds of living a longer life?
Keep in mind, these are all comparing a % of GDP-and our GDP is higher then most. if you look at actual money spent most of the data makes us look even worse.
Mircea, thanks for that big batch of nonsense to go through. As usual its all very misleading, and in this case glaringly obviously so.
You're just banking on the typical city-data reader being too dumb to know to read the blue lines (health spending) instead of the blue and red ones (health + social spending).
Vermont was going that route but an 18% new payroll tax (11% employer/7% employee) and a new state tax didn't go over well so they squashed it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
