new term, same ol'Bush, different lies

[TillEulenspiegel]

Social Security.........Repete after me .....Private accounts, crisis, Private accounts, crisis, Private accounts, crisis
Fudged numbers, record deficit, Fudged numbers, record deficit, Fudged numbers, record deficit,
Private accounts, crisis, Fudged numbers, record deficit.

Could be more pedantic but I'm just wondering what the Busholigests will say , should be interesting.

[WildCat]

You're right, SS is just hunky-dory. No crisis, they can just keep reducing benefits, increase witholdings, or raise the retirement age to 90 or so. So by the time younger people retire they'll find that w/ the increased SS witholdings they had little left over to invest in a real retirement plan. They should just suck it up, cash their $.79 SS check and learn to like cat food. See? Nothing wrong at all.

[CapelDodger]

Social security for baby-boomers is the priority in the real seat of global power, reports Heather Stewart

Quote:

Princeton professor and New York Times commentator Paul Krugman warned last week that White House officials are pursuing the same selling tactics with social security reform as they did with the war on Iraq - creating a sense of crisis to justify pushing through change. 'Three years ago, the supposed threat from Saddam somehow became more important than catching the people who actually attacked America on 9/11,' he says. 'Today, the mild, possibly non-existent long-run financial problems of social security have somehow become more important than dealing with the huge deficit we already have, which has nothing to do with social security.'

The Reagan years gave us the Savings and Loans fiasco, when about $200bil (IIRC) was looted. This opportunity dwarfs that.

If new funds start entering the stock market, there will be an inflationary effect on shares. Which might make things look good for a little while. Inflation from the falling dollar will help. P/E may suffer, but hey, this is a new economic paradigm. On the back of paper profits, personal indebtedness may well increase yet further, fuelling a min-boom (or at least mitigating a bust). Until reality kicks the door in. Oh the humanity ...

That, of course, will be more than four years down the line - seven would be good, so the crash is blamed on the next president. Then Jeb steps in for 2012. Masterful.

(Edited for typo)

[gnome]

I don't mind them trying to fix it, but to use that as an excuse to privatize it into the stock market, I won't go for. I don't entirely trust businesses with my future. As it happens, I do have a private retirement fund. I feel good that there is also a government program--that way one may work if the other fails... it's called diversification.

To me Bush's plan sounds like putting all of one's eggs in one basket--the stock market

[WildCat]

Quote:

Originally posted by gnome
I don't mind them trying to fix it, but to use that as an excuse to privatize it into the stock market, I won't go for. I don't entirely trust businesses with my future. As it happens, I do have a private retirement fund. I feel good that there is also a government program--that way one may work if the other fails... it's called diversification.

To me Bush's plan sounds like putting all of one's eggs in one basket--the stock market

Highly unlikely a private SS fund would be all stock market. In fact, it would likely be mostly low-risk bonds.

Federal employees have already been able to opt out of SS for years. Why shouldn't everyone else have the same option?

[Charlie Monoxide]

So George W and his merry band of neocons have saved us from international terrorism. Now in their profound depth of charity and foresight, they are going to save us from the demise of Social Security.

Why am I so cynical about anything they do?

Charlie (hope I die before i get old) Monoxide

[WildCat]

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Social security for baby-boomers is the priority in the real seat of global power, reports Heather Stewart The Reagan years gave us the Savings and Loans fiasco, when about $200bil (IIRC) was looted. This opportunity dwarfs that.

The S&L fiasco was caused by assinine gov't regs. Mainly, the FDIC charged the same premim to all S&L's w/o any regard to the risks they made w/ their investments. Of course, this reated great incentive for the S&L's to take risks they shouldn't have.

Quote:

If new funds start entering the stock market, there will be an inflationary effect on shares. Which might make things look good for a little while. Inflation from the falling dollar will help. P/E may suffer, but hey, this is a new economic paradigm. On the back of paper profits, personal indebtedness may well increase yet further, fuelling a min-boom (or at least mitigating a bust). Until reality kicks the door in. Oh the humanity ...

That, of course, will be more than four years down the line - seven would be good, so the crash is blamed on the next president. Then Jeb steps in for 2012. Masterful.

(Edited for typo)

New funds always enter the market. Most new SS funds would likely enter the bond market anyway, not the stock market. This would increase the amount of new capital available for businesses, which would increase investment and give the economy a real long-term boost. All the while reducing their reliance on foreign investment, which the bond market is dependent on now.

And as the 90's showed, the stock market doesn't need gov't intervention to become greatly over-valued. The economic boom during the Clinton era was fueled largely by the "irrational exuberance" in tech stocks. The underlying economy wasn't nearly so hot as it appeared and led to the recession that started in early 2000.

[WildCat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
So George W and his merry band of neocons have saved us from international terrorism. Now in their profound depth of charity and foresight, they are going to save us from the demise of Social Security.

Why am I so cynical about anything they do?

Charlie (hope I die before i get old) Monoxide

Better to just keep putting IOU's in the SS "Trust Fund"?

[Bjorn]

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat
Highly unlikely a private SS fund would be all stock market. In fact, it would likely be mostly low-risk bonds.

Quote:

Most new SS funds would likely enter the bond market anyway, not the stock market.

Quote:

Better to just keep putting IOU's in the SS "Trust Fund"?

Aren't bonds about the same as IOU's?

I'm just curious here - if I got it right, the US government owes Social Security a lot of money, secured by bonds.

If the Social Security is privatized (or had been already) and 'invested' in bonds (read: lent the money to the government, supposedly the most reliable lender around), why would it be more likely that the money would be paid back than it is now?

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
[b][b] Aren't bonds about the same as IOU's?

I'm just curious here - if I got it right, the US government owes Social Security a lot of money, secured by bonds.

If the Social Security is privatized (or had been already) and 'invested' in bonds (read: lent the money to the government, supposedly the most reliable lender around), why would it be more likely that the money would be paid back than it is now?

Not secured by bonds but by non-marketable Treasury securities. Bonds have a market value. That's why Social Security holds no real assets and is in dire straights.

[Dorian Gray]

1) Bush, the Yale business school grad, is suggesting that we invest in the stock market rather than the current system which is effectively similar to investing in US bonds. Your average person doesn't know jack about the stock market. Your average person has been putting money into SS their whole working lives.

2) It is said that there won't be enough money for SS in 45 years or something. But that's when Gen-Xers will be getting benefits, and there are fewer of us. How is that a crisis, exactly?

If Bush thinks the stock market is so freaking great, why doesn't he just propose to invest Social Security money in the stock market? If he did it in dentists' offices, they could save on NO2.

[Smike]

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat
They should just suck it up, cash their $.79 SS check and learn to like cat food. See? Nothing wrong at all.

Dog food is generally cheaper.

[Lurker]

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat
Highly unlikely a private SS fund would be all stock market. In fact, it would likely be mostly low-risk bonds.

Federal employees have already been able to opt out of SS for years. Why shouldn't everyone else have the same option?

Really? I thought that stopped back in the 80's and they all pay SS now.

Lurker

[Frank Newgent]

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat

Better to just keep putting IOU's in the SS "Trust Fund"?

Speaking of which, did you know that George W Bush seems to have somewhere around five to ten million dollars in US Treasury bonds.

What's gonna happen if he tries to redeem these (upon maturity)? Will he have to raise taxes to cover it? The answer, very clearly, is that money from the general revenues will have to be used to redeem the bonds from the President.

And come to think of it, having this big stack of big government IOUs written out to yourself when you're the head of that same big government is equivalent to having nothing at all.

What this means is that the President has gotten government bonds in exchange for the tax money that is being spent today instead of being saved. But you cannot spend and save the same money, no matter what accounting gimmicks you use.

If you ask me, it'll be like government moving money from its right hand to its left when the President raises taxes to cover his bond redemptions. And taxpayers left with having to pay the bill.

[Snide]

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat
You're right, SS is just hunky-dory. No crisis, they can just keep reducing benefits, increase witholdings, or raise the retirement age to 90 or so. So by the time younger people retire they'll find that w/ the increased SS witholdings they had little left over to invest in a real retirement plan. They should just suck it up, cash their $.79 SS check and learn to like cat food. See? Nothing wrong at all.

Again with the false dichotomy and strawman. Nice work, "skeptic."

[corplinx]

Paul Krugman says there is no pending crisis in SS. A rabid Bush hater who literally blew his fuse after Bush won re-election is saying something contradictory to reality. However, since Krugman is an "intellectual" and Bush is an idiot, Krugman must be right.

Personally, I think the fact that we have gone from 16 to 2 payers is a crisis in and of itself. In the business world heads would be rolling with that kind of performance. Only in the pages of the NYT does the program actually going insolvent elevate it to a crisis.

I think many of these people like Krugman are going to look back on these contrarian for the sake of hating Bush positions and wince.

[Cleon]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
Paul Krugman says there is no pending crisis in SS. A rabid Bush hater who literally blew his fuse after Bush won re-election is saying something contradictory to reality. However, since Krugman is an "intellectual" and Bush is an idiot, Krugman must be right.

And, naturally, since he's a "rabid Bush hater" and an "intellectual," he must be wrong.

[tedly]

An ad hominem fallacy does not exactly blow Mr Krugman out of the water. Is he the only one suggesting that privatizing government pension plans is a bad idea?

Doug Henwood's book Wall Street: How it works and for whom does a chapter on this and labels it a bad idea.

[Bjorn]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Not secured by bonds but by non-marketable Treasury securities. Bonds have a market value. That's why Social Security holds no real assets and is in dire straights.

I try to get this right:

You're saying that the government has borrowed money from Social Security, but the loans are secured by 'Treasury Securities', not bonds, and 'Treasury Securities' have no market value? The government doesn't have an 'obligation' to pay?

The government is putting it this way, however:

Quote:

Treasury securities are a safe and secure investment option because the full faith and credit of the United States government guarantees that interest and principal payments will be paid on time.

I can only repeat my question:

If the Social Security is privatized (or had been already) and 'invested' in bonds (read: lent the money to the government, supposedly the most reliable lender around), why would it be more likely that the money would be paid back than it is now?

[TillEulenspiegel]

WildCat wasn't "irrational exuberance" Alan Greenspan? He warned for a long time about a "Shakeout" on Wall Street.

[Snide]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
Paul Krugman says there is no pending crisis in SS. A rabid Bush hater who literally blew his fuse after Bush won re-election is saying something contradictory to reality. However, since Krugman is an "intellectual" and Bush is an idiot, Krugman must be right.

Personally, I think the fact that we have gone from 16 to 2 payers is a crisis in and of itself. In the business world heads would be rolling with that kind of performance. Only in the pages of the NYT does the program actually going insolvent elevate it to a crisis.

I think many of these people like Krugman are going to look back on these contrarian for the sake of hating Bush positions and wince.

THere are republicans who say there is no crisis as well. But as we've seen in another thread, I get a bit perturbed when the "no crisis" position is represented as "everything is hunky dory; no problem."

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by tedly
An ad hominem fallacy does not exactly blow Mr Krugman out of the water. Is he the only one suggesting that privatizing government pension plans is a bad idea?

I don't think it was adhom, I think my description of Mr. Krugman was fairly accurate and I will stand by it.

And what do you mean by privatization? As far as I know, the only privatization plan thats being seriously considered is optional.

Right now, social security only functions in a demand-side way. People get money and spend it. Allowing semi-private accounts puts the money to work before it is paid out.

Instead of social security being a drain (workers pay in/ overhead/ money paid out to recipients), social security can bolster the private sector through investment.



One more comment, I am not anti-intellectual. I just think the term is vague, loosely applied, and frankly irks me. There is no certification for an intellectual as opposed to an engineer. Krugman is one of these people who area routinely referred to as intellectuals and hence I referred to him as one but with quotes.

[Lurker]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
One more comment, I am not anti-intellectual. I just think the term is vague, loosely applied, and frankly irks me. There is no certification for an intellectual as opposed to an engineer. Krugman is one of these people who area routinely referred to as intellectuals and hence I referred to him as one but with quotes.

Hmm, let's take a look at Krugman's credentials to discuss economics:

1. Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

2. Paul Krugman is a professor of economics at Princeton University

3. He’s been named as one of the top international economists by The Economist.

4. In recognition of his work in international trade and finance, the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal


Yep, I would not trust this guy to discuss economics. Clearly he has no idea what he is talking about.

Lurker

P.S. Sure, he could be wrong.

[Cleon]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
I don't think it was adhom, I think my description of Mr. Krugman was fairly accurate and I will stand by it.

That may well be, but it also doesn't invalidate his opinion, as your post implied it did. Which is why it's an ad-hom attack; it attacks the person rather than his argument. He's a "rabid Bush hater" and an "intellectual," therefore he's probably wrong.

I take a different approach. I freely admit I have no frikkin' idea of Social Security will last or not. Accounting gives me a headache. All I know is 1) SS pays a pitiful amount of money, yet 2) some people live on it, so it's important to save it. And 3) as a result of 1) and 2), I'd rather not have to live on it.

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Snide
THere are republicans who say there is no crisis as well. But as we've seen in another thread, I get a bit perturbed when the "no crisis" position is represented as "everything is hunky dory; no problem."

The term crisis has been overrused for certain in that past 12 years as legistlators referred to anything they wanted to legislate as solving a crisis.

The fact is, we know there will be a crisis point at which the only solution will be to cut benefits and raise taxes. I think its somewhat dishonest to claim that since that point isn't in the next decade that the problem isn't now, since reforming a program that large to where its forever solvent and provides a better level of return will take many years to do.

[Lurker]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
Personally, I think the fact that we have gone from 16 to 2 payers is a crisis in and of itself. In the business world heads would be rolling with that kind of performance. Only in the pages of the NYT does the program actually going insolvent elevate it to a crisis.

But what does that mean...what does it translate to? 16 to 2? Why was it not a crisis when we went from 16 to 8. Sure sounds bad, doesn't it? Or when we went from 16 to 4. Why didn't all hell break loose then?

You see Corplinx, it is a rather meaningless stat. Of far more interest is the actual budget of SS. Citing rather meaningless stats like 16-2 when there is so much involved other than just the number of workers vs retirees. Reducing it to a simplistic ratio is just that - simplistic.

I do think there is a problem with SS. Not a crisis, but a problem and the sooner we do something the easier fixing it will be. Privatization is just one of many possible solutions.

If you want a crisis, someone pointed out to me that Medicare is in far worse shape and could cost even more, and more imminent than SS. Why don't we concentrate our efforts on that one instead?

Lurker

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
That may well be, but it also doesn't invalidate his opinion, as your post implied it did. Which is why it's an ad-hom attack; it attacks the person rather than his argument. He's a "rabid Bush hater" and an "intellectual," therefore he's probably wrong.

I was just framing Mr. Krugnman's comments. This sort of thing is what I expect him to say. Mr. Krugman isn't wrong because he hates Bush. I think he is wrong because the facts simply show that the program has reached critical mass.

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lurker

You see Corplinx, it is a rather meaningless stat.

I don't think its meaningless. Nor do I think that I think its the only indicator of a problem with the program. Its shows a simple trend that some of the people here who plead ignorance on the topic can easily grasp.

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
WildCat wasn't "irrational exuberance" Alan Greenspan? He warned for a long time about a "Shakeout" on Wall Street.

I remember Greenspan getting trashtalked by some of the financial analysts on TV over the comment. He was right, they were wrong. 300 dollars for a share of VALinux IPO stock was pure irrational exuberance.

[Lurker]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
I don't think its meaningless. Nor do I think that I think its the only indicator of a problem with the program. Its shows a simple trend that some of the people here who plead ignorance on the topic can easily grasp.

Then tell me its meaning. How did we survive going from 16 to 8? Or 16 to 4? And during that time we STILL kept getting surpluses in SS. Why was there no critical mass at any of those points? I presume you have no idea. I wonder if avergae wage has any effect on this ratio and whether we survive it. Or retirement age? Or amount of SS in reference to average wage? Or the tax ceiling for SS? Or........you get my point.

Quote:

think he (Krugman) is wrong because the facts simply show that the program has reached critical mass.

Critical mass? Evidence? What makes you say that? And why was critical mass not reached at 16-8, or 16-4? How do you know critical mass is not 16-1.5?

Lurker

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lurker

Critical mass? Evidence? What makes you say that?

Are you disputing the program will eventually stop running surpluses and start running deficits unless it is changed?

It is on a slow slope downward. Even Krugman does not deny that. He thinks the Bush admin is implying the crisis is today and that seems to be the major beef.

So, Krugman and I both believe that changes will need to take place at some point. Where does the flat earth position come from that there is no problem?

[Lurker]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
Are you disputing the program will eventually stop running surpluses and start running deficits unless it is changed?

It is on a slow slope downward. Even Krugman does not deny that. He thinks the Bush admin is implying the crisis is today and that seems to be the major beef.

So, Krugman and I both believe that changes will need to take place at some point. Where does the flat earth position come from that there is no problem?

No, I am not disputing the program has some long term problems that need to be fixed. And the earlier we fix them the better. I could have sworn I typed this exact thing a little while ago, you must have missed it. It is six posts back about midway through my post:

Quote:

I do think there is a problem with SS. Not a crisis, but a problem and the sooner we do something the easier fixing it will be. Privatization is just one of many possible solutions.

I guess you and I are having trouble communicating on when you say "critical mass". We clearly have different concepts on that phrase.

Lurker

[TillEulenspiegel]

Well the phrase "critical mass" may be a bit off topic but as a metaphor it works. It could be labeled "Phase Transition" which Chemists and Physicists use to describe a rapid switch between two succinct states or a "Knee Curve" used by Mathematicians and Engineers as well as Statisticians . Point being that we can see by projection alone ..............that nothing is certain. Be that as it may at least we can see the precipice we are rushing toward, opinions as to out speed may vary but unless there is correction ( and not what Bush has in mind) the expenditures WILL exceed inflow of capital in the SS system.

So for Your retirement You will rwcieve a gold tone watch (mfg in China) and a hardy handclasp. Wooo!

[Lurker]

Actually, by people who have run the numbers if we do nothing today, benefits would have to be reduced by about 20% in 2052 to balance the program.

So those of us expecting $20,000/year on SS will have to make do with $16,000. (An example) Nto great but still a heck of a lot better than a gold watch.

Lurker

[DavidJames]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
Personally, I think the fact that we have gone from 16 to 2 payers is a crisis in and of itself. In the business world heads would be rolling with that kind of performance.

true and in the business world...

a CEO making a business decision, one analogous to a country going to war, on false data, would resign or be fired.

a CEO who took the reigns of a company in the black and then ran up the largest red ink in the companies history would also be shown the door.

only in the world of the Bush and his faithful do such things get brushed aside.

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lurker
Actually, by people who have run the numbers if we do nothing today, benefits would have to be reduced by about 20% in 2052 to balance the program.

So those of us expecting $20,000/year on SS will have to make do with $16,000. (An example) Nto great but still a heck of a lot better than a gold watch.

Lurker

Personally, I am in favor of means testing. But at that point the trust fund becomes a benevolence fund and neither party has the spine to deal with the fallout.

Some people just don't need social security.

[Hutch]

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat
Highly unlikely a private SS fund would be all stock market. In fact, it would likely be mostly low-risk bonds.

Federal employees have already been able to opt out of SS for years. Why shouldn't everyone else have the same option?[/b]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lurker
Really? I thought that stopped back in the 80's and they all pay SS now. Lurker

As a Federal employee of 23 years, let me try yo explain. Older Government employees (of which I am one) are part of one retirement plan, which does not involve Social Security at all and is more like a company pension program. At 30yrs of service/minimum 55 years of age I can retire and the Government will average my highest 5 years of earnings (Hi-Five) and then pay me a pension of about 63% of that.

In the 80's the program for new employees was changed to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), which DOES include Social Security as part of the system (I am not sure of the opt-out part as I am not a member) along with investing up to 10% of your salary in various Mutual-type funds with a corresponding Government contribution(As an older employee, I buy in for 5%-10%, but without the matching Government contributions).

So the older plan is more on the line of a regular pension, while the new plan is Social Security + a Government 401k-style investment.

Hope this helps and I'll let the rest of the folks get back to the debate.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Corpse:"Personally, I am in favor of means testing."

Whoa bubba , slow that horsie down.
You favor means testing at which end? Paying in or out?

It's entirely unfair for people to pay into the system only to be told that they make too much money to qualify for SS payments. That just robbery by legislation and so- unjust . If they make so much money to enjoy those monies later then they shouldn't pay in at all.

[CapelDodger]

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat
The S&L fiasco was caused by assinine gov't regs. Mainly, the FDIC charged the same premim to all S&L's w/o any regard to the risks they made w/ their investments. Of course, this reated great incentive for the S&L's to take risks they shouldn't have.

Bad risks there were aplenty, but those were only made possible by the changes in regulation. S & L's were once restricted to taking deposits and investing in sound mortgages. Low-risk, low-return, only an actuary's pulse would pick up on seeing it. The restrictions were lifted, but the insurance remained - on deposits up to $100k. The crazed point was that multiple deposits under $100k by the same depositor were covered, so all sorts of money flowed in, flowed out, vanished and was covered by the government. In the process, $200bil or so of capital that had built up in this boring but solid sector disappeared. I still have no idea where it ended up (but 'onest, guv, I never seen none of it). Much the same happened with the building societies and mutuals of the UK during Thatcher's days.

When it comes to home, life savings and pension you do not want the money consigned to people chasing performance ratings in a speculative and emotional market. That's for fun money. Otherwise I see tears at the end of the day ...

Quote:

New funds always enter the market. Most new SS funds would likely enter the bond market anyway, not the stock market.

Which would depress bond prices and interest rates and encourage further public and private indebtedness. It would also encourage more speculative bonds. In practice I would expect a general inflationary effect across the whole range of investment vehicles - and the invention of some new ones.

Quote:

This would increase the amount of new capital available for businesses, which would increase investment and give the economy a real long-term boost.

This assumes that the capital is invested wisely, and the DotCon episode is salutory. The S & L collapse involved a lot of worthless property development. The Great Railway Scam of 1850's Britain saw a lot of useless rails laid. There was probably a Babylonian version of the 1929 Crash, with bankrupts plunging from the Hanging Gardens.

Quote:

All the while reducing their reliance on foreign investment, which the bond market is dependent on now.

As long as the US runs a trade deficit, there will be a need for capital transfers. With returns in the bond market low (see above), the capital stock of the US will have to take the strain. Basically, when the US comes out of this it'll own even less of itself than it does now. When Disneyland goes, it's time to move to Taiwan.

Quote:

And as the 90's showed, the stock market doesn't need gov't intervention to become greatly over-valued. The economic boom during the Clinton era was fueled largely by the "irrational exuberance" in tech stocks. The underlying economy wasn't nearly so hot as it appeared and led to the recession that started in early 2000.

Another outbreak of irrational exuberance over the next couple of decades is well on the cards, IMO. I don't want my pension wiped out by it. Or (more likely) them. That's for fun money. I want to afford to drink whiskey when I'm 80; I'd like to own a distillery, but I won't risk the former for the latter.

[CapelDodger]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
If the Social Security is privatized (or had been already) and 'invested' in bonds (read: lent the money to the government, supposedly the most reliable lender around), why would it be more likely that the money would be paid back than it is now?

Quite. The current US government deficit isn't due, as far as I can see, to Social Security, and that's the only obvious threat to gumment bonds. If the US gumment is reduced to reneging on its bonds, we'll all be worrying about more pressing matters at the time.

The real (in my opinion) objective is to direct money from government bonds to corporate bonds, which pay a higher return because of the risk factor. (I have a sneaking suspicion you know all this ...) Out there amongst the sharks and away from the bureaucrats and actuaries it's that much more vulnerable to plunder.

I've got to look into getting a piece of this.