RE: More Responses/Questions.

[ridgeway <riridgew@nyx.net>]

------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: James <jamesk_51@hotmail.com>
You ask for a "legitimate" source on the double speak I 
said "bureacrats and politicians" use --- tor example when
Clinton (or James Carevell, Paul Bagala, Gene Sperling, and
other of that gang) talk about using the budget "surplus"
to pay down the debt, save social security, yada, yada, yada...

Well if YOU consider Clinton (and his gang) to be "legitimate"
then there you go...however, since I don't consider the "1984"
doubletalk about the national debt and the surplus to be
legitimate, you're right I can't give you a source!!!!
Very good, you got me on that!  Note:  I'm not interested
in selling you any snake oil, but I suggest you check
with Clinton and his group for that.
--------------------------------------------------------  
Wtih respect to the feds when they talk about Admin cost.
First, thanks for Ms. Weaver for her comments.  
Now, to put into the record of this debate I'd like to 
enter the quote below.  I just happen to have, for
reasons I won't go into, a copy of the book:
"From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government
that Works Better and Costs Less" The report of the
National Performance Review, Sept 7, 1994, page 59, 
the section entitled "Truth in Budgeting":
  --------------------------start-------------------
  If federal organizations are to compete for their
  customers they must do so on a level playing
  field.  That means they must include their full
  costs in the price they charge customers.
  Businesses do this, but federal agencies hide
  many costs in overhead, which is paid by a 
  central office.
  ------------------------end quote----------------
The report goes on to list a few of the cost that
gets shifted around (e.g. rent, utilities, staff support,
retirement benefits, ...).  I happen to know that the
above quote is very true --- its kinda more of the
deceptive lingo used in general by politicans and
bureacrats that I responded to james about.  I just
wanted to enter that into the record, always beware
of what the politicans and their spokesmen have to
say about the government Finances (for that matter
be careful of what CEOs/CFOs say about their company's
finances too!!!!).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, Ms. Weaver made several good obervations
on the discussion on risk and replacement rates.
Just to add a question: If the stock market provided
up to 100 percent replacement rates in the best case and
40 percent in the worst case per the analysis Reischauer 
referenced, what was the SS replacement rate???
If the SS replacement rate was 40 percent, "GUARANTEED"
as it were, and I face the prospect of a worse case 
private account replacement rate of 40 percent with
a change of an upside of a 100 percent replacement
rate (maybe its a 50/50 shot), wouldn't it be rational
to select the private accounts with an expected outcome
of a 70 percent replacement rate???  Mr Reischauer
failed to tell us what the SS replacement rate was
in the best vs worst case examples nor estimated
the probabilties of each outcome.  I don't think we
need to get into modern portfolio theory with 
Black-Scholes option pricing models or anything
that sophisticated, but these extra tidbits seem
relevant to me. 
----------------------------------------------------
Again, Thanks to Ms. Weaver and Mr. Reischauer
for responding to our rough and tumble give and take.
======================================================