Just Answering Questions: Live Q&A

Reply to this post with questions for Reason's Zach Weissmueller and Liz Wolfe, who will address listener comments.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Just Answering Questions: Live Q&A

To celebrate the growth of our new YouTube channel, the Just Asking Questions team livestreamed an Ask Me Anything episode, hosted by their producer, John Osterhoudt. It was a chance for our listeners to share their reactions to guests and topics, suggest ideas for future episodes, and pose some hard questions.

Thanks for listening!

If you like the show, the best ways to help are to subscribe to the Just Asking Questions YouTube channel, subscribe and give us a rating on iTunes or other podcatchers, and tell like-minded friends about the show.

Resources mentioned:

• Just Asking Questions with Randy Barnett
• Just Asking Questions with Aaron Sibarium
• Just Asking Questions with Erika Sanzi
• Just Asking Questions with Matt Taibbi
• Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids by Bryan Caplan
• The Constitution of Liberty by F.A. Hayek
• The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek
• The Future and Its Enemies by Virgina Postrel
• Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays by Murray Rothbard
• A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell
• Zach's interview with Caitlin Long: She's Suing the Fed To Open a Rothbardian Bitcoin Bank
• John recommends the work of Wanjiru Njoya
• Nick Gillespie's interview of Stephanie Slade: What Kind of Libertarian Are You?

Timestamps:

• 00:00 Introduction music
• 00:30 Celebrating 5,000 subscribers
• 01:30 Introducing producer John Osterhoudt
• 02:10 Liz Wolfe on receiving hate mail from IRS agents
• 07:23 What makes you a libertarian? And recommended libertarian books
• 12:54 Different approaches to libertarianism
• 16:13 Nature vs. nurture
• 20:45 Raising children
• 25:58 Do libertarians critique the left more than the right?
• 32:00 Concerns about national conservatism
• 38:39 What questions should more people be asking?
• 40:08 Encouraging courage in political discussions
• 43:36 Dream podcast guests (who are dead!)
• 46:00 Closing remarks & thank you to listeners

 

Comments

[Randy Sax]

Rand Paul has been releasing his "festivus" reports for years and the American public barely paid any attention. Elon and Trump are now getting massive coverage for exposing many of the same things Rand has been talking about for years now.

What can the libertarian party (or people with a libertarian mindset) learn from Trump/Elon and their messaging?

[Commenter_XY]

Some things a little off the beaten path.

One, can there be a JAQ episode that compares our SSA system to other pension systems internationally? There are other more libertarian models to get an old age pension in place. How can our SSA be reformed (if at all)?

Two, if you are gearing JAQ to a younger audience, please have an episode on Roth IRA, and 401K/IRA plans. Financial literacy is low among millennials. Bonus points for discussing saving and withdrawal strategies (i.e. VPW). If you start saving early, you don't need to save much monthly.

Three, guest recommendation: Charlie Kirk. He has had a lot to say about applied AI and elections. That would be a fruitful discussion.

Four, next guest recommendation: JD Vance. It never hurts to ask. And he has emerged as a surprisingly good spokesman for freedom and liberty.

Last guest recommendation(s): Eugene Volokh and Orin Kerr. Those law professors could speak to 1A and 4A jurisprudence that affects us all today.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I've posted versions of this before. I am no financial expert, and I know this is politically impossible. My purpose is to understand a "realistic" plan to convert SSA Ponzi pensions to private nest eggs. I am not saying this is perfect or possible, only that it is the best I could come up with.

The gist is that investing 1/4 of the FICA tax in private DJIA/S&P 500 indexed funds provides enough nest egg that a 5% annual withdrawal matches SSA pensions, and since the average annual return over the last 10 years is 10% (DJIA) and 13% (S&P 500), that still leaves 3%/6% capital growth over the Fed's 2% inflation target (my figures were pre-Bidenflation), and a good cushion for bad years.

* Keep the FICA tax on all workers to pay current SSA pensions. It will decrease from its current 15.3% over time as current pensioners leave the system. Everyone contributed to this mess, everyone has to pay to get out of it. Neither the Lone Ranger nor Harry Potter is coming to the rescue.

* No new SSA pensioners. All employees keep paying FICA and get some prorated reduction in their buyout costs.

* Add a new 4% payroll tax which goes directly to individually owned DJIA/S&P 500 indexed accounts. Yes, all employees get a 4% pay cut. We all contributed to this mess, we all have to get out of it. The decreasing 15.3% FICA tax will even things out in 5-10 years.

* As time goes buy, SSA pensioners die off or take a lump sum nest egg buyout. Since this is spendable and inheritable, its value can be less than the strict 10%/13% necessary to maintain their current SSA pensions.

* I *think*, as an uneducated uninformed wild ass guess, that the FICA tax would disappear within 20-30 years, leaving only the 4% nest egg tax. That's a 10% raise for everybody.

* The new nest egg tax invests $500 billion a year into the stock market. 50 years (working age 20-70) of that will stabilize at $25 trillion. Google says current mutual fund capitalization is $56 trillion. I do not think adding $500 billion, 1%, every year would destabilize the stock markets.

* Whether the new 4% nest egg payroll tax remains mandatory is a political decision. I'd be perfectly happy to make my own decisions and risk ending up in a bunk bed charity, but do-gooders and sob sisters will latch on to every pensioners who blows it in Vegas or loses it to a con artist, and try to restore SSA. Insurance companies could play a part. Guardians who have to approve unusual withdrawals could play a part. Legally binding waivers could play a part. But those do-gooders and sob sisters will also play a part.

I have a longer form with other considerations, like how nest egg buyouts could happen. But this is enough.

[Jefferson Paul]

That's a much better system than the current one. But, as you say, it's politically impossible. The vast majority of people receiving Social Security today, and those nearing that age, would say, "Fuck you, I paid into it, and I'm going to get mine." Even if your proposal doesn't hurt the current recipients, the novel nature of the proposal, and that it still carries risk of what happens if the S&P crashes and doesn't recover or recovers slowly, would result in many of the current recipients rejecting it. The fear of the unknown would mean many wouldn't go for this proposal, even if it would be far better and much more sustainable, and not doing so would screw over everyone further away from retirement. Plus, the establishment and the progressives dishonestly paint it as taking away SS.

I've used this analogy for keeping the Social Security pyramid scheme, as is, intact:

Your car was stolen from you right after you finished paying off the loan. The police come and tell you they can't recover your car but are willing to steal your grandson's car (or your neighbor's grandson's car) and give it to you. "Well, I paid a lot of money to buy that car, so go ahead and give me my grandson's car."

(It would be a more apt analogy if you were forced to buy the car and pay it off over time, instead of you choosing to buy the car, as you don't get to opt out of having your earnings stolen from you to fund Social Security.)

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I like that. It makes as much sense.

I address a couple of other factors elsewhere.

* Stock market capitalization was around $56 trillion a year or two ago. The 4% "nest egg" would add $500 billion a year. After 50 years (ages 20-70), that would be $25 trillion. So it i sunlikely to destabilize stocks.

When I ran my own FICA deductions through DJIA and S&P 500 annual yields, the 5% withdrawals from the resultant nest egg provided 3 times (DJIA) and 5 times (S&P 500) the projected SSA retirement benefits. That's why the nest egg deduction would only have to be 1/4 the FICA deductions. But I also ran my deductions through every starting year since 1926 when the S&P 500 began. The 3-5 yields were more or less average. The best starting year provided 5 and 7 times the SSA benefits. The worst year was 96%. But bear in mind that the average yields over 10 year runs hold fairly steadily at 10% (DJIA) and 13% (S&P 500), leaving 3% and 6% growth above the targeted 2% inflation, so even that worst 96% still provides more than SSA.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Eugene Volokh would be fantastic. I have my doubts about Orin Kerr; he sides with government too often for my tastes, with some of the quibbliest lawyer speak imaginable. But he might be interesting for a few minutes before my gall started rising.

[Commenter_XY]

Orin Kerr is The Man when it comes to 4A.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Measuring everything by a Libertrarian ruler is the opposite of true Libertarianism, which used reason and morality to analyze and came up with prudentially-applied principles. But now you forego all that and say "is this Libertraian or not?"
Just like Pelosi and Hillary, no difference.
YOU mention children and families. Drag shows, Dylan Mulvaney, gay marriage --- all upset children. Do you have children?