I.O.U.S.A - its a start (sort of)

[hoodoo]

Hi All,

I wanted to offer some brief impressions of the film I.O.U.S.A which premiered last night along with a live panel discussion with David Walker, Pete Peterson, Warren Buffet, William Niskanen, and Bill Novelli.

First off I live in Orange county, California. Yes. The epicenter of the housing bubble collapse. Home of world class conspicuous consumption; and verily a state that is nearly three sheets to the wind in terms of drunken fiscal policy. So I was more than a bit surprised that the auditorium was nearly filled with a spectrum of people that you don't generally associate with Irvine. Maybe a good thing...

The movie is nicely packaged for a doco though I'd call the comment, "This is the Inconvenient Truth for the debt crisis" a bit of a stretch. The science and physics based issues surrounding the global warming issue are much easier to delineate in a movie than the ensemble of human, political, monetary, and resource issues that are woven into the debt issue. So in an effort to simplify the picture, the issues are broken into four topic areas; national debt, (lack of) savings, trade deficit and leadership. Most of the movie focuses on the first two issues, leaving the last two at the margins. Clips of Ron Paul got some expected applause. Greenspan clips aroused a few cat calls. The clueless man-in-the-street commentary was tiresome. Notably, and purposely, the movie proposes no solutions to the problem other than to become more educated and to become involved in the political process.

For the iTulip crowd, this is a movie to pass if you have any desire to gain insight into the details or genesis of the debt problem. Instead, I'd liken this movie to those 'crashed car' movies shown to teens in the first days of drivers education. It's a, grab you by the collar and rub your nose in it, approach to bringing an issue onto the radar screen of a disinterested populace. Ultimately and more interesting in my mind is the sociological phenomena of movies like this and the degree to which they can (or cannot) serve as agents of social and political change. Clearly, the genre is hot right now (Inconvenient Truth, Sicko, IOUSA).

After the movie there was a panel discussion where a few very uninspired questions were answered. Again, more interesting was the fact that the stage gave these five folks an opportunity to pontificate a bit. My impressions...

1) David Walker - he's got an edge and an anger in his dialog that is appropriate to the problem he's been grappling with during his tenure at the GAO. If there is one person who is really capable of leading a coherent nationwide dialog I think he's the guy to do it. I think he would be a good candiate for an iTulip interview.

2) Warren Buffet - the accurately self professed pollyanna of the panel made statements that seemed outrageous. My only guess is that he agreed to take a panel seat as a spoonful of sugar that would make the medicine go down. He seemed unrealistically optimistic with statements like "the pie will always get bigger and we just need to get better at slicing it" and he tried repeatedly to appeal to the American sense of "were so great we can easily solve this problem" with several anecdotes - one of which was terribly off-target.

3) Pete Peterson - grandfatherly type that is bankrolling the foundation that is allowing David Walker to get out and stump.

4) William Niskanen - dour and intellectual, he was the first of non-partisan panel member to roll out the ideological carpet. The scripted (?) unanimity of the group was demolished by his statements.

5) Bill Novelli - (AARP president) actually said "we're part of the solution, not part of the problem" which elicited groans and laughs from the audience.

The main message that resonated from the panel was that we all need to make sure that we hold politicians accountable and we'll be able to get them to address this debt problem.

As a movie - save your bonars and wait until the film appears on Youtube or Netflix. Or better yet, read iTulip for a year or two...

Hoo

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: I.O.U.S.A - its a start (sort of)

Hi All,

I wanted to offer some brief impressions of the film I.O.U.S.A which premiered last night along with a live panel discussion with David Walker, Pete Peterson, Warren Buffet, William Niskanen, and Bill Novelli.

First off I live in Orange county, California. Yes. The epicenter of the housing bubble collapse. Home of world class conspicuous consumption; and verily a state that is nearly three sheets to the wind in terms of drunken fiscal policy. So I was more than a bit surprised that the auditorium was nearly filled with a spectrum of people that you don't generally associate with Irvine. Maybe a good thing...

The movie is nicely packaged for a doco though I'd call the comment, "This is the Inconvenient Truth for the debt crisis" a bit of a stretch. The science and physics based issues surrounding the global warming issue are much easier to delineate in a movie than the ensemble of human, political, monetary, and resource issues that are woven into the debt issue. So in an effort to simplify the picture, the issues are broken into four topic areas; national debt, (lack of) savings, trade deficit and leadership. Most of the movie focuses on the first two issues, leaving the last two at the margins. Clips of Ron Paul got some expected applause. Greenspan clips aroused a few cat calls. The clueless man-in-the-street commentary was tiresome. Notably, and purposely, the movie proposes no solutions to the problem other than to become more educated and to become involved in the political process.

For the iTulip crowd, this is a movie to pass if you have any desire to gain insight into the details or genesis of the debt problem. Instead, I'd liken this movie to those 'crashed car' movies shown to teens in the first days of drivers education. It's a, grab you by the collar and rub your nose in it, approach to bringing an issue onto the radar screen of a disinterested populace. Ultimately and more interesting in my mind is the sociological phenomena of movies like this and the degree to which they can (or cannot) serve as agents of social and political change. Clearly, the genre is hot right now (Inconvenient Truth, Sicko, IOUSA).

After the movie there was a panel discussion where a few very uninspired questions were answered. Again, more interesting was the fact that the stage gave these five folks an opportunity to pontificate a bit. My impressions...

1) David Walker - he's got an edge and an anger in his dialog that is appropriate to the problem he's been grappling with during his tenure at the GAO. If there is one person who is really capable of leading a coherent nationwide dialog I think he's the guy to do it. I think he would be a good candiate for an iTulip interview.

2) Warren Buffet - the accurately self professed pollyanna of the panel made statements that seemed outrageous. My only guess is that he agreed to take a panel seat as a spoonful of sugar that would make the medicine go down. He seemed unrealistically optimistic with statements like "the pie will always get bigger and we just need to get better at slicing it" and he tried repeatedly to appeal to the American sense of "were so great we can easily solve this problem" with several anecdotes - one of which was terribly off-target.

3) Pete Peterson - grandfatherly type that is bankrolling the foundation that is allowing David Walker to get out and stump.

4) William Niskanen - dour and intellectual, he was the first of non-partisan panel member to roll out the ideological carpet. The scripted (?) unanimity of the group was demolished by his statements.

5) Bill Novelli - (AARP president) actually said "we're part of the solution, not part of the problem" which elicited groans and laughs from the audience.

The main message that resonated from the panel was that we all need to make sure that we hold politicians accountable and we'll be able to get them to address this debt problem.

As a movie - save your bonars and wait until the film appears on Youtube or Netflix. Or better yet, read iTulip for a year or two...

Hoo

Nice commentary.

How does the generally uninformed voter(s) make sure that politicians are held accountable? By re-electiing them? Ain't gonna happen in my opinion--anything that makes them accountable to the population at large.

They are addressing the debt problem as it affects them by insuring that they guarantee their own benfits and security. When they feel comfortable that they themselves are taken care of, they will quit: as Phil Gramm.

I don't know what the solution is, and I don't think anyone else really does either, but whatever turns out to be the end of the end, I don't believe it is just around the corner.

[metalman]

Re: I.O.U.S.A - its a start (sort of)

Hi All,

I wanted to offer some brief impressions of the film I.O.U.S.A which premiered last night along with a live panel discussion with David Walker, Pete Peterson, Warren Buffet, William Niskanen, and Bill Novelli.

First off I live in Orange county, California. Yes. The epicenter of the housing bubble collapse. Home of world class conspicuous consumption; and verily a state that is nearly three sheets to the wind in terms of drunken fiscal policy. So I was more than a bit surprised that the auditorium was nearly filled with a spectrum of people that you don't generally associate with Irvine. Maybe a good thing...

The movie is nicely packaged for a doco though I'd call the comment, "This is the Inconvenient Truth for the debt crisis" a bit of a stretch. The science and physics based issues surrounding the global warming issue are much easier to delineate in a movie than the ensemble of human, political, monetary, and resource issues that are woven into the debt issue. So in an effort to simplify the picture, the issues are broken into four topic areas; national debt, (lack of) savings, trade deficit and leadership. Most of the movie focuses on the first two issues, leaving the last two at the margins. Clips of Ron Paul got some expected applause. Greenspan clips aroused a few cat calls. The clueless man-in-the-street commentary was tiresome. Notably, and purposely, the movie proposes no solutions to the problem other than to become more educated and to become involved in the political process.

For the iTulip crowd, this is a movie to pass if you have any desire to gain insight into the details or genesis of the debt problem. Instead, I'd liken this movie to those 'crashed car' movies shown to teens in the first days of drivers education. It's a, grab you by the collar and rub your nose in it, approach to bringing an issue onto the radar screen of a disinterested populace. Ultimately and more interesting in my mind is the sociological phenomena of movies like this and the degree to which they can (or cannot) serve as agents of social and political change. Clearly, the genre is hot right now (Inconvenient Truth, Sicko, IOUSA).

After the movie there was a panel discussion where a few very uninspired questions were answered. Again, more interesting was the fact that the stage gave these five folks an opportunity to pontificate a bit. My impressions...

1) David Walker - he's got an edge and an anger in his dialog that is appropriate to the problem he's been grappling with during his tenure at the GAO. If there is one person who is really capable of leading a coherent nationwide dialog I think he's the guy to do it. I think he would be a good candiate for an iTulip interview.

2) Warren Buffet - the accurately self professed pollyanna of the panel made statements that seemed outrageous. My only guess is that he agreed to take a panel seat as a spoonful of sugar that would make the medicine go down. He seemed unrealistically optimistic with statements like "the pie will always get bigger and we just need to get better at slicing it" and he tried repeatedly to appeal to the American sense of "were so great we can easily solve this problem" with several anecdotes - one of which was terribly off-target.

3) Pete Peterson - grandfatherly type that is bankrolling the foundation that is allowing David Walker to get out and stump.

4) William Niskanen - dour and intellectual, he was the first of non-partisan panel member to roll out the ideological carpet. The scripted (?) unanimity of the group was demolished by his statements.

5) Bill Novelli - (AARP president) actually said "we're part of the solution, not part of the problem" which elicited groans and laughs from the audience.

The main message that resonated from the panel was that we all need to make sure that we hold politicians accountable and we'll be able to get them to address this debt problem.

As a movie - save your bonars and wait until the film appears on Youtube or Netflix. Or better yet, read iTulip for a year or two...

Hoo

great review. thanks! too bad movies like this won't make a dent until these folks are in soup lines because the currency crashed... then they'll be listening.

before...



after...

[media]http://www.itulip.com/movies/hitler1929edited.wmv[/media]

[ltullos]

Re: I.O.U.S.A - its a start (sort of)

Well, I went tonight with my 21 yr old daughter, and in a word was ..... disappointed. In no particular order,

- Too much time given to Bob Bixby and David Walker spreading the message rather than "the message"
- Videos of old people traveling around the country talking to old people aren't going to inspire anyone, esp. the young who need to be energized to participate
- Not nearly enough attention given to where gov't is spending our money and how it gets approved.
- Warren Buffett's comments while probably accurate significantly undermined the urgency to take action
- If health care is the big issue, they should have focused on this from beginning of discussion, instead of it coming up 30 min into it
- Hated the music at the end of movie. Too sappy and no one will remember it. missed a great opportunity to do something young people would remember and reinforce the message
- Really liked Peterson and thought he hit problem squarely when he said something to the effect that this kind of problem doesn't get attention in Congress because any actions to solve spans beyond the Congressional terms and gets in the way of their real job which is to get re-elected.

As much as I hate to say it, this is a documentary that needed Michael Moore's help or at least someone who could energize it. I was expecting something much better. Having said all this, it's still a start for making getting the attention of the unaware.

[phirang]

Re: I.O.U.S.A - its a start (sort of)

Hi All,

I wanted to offer some brief impressions of the film I.O.U.S.A which premiered last night along with a live panel discussion with David Walker, Pete Peterson, Warren Buffet, William Niskanen, and Bill Novelli.

First off I live in Orange county, California. Yes. The epicenter of the housing bubble collapse. Home of world class conspicuous consumption; and verily a state that is nearly three sheets to the wind in terms of drunken fiscal policy. So I was more than a bit surprised that the auditorium was nearly filled with a spectrum of people that you don't generally associate with Irvine. Maybe a good thing...

The movie is nicely packaged for a doco though I'd call the comment, "This is the Inconvenient Truth for the debt crisis" a bit of a stretch. The science and physics based issues surrounding the global warming issue are much easier to delineate in a movie than the ensemble of human, political, monetary, and resource issues that are woven into the debt issue. So in an effort to simplify the picture, the issues are broken into four topic areas; national debt, (lack of) savings, trade deficit and leadership. Most of the movie focuses on the first two issues, leaving the last two at the margins. Clips of Ron Paul got some expected applause. Greenspan clips aroused a few cat calls. The clueless man-in-the-street commentary was tiresome. Notably, and purposely, the movie proposes no solutions to the problem other than to become more educated and to become involved in the political process.

For the iTulip crowd, this is a movie to pass if you have any desire to gain insight into the details or genesis of the debt problem. Instead, I'd liken this movie to those 'crashed car' movies shown to teens in the first days of drivers education. It's a, grab you by the collar and rub your nose in it, approach to bringing an issue onto the radar screen of a disinterested populace. Ultimately and more interesting in my mind is the sociological phenomena of movies like this and the degree to which they can (or cannot) serve as agents of social and political change. Clearly, the genre is hot right now (Inconvenient Truth, Sicko, IOUSA).

After the movie there was a panel discussion where a few very uninspired questions were answered. Again, more interesting was the fact that the stage gave these five folks an opportunity to pontificate a bit. My impressions...

1) David Walker - he's got an edge and an anger in his dialog that is appropriate to the problem he's been grappling with during his tenure at the GAO. If there is one person who is really capable of leading a coherent nationwide dialog I think he's the guy to do it. I think he would be a good candiate for an iTulip interview.

2) Warren Buffet - the accurately self professed pollyanna of the panel made statements that seemed outrageous. My only guess is that he agreed to take a panel seat as a spoonful of sugar that would make the medicine go down. He seemed unrealistically optimistic with statements like "the pie will always get bigger and we just need to get better at slicing it" and he tried repeatedly to appeal to the American sense of "were so great we can easily solve this problem" with several anecdotes - one of which was terribly off-target.

3) Pete Peterson - grandfatherly type that is bankrolling the foundation that is allowing David Walker to get out and stump.

4) William Niskanen - dour and intellectual, he was the first of non-partisan panel member to roll out the ideological carpet. The scripted (?) unanimity of the group was demolished by his statements.

5) Bill Novelli - (AARP president) actually said "we're part of the solution, not part of the problem" which elicited groans and laughs from the audience.

The main message that resonated from the panel was that we all need to make sure that we hold politicians accountable and we'll be able to get them to address this debt problem.

As a movie - save your bonars and wait until the film appears on Youtube or Netflix. Or better yet, read iTulip for a year or two...

Hoo

Pete Peterson is a dirt-bag that wants to nix all social safety nets so he can pay less in taxes in his capital arbitrage profits, which, usually, are arbitrage cuz you can nullify benefits etc.

If he really cared, he'd maybe try advocating for a reduction of trade deficits, which is REALLY the big problem in the US, but he wouldn't dare compromise the scabby FIRE teat from which he greedily suckles.

[metalman]

Re: I.O.U.S.A - its a start (sort of)

Pete Peterson is a dirt-bag that wants to nix all social safety nets so he can pay less in taxes in his capital arbitrage profits, which, usually, are arbitrage cuz you can nullify benefits etc.

If he really cared, he'd maybe try advocating for a reduction of trade deficits, which is REALLY the big problem in the US, but he wouldn't dare compromise the scabby FIRE teat from which he greedily suckles.

stupid question... how does the fire econ run off the trade deficit? not clear to me the connection... how the bonars in trade partners' accounts at the fed winds up funding the banks? do the treasuries count as reserves?

[phirang]

Re: I.O.U.S.A - its a start (sort of)

stupid question... how does the fire econ run off the trade deficit? not clear to me the connection... how the bonars in trade partners' accounts at the fed winds up funding the banks? do the treasuries count as reserves?

Foreign demand keeps the value of the US banking reserves artificially high, hence enabling over-leveraging and over-consumption.

Private equity, for the most part, is about getting loans to buy a "cash cow" or do capital arbitrage(i.e. fire people and sell the kitchen sink). Cheap loans are crucial to the business.

note: the countries with Forex surpluses are not investing those dollars domestically (if they're smart). Japan most notably has been very careful to keep asset prices reasonable.

[Mega]

Re: I.O.U.S.A - its a start (sort of)

If only they just used *Peter*Schiff.........The message would have ROCKED then.
Mike

[metalman]

Re: I.O.U.S.A - its a start (sort of)

Foreign demand keeps the value of the US banking reserves artificially high, hence enabling over-leveraging and over-consumption.

Private equity, for the most part, is about getting loans to buy a "cash cow" or do capital arbitrage(i.e. fire people and sell the kitchen sink). Cheap loans are crucial to the business.

note: the countries with Forex surpluses are not investing those dollars domestically (if they're smart). Japan most notably has been very careful to keep asset prices reasonable.

so fire econ demand for bonars keeps rates low, debt cheap. got it. thx.

[World Traveler]

Re: I.O.U.S.A - its a start (sort of)

I totally agree with your assessment of Pete Peterson, Phirang. Now that he is a billionaire who made his fortune in Private Equity (Chairman and co-founder of the Blackstone group), he is worried that America is on an unsustainable path to financial ruin and so sponsors a movie called I.O.U.S.A.

His solution (in his 2005 book Running on Empty), is to cut back on Social Security and Medicare for America's middle class and to enact legislation that requires American citizens to invest a certain portion of their incomes.

He is opposed to raising the 15% tax enjoyed by Private Equity firms, that would spread the pain of belt-tightening to America's super-rich financial elite. To quote from article in link below:

"As a co-founder of Blackstone, Mr. Peterson has a fiduciary responsibility to the firm, his partners and its employees, restraining any impulse he may have had to call for a tax increase that would have halved his company’s profits, to say nothing of his own wealth...

“This is a fairness argument,” said Mr. Peterson, who says that increasing the 15 percent rate for so-called carried interest, compared with ordinary tax rates of roughly double that, would force private equity companies overseas. “There are so many other partnerships, why pick on this high-growth sector?”

At a time when hedge fund and private equity magnates have garnered billion-dollar fortunes from the fading alternative asset boom,..."

I put him in the category of false prophet, who wants to balance America's financial books on the backs of those least able to afford the burden, while sparing Wall Street's financial titans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/bu...=1&oref=slogin

[FRED]

Re: I.O.U.S.A - its a start (sort of)

I totally agree with your assessment of Pete Peterson, Phirang. Now that he is a billionaire who made his fortune in Private Equity (Chairman and co-founder of the Blackstone group), he is worried that America is on an unsustainable path to financial ruin and so sponsors a movie called I.O.U.S.A.

His solution (in his 2005 book Running on Empty), is to cut back on Social Security and Medicare for America's middle class and to enact legislation that requires American citizens to invest a certain portion of their incomes.

He is opposed to raising the 15% tax enjoyed by Private Equity firms, that would spread the pain of belt-tightening to America's super-rich financial elite. To quote from article in link below:

"As a co-founder of Blackstone, Mr. Peterson has a fiduciary responsibility to the firm, his partners and its employees, restraining any impulse he may have had to call for a tax increase that would have halved his company’s profits, to say nothing of his own wealth...

“This is a fairness argument,” said Mr. Peterson, who says that increasing the 15 percent rate for so-called carried interest, compared with ordinary tax rates of roughly double that, would force private equity companies overseas. “There are so many other partnerships, why pick on this high-growth sector?”

At a time when hedge fund and private equity magnates have garnered billion-dollar fortunes from the fading alternative asset boom,..."

I put him in the category of false prophet, who wants to balance America's financial books on the backs of those least able to afford the burden, while sparing Wall Street's financial titans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/bu...=1&oref=slogin

"Even men who were engaged in organizing debt-serf cultivation and debt-serf industrialism in the American cotton districts, in the old rubber plantations, and in the factories of India, China, and South Italy, appeared as generous supporters of and subscribers to the sacred cause of individual liberty."

- H. G. Wells, The Shape of Things to Come - (1936)

[touchring]

Re: I.O.U.S.A - its a start (sort of)

2) Warren Buffet - the accurately self professed pollyanna of the panel made statements that seemed outrageous. My only guess is that he agreed to take a panel seat as a spoonful of sugar that would make the medicine go down. He seemed unrealistically optimistic with statements like "the pie will always get bigger and we just need to get better at slicing it" and he tried repeatedly to appeal to the American sense of "were so great we can easily solve this problem" with several anecdotes - one of which was terribly off-target.

Nice, but meanwhile...

Buffett said he recently tried to invest $500 million in a Chinese stock he declined to name, but was turned down.

http://today.reuters.com/misc/Printe...yID=nN22379030

[phirang]

Re: I.O.U.S.A - its a start (sort of)

I totally agree with your assessment of Pete Peterson, Phirang. Now that he is a billionaire who made his fortune in Private Equity (Chairman and co-founder of the Blackstone group), he is worried that America is on an unsustainable path to financial ruin and so sponsors a movie called I.O.U.S.A.

His solution (in his 2005 book Running on Empty), is to cut back on Social Security and Medicare for America's middle class and to enact legislation that requires American citizens to invest a certain portion of their incomes.

He is opposed to raising the 15% tax enjoyed by Private Equity firms, that would spread the pain of belt-tightening to America's super-rich financial elite. To quote from article in link below:

"As a co-founder of Blackstone, Mr. Peterson has a fiduciary responsibility to the firm, his partners and its employees, restraining any impulse he may have had to call for a tax increase that would have halved his company’s profits, to say nothing of his own wealth...

“This is a fairness argument,” said Mr. Peterson, who says that increasing the 15 percent rate for so-called carried interest, compared with ordinary tax rates of roughly double that, would force private equity companies overseas. “There are so many other partnerships, why pick on this high-growth sector?”

At a time when hedge fund and private equity magnates have garnered billion-dollar fortunes from the fading alternative asset boom,..."

I put him in the category of false prophet, who wants to balance America's financial books on the backs of those least able to afford the burden, while sparing Wall Street's financial titans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/bu...=1&oref=slogin

I've met some guys in PE, and while there are some shops that do turn things around and take up where VC takes off, most are Gordon Gecko clones.

[ASH]

Re: I.O.U.S.A - its a start (sort of)

Pete Peterson is a dirt-bag that wants to nix all social safety nets so he can pay less in taxes in his capital arbitrage profits, which, usually, are arbitrage cuz you can nullify benefits etc.

If he really cared, he'd maybe try advocating for a reduction of trade deficits, which is REALLY the big problem in the US, but he wouldn't dare compromise the scabby FIRE teat from which he greedily suckles.

Does that make me a dirt-bag for also wanting to nix (well -- at least pare) the social safety nets? I often joke that I'm in the "let granny freeze" camp, but the way I see it, health care and the opportunity to live at ease in old age are "benefits" that society MAY provide, but they don't fall into the category of "rights" that society MUST provide. Freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, equality of political representation, equality before the law... these are "rights", and under most circumstances, the material cost to society of providing these rights is marginal. (In fact, I think it is significant that the classic human rights concern even-handed treatment under the law and a lack of compulsion by the state, rather than an enumeration of the material goods and services that the state is obliged to provide.) In contrast to basic human rights, healthcare is a service; food, shelter, and medications are material goods. Citizens are no more "entitled" to provision of these things by their fellows, than they are to provision of big-screen TVs and designer clothing. When society provides such benefits, it should do so with the public good in mind. Social programs invest in the human capital of the country, improving the productivity of the workforce, preventing epidemic disease, and also containing the social instability, crime, and disaffection that attend hopeless poverty. These are the public goods served by re-distributive social programs. Investments in human capital must be prioritized simply because they cost a lot. It seems obvious to me that social services like education and healthcare for the young and working-age have a far superior return for society than investment in retirement benefits for the elderly. Once someone retires, they are no longer producing in the economy, so their value as human capital ceases to matter; further investment in them has no return in terms of productivity. Further, the eldery and infirm are least likely to engage in street crime or revolution, so the public order arguments are also weak. Benefits for retirees should be the absolute last on our list of priorities for social spending -- not first in line. It hardly makes sense to go into debt to support such non-productive expenditures, or to squeeze out vital discretionary spending targeted at younger and more productive age cohorts.

Before rushing in with other examples of unproductive redistribution not tied to the entitlement programs, such as farm subsidies or public spending in favored industries, consider that I probably don't approve of those, either. The main reason the entitlements are in the my sights is because they represent the majority of the problem -- not because they are "morally" worse than other unproductive handouts. However, I think the case should be made that they are a bad investment for society, and are masquerading under false colors as "rights".

Finally, the fact that Peterson's own financial interests are tied up in this issue doesn't change the fact that there is a rather immediate budget problem. I haven't had a chance to see the film, but I gather from some of the posts above that it didn't push any particular solution. Whatever Peterson may have proposed in his book, it is still his money behind an effort to raise general awareness about a looming crisis, and to encourage the public to back politicians who are willing to address the problem. Bankrolling such a film, and then forbearing to push one's own agenda, is not really a dirt-bag move.

[c1ue]

Re: I.O.U.S.A - its a start (sort of)

Peterson is just being the typical selfish billionaire.

IOUSA is a low cost way to try and shift the oncoming Baby Boomer entitlements spending bulge by advocating cutting benefits - rather than raise taxes - especially taxes on the wealthy.

From this perspective - it is perfectly reasonable: spend a few hundred K, maybe a million or two dollars. Save hundreds of millions on taxes.

That said legislation will guarantee future money to fund his pet industry, even better.

His argument about PE firms moving overseas is also fairly weak: the vast majority of deals continue to be in the US with US companies. But if California can force people to pay sales taxes on items bought outside California through a 'use tax', there is equally a possibility of tying taxes for income associated with financial intermediation for parties in the US - even if the company provided the services is outside.

This is not to say that cutting entitlements won't happen - we're well past the point where this is avoidable. But there is nothing to say that taxes won't go up AND entitlement cuts won't occur...hence the early positioning.

Lastly as for 'letting Granny freeze': On the one hand, it is easy for an educated, economically well off, and young person to say that.

On the other hand those Grannies have an equal number of votes as you do: 1 per person.

And there are lots more Baby Boomer Grannies and Grampies than whippersnappers like yourself.

From FY2000 census:

Total population: 281M
Total population over the age of 21: 196M
Total population over the age of 45 (Baby boomers and earlier): 97M
Total population from 35-44: 45M

Of course, it is now 8 years later...

Even the older of the 35-44 cohort are well within sight of retirement (52) - and these group comprises the tail end of the Boomers.

So I'd be really careful about highlighting your views in public - the Granny Police State may get you! ;)