[extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment

[Samantha Atkins]

Thanks for the empty frivolous response.

-s

On Aug 22, 2005, at 11:14 AM, Bret Kulakovich wrote:

>
> I'll see your 'longevity or social security/pension' and raise you  
> 'longevity only if you contribute to the GNP and society'.
>
> This is right up there with 2 years military service buys you  
> voting franchise and full US citizenship, 4 years for foreign born.
>
> ]=)
>
>
>
> ]3ret
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 21, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The future financial problems of social security, medicare and
>>>>> medicaid, are all because people are living longer, increasing the
>>>>> years they receive benefits by 2-3 times.
>>>>> I expect that true longevity treatment technology will be held in
>>>>> limbo
>>>>> by the FDA and other governments health ministries until after the
>>>>> baby boom is mostly dead and buried.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about free longevity treatment for the old, but only
>>>> for the people who haven't gone into retirement yet?
>>>> You get to choose between longevity and retirement...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why this distinction?  Many "retired" people are only retired from
>>> needing a paycheck.  They are active on their own projects.  Even if
>>> they are not so active many are not active because their bodies  
>>> don't
>>> easily support them being more active.  Assuming longevity includes
>>> some degree of rejuvenation, why should it be denied to those whir
>>> physically most need it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The distinction is because the retirement system is not set up to  
>> deal
>> with people living unusually long into retirement. It is broken right
>> now because too many people are living longer than the system  
>> intended
>> or expected. It is not structured to vary the retirement age with
>> average life expectancy. Riks proposal is to give potential retirees
>> the choice: accept Social Security benefits or longevity benefits,  
>> not
>> both. This is a good idea, IMHO, but ideally I'd rather up the
>> retirement age immediately (or over a decade) to 70-75, then let it
>> float with the life expectancy. This was attempted partly in the  
>> 90's,
>> when it was upped to 67.
>>
>> Under a floating retirement age scenario, as more people take  
>> longevity
>> treatment, life expectancy goes up, and with it the retirement  
>> age, so
>> you have to take longevity treatments to collect on your social
>> security. The result of this would be that the luddites work  
>> themselves
>> to their graves and those with or who accept pro-longevity POVs
>> survive. This will result in a much more extropic world without
>> coersion.
>>
>> If such a system is enacted, it will be interesting to see the  
>> sort of
>> rationalizations that some luddites will make to justify accepting
>> longevity treatment so that they can 'take the fight for primitivism
>> into the future', to the exclusion of others.... ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike Lorrey
>> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
>> Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
>> http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
>> Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>