• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Election Law Changes

DeletedUser

As an actuary I feel compelled to tell you this comment is completely wrong. I'll leave the proof as an exercise for the reader.

I am not questioning the mathematics Konrad, the problem with the actuarial studies is that the assumptions are always wrong in the long run. They're valid assumptions at the time of the creation, but they never hold, nothing does. Ergo you can't keep using them. Which is why you have to get them redone for financial statements at least every two years otherwise you've got a lot of garbage on your financial statements. The accountants don't trust your numbers that much. Even the 10 year predictions done by the actuaries in places like the GAO, etc. are deeply flawed because of the assumptions that limit their effectiveness as long term tools. Topic is finance, not actuarial science as a whole. Financial markets NEVER do exactly what you predict. So yeah, after reading hundred and hundreds of financial reports and actuarial assessments, I've yet to see a single one in the financial markets which has held up under long term scrutiny. A few get close, but none get it exactly right. Considering the predictions for insolvency range outwards 17 or more years, depending on who's math you use, particularly if you use the garbage called dynamic scoring, you're gonna be wrong, and the farther out the deadline the more wrong you're gonna be. If you end up close, it's usually for the wrong reasons, so you're not right, it's like yelling out a number as an answer to a basic mathematical equation, if you have enough people yelling, 1 is bound to get it. But that doesn't make the underlying assumptions they used to get there correct. One of the biggest problems here though, isn't the actuary themselves, but that companies and governments continue to use excessively high expected return rates and have not adjusted for changes to the market which are more reflective of what they actually get over time. Actuaries are paid to use those numbers, which means some of the fault for the actuary being wrong is entirely in the hands of management who wanted a particular assumption used. Actuaries, like other specialists, have to keep clients happy.
 

DeletedUser13838

I am not questioning the mathematics Konrad, the problem with the actuarial studies is that the assumptions are always wrong in the long run. They're valid assumptions at the time of the creation, but they never hold, nothing does. Ergo you can't keep using them. Which is why you have to get them redone for financial statements at least every two years otherwise you've got a lot of garbage on your financial statements.

The reason I was being snarky in my comment is because this is not really related to elections but I'll just say this. In many cases, actuarial assumptions are set by law. It really depends on the context. In the private sector, the profession is trying to move to a principles based approach but NY is a big roadblock.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Between the FED, the GAO, the SEC, FASB, and GASB, (not to mention everyone else's opinion) I've got enough rules to keep me reading until about 3 years after the end of the universe, and most of them read like academic pet projects gone bad. Trust me, i know the folks up there are a huge problem. i'm about to pull my hair out on some of the more recent "good ideas" I've seen come down the pipeline. But we're derailing from the original point too far so I'll stop here.
 

DeletedUser23123

To many big words for me here. I just vote out people who want to raise taxes so they can have a bus route in their neighborhood. And if the next one does something just as stupid. I vote that one out too. OK back to Mushaph00 Laws. 1 out of 5. Sorry. #1 - More days to vote. We somewhat already have that. Early Voting. #2 Voting ID No. Homeless Vet has the right to vote. Plus to much about bio stuff. Quite frankly it was a hard choice. There just some people who shouldn't be voting at all. "We looking for Obama money." Just making a point. #3 No. Although some states should just break apart. New York, California, maybe even Texas. #4 Was a tough one. Had to read it twice. Can live with this one. But, I hate Joe Biden guts. #5 Had to say no. 1 term only. If you can't fix it during you your term. You won't be able to do anything else. I would also recommend a salary caps of no more than 25,000 a year. I live on at most 18,000 a year for 20 years. And that with out daddy's money on stand by. That all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cbalto1927

Active Member
To many big words for me here. I just vote out people who want to raise taxes so they can have a bus route in their neighborhood. And if the next one does something just as stupid. I vote that one out too. OK back to Mushaph00 Laws. 1 out of 5. Sorry. #1 - More days to vote. We somewhat already have that. Early Voting. #2 Voting ID No. Homeless Vet has the right to vote. Plus to much about bio stuff. Quite frankly it was a hard choice. There just some people who shouldn't be voting at all. "We looking for Obama money." Just making a point. #3 No. Although some states should just break apart. New York, California, maybe even Texas. #4 Was a tough one. Had to read it twice. Can live with this one. But, I hate Joe Biden guts. #5 Had to say no. 1 term only. If you can't fix it during you your term. You won't be able to do anything else. I would also recommend a salary caps of no more than 25,000 a year. I live on at most 18,000 a year for 20 years. And that with out daddy's money on stand by. That all.


I agree with number 2 about voter;s ID. In my home state ratio of persons with homes and homeless are lopsided. There are way more homeless than the ones that does have a home. A mailing address and name is all what a Voter's Registrar would need to know. When I registered to vote many years ago, all they asked was a mailing address or a place to stay at least 6 months. State ID or Driver's License isn't required but preferred. AS for Bio ID, Americans in general considered this a "touchy" issue. I am sure you would hear alot of religious groups would call this " Mark of the Beast" in order to gain more access. I don't know if you recall about airlines issue. Homeland security wanted everyone to have Bio ID attached to their State/Driver's License ID. Many States objected to it. That what i meant by gearing toward to " Police state".
 

DeletedUser23123

I am sure you would hear alot of religious groups would call this " Mark of the Beast" in order to gain more access.

A LOT. I live in Tennessee of all places. Originally from Cleveland Ohio. Talk about a major flip in living. Can't even get a pizza delivered here. There more churches than gas stations. The problem with this town is Voters ID is a Yes here. Because we are getting more retires moving here they're bringing their old habits with them. Want more cops, IDs and more government intervention. Most came from Michigan "Hum" When I first move here. You could ride your lawn mower for about a mile before hitting any traffic. Now they turn some of these back road into state roads. And, I do know "Police States". Live in Wisconsin and Illinois. Hated IT.
 
Top