Dr.Rosser called it right, the actuaries projections are "hokey". You can visit the Social Security website and review the projected numbers and the assumptions of the actuaries for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
It would be fun, if we could have a contest to find the most outrageous projection in the actuaries report. I'd be willing to donate some union-rock t-shirts or other USWA paraphernalia to the cause. I'll bet Barkley could come up with a picture of H.D. White or Lauclin Currie suitable for framing. I'd also wager that there would be other donations too and prizes for other aspects of the defense of America's and possibly the world's most successful socialist program.
Sincerely and fraternally, Tom
Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
> Actually the history has been the other way around.
> During the 1980s, Reagan was constantly forecasting the
> disappearance of the budget deficit on the basis of "rosy
> scenario" overoptimistic forecasts of growth rates (based
> on hokey models of what their policies were going to do to
> growth). Anyway, that is the background of the current
> caution by some policymakers about being overly optimistic.
> But then, as Robert Eisner notes, and Paul Davidson is not
> irrelevant here for once, telling people today we must make
> big sacrifices on the basis of hokey forecasts several
> decades into the future is nonsense. (Post) Keynesian
> uncertainty certainly is relevant on this one.
> Barkley Rosser
> On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:10:12 -0400 Brett Knowlton
> <brettk at unica-usa.com> wrote:
>
> > I have to agree with Doug here, although I am curious about one thing. Has
> > there been a history of pessimistic growth rate predictions by the gov't,
> > or is this something new?
> >
> > Brett
> >
> > At 03:42 PM 7/29/98 -0400, you wrote:
> > >Max Sawicky wrote:
> > >
> > >>It remains for us to explain why we'll get
> > >>to 2.5, and why the arguments that we won't
> > >>get there are wrong.
> > >
> > >Seems to me the burden of proof is on someone forecasting a sharp departure
> > >from historical averages, not on those who argue that the future should be
> > >much like the past. (Don't tell Paul Davidson!) Even 2.5% is well below the
> > >average growth rate of the last 75 years.
> > >
> > >Doug
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> --
> Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> rosserjb at jmu.edu