Back in 1994(?) a "Yalie" Ph.D. pal of mine, who knew I had a gut reaction against the privatization of social security, lent me a copy of LBO #67. That issue contains the sidebar, Is Social Security really going under? Bingo! The light bulb went on when I read the sidebar!
John, I was no great student in my college days at uknown U. I probably spent more time asleep than awake in classes, but, I did manage to get through the ordeal.
The whole problem with the social security debate is that the majority of college graduates are willing to take advantage of the illiterate and uneducated.
Your email pal,
Tom L.
"John K. Taber" wrote:
> Nobody has commented on Doug's LBO article, "Sloth and discipline".
> I liked it very much but I suspect Doug's thinking hasn't jelled
> yet between dismissing the Social Security Administration's
> economic projections as "preposterously glum" or accepting them
> as having some "unstated logic" that would make them in some
> sense true.
>
> For the sake of argument, let me assert that they are true to
> see what unstated logic we can find.
>
> First, the SSA projections do not use past performance. They
> used their demographic projections to figure the size of the
> working population, some unexplained projection of low growth
> in worker's productivity, and some unexplained projection of
> a low immigration rate.
>
> Second, their projections must have troubled the SSA actuaries
> because they called in outside experts to examine their methods.
> This in approx 1993-1994. Their report is available at
> ftp://www.ssa.gov as am.exe. Download it and execute it to get
> a printout.
>
> The experts had quibbles, and made the important point that
> there is no chance that any single part of the projections
> can be correct. But, in essence the experts found nothing
> wrong with the SSA methods.
>
> I take that as a strong endorsement.
>
> So, can we as an exercise assume that GDP will likely grow
> anemically at about 1.4%, and degrading towards the end of the
> seven decades to 1.2%?
>
> And can we assume that Dean Baker's projection of equity
> returns will be halved from the historical 7% to 3.5%?
> Where will that leave us?
>
> And take it from there?
>
> Suppose that an unstated goal of our leaders *is* a near
> stagnant economy? Is suspecting that so crazy on my part?
>
> --
> Man kann nicht auf zwei Tänze mit einem Popo tanzen.