Anyway....
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.
No, I think they're nonsense. I thought I made that clear in the article in #87 <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/AntisocInsec.html>.
>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.
When projections of the future differ profoundly from a long historical record, I think the burden of proof is on someone projecting the profound departure. The demographic assumptions are improbably bearish (including population growth projections about half that of the Census Bureau's, and a shrinkage in the employment/population ratio in violation of all historical precedent). The productivity projections don't take account of the fact that population growth and productivity growth usually move in opposite directions; they've got them both moving down towards 0. They also don't explain why their growth projections have moved steadily downwards since the early 1980s. What's changed to justify this?
>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.
The methods may be fine; the assumptions are lunatic. Who will audit the auditors?
>Suppose that an unstated goal of our leaders *is* a near
>stagnant economy? Is suspecting that so crazy on my part?
That would be disastrous for the bourgeoisie, who'd see profits shrivel, and it would be political dynamite. The growth rates they're projecting imply 75 years of near depression, which would mean economic, political, and social crisis. It's impossible to believe they want that. The U.S. masses may be quiescent and pliant, but they're not that quiescent and pliant.
Doug