>A while ago, Max suggested in what I thought was a mocking tone
>that representing Social Security as "unfunded liabilities" makes
>as much sense as representing it as present value. But Feldstein
>takes the proposition in all seriousness.
>
>Also, I remember Doug Henwood saying that we have more capital
>than we know what to do with, thus money is thrown at high risk
>ventures all over the globe.
>
>So, my question is two-fold. How seriously can Social Security
>be figured as present value? And second, are our capitalists
>so starved for cash they need Social Security, as Feldstein's
>arguments would imply?
I think it's silly to apply PV analysis to Social Security, because it's not an accumulation today for liquidation tomorrow, but a program for today's recipients funded by today's workers (and tomorrow's recpients by tomorrow's workers).
It's possible the U.S. elite is getting nervous about all that foreign capital that's kept the boom going. Somehow, someday, the U.S. is going to have to start living within its means, and that means lower consumption and higher savings. There are a lot of devils in the details to be worked out, though.
Doug