Pensions are accounts of who gave up what and what they will get later in return. There are innumerable ways to set the terms for them. One virtue is that they confirm a property right to the worker. Obviously this right can be tenuous, but different terms could make such rights even more tenuous.
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Julio Huato <juliohuato at gmail.com> wrote:
> Carrol wrote:
>
> > The original concept of funding pensions is absurd. They have to be
> > paid out of current taxes, and "funding" them was a scam from the
> > beginning. They should be merely general obligations of the state. No
> > fancy bookkeeping needed.
>
> Browsing the latest in the LBO-Talk archives, I find this by Carrol.
> Since it is seldom that I agree with him on anything, I should jump at
> the chance right here. I happen to be preparing a course in public
> finance for the spring and I was just thinking of the best way to
> share with my students the idea that, on the one hand, the bizarre,
> complex appearance of tax codes and public spending programs was the
> result of, well, political history, in a sense akin to the way in
> which our scars, wrinkles, grimaces, etc. are the layered product of
> our biographies, but also that this appearance served -- even if
> unintendedly -- a mystifying or ideological purpose. And this is
> common to all finance, not just public finance, it gives the
> impression to lay people that the matter is some sort of magic. So,
> the message to regular working people is, "too arcane, leave it to the
> experts." Hogwash.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>