I think you are doing Dean an injustice. His stress on the trust fund stems from its political significance, or at least the significance he would like ascribed to it. Everybody knows any period's benefits are redeemed with current period production (most retirees dissave). Robert Eisner, an old-fashioned Keynesian, used to stress that too. Dean wants to promote the idea that the trust fund is a record of what has been contributed in the name of SS, to which funds retirees have a right on that account. The fund is Property. The basic principle of social insurance.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:50 PM, John Vertegaal <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/13/2010 12:33 PM, Anthony D'Costa wrote: > Imo, Doug hits it right on the head when he writes that: "Today's > retirees are paid by today's workers. Tomorrow's retirees will be paid > by tomorrow's workers." But I don't think this is based on a premise put > forth or implied by Marx, nor of that by Keynes; because any type of > "fund" would be entirely superfluous to that chain of events. > > I find it kind of pitiful that even one of the best and brightest we > have in the fight against the dismantling of SS*, still uses the > efficacy of a SS _fund_ in his argument against that Peterson > (Foundation) hack who maintains that no such fund exist [in practical > terms]. As I see it, in Doug's (and Max's) understanding of reality: the > productivity increases achieved during the productive years of those > just now retiring, which amounts to an almost doubling from when they > started working, is now to be shared by a 3-5% increase in retirees > alive as when compared to that same early period in time. The idea that > society cannot afford that, must rank as one of the most ludicrous > notions ever devised by the right-wing(nuts). > > John V > > *) Dean Baker, Beat the Press - Has the Washington Post gone mad? > 8/11/2010 > > > >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Max Sawicky <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> It all goes to relative rates of growth -- contributor/contribution >> v. beneficiary/benefit. Samuelson formalized this in the 50s, though >> the old-timers (Abraham Epstein, Isaac Max Rubinow) understood it >> from the get-go. >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Doug Henwood <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Bill Lear wrote: >>> >>>> Is there a good refutation for non-specialists of the notion >>>> that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? >>> >>> It's no more so than any pension scheme. Today's retirees are >> paid by today's workers. Tomorrow's retirees will be paid by >> tomorrow's workers. What's Ponzi about that? >>> >>> Doug _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing >>> list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >>> >> _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> >> >> >> >> -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anthony P. D'Costa Professor of >> Indian Studies and Research Director Asia Research Centre Copenhagen >> Business School Dalgas Have 15 DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark Ph: +45 >> 3815 2572 Fax: +45 3815 2500 http://uk.cbs.dk/arc www.cbs.dk/india >> <http://www.cbs.dk/india> >> http://www.thisismodernindia.com/this_is_modern_india_about_us.html >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> !DSPAM:3411,4c659e82177551774115770! >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> >> >> !DSPAM:3411,4c659e82177551774115770! > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
