basically right, although calling it a "Capitol Hill failure" does rather obscure the fact that it is always possible to run one's pension fund on a prudent and honest basis, and the fact that some companies chose not to would normally be considered to be at least partly their fault, whether or not there was a legal loophole.
best dd -----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Yoshie Furuhashi Sent: 30 October 2005 17:24 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Literature on Pensions? Thanks to Doug and Jim -- will be sure to read Teresa Ghilarducci, look into the references in her articles, and write her. In the meantime, what do you think about this entry from Brad DeLong's blog? <blockquote>I had convinced myself that the PBGC's problems were not the result of moral hazard induced by its existence leading corporations to fund their pension funds with too-risky investments. I had convinced myself that the problem was that Congress (a) allows companies to take money back from the pension fund when stocks went up, while (b) letting them postpone putting money into the pension fund when stocks went down. It's not a market failure, it's a Capitol Hill failure. <http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-2_archives/ 000024.html></blockquote> Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org> * Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: <http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/07/mahmoud- ahmadinejads-face.html>; <http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/07/chvez- congratulates-ahmadinejad.html>; <http://montages.blogspot.com/ 2005/06/iranian-working-class-rejects.html>
