Max wrote:
>There is NO regard of the fact that diverting the 2% from the trust fund
>(known as a 'carve-out') makes the bankruptcy 'problem' much worse, much
>sooner, and does nothing for the ROR within SocSec. So PK is right, there
>is no plan. It's nice to see MF go
>on the record to that
. . .
PK goes on to critique the Feldstein/Samwick paper. I think he's totally
right here: the F/S paper has the Bush-like plan running down the social
security trust fund much faster than is currently expected. But then the
benefits of the plan -- which are based on a theory that's very simil
Max wrote:
>The SS problem, such as it is, is rather a matter of reassigning claims to
>output, not augmenting output per se.
the gov't may not know about stimulating long-term supply-side growth, but
they should.
>More claims must be assigned to beneficiaries for benefits to be payable,
>and
One way of boiling this down is to note that
the SS crisis is typically seen as one entailing
too little economic output for a growing, non-
productive population. Hence the metaphor of
saving and recouping later, expanding the pie, etc.
But in fact the mainstream economic models indicate
that s
I doubt it, but this was a particularly well-done column.
mbs
>
>
> today's column [May 17, 2000] is a case where PK is accurate, applying
> economic logic where it's appropriate (criticizing George W. Bush's
> proposal to put Social Security dollars into the stock market. This is a
> big im
