Re: Bush and O'Reilly, in denial.


"Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote

> Yes, a fall in housing prices would not be a disaster.
> Would it be bad for
> housing to become "more affordable"?


Depends. A fall in _stock_ prices would make stocks "more affordable".
Would that be a good thing, too?


> But as to your more general point: I agree that
> at some point population must stop growing.
> Sure ZPG would/does create some problems.
> As with a retirement system like US Social Security
> based on a wage tax. But the problems caused by ZPG
> are less than the problems caused by unlimited
> population growth.


Why would a "retirement system like US Social Security" have any problem at
all in a steady-state (ZPG) environment? Each generation would be the same
size. Each generation could support its parents with the same fraction of
its income as every other generation. What's hard to understand about that?
What's bad about it?


> ???? The demographic problem with US Social Security
> has been obvious since before Barry Goldwater point it out in 1964.
> The real problem is that
> politicians are afraid to deal with it (3rd rail and all).


The "demographic problem", please note, is exactly that we face the
_opposite_ of a steady-state condition. The baby boom was what systems
engineers call a _transient_. A system's transient response is different
from (but related to) its steady-state response. It's usually dumb to
change your _system_, permanently, just to deal with a transient.


> Bush at least had the nerve to raise the issue. And got slapped down for
> that. But the issue will be back ;-(


Bush had the nerve to push privatization as "the" solution, and _that's_ why
he got slapped down. People are not dumb. They appreciate, as you do not,
the _insurance_ aspect of a _Social_ Security system.


> I agree. Politicians should not come between doctor and patient.


Between patient and insurer, OTOH ....
There's an old line to the effect that the US government is a big insurance
agency with a side business in military operations. It's usually meant to
illustrate the relative magnitude of "entitlements" versus "defense". But
let's turn it around for a minute: our military _is_ insurance. It is
insurance for "our way of life", which includes divorce, gambling, liquor,
porn, and reality shows on TV, as well as the NYSE and the USPTO. We agree
that everybody ought to chip in to the premium for _this_ insurance policy,
and we don't try to assign individuals to different "risk pools" when it
comes to invasion by foreign armies or assaults by foreign terrorists. Why
then do we think that collective insurance against _disease_ would be so
terrible?

-- TP


.

Loading