Re: Bush and O'Reilly, in denial.


"Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote

> It would be for some people. When I was a young college
> professor and paying 5% of my salary to TIAA/CREF,
> the fall in stock prices during the 1970's was good for me.
> My constant dollar monthly purchases bought ever more
> shares.


And when you're a _retired_ college professor, and _selling_ a constant
dollar
amount of your portfolio every month, you will be at exactly the other end
of the stick.


> The difference between stocks and a house is that
> you can live in a house.
> You should buy one whatever the price, but the less it costs,
> the more money you have for other things.


You can live in a big, luxurious house, or you can live in a small,
practical one. To the extent that your retirement plan includes selling the
former and buying the latter, as a way to raise cash, then to _that_ extent
houses are similar to stocks.


> > Why would a "retirement system like US Social Security"
> > have any problem at all in a steady-state (ZPG) environment?
>
> Because it is based on an ever expanding population.
> ZPG would mean an ever falling birth rate
> if people continue to live ever longer.


Wait a minute: SS is _not_ "based on an ever expanding population". It
works just fine if you have steady-state demographics. But, you say, we do
_not_ have steady-state demographics because of this longevity thing.

Okay, but let's be clear about your model:
1. people keep producing children at roughly 1:1 in their 20s and 30s,
2. they keep retiring in their 60s,
3. but they linger into their 90s, 100s, and more, thus overlapping with
multiple generations of their descendants.
Is that what you're saying?

Or, do you believe that medical advances will prolong vitality as well as
longevity, so that people destined to live to 120 feel way too young to
retire at 65?

In either case, do you postulate a literally "ever-increasing" longevity, or
are we merely in transition to some higher, but finite, steady-state length
of lifespan?


> I think most people think (mistakenly it would seem)
> that Social Security is for their retirement.
> Whatever SS is supposed to "insure" you against
> could be handled by an insurance policy.
> (and what does Social Security insure me against?)


Utter poverty in your old age. "Income mobility" works both ways despite
your resolute denial of the fact. You may think it's unlikely that your
private investments will go bust. But it's equally unlikely that the
Chinese Army will invade Winsconsin, and yet we collectively fund an
insurance program against _that_ possibility.


> The concept of "collective insurance against _disease" sound fine.
> The devil is in the details, and especially when politicians want to
> restrict MY medicine and treatments to those which THEY consider
> to be morally acceptable to THEM.


The only politicians who want to restrict your medical options are the
Bible-thumpers who value embryos more than human beings. The nasty ol'
libruls may put limits on what collective health insurance would _pay_ for,
but not on what _you_ can pay for.

-- TP




.