Best of the Week
Most Popular
1. Market Decline Will Lead To Pension Collapse, USD Devaluation, And NWO - Raymond_Matison
2.Uber’s Nightmare Has Just Started - Stephen_McBride
3.Stock Market Crash Black Swan Event Set Up Sept 12th? - Brad_Gudgeon
4.GDow Stock Market Trend Forecast Update - Nadeem_Walayat
5.Gold Significant Correction Has Started - Clive_Maund
6.British Pound GBP vs Brexit Chaos Timeline - Nadeem_Walayat
7.Cameco Crash, Uranium Sector Won’t Catch a break - Richard_Mills
8.Recession 2020 Forecast : The New Risks & New Profits Of A Grand Experiment - Dan_Amerman
9.Gold When Global Insanity Prevails - Michael Ballanger
10.UK General Election Forecast 2019 - Betting Market Odds - Nadeem_Walayat
Last 7 days
What UK CPI, RPI INFLATION Forecasts for General Election Result 2019 - 11th Dec 19
Gold ETF Holdings Surge… But Do They Actually Hold Gold? - 11th Dec 19
Gold, Silver Reversals, Lower Prices and Our Precious Profits - 11th Dec 19
Opinion Pollsters, YouGov MRP General Election 2019 Result Seats Forecast - 11th Dec 19
UK General Election Tory and Labour Marginal Seats Analysis, Implied Forecast 2019 - 11th Dec 19
UK General Election 2019 - Tory Seats Forecast Based on GDP Growth - 11th Dec 19
YouGov's MRP Poll Final Tory Seats Forecast Revised Down From 359 to 338, Possibly Lower? - 10th Dec 19
What UK Economy (Average Earnings) Predicts for General Election Results 2019 - 10th Dec 19
Labour vs Tory Manifesto's UK General Election Parliamentary Seats Forecast 2019 - 10th Dec 19
Lumber is about to rally and how to play it with this ETF - 10th Dec 19
Social Mood and Leaders Impact on General Election Forecast 2019 - 9th Dec 19
Long-term Potential for Gold Remains Strong! - 9th Dec 19
Stock and Financial Markets Review - 9th Dec 19
Labour / Tory Manifesto's Impact on UK General Election Seats Forecast 2019 - 9th Dec 19
Tory Seats Forecast 2019 General Election Based on UK House Prices Momentum Analysis - 9th Dec 19
Top Tory Marginal Seats at Risk of Loss to Labour and Lib Dems - Election 2019 - 9th Dec 19
UK House Prices Momentum Tory Seats Forecast General Election 2019 - 8th Dec 19
Why Labour is Set to Lose Sheffield Seats at General Election 2019 - 8th Dec 19
Gold and Silver Opportunity Here Is As Good As It Gets - 8th Dec 19
High Yield Bond and Transports Signal Gold Buy Signal - 8th Dec 19
Gold & Silver Stocks Belie CoT Caution - 8th Dec 19
Will Labour Government Spending Bankrupt Britain? UK Debt and Deficits - 7th Dec 19
Lib Dem Fake Tory Election Leaflets - Sheffield Hallam General Election 2019 - 7th Dec 19
You Should Be Buying Gold Stocks Now - 6th Dec 19
The End of Apple Has Begun - 6th Dec 19
How Much Crude Oil Do You Unknowingly Eat? - 6th Dec 19
Labour vs Tory Manifesto Voter Bribes Impact on UK General Election Forecast - 6th Dec 19
Gold Price Forecast – Has the Recovery Finished? - 6th Dec 19
Precious Metals Ratio Charts - 6th Dec 19
Climate Emergency vs Labour Tree Felling Councils Reality - Sheffield General Election 2019 - 6th Dec 19
What Fake UK Unemployment Statistics Predict for General Election Result 2019 - 6th Dec 19
What UK CPI, RPI and REAL INFLATION Predict for General Election Result 2019 - 5th Dec 19
Supply Crunch Coming as Silver Miners Scale Back - 5th Dec 19
Gold Will Not Surpass Its 1980 Peak - 5th Dec 19
UK House Prices Most Accurate Predictor of UK General Elections - 2019 - 5th Dec 19
7 Year Cycles Can Be Powerful And Gold Just Started One - 5th Dec 19
Lib Dems Winning Election Leaflets War Against Labour - Sheffield Hallam 2019 - 5th Dec 19
Do you like to venture out? Test yourself and see what we propose for you - 5th Dec 19
Great Ways To Make Money Over Time - 5th Dec 19
Calculating Your Personal Cost If Stock, Bond and House Prices Return To Average - 4th Dec 19

Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

UK General Election Forecast 2019

Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?

Politics / US Politics Sep 21, 2011 - 04:48 AM GMT

By: Robert_Murphy

Politics

Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleEver since Rick Perry derided Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, economists and other pundits have jumped into the fray. Progressive blogger Matt Yglesias says it's "nuts" for anyone to talk like this, because Social Security merely relies on future economic growth — just like a private pension plan. Free-market economist Alex Tabarrok responded to Yglesias with links to arch-Keynesians (and Nobel laureates) Paul Samuelson and Paul Krugman, both comparing Social Security to a "Ponzi game."


In the present article I have three aims: First, I will point out that the critics are right; to the extent that Social Security "worked," it was because of its resemblance to a classic Ponzi scheme. Second, I will show how private-sector retirement planning operates nothing like this. Third, I will defend the good name of Charles Ponzi from the scurrilous comparisons — what he did was nothing like the racket known as Social Security.

Social Security's "Ponzi Game Aspects"
Paul Krugman is a famous guy with a long record of strong opinions. It's to be expected that periodically these will come back to bite him. His usual tack is to deny that his old columns meant what their plain-word reading would indicate. For example, Krugman can't believe anybody thought this column (from 2002) should be construed as his endorsement of Greenspan trying to create a housing bubble.

When it comes to Social Security, here's what Krugman wrote in late 1996:

Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).

As with his unfortunate housing-bubble article, here too Krugman has had to do damage control. After the above column floated around the Internet, Krugman tried to quell the giggling, claiming that anyone who tried to use him in support of Republican claims was playing "word games." Krugman then gave a link to this fascinating history of the original Ponzi scheme, courtesy of — the Social Security Administration! (It seems they must get this a lot.)

I was curious to see how the Social Security Administration would defend itself from the charge that it was a Ponzi scheme. Here's what they say:

In contrast to a Ponzi scheme, dependent upon an unsustainable progression, a common financial arrangement is the so-called "pay-as-you-go" system. Some private pension systems, as well as Social Security, have used this design. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end.…

There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends.…

As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

Contrary to the claims of Yglesias, Krugman, and the Social Security Administration, I don't think the "Ponzi scheme" charge is unfair in the slightest. When critics say Social Security is "unsustainable," they quite obviously mean that it can't keep up the current taxing and benefit schedules. Either taxes on workers will go up, promised benefits will be reduced, or some combination of the two. Krugman's 1996 column confirms that analysis, and the Social Security Administration's pipeline does too.

Up until now, retirees have been taking out more than they put in, and that can't continue — this pattern relied on finding ever more workers to join the system. In other words, it was a classic Ponzi scheme. I am not here to endorse candidate Rick Perry, but the point of his charge is obviously true: each generation can't keep taking more out of the system than it put in, once the demographics change.

The SSA's pipeline graphic is interesting. If that is ultimately what Social Security turns into, and if each generation of workers merely takes out "what it originally put in," then it means workers will earn a zero-percent (real) return on their "contributions" into the system.

Yes, that would certainly be "sustainable" in an accounting sense (at least with a stable age distribution in the population), but would it work politically? If politicians frankly told voters, "When we take $1,000 from you at age 25, don't worry, that $1,000 will be waiting for you when you're 65," would they be happy with this arrangement? Charles Ponzi too could have made his scheme more sustainable if he promised his investors a 0 percent rate of return, but then nobody would have been interested.

In fairness, Matt Yglesias points out that the pipeline method can yield a positive rate of return. If the workers at the left end of the pipe always pump in, say, 15 percent of their paycheck, then (if productivity grows over time as it normally does) 50 years later, when they are on the other end of the pipe, there will be more dollars shooting out. However, in this scenario we're back to an arrangement where each generation gets out more than it put in — what Krugman himself thought was a "Ponzi game aspect." In any event, Yglesias's framework is still vulnerable to demographic shifts.

Why Private-Sector Retirement Planning Works
The confusion in popular discussions of Social Security partly rests on the general ignorance of how an entire community can actually become richer through saving and investment. In other words, a lot of people believe (whether or not they've really thought it through carefully) that for every Sally out there who's saving $10,000 per year, there must be some Jim who's racking up $10,000 in debt. Therefore, whenever Sally starts living off her savings, people imagine that Jim must be cutting back on his own standard of living. At the communal level — so the thinking goes — everything is a wash, and we're just changing the distribution of "total output" based on which people were frugal and which were spendthrifts.

This mindset is totally wrong. I explain things methodically in chapter 10 of my introductory textbook, but here's the gist: It's possible for everyone in the entire community to "live below his means," that is, to consume less than his income and to save. The economy is then physically capable of reducing the output of consumption goods (TVs, sports cars, steak dinners, etc.) and increasing the output of investment or capital goods (drill presses, fertilizer, MRI machines, etc.). In the future, the larger quantities of various tools and equipment make the workers more productive than they otherwise would have been. That's why the standard of living can rise; the community is physically capable of cranking out more goods and services because of the past investments.

Think of it like this: During his working career, a farmer takes some of his crop every year and uses it to buy a component for a tractor. One year he buys a tire, another year he buys a steering wheel, and so on. After working for 45 years, the farmer is ready to retire. By this point, he has assembled a brand-new tractor. Now he no longer needs to use his labor to earn an income. Instead, he rents out use of the tractor to the younger workers (who otherwise would have to use their bare hands to till the soil, etc.).

From a certain viewpoint, the retired farmer would be "skimming off the top" every time he ate an ear of corn harvested after he no longer worked the fields himself. After all, that corn would be part of that year's harvest, so if the retired farmer ate it, there would be less corn available to the people who actually picked it. Yet the retired man's consumption wouldn't be financed through a "contribution" or "redistribution" from the young workers that year.

On the contrary, those young workers would be earning their full market wage (and if they were smart, they'd be saving some of it for their own retirement). The retired farmer would buy the corn on the open market, with the income he earned from renting out his tractor. There would be more corn to go around because he had spent decades assembling the tractor, and others in his cohort had built up stockpiles of fertilizer, hoes, irrigation equipment, etc.

Obviously my tale isn't realistic, but it serves to get across the essence of voluntary retirement planning. People can get out more than they put in (measured in physical terms) because of what Böhm-Bawerk called the superior physical productivity of roundabout processes. As I complained during the debates over George W. Bush's "privatization" proposals, many supposedly pro-market reformers want to get the magic of compound interest without the discipline of saving for decades.

A (Very Qualified) Defense of Charles Ponzi
Above I've explained why the "Ponzi scheme" accusation is accurate, in the context of modern political debates. However, there is a very important sense in which it is unfair — unfair to Charles Ponzi.

It's true that Ponzi engaged in fraud; his victims never would have "invested" with him, had he accurately explained the business model. Libertarians therefore agree with everybody else that Charles Ponzi was a criminal and would have to face legal consequences in any just legal order.

However, so far as we know Ponzi never threatened anybody. He didn't tell struggling young workers, "Give me 15 percent of your paycheck every week, so that I can make you a fantastic return — or else I'll send goons to kidnap you."

In this respect, Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme after all. It's more analogous to mobsters shaking down people for protection money, because otherwise "bad things could happen."

Conclusion
The complaints about Social Security are accurate: The only reason it has enjoyed such "success" thus far is that it relied on increasing contributions from each new generation of workers. Now that the demographics have turned against the system, it is literally unsustainable. We will see increased taxes on workers, reduced payments to beneficiaries, or some combination of the two.

In the voluntary private sector, people can plan for their own retirement through genuine saving and investment. They don't need to extract concessions from the next generation of workers, because the retirees' prior savings allow the creation of capital goods that will provide income when their bodies no longer can do so.

Finally, in one important respect a classic Ponzi scheme is less dangerous than Social Security: It relies on fooling people into voluntarily handing over their money. Once the fraud is detected, the danger is eliminated. In contrast, American workers have no choice but to "contribute" to Social Security, whether they like the deal or not.

Robert Murphy, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute and a faculty member of the Mises University, runs the blog Free Advice and is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, the Study Guide to Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, the Human Action Study Guide, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal. Send him mail. See Robert P. Murphy's article archives. Comment on the blog.

© 2011 Copyright Robert Murphy - All Rights Reserved Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.


© 2005-2019 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Comments

Carly EngageAmerica
23 Sep 11, 11:04
Make SS Sustainable

Making Social Security sustainable would end the dilemma and put an end to the argument of whether or not the program is a “Ponzi scheme.” Raising the retirement age needs to be done because seniors spend an ever-increasing number of years in retirement, during which taxpayers finance a large fraction of their incomes and medical expenses. The growing length of retirement for men in part reflects a decline in the number of years spent working. Since 1900, male life expectancy at age 20 has risen by 14 years, yet working-life expectancy is currently lower than it was when Theodore Roosevelt was first elected president (http://eng.am/qglaR0).

Furthermore, if Social Security payouts were reduced by 3% or 5% for new beneficiaries, about 18% or 30% (respectively) of the funding shortfall would be eliminated. Also, bigger contributions should be required from workers and employers. Right now they pay 6.2% of earnings up to $106,800, or as much as $6,622 per year, into the Social Security system. If the contribution rate were increased to 7.3% of earnings, Social Security's projected deficit would be eliminated (http://eng.am/rtUMqX ).


Andrew Butter
24 Sep 11, 14:46
Nice to See One Person Who Belives There Is An Option To Armageddon

A lot of people think Mises was against social security, he wasn't, all he cared about was that it was funded properly, you make a good argument.


SC
25 Sep 11, 04:02
SS

Carly,

Indeed. If you want to see how so called future intractable problems can become non events then watch what the Uk is doing with this problem.

1.Retirement ages have already been increased.

2.Future retirement ages have now been brought forward even more so thaose higher age levels become enacted sooner.

3.Payments to the retired have effectively been devalued by shifting the linkage of the payments from RPI to CPI.

4.Changes to funding retirement throughout society and in teh public sector fixed schemes raising the individuals contibution level ever more an ongoing process I suspect.

When you start making changes like this then over time what appear to be fairly modest changes can have major impacts on liabilities.

Really it's all about choices.If you want to be retired longer you need to consume less and save more and of course the reverse holds true as well.


Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in

6 Critical Money Making Rules