« The Kids Aren't All That Interested | Main | A Talent for Torture »
March 12, 2005
Defense Savings Accounts
This week's TNR features dueling pieces on Social Security. The second, by Jon Chait, is a principled case for obstructionism, hitting all the points you blog-readers have now committed to memory. The first, however, is by Greg Mankiw, former Chair of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, and it argues -- I'm not making this up -- that Social Security privatization is a good thing because he and his colleagues at Harvard have similar pension plans (also known as 401(k)s and they like them fine.
Excuse me?
Putting aside the ivory-tower elitism that should have O'Reilly rushing to retch, can conservative arguments reach any lower? Maybe we should stop funding defense, just for a single year, and give each American an equal share of the savings, which would mean everyone gets a check for $1,332.43. With that money, they can invest in stocks, weapons, whatever they want. It'll be an enormous economic boost, allow consumers to make wise decisions for the future (defense or assets? Hmmm...), and best of all, not touch the deficit in any way! We can encourage savings by making the giveaway tax free so long as they're socked away in -- you guys will love this! -- Defense Savings Accounts! Damn are we gonna create wealth!
That's a good idea, isn't it? So why don't we do it? Well, it's risky. Even if we didn't tell the rest of the world that the money was coming from Defense, there's always the possibility that we could be attacked. I mean, it's rare that attacks are launched on our soil, and even when they are, we're generally unable to stop them, but you don't want to take the risk, you know?
And that's why I'm genuinely interested in the conservative pathology on this. Because they do know that. So why is it so tough for them to understand that Social Security is a system of insurance, not a wealth creation program? I have no problem with wealth creation, hell, I think we need a lot more of it. And I'm a fan of many of the excellent plans floating around that'll do just that. But we can repeal the tax cuts or not launch wars or something if funding one of those is our aim. But all the wealth creation in the world can't compete with a poor economy and a touch of bad luck. That's why Americans need at least one layer of protection between them and the fluctuations of fate.
What's weird is that this is Mankiw speaking, not some hackish Senator; he should have read enough economic history to realize that the stock market occasionally crashes. But it's really the most amazing thing; these otherwise smart folks join the Bush administration and it's like all sense of history or caution is zapped out of their psyche. It's the great sucking sound of our generation. Really one of the stranger phenomena in modern politics.
March 12, 2005 in Social Security | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8343962aa53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Defense Savings Accounts:
Comments
DeLong took on most of Mankiw's hackery. You took on my favorite pet peeve. Stocks pay higher expected returns only because of the extra risk. And as Robert Barro & Gary Becker point out, folks are already taking on the optimal allocation of stocks v. bonds. When David Brooks said liberals don't trust markets, we cried foul. We do but we understand markets. Brooks does not. But Mankiw does, which makes this oped really pathetic.
Posted by: pgl | Mar 12, 2005 2:51:03 PM
"And that's why I'm genuinely interested in the conservative pathology on this."
All individual conservatives believe, that in a pure unregulated economy, that they themselves would be a successful entrepeneur, humiliating the competition in a fair fight. Although they would admit that certainly there would be more losers than winners, individually they believe, because they are good people, that others less righteous would be the losers.
Of course it is an impossible and ridiculous belief, which is why it is a pathology.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Mar 12, 2005 3:33:55 PM
Leaving aside the rest of the article, I just went and looked at the retirement plans of the top 16 national universities in the latest USNews rankings (the rankings are known to be kinda broken, but it's a sample): Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, UPenn (Ivy League), plus Caltech, Duke, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Northwestern, Stanford, UChicago, and Wash U in St. Louis.
Duke, UChicago, and MIT are the only three offering some defined benefit part in their retirement plans. All the others are pure defined contribution. Harvard apparently at one time considered changing to a defined benefit plan but that was derailed by faculty opposition. I haven't looked for the history anywhere else of whether it's always been defined contribution or whether it's switched.
From my experience with the MIT retirement plan (I was a student representative on a faculty committee a few years ago), faculty members on the whole know nothing about types of pension plans. Presumably there are a few faculty who research pensions who might be the exception, but I doubt that extends even to economics or management faculty in general. I'd expect almost any faculty member to say, "Yes, I'll have a pension. I like it just fine. No, I don't really know anything about it; I randomly chose some investments a while ago and the university keeps putting money into them."
Like most people who work for one corporation all their lives and have pensions, faculty don't really care about what their retirement planning looks like. They'll be taken care of. The mindset is a little different for those without tenure.
Posted by: Jade | Mar 12, 2005 5:18:33 PM
What gets me is the dishonesty of the SS privatizers. The plan is not just private accounts. The plan includes DRASTIC CUTS IN BENEFITS. It is dishonest to only talk about private accounts and ignore the other half of the program. It is dishonest to suggest that Democrats object to personal accounts. We don't. I don't. I have personal accounts. I object to DRASTIC CUTS IN SS BENEFITS. The Bush lackey Mankiw says nothing about the cuts, Bush does not mention them, and the press doesn't seem to be swift enough to catch it either.
The Private accounts will create winners and LOSERS. Bush and his lackeys talk up all the great happenings for the winners. They never mention the LOSERS. (must have learned that one in Vegas) WTF happens to the LOSERS? Democrats object to having a country full of old destitute losers. An Honest argument would consider the losers and lay out the drastic cuts. However, this is not an honest argument. It is a Snow Job.
And if your University makes you put your 401 in TIAA-CREF, just peek at the 5 year returns for CREF. THEY ARE ALMOST ALL NEGATIVE..WTF!!
Even the YTDs are negative except global (the $ sucks).
http://www.tiaa-cref.org/
They make up some BS numbers about return on private account investment. What if the next 20 years is not much better than the last 5?
Remember, before the destitute elderly had Social Security, they had Bonnie and Clyde.
Posted by: bakho | Mar 12, 2005 10:04:12 PM
Those poor, poor, Econ 101 students . . .
Posted by: ItAintEazy | Mar 13, 2005 1:47:14 AM
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
Posted by: peter.w | Sep 15, 2007 5:26:57 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.