Krugman rips von Mises up one side & down the other

[Bfgrn]

SS isn't insurance. It's a retirement system.

It is more than 'a retirement system' It is social insurance.

Social insurance is any government-sponsored program with the following four characteristics:

• the benefits, eligibility requirements and other aspects of the program are defined by statute;
• explicit provision is made to account for the income and expenses (often through a trust fund);
• it is funded by taxes or premiums paid by (or on behalf of) participants (although additional sources of funding may be provided as well); and
• the program serves a defined population, and participation is either compulsory or the program is subsidized heavily enough that most eligible individuals choose to participate.[1]

Social insurance has also been defined as a program where risks are transferred to and pooled by an organization, often governmental, that is legally required to provide certain benefits.[2]

In the U.S., programs that meet these definitions include Social Security, Medicare, the PBGC program, the railroad retirement program and state-sponsored unemployment insurance programs.[1] The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is also a social insurance program.

That's all true. However, the economics of SS replicates that of a defined contribution pension plan, not insurance.

Insurance is where the insured pays an amount to transfer risk to the insurer in case of an adverse event. Life insurance, car insurance, home insurance, etc., are all examples of insurance that pays out when an adverse event occurs. (Technically, "insurance" is for an event that isn't certain, i.e a car accident or house fire. "Assurance" is for something that will happen, i.e. death. However, "insurance" is often interchanged for "assurance.")

A retirement system is when people save money to use in the future. In a defined contribution pension plan, people pool their savings to invest and draw down in the future. Their benefits are dependent upon the amount they pay into the plan and their benefits, i.e. how long they live, death benefits, etc.

Whatever one wishes to name SS, the economics of it most resembles that of a defined contribution pension plan. That's one reason why it should be like a defined contribution pension plan, as is done in a few other countries such as Canada.

But SSI also includes medical coverage (Medicare), disability coverage and unemployment.

 

[Toro]

But SSI also includes medical coverage (Medicare), disability coverage and unemployment.

I don't believe unemployment is funded through SS. I think that's at the state level.

I was specifically addressing the retirement portion of SS. Programs such as disability and medical coverage are insurance programs.

 

[bendog]

Soc Sec will pay survivor benefits to workers who die before retirement age and leave behind spouses and children under 19. It will also pay SSDI, disability, to workers and children of workers who had enough quarters paid in before becoming disabled.

SSI, supplemental security income, is administered by Soc Sec, but it is not funded by Soc Sec taxes, but rather general revenues.

Unemployment Insurance is basically funded through a state collected tax on employers. Typically extensions to benefits are paid by the feds with deficit dollars.

 

[Bfgrn]

But SSI also includes medical coverage (Medicare), disability coverage and unemployment.

I don't believe unemployment is funded through SS. I think that's at the state level.

I was specifically addressing the retirement portion of SS. Programs such as disability and medical coverage are insurance programs.

However it is defined, it is essential. And folks here who have called for an end to SSI, Medicare and disability are NOT moderates.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[bendog]

Soc Sec is simply a wealth transfer mechanism designed to take wages and give them to workers, or dependents, who either aged out of working or were injured or killed to keep the non-working workers from falling into poverty. Those who oppose this on ideological grounds trot out untrue, or half true, arguments that "it is not a good investment" when it is not designed to be an investment. Or, "I can make more on my own," which is possibly true assuming they are higher end earners who will never die young or become disabled. Or "the trust fund is going broke," when if we removed the cap on higher earners there'd be no lack of funding.

 

[haissem123]

what's the point of this post? who's krugman? All I know is this system of economics, as many in the top of this pyramid scheme know too, isn't ever gonna work. it's just a charade.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thanks to Krugman and Obama over 100MM Americans are on some form of public assistance...that's Progressive economies at its best

Did Krugman and Obama cause the financial meltdown and the worst recession since 1929? Did Krugman and Obama cause the baby boom? Did Krugman and Obama cause Reagan to sign Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984?

The category is: things that happened because of Obama's Presidency

Fannie and Freddie have had record profits these past few years!!! All the banks are making record profits, the only one still whining are the Obama Fluffers

Booooooooooosh...we inherited...wahhhwahhhhwahhhhhh

 

[bendog]

Frank, you had to count soc sec and medicare to get to your 100m figure.

But, unwittingly, you answer Haissem's question. Von Mises' theory may well have countered the BushII credit implosion (and it was caused in large parts by his policies or lack thereof, and those policies themselves would run afoul of von Mises ideology). However, for the theory to work, individuals must act in accord with what von Mises predicts. And, the monetarists like Friedman detailed that people don't, so the Fed has to act. However, the effect has been to enrich the bankers and not the rest of us. Of course, we staved on 1932.

 

[bripat9643]

SS isn't insurance. It's a retirement system.

It is more than 'a retirement system' It is social insurance..

It's welfare, in other words.

Social insurance is any government-sponsored program with the following four characteristics:

• the benefits, eligibility requirements and other aspects of the program are defined by statute;
• explicit provision is made to account for the income and expenses (often through a trust fund);
• it is funded by taxes or premiums paid by (or on behalf of) participants (although additional sources of funding may be provided as well); and
• the program serves a defined population, and participation is either compulsory or the program is subsidized heavily enough that most eligible individuals choose to participate.[1].

Welfare meets those conditions.

[Social insurance has also been defined as a program where risks are transferred to and pooled by an organization, often governmental, that is legally required to provide certain benefits.[2]

In the U.S., programs that meet these definitions include Social Security, Medicare, the PBGC program, the railroad retirement program and state-sponsored unemployment insurance programs.[1] The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is also a social insurance program.

Another more accurate way to define it is looting, organzid plunder.

ACFD meets the definition. Virtually every socialist government boondoggle meets the definition.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dispatching rw economists in his spare time: like shootin' fish in a barrell

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/useless-expertise/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

Ludwig von Mises - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Economic historian Bruce Caldwell writes that in the mid-20th century, with the ascendance of positivism and Keynesianism, Mises came to be regarded by many as the "archetypal 'unscientific' economist." In a 1957 review of his book The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, The Economist said of von Mises: "Professor von Mises has a splendid analytical mind and an admirable passion for liberty; but as a student of human nature he is worse than null and as a debater he is of Hyde Park standard." Conservative commentator Whittaker Chambers published a similarly negative review of that book in the National Review, stating that Mises's thesis that anti-capitalist sentiment was rooted in "envy" epitomized "know-nothing conservatism" at its "know-nothingest."

Whittaker Chambers also dispatched Ayn Rand's scrivenings as well

Krugman is a fraud. He is a partisan hack and cannot even be considered a legitimate economist.

 

[bendog]

Can't be welfare. To get Soc Sec benefits, a worker must have worked a set period of time. However, benefits are not equal. Higher earners pay more in. Less than they had to pay in back when the law was first enacted, and arguably a lot less than is now warranted under the theory that supported the law in the first place. But some get a higher % of benefits to dollars paid in than do others. That is not disputable.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, Keynesianism is pure Voo Doo. None of it's claims have ever been demonstrated in any way. In fact, the empirical evidence shows them all to be false.

Be that as it may, Krugman isn't even a legitimate Keynesian. Krugman is a fraud, from start to finish.

 

[Toro]

It's not welfare.

It becomes welfare, however, if SS is changed such that people start contributing more than they would otherwise receive. Democrats have talked about raising taxes on upper earners and not giving them increased SS benefits as a way to fund the projected shortfall in the trusts. Then it becomes welfare.

 

[Toro]

But SSI also includes medical coverage (Medicare), disability coverage and unemployment.

I don't believe unemployment is funded through SS. I think that's at the state level.

I was specifically addressing the retirement portion of SS. Programs such as disability and medical coverage are insurance programs.

However it is defined, it is essential. And folks here who have called for an end to SSI, Medicare and disability are NOT moderates.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

I think SS is very necessary. I just don't think it's well configured.

 

[bendog]

Noble prize for economics, professor at Princeton. He's obviously a poser.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Krugman lives "rent-free" in [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION] 's head

Its SO obvious that you secretly admire the Nobel Laureate

Giving Krugman a Nobel prize in Economics would be like giving Obama a Nobel prize in Peace.......

 

[bendog]

It's not welfare.

It becomes welfare, however, if SS is changed such that people start contributing more than they would otherwise receive. Democrats have talked about raising taxes on upper earners and not giving them increased SS benefits as a way to fund the projected shortfall in the trusts. Then it becomes welfare.

No offense but that makes no sense. Prior to the 80s, top earners paid in more than they do now. As part of the Reagan reforms, the taxes were lowered on the rich, but broadened on all of us. The Reagan reforms ran their course. The dems call to restore the taxes to original levels. It's no more welfare than it was in the 30s.

 

[bendog]

Krugman lives "rent-free" in [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION] 's head

Its SO obvious that you secretly admire the Nobel Laureate

Giving Krugman a Nobel prize in Economics would be like giving Obama a Nobel prize in Peace.......

Gosh, I never saw that coming.

 

[Dot Com]

Why Righties claim to be experts on economics is puzzling as all of their econ idols have been proven to be dreamers w/o any real world data to back up their zany theories.

 

[Toro]

It's not welfare.

It becomes welfare, however, if SS is changed such that people start contributing more than they would otherwise receive. Democrats have talked about raising taxes on upper earners and not giving them increased SS benefits as a way to fund the projected shortfall in the trusts. Then it becomes welfare.

No offense but that makes no sense. Prior to the 80s, top earners paid in more than they do now. As part of the Reagan reforms, the taxes were lowered on the rich, but broadened on all of us. The Reagan reforms ran their course. The dems call to restore the taxes to original levels. It's no more welfare than it was in the 30s.

I meant FICA taxes, not all taxes.