Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.





The linked article is not an anlysis it is a political polemic for the nanny-state. The author argues that social security cannot be in any way privatized because people are just too overwhelmed and overburdened already--none of which premises are supported by anything other than speculation. As a techical analysis it is flawed because apples and oranges are compared consistently. Statements of fact are made with no supporting evidence and deviations from iron-clad conclusions are stated as pure act. For example any social scientist worth his salt would tell you there are at least three ways to measure real income changes over time, and 4 ways to measure nominal income and 8-10 ways to measure income--the author has one answer and never tell how she got it.
The line that got to me was "Rocked by rising prices for essentials as men’s wages remained flat, ". The bozzette did not even have the sense to realize she was mixing real and nominal comparisons. Most essentials have falling prices versus a basket of items people buy, not rising, because of import competition.
Bookmarks