[ExI] The ultimate test of your transhumanist convictions...

[Damien Sullivan]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:44:54PM +0100, Ross Evans wrote:

>    Productive deployment of capital now will always beat passive
>    investment for the future. Pensions plans are the only way a person on
>    average income can ever hope to accumulate a fund big enough to
>    provide a meaningful retirement income. These plans basically involve
>    playing the stock market, and as such their performance cannot be

One person's 'playing' the stock market is another's productive
deployment of capital -- the productiveness of which generally can't be
guaranteed.

>    guaranteed. The reality is that people on average incomes cannot
>    afford to set aside a sufficient amount of capital for a retirement
>    plan that does not resort to casino capitalism to make returns. The

But a plan, like a mutual fund, can spread the risk across a large
population and longer time.  A guaranteed-benefit plan also can also
take advantage of averages: a risk-averse individual planning for
retirement via her own accounts needs to worry about living to be 95,
which is inefficient if everyone does it, but a plan can target for the
average life expectancy.

>    whole pension system is predicated upon actuarial assumptions that no
>    longer hold true; it was never envisaged that people would live 20+

I think you're confusing things.  I'm sure private plans price their
premiums with the latest actuarial data.  Public plans are less flexible
in their benefits, but conversely more flexible in their funding.

Also, while life past retirement has increased, so has productivity.
Plans aren't all that bankrupt, despite propaganda.  As for Europe, some
countries have retirement at 60; there's a flaw here, but it's not with
the basic idea of pensions.

-xx- Damien X-)