[ExI] More economist failures
pharos at gmail.com
Wed Aug 10 11:29:00 UTC 2016
On 10 August 2016 at 02:26, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> Assuming that happens (which it might, but I don't have good data one way or
> another), I'd say "because" instead of "when".
> "Pensioners, you can either hang on to this bankrupt (implication: not going
> to give you anything forever, ignoring chance of recovery) scheme which is
> costing us a lot, or accept this alternative that costs us much less."
Hmmm. I haven't thought that central planners might *intend* to
abolish private retirement schemes, without actually passing
legislation to do that. (Of course it would be impossible to get
public support for a plan to abolish private pension schemes). Perhaps
they accept it as an inevitable consequence of their struggle to
support the failing banking system.
Obviously this upheaval would also affect current workers already in
pension schemes, not just pensioners.
No pension schemes means 'work till you die', with perhaps a
government basic income for those unable to work. Government employee
pensions should be protected as governments can always print more
money, though that may cause other problems as the sums required could
Changing demographics (more old people, fewer workers) will also make
pension schemes less viable.
And then there will be fewer in employment anyway, as robot technology
takes over the means of production.
Looks like a Basic Income for most people will become inevitable
(after much sturm und drang).
More information about the extropy-chat