• Scattered clouds
  • 61°
    Scattered clouds
http://sealaska.com
  • Comment

Endless economic growth is its own Ponzi scheme

Posted: September 22, 2011 - 12:08am

It didn’t take long for Texas Gov. Rick Perry to back away from his accusation that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It turned out to be a lighting rod that’s too hot to hold. Now he’s merely saying that the nation’s “elected leaders must have the strength to speak frankly about entitlement reform.” And if they find the courage to do that, maybe they’ll also admit that our entire growth based economic system has been an entitlement that’s not sustainable either.

First of all, Social Security doesn’t have the fraudulent characteristics that define a Ponzi scheme. It wasn’t conceived to enrich its creators at the expense of working Americans. However, there are similarities between the two that makes Perry’s analogy worth considering. In 1996 Paul Krugman, a liberal columnist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, wrote that the redistribution of wealth occurs “because of its Ponzi game aspect in which each generation takes more out than it put in.”

For hard line conservatives, wealth redistribution is code for socialist welfare. That’s probably why Perry would like to see Social Security dismantled. But in reality, neither Perry nor Krugman are suggesting that we should abandon the program entirely. To them, it’s a matter of restructuring how revenue is generated and benefits paid out. They probably differ on whether it should be administered by federal or state governments or put completely into the hands of the private sector. Right now, though, it’s a massive federal program. So in any scenario the repair work has to begin in the nation’s capital.

It didn’t have to be this way. At least 30 states recognized the need for an old age pension system before passage of the Social Security Act of 1935. In fact, in 1915 Alaska’s territorial government enacted the first such legislation that wasn’t challenged on the grounds it was unconstitutional.

Despite these efforts, retirement benefits were only being paid to about 3 percent of the senior population. Then the Great Depression took hold of the nation, plunging more than half of them into poverty. So the federal government, led by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal administration, took the reins.

In 1935 no one anticipated World War II or the baby-boom economy that would follow. So they might be excused for not predicting its long-term impact on the Social Security Trust Fund. But that we’ve been irresponsibly ignoring the baby boomer effect since then isn’t unique to the retirement issue. And if we examine the history of home ownership we’ll find the same Ponzi-like feature that Krugman explained 15 years ago.

This economic story parallels that of Social Security. For the 40 years preceding World War II, only about 40 percent of the American population owned homes. But after the baby boom began, the rate of home ownership steadily increased until it peaked at about 69 percent in 2004.

During the same time period, median home values outpaced inflation by a staggering 325 percent. That means for decades homeowners have been able to bank incredible gains in home equity, much of which was financed by the succeeding generations of first-time home buyers.

Meanwhile, in 60 years, median income has increased a paltry 9 percent in real dollars. This drastic decline in wages relative to property values means fewer and fewer people will be financially capable of purchasing a home. They’ll be living in tenant housing, which will in turn leave a serious shortage of home buyers. So today’s younger generation of homeowners could get saddled with property that’s not worth the value of their mortgages.

Social Security isn’t the only long-term insolvency issue threatening the economic future of today’s working class Americans. The housing sector has serious problems too. And both are examples of a system that depends on the fantasy of limitless growth to finance the present without regard for the future.

We’ve had six decades of believing we’re entitled to live beyond our means. And we’ve done more than borrow money. We’ve used up more than our fair share of vital resources. Paraphrasing Perry, to tell our kids that the economy we’ve built will benefit them in the years ahead is a monstrous lie.

• Moniak is a Juneau resident.

  • Comment

Comments (2)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
john11
0
Points
john11 09/22/11 - 09:06 am
0
0

you could say

The Emporer has no clothes.

swimmergirl
4368
Points
swimmergirl 09/22/11 - 11:29 am
0
0

I agree with much of this article....

First, I think any candidate who makes sweeping statements like 'dismantling social security' or 'getting rid of the department of education' - has clearly not thought carefully about what that would mean to all of the players involved - and should be an immediate red flag.

Second - I have a moral problem with taking what essentially is a promise that workers have paid into for 30, 40, or even 50 years in good faith (this includes the public retirement systems the Republicans are so against) and telling them at the end of that 40 years, "Tough." It's one thing to start with people in their 20's, and wean off of systems while those folks have time to search around and find other investment avenues, but it takes a fair amount of planning and funds to retire, and it absolutely goes against any definition of fairness to pull the rug out from under people in their golden years. Not their fault the program wasn't managed better, they made their payments.

Third - I've often wondered about home prices - salaries have certainly not gone up at the same rate as home prices even in Juneau over the 40-odd years I've lived here - Our first house, 2 bedrooms with huge attic, front and back yards, garage, and mother-in-law apartment and a view - downtown was $50 thousand in 1964, our second three-story house on the beach at Lena was $110 thousand in 1975. Both of those are 500k-1million dollar homes today. My 800sqft condo is worth more than that now, and while salaries have gone up, they haven't gone up over a thousand percent. I've thought that house prices needed an adjustment for a while, and honestly thought that letting the banks fail might have 'reset' the system. Clearly, that would have been painful for all of us. But - how can they keep going up, and up, and up? Do we just get to the point where we're printing 10,000 dollar bills, and a condo like mine is a million, and I'm making half a million? Then isn't it at some point 'false' value?

Back to Top

Spotted

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376863/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/359852/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376858/
  • title http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376853/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376843/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/368637/
  • title http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376838/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376833/
Fire Academy Graduation

CONTACT US

  • Switchboard: 907-586-3740
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-586-3740
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-586-3028
  • Business Fax: 907-586-9097
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-523-2270
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING