The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The contributions received by the scheme are paid out to present pensioners. The state is only called on to make good the deficit, when there is one (there usually is, but a small percentage).
The pension fund's income can thus be said to consist (for the most part) in deferred salaries, earned by work. The outgoings, (pension rights acquired by previous work), go almost immediately to consumption.
Legal tender is used to denominate these flows, but in what sense is it created ex nihilo?
If it can be argued that it is, how can this be the most clearly and persuasively explained to Dummies?
Because the pension system is part of the public sector.
Imagine a water pipe that will support a flow of up to N litre per minute. Putting less water through it yesterday does not mean that you can put more water through it today. And putting more water through it yesterday does not mean that you can put less water through it today.
Your pension contribution is water that was put through the pipe yesterday. It doesn't really matter today, except as a historical record of how the system got to where it is.
Most people think of money as a stock - gold in a vault, or, in our analogy, water in the water tower. If you have a water tower with a limited amount of water, then it does matter how much water you put through the pipe yesterday - you might run out of water. But the magic of legal tender laws is that they create a wholly arbitrary amount of money to begin with: If the water levels in the tower seem too low for comfort, the magic of double entry bookkeeping can instantly conjure as much water as you want for your tower.
Now, that doesn't mean that you can run around spending money willy-nilly. You still have to suit your expense profile to the needs of your industrial policy. But it means that you don't have to choose between suiting your expenditures to the needs of the economy today or the needs of the economy tomorrow.
Now, it is possible to pretend that pensions aren't part of the public sector, in the same way that the operator of our water tower can pretend that he doesn't know how to make water from thin air. But that's a political choice, and those who are less blinkered might legitimately ask why the sovereign is denying itself a useful tool for economic planning.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
When a Stock approach is actually attempted, great care would have to be taken over the disposition of the Stock of money going into the pension both to avoid crashing the economy due to excessive reduction of the money supply, if the withholding is directed into gold, for instance, or loss of the money through mal-investment. Given the outcome we might conclude that the entire point of the US exercise was to create a pool of money that was available for subtle looting. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by DoDo - May 20 18 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 15 comments
by gmoke - May 17 2 comments
by DoDo - May 12 11 comments
by Migeru - May 6 100 comments
by DoDo - May 2018 comments
by gmoke - May 172 comments
by ARGeezer - May 1615 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1211 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 340 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments
by ceebs - Apr 265 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2686 comments