> As an old person, I like this system. I can't argue against it, it makes a lot of sense to me. Right on. It makes sense to anyone of any age because the alte

> As an old person, I like this system. I can't argue against it, it makes a lot of sense to me. Right on. It makes sense to anyone of any age because the alternative is to dig a hole, dump food into the hole, pay people to stand around and guard the hole, and then, 40 years later, the 60 year old will dig up what their 20 year old saved and eat it. For each individual, there is am illusion that you can "save" wealth which you consume in your old age. But for society as a whole, it is only possible to transfer wealth from one generation to the next. Except when the individual is "saving" he is buying from someone else who sold, and when the individual sells his assets to consume, he is selling to someone younger. If you close your eyes and don't think about the other person on the side of the trade, you can pretend that you, as an individual, have stored wealth somewhere. But for the society as a whole, it is always transfers that are taking place, so neither the 20 year old nor the 40 year has any choice -- this is the only game in town. The only question is whether these transfers be centralized or distributed, or whether they be administered by governments or private entities. But neither the shift from centralized transfers to distributed transfers nor the shift from government to private is going to make this system any less dependent on promises and transfers. It's promises and transfers simply due the lack of an efficient consumption storage technology.