3 ms·

Well, all redistributive social security systems have a strong pyramid like scheme inherent to them. Take the German retirement funds which - AFAIK — works simi

Well, all redistributive social security systems have a strong pyramid like scheme inherent to them. Take the German retirement funds which - AFAIK — works similarly to „social security“ in the US: Every employee in Germany is required to pay a share of about 20% of their income (1) into the retirement „fund“ — which isn’t one really as the money is not invested to gain interest but instead is immediately payed out to the current generation of retirees. On the other hand, employees are promised to receive a future pension based on the payments by the next generation of employees (i.e. their kids). In Germany, this is called „Generationenvertrag“ („contract between generations“). This is almost like a Ponzi/pyramid scheme where obscene „profits“ are payed out purely based on the exponentially growing number of payees until the day the growth stops and the system collapses like a house of cards. This breakdown has been happening for decades already albeit at a glacial rate in the German public pension system as the population has been shrinking and therefore the number of payees. It is artificially kept alive as the German federal government pumps 100 billions of tax money every year into it which is 30% of the whole federal budget … Of course, a redistributive pension system can sustain itself as long as the population age distribution looks like a literal pyramid. But that’s not the case for most Western countries. (1) Formally, the employee pays only 10% and the other 10% are taken from the employer. But, of course, the employer could as well pay his 10% share as salary instead. So, either way, it’s the employee paying everything.

loup-vaillant 5y ago
OK, so redistributive pension systems are pyramid schemes… I’ll just note that this is a highly debatable interpretation of such systems. Now if we think about it for a moment: social security need money for 3 major things: unemployment, retirement, and health care. At any given point in time, you can divide the population in 2 categories: those who are currently working, and those who are not. And those who are currently working pay those who are not (gross oversimplification). The question is whether the workers pay enough money to sustain the idle. Now health care and unemployment ought to be fairly constant (barring some major crisis), and you can have rules so people don’t abuse the system too much. So no pyramid there: we adjust how much workers pay for health and unemployment and that’s the end of it. Retirement however is subject to longer term variation because of that age pyramid. And at a time where we have boomers retiring, we have less working people to sustain them all. And it’s made quite worse when the salaries of the working people don’t even keep up with inflation. We could have solved this by having an exponentially growing population, but that is bound to crash at one point. So okay, I understand the pyramid analogy there. There’s a problem though: the boomers will die. Population will eventually get over that hump, and we’ll have a more reasonable proportion of working & retired people again. So the temporary deficit is just that: temporary. And if that’s not enough, there’s something simple we can do to solve the problem. It’s so obvious that (at least in France) people don’t even dare utter it on national television: just raise contributions a little bit. But no, doing this is so unthinkable that our rulers would rather have people retire later. Which won’t work, because of structural unemployment. So what we’ll have instead is lower pensions, and an increased reliance on pension funds. There’s a snag however: pension funds are actually a form of redistributive system. Because redistributive systems are the only system there can ever be. See, even though you’re ostensibly investing money so you can retire later, what happens in practice is that your money is being injected in parts of the economy to fuel your investment. And ultimately, part of that money will be used to pay currently retired people. And when you retire, and the time comes to get your money back, you won’t get your money from a frozen value store. You’ll get it from the current economy, be it interest rates from your investments or currently paying people. However you cut it, your pension has to be taken from the current economy, and the only way you get paid is if your pension fund (and by extension the whole economy), can support it. I’d rather have an explicitly redistributive system, it’s more honest that way.
- saltcured 5y ago
  Right. In essence, I think these details of the redistributive function are what make it Ponzi-like or sound. On one end of the spectrum, you have personal and "defined contribution" saving and investment schemes: the individual carries a personal pool into their later years where they draw it down. How are differences between the contribution+performance and lifetime needs reconciled? Estates pass inheritances or individuals are bankrupt and we recursively ask ourselves what sort of system will cover their needs. In the middle, you have what I think you want. An insurance pool redistributes the contributions, performance, and needs among a cohort. How are the aggregate assets and lifetime needs of the cohort reconciled? Contributions could be curtailed in response to excess accumulation or increased to cope with unexpected needs. Like any insurance scheme, the risk management has complexity around managing liquidity in the face of time-varying needs, contributions, and investment/economic performance. But what skeptics see is an ugly reality unfolding further down that spectrum. Population growth and the long delay between contribution and withdrawal is (either naively or willfully) misinterpreted as excess accumulation. This is used to justify either insufficient contribution or "theft" of assets to fund other initiatives than the insurance pool. This leaves a hollowed out pension systems with defined benefits that cannot be satisfied with their meager holdings. As with a Ponzi scheme, they appear to work while the incoming contributions from an ever growing cohort are used to pay outgoing benefits to an earlier, smaller subset of participants. They collapse when the participation rate fails to grow fast enough to meet the ever growing needs of the aging cohort.
  - przeor 5y ago
    Every aspect of life is related to population distribution graph which is doomed in Europe. Even if you save your retirement in a real estate, it's value is tightly correlated to amount of people in productive age when you try to sell it. The only thing that can save one, is to start saving money early and give it to componding effect. Albert Einstein once said “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it; he who doesn't, pays it”. Anything else wont work because demographic at least for europe is bad. The good information is that to make componding effect to work, crypto is much more compund effect friendly asset in the world. Of course, in the mean time you need to use your brain to not lose your priv key or being phished etc. Good luck

loup-vaillant 5y ago

OK, so redistributive pension systems are pyramid schemes… I’ll just note that this is a highly debatable interpretation of such systems. Now if we think about it for a moment: social security need money for 3 major things: unemployment, retirement, and health care. At any given point in time, you can divide the population in 2 categories: those who are currently working, and those who are not. And those who are currently working pay those who are not (gross oversimplification). The question is whether the workers pay enough money to sustain the idle. Now health care and unemployment ought to be fairly constant (barring some major crisis), and you can have rules so people don’t abuse the system too much. So no pyramid there: we adjust how much workers pay for health and unemployment and that’s the end of it. Retirement however is subject to longer term variation because of that age pyramid. And at a time where we have boomers retiring, we have less working people to sustain them all. And it’s made quite worse when the salaries of the working people don’t even keep up with inflation. We could have solved this by having an exponentially growing population, but that is bound to crash at one point. So okay, I understand the pyramid analogy there. There’s a problem though: the boomers will die. Population will eventually get over that hump, and we’ll have a more reasonable proportion of working & retired people again. So the temporary deficit is just that: temporary. And if that’s not enough, there’s something simple we can do to solve the problem. It’s so obvious that (at least in France) people don’t even dare utter it on national television: just raise contributions a little bit. But no, doing this is so unthinkable that our rulers would rather have people retire later. Which won’t work, because of structural unemployment. So what we’ll have instead is lower pensions, and an increased reliance on pension funds. There’s a snag however: pension funds are actually a form of redistributive system. Because redistributive systems are the only system there can ever be. See, even though you’re ostensibly investing money so you can retire later, what happens in practice is that your money is being injected in parts of the economy to fuel your investment. And ultimately, part of that money will be used to pay currently retired people. And when you retire, and the time comes to get your money back, you won’t get your money from a frozen value store. You’ll get it from the current economy, be it interest rates from your investments or currently paying people. However you cut it, your pension has to be taken from the current economy, and the only way you get paid is if your pension fund (and by extension the whole economy), can support it. I’d rather have an explicitly redistributive system, it’s more honest that way.

saltcured 5y ago
Right. In essence, I think these details of the redistributive function are what make it Ponzi-like or sound. On one end of the spectrum, you have personal and "defined contribution" saving and investment schemes: the individual carries a personal pool into their later years where they draw it down. How are differences between the contribution+performance and lifetime needs reconciled? Estates pass inheritances or individuals are bankrupt and we recursively ask ourselves what sort of system will cover their needs. In the middle, you have what I think you want. An insurance pool redistributes the contributions, performance, and needs among a cohort. How are the aggregate assets and lifetime needs of the cohort reconciled? Contributions could be curtailed in response to excess accumulation or increased to cope with unexpected needs. Like any insurance scheme, the risk management has complexity around managing liquidity in the face of time-varying needs, contributions, and investment/economic performance. But what skeptics see is an ugly reality unfolding further down that spectrum. Population growth and the long delay between contribution and withdrawal is (either naively or willfully) misinterpreted as excess accumulation. This is used to justify either insufficient contribution or "theft" of assets to fund other initiatives than the insurance pool. This leaves a hollowed out pension systems with defined benefits that cannot be satisfied with their meager holdings. As with a Ponzi scheme, they appear to work while the incoming contributions from an ever growing cohort are used to pay outgoing benefits to an earlier, smaller subset of participants. They collapse when the participation rate fails to grow fast enough to meet the ever growing needs of the aging cohort.
- przeor 5y ago
  Every aspect of life is related to population distribution graph which is doomed in Europe. Even if you save your retirement in a real estate, it's value is tightly correlated to amount of people in productive age when you try to sell it. The only thing that can save one, is to start saving money early and give it to componding effect. Albert Einstein once said “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it; he who doesn't, pays it”. Anything else wont work because demographic at least for europe is bad. The good information is that to make componding effect to work, crypto is much more compund effect friendly asset in the world. Of course, in the mean time you need to use your brain to not lose your priv key or being phished etc. Good luck