Retirement, Social Security & Shifting Paradigms

As Senator Warren (D-Ma) stumbles about the airwaves banking the growth in her political capital as the next great neo-progressive her mantra centers about the same flaw suffered by most that frequent academia or other reality-starved environs. Her perspective is shared by many of the politically anointed suggesting that the way to solve the country’s social and economic problems is, in a nut-shell, to spend more money. The truth of reality is much too painful for most, however the reality is that expecting an expanding harvest from a diminishing yield is only a temporary luxury in the era of simulated realities.

The following are a select group of responses to questions/comments received after the original article was published. We believe you will find them of interest.

#1: Yes, it’s a long one however I truly do hope you read each of the comments and reply with your thoughts.

#2: True, more Americans than ever are retiring broke and why should this surprise anyone?  Social Security, as designed, was based on retirement age of 65 but did you know that life expectancy at the time was age 58 for men and 62 for women?

#3: Without going into too much detail the simple fact is that two distinct issues developed with Social Security that the system was not intended to provide. (1)Politicians found it a convenient form of job-security: the government using Social Security receipts for general government expenditures unrelated to Social Security. (2) Politicians massively expanded the Social Security program without providing appropriate funding and deliberately relied on faulty growth projections so as to avoid having to address funding/budget shortfalls.

#4: What is the solution suggested by Senator Warren (and many others as well)?Accelerate Immigration reform so that “you bring more people into the system so that there are more payers.”  Seems simple enough doesn’t it? There are several problems with this approach and here are just a few of them: (1) It creates an entirely new segment of beneficiaries the component growth for which is exponential without equal growth in contributors. (2) It expands the unskilled labor base significantly (in multiples) vs. the skilled labor. (3) It perpetuates the economic myth of the Service-Based Economy as a wealth-creating engine. Yes Ms. Warren, fabulous idea; a perpetually propagating economic slave-class is just what this country stands for.

#5: Yes, I understand those nasty 1%ers; make them pay more into Social Security, increase their payment caps. The logic of legally enforced theft may sound enticing, particularly when someone else is the target. Considering this is the same approach to dealing with general tax revenues and Medicare for which there is no cap limit, the simple truth is there simply isn’t enough income, even if you were to tax 100% of income, to pay for the costs. Social Security was never intended as an invitation to retire; what has evolved is an ever-changing paradigm over a component base-paradigm that the former refuses to change.

#6: The fact remains that Social Security (as well as most government entitlement programs) is NOT salvageable or are the 190 Trillion Dollars of Unfunded Liabilities economically survivable. The Economic Output (of the U.S.) projections used to substantiate their expansion is not achievable and even more so under the economic environs promulgated by government actions and inactions which, I might add, Senator Warren and those like her, would support.

#7: At some point we must, first, understand the problem and its source: The problem is, in the simplest terms: (1) Government programs are spending more than generated revenue. (2) The government believes that an economy can survive on spending (government and consumerism) and debt accumulation to pay for it.; they refer to this as a  Service-based Economy; I refer to it as Economic-Predation. (3) Because of #2 (appropriately referenced) the only measured growth in U.S. GDP over the last 31 years has been purely due to inflation. (4) Due to inflation and the Service-Based Economy household incomes, in real terms, are on par with (at the moment) 1977.

#8: The problem with the problem is that folks are increasingly being trapped into believing that the cure for the problem is simply to eliminate or prey upon the so-called 1% and this is patently absurd. I will explain my reasoning in metaphorical terms: It really doesn’t matter how much money you have if what you want to purchase doesn’t exist and/or the person who has what you want will not accept your method of payment for it; this explains, in part, my phrase “harvesting from a diminishing yield.”

#9: America, the only thing your insatiable consumerism is accomplishing is: (1) Rampant inflation. (2) Rampant growth in government spending. (3) Having successfully destroyed your domestic economic (real) capacity. (4) Endorsing slave-class labor standards in 3rd World and emerging from 3rd World status countries. (5) Endorsing the creation of Multi-National Cabals with oodles of cash they use to purchase influence and with no intention of seeding the capacity of the nations/economies they loot. (6) Financing the creation of future enemies who will perpetuate the Cabals’ need for future and re-occurring conflicts.

#10: Once you understand and identify the problem, the solution is quite easy; it stares right back at you! Looking at or to politicians for functional/workable solutions is really quite a waste of time. As a rule politicians are pre-programmed with or become a part of an agendized structure that is short-term and impulse driven; the majority are not thinking people which is why they survive so well within an established structure. They are captivated by the simulation and are purposefully blind to the causal forces of reality. Yes, you have to think for them.

Curtis C. Greco, Founder

This entry was posted in Poli-Econ and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.