Megan has been getting grief for her most recent post on social security (scroll down to "The real problem"). Really, how could anyone have a problem with an 'argument' based on the following:
the real problem with the Social Security system: not that it is bankrupt, but that it encourages people to make extremely bad decisions about providing for their future.Her response to the criticism is a truly shitty post:
The response of liberal commenters to my post on the fact that social security decreases labor supply and national savings seems to largely be raw incredulity. "That's crazy talk!" about sums it up.Yeah, well, I asked your mom, Megan, and she said "Megan's face!" so hahahaha, I win!
Well, in response to those who asked, I am not only serious, but also well supported. These assertions about the response of elder labor force participation, birth rates, and national savings to pension policy are, in declining order, extremely, very, and fairly robust. All of them are strong enough that none of the slew of economists I recently interviewed on the topic of America's aging economy voiced any doubt about the relationship, direction, or causality.
Nevermind whether the "slew" of economists Megan interviewed were all Friedmanites or Hayekianistorians or their close kin, as is likely, what the babyraping fuck kind of argument is that? Megan actually has degrees?
I have interviewed several thousand six foot plus female econobloggers, and they all agreed that "Megan's face!".
I know, I'm being silly. This was just massive stoopid.
(Just to make it glaringly obvious, the problem is the complete lack of any names or citations or links or etc to back up these quite possibly contentious claims.)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment