42 of 49 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent antidote to scares and schemes., May 2, 2000
This review is from: Social Security: The Phony Crisis (Hardcover)
This book is a very welcome antidote to claims that Social Security is fiscally unsound and would well be privatized. The authors, economists, cite relevant facts to support their cogent arguments. The usefulness of this book in making clear some major Social Security issues compares very well with books by Robert Eisner (Social Security, More Not Less, and The Great Deficit Scares: the Federal Budget, Trade and Social Security) and with Countdown to Reform, by Henry Aaron and Robert Reischauer. Baker and Weisbrot's book also has valuable information and arguments on health care and other important issues.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Impeccable and Typical of the CEPR, June 2, 2007
There are some reviews listed by people who seem to be under the spell of the illusory "free markets." They seem to think that putting "must-have" money into risky investments like the stock market is a great idea. They are missing an important statistical fact when they quote the return on the US stock market, and that is that any average you calculate for a given period will be less for non-elite investors. Through insider trading and superior knowledge, better off investors do far better than non-elite investors. This has been conclusively demonstrated by research into 401k returns and is called the "yield disparity." It is one major reason, in addition to companies contributing less to 401ks than they did to pensions, why so many people's retirement in the US is at risk. Furthermore, all the major investment banks know this, and they are still pushing for to take over the social security system for their own purposes.
As far as calling the authors left wing or crackpots. I can tell you the work done by Dean Baker and by the Center for Economic and Policy reseach is some of the best economics done in the country. They are one of the few economic institutes of note who have not sold out to large power interests. If you sit in the top 2% of wealth in the country, go ahead and call them names. You need to, because their facts can not be argued away so easily. However, the rest need to wake up. If you are part of the rest of population (the other 98%) of the country in income and agree with Social Security "reform" you either don't know what is intended for Social Security (i.e. handing it over to wall street) or did not understand the arguments expressed in this book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
46 of 55 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Don't FIX what ain't BROKE!, July 23, 2001
By A Customer
This review is from: Social Security: The Phony Crisis (Hardcover)
Social Security PRIVATEERS tell us that in 2029.or 2032...now 2050 (notice that the date has to be constantly readjusted BACK every year) it is "calculated" by a Government advisory commission that Social Security won't have enough income to cover more than 75 percent of the benefits it must pay to aging baby boomers.
But the authors point out, the specificity is illusory, all lever-pulling and smoke-blowing from the Wizard of Oz. The projections aren't economic but actuarial extrapolations based on assumptions that the all the actuaries know are fictitious at best. Tweak them ever so slightly--lift real wages by a quarter- or half-percent per annum, or immigration by a little--and the so-called "crisis" disappears entirely. But according to the apparat-niks at the CATO Institute and the attack dogs at the OUT-Fox-ed Network--you might think the numbers have come down from Moses. They haven't. Social Security isn't in trouble and the criticisms of it are not logical as the authors of "The Phony Crisis" point out.
First of all, Social Security is an INSURANCE System, not an "investment". When you factor in the cost of buying disability and survivor insurance and "invest the difference"...the performance "advantage" of equity markets gets razor-thin at best. It turns out that Social Security yields the same as nice safe government bonds, which any intelligent investor knows should form the basis of an investment portfolio.
Secondly, the so-called performance advantage of the markets has a whole lot of IFs that the PRIVATEERS conveniently fail to mention.
Forget hyper-collapse 1929-style for the moment. Since the Crash of October 1987, U.S. markets have been on a nonstop charge; but if you'd gone into the same markets in 1970, you were worse off by 1980--not to mention where you'd be today if you'd bet on Japan in the mid-eighties or Southeast Asia's "sure thing" markets a couple of years ago. Will you do all right in the long term, as brokers and economists insist? Well, probably yes--but then as Keynes observed..."in the long run, we're all dead."
Here's where the income and wealth distribution effects of privatization turn very ugly. For millions of Americans--who bet on Kaypro instead of Microsoft (oops), Pan Am instead of American (sorry) or cattle futures without the skill and connections of Hillary Clinton (smile, please)--life at 75 could mean not "golden years" but working for the folks at the golden arches, or even being out on the street. A FACT of life that the young people who invested in the dotcom bubble are learning the hard way.
How many of us realistically will beat the averages? If 120 million workers are turned loose to bet the markets---40 million of whom are marginally literate or numerate--as the privateers recommend---it turns out that most will lose. The mutual fund industry's dirty little secret is that three-fourths of funds under-perform market indexes. Yet such funds have millions of naïve investors in them; in one recent survey, a majority of mutual fund investors couldn't even distinguish between a "load" and a "no-load" fund.
There is another issue, so far undiscussed in the debate. For the first time in nearly thirty years, the federal budget's in balance. But it's in balance because each year the Treasury borrows $80 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund surplus, and "covers" the deficit in the rest of the federal budget. If a big piece of Social Security contributions go into private accounts, the trust fund surplus will disappear and the federal budget will plunge back into deficit. Which federal programs are we supposed to cut to make up for it?
If you count the cost of the so-called "free market reforms" over the past twenty years--to a once-viable savings-and-loan system, to Mexican workers and peasants (who've paid for bailouts not once but twice), to the world's poor as they've worked off the global debt crisis. Think about the lives of Indonesian peasants, or Korean and Thai workers today--all set to pay for the "can't miss" marketization of Southeast Asia, just as Americans have so wonderfully benefited from downsizing, capital-gains reduction and globalization.
The folks that brought you ALL these disasters are the ones telling us that now it's Social Security's turn to face the "free market reform" just because it doesn't meet the ideological test of a handful of right-wing zealots.
Social Security is not a disaster. Benefits are moderately progressive, meaning that the bottom 60 percent of retirees get more back than they paid in. More than 90 percent of us pay into it during our working lives and more than 90 percent of us can count on its benefits when we retire. The minor adjustments that are outlined by the authors are all that is necessary to save Social Security.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No