Ever since Rick Perry derided Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, economists and other pundits have jumped into the fray. Progressive blogger Matt Yglesias says it’s “nuts” for anyone to talk like this, because Social Security merely relies on future economic growth — just like a private pension plan. Free-market economist Alex Tabarrok responded to Yglesias with links to arch-Keynesians (and Nobel laureates) Paul Samuelson and Paul Krugman, both comparing Social Security to a “Ponzi game.”
In the present article I have three aims: First, I will point out that the critics are right; to the extent that Social Security “worked,” it was because of its resemblance to a classic Ponzi scheme. Second, I will show how private-sector retirement planning operates nothing like this. Third, I will defend the good name of Charles Ponzi from the scurrilous comparisons — what he did was nothing like the racket known as Social Security.
Social Security’s “Ponzi Game Aspects”
Paul Krugman is a famous guy with a long record of strong opinions. It’s to be expected that periodically these will come back to bite him. His usual tack is to deny that his old columns meant what their plain-word reading would indicate. For example, Krugman can’t believe anybody thought this column (from 2002) should be construed as his endorsement of Greenspan trying to create a housing bubble.
When it comes to Social Security, here’s what Krugman wrote in late 1996:
Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today’s young may well get less than they put in).
As with his unfortunate housing-bubble article, here too Krugman has had to do damage control. After the above column floated around the Internet, Krugman tried to quell the giggling, claiming that anyone who tried to use him in support of Republican claims was playing “word games.” Krugman then gave a link to this fascinating history of the original Ponzi scheme, courtesy of — the Social Security Administration! (It seems they must get this a lot.)
I was curious to see how the Social Security Administration would defend itself from the charge that it was a Ponzi scheme. Here’s what they say:
In contrast to a Ponzi scheme, dependent upon an unsustainable progression, a common financial arrangement is the so-called “pay-as-you-go” system. Some private pension systems, as well as Social Security, have used this design. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end…
There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends…
As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.
Contrary to the claims of Yglesias, Krugman, and the Social Security Administration, I don’t think the “Ponzi scheme” charge is unfair in the slightest. When critics say Social Security is “unsustainable,” they quite obviously mean that it can’t keep up the current taxing and benefit schedules. Either taxes on workers will go up, promised benefits will be reduced, or some combination of the two. Krugman’s 1996 column confirms that analysis, and the Social Security Administration’s pipeline does too.
Up until now, retirees have been taking out more than they put in, and that can’t continue — this pattern relied on finding ever more workers to join the system. In other words, it was a classic Ponzi scheme. I am not here to endorse candidate Rick Perry, but the point of his charge is obviously true: each generation can’t keep taking more out of the system than it put in, once the demographics change.
The SSA’s pipeline graphic is interesting. If that is ultimately what Social Security turns into, and if each generation of workers merely takes out “what it originally put in,” then it means workers will earn a zero-percent (real) return on their “contributions” into the system.
Yes, that would certainly be “sustainable” in an accounting sense (at least with a stable age distribution in the population), but would it work politically? If politicians frankly told voters, “When we take $1,000 from you at age 25, don’t worry, that $1,000 will be waiting for you when you’re 65,” would they be happy with this arrangement? Charles Ponzi too could have made his scheme more sustainable if he promised his investors a 0 percent rate of return, but then nobody would have been interested.
In fairness, Matt Yglesias points out that the pipeline method can yield a positive rate of return. If the workers at the left end of the pipe always pump in, say, 15 percent of their paycheck, then (if productivity grows over time as it normally does) 50 years later, when they are on the other end of the pipe, there will be more dollars shooting out. However, in this scenario we’re back to an arrangement where each generation gets out more than it put in — what Krugman himself thought was a “Ponzi game aspect.” In any event, Yglesias’s framework is still vulnerable to demographic shifts.
Why Private-Sector Retirement Planning Works
The confusion in popular discussions of Social Security partly rests on the general ignorance of how an entire community can actually become richer through saving and investment. In other words, a lot of people believe (whether or not they’ve really thought it through carefully) that for every Sally out there who’s saving $10,000 per year, there must be some Jim who’s racking up $10,000 in debt. Therefore, whenever Sally starts living off her savings, people imagine that Jim must be cutting back on his own standard of living. At the communal level — so the thinking goes — everything is a wash, and we’re just changing the distribution of “total output” based on which people were frugal and which were spendthrifts.
This mindset is totally wrong. I explain things methodically in chapter 10 of my introductory textbook, but here’s the gist: It’s possible for everyone in the entire community to “live below his means,” that is, to consume less than his income and to save. The economy is then physically capable of reducing the output of consumption goods (TVs, sports cars, steak dinners, etc.) and increasing the output of investment or capital goods (drill presses, fertilizer, MRI machines, etc.). In the future, the larger quantities of various tools and equipment make the workers more productive than they otherwise would have been. That’s why the standard of living can rise; the community is physically capable of cranking out more goods and services because of the past investments.
Think of it like this: During his working career, a farmer takes some of his crop every year and uses it to buy a component for a tractor. One year he buys a tire, another year he buys a steering wheel, and so on. After working for 45 years, the farmer is ready to retire. By this point, he has assembled a brand-new tractor. Now he no longer needs to use his labor to earn an income. Instead, he rents out use of the tractor to the younger workers (who otherwise would have to use their bare hands to till the soil, etc.).
From a certain viewpoint, the retired farmer would be “skimming off the top” every time he ate an ear of corn harvested after he no longer worked the fields himself. After all, that corn would be part of that year’s harvest, so if the retired farmer ate it, there would be less corn available to the people who actually picked it. Yet the retired man’s consumption wouldn’t be financed through a “contribution” or “redistribution” from the young workers that year.
On the contrary, those young workers would be earning their full market wage (and if they were smart, they’d be saving some of it for their own retirement). The retired farmer would buy the corn on the open market, with the income he earned from renting out his tractor. There would be more corn to go around because he had spent decades assembling the tractor, and others in his cohort had built up stockpiles of fertilizer, hoes, irrigation equipment, etc.
Obviously my tale isn’t realistic, but it serves to get across the essence of voluntary retirement planning. People can get out more than they put in (measured in physical terms) because of what Böhm-Bawerk called the superior physical productivity of roundabout processes. As I complained during the debates over George W. Bush’s “privatization” proposals, many supposedly pro-market reformers want to get the magic of compound interest without the discipline of saving for decades.
A (Very Qualified) Defense of Charles Ponzi
Above I’ve explained why the “Ponzi scheme” accusation is accurate, in the context of modern political debates. However, there is a very important sense in which it is unfair — unfair to Charles Ponzi.
It’s true that Ponzi engaged in fraud; his victims never would have “invested” with him, had he accurately explained the business model. Libertarians therefore agree with everybody else that Charles Ponzi was a criminal and would have to face legal consequences in any just legal order.
However, so far as we know Ponzi never threatened anybody. He didn’t tell struggling young workers, “Give me 15 percent of your paycheck every week, so that I can make you a fantastic return — or else I’ll send goons to kidnap you.”
In this respect, Social Security isn’t a Ponzi scheme after all. It’s more analogous to mobsters shaking down people for protection money, because otherwise “bad things could happen.”
The complaints about Social Security are accurate: The only reason it has enjoyed such “success” thus far is that it relied on increasing contributions from each new generation of workers. Now that the demographics have turned against the system, it is literally unsustainable. We will see increased taxes on workers, reduced payments to beneficiaries, or some combination of the two.
In the voluntary private sector, people can plan for their own retirement through genuine saving and investment. They don’t need to extract concessions from the next generation of workers, because the retirees’ prior savings allow the creation of capital goods that will provide income when their bodies no longer can do so.
Finally, in one important respect a classic Ponzi scheme is less dangerous than Social Security: It relies on fooling people into voluntarily handing over their money. Once the fraud is detected, the danger is eliminated. In contrast, American workers have no choice but to “contribute” to Social Security, whether they like the deal or not.
Robert Murphy,for The Daily Reckoning
Robert P. Murphy has a PhD in economics from NYU and is author of the forthcoming The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal (Regnery 2009). He runs the blog Free Advice.
really enjoyed this article. I hope you contribute more often.
The real problem with Social Security is not that its a mob shakedown or Ponzi scheme (both of which, of course, are true). The real problem is that the 15% it collects is simply spent. If that same money were invested in physical capital, and productive industry, everyone would, over time, become better off. One reason that US incomes have stagnated for 30 years is that the money workers might otherwise have saved and prudently invested has been stolen by the government and squandered. Social Security is a short term fraud, but a long term poison.
The Social Security system collected more money than paid out each year of its existance since the 1930’s with the exception of the last year or two. It should have $2.5 trillion in its trust fund, but the government stole the excess. Seniors retiring today have paid much more into the system than was paid out. If the government can give $trillions to the New York banks, it can replace the money it stole from social security. Likewise there are millions of people like my parents who work and pay into social security all their life and die before collecting a dime. Quit talking like everybody is collecting more than they paid in. It simply is not true.
I told my family when I get to a point where I can’t take care of myself to then..give me a lot of laxatives…drive me to D.C….take me to the Congress steps…pull my pants down and run. I want to give a little back.
Gramps retired in 1980. He died in 2008. In those 28 years his benefits were around twice of what he ever put in.
The Social Security trust fund is a bookkeeping entry, a line on paper, nothing more. Soc Sec surplus dollars have been consumed by the general fund to cover unrelated government expenditures since the Johnson Administration.
John labors under the delusion that by doing this, the government stole the surplus (from itself) and should somehow repay itself.
When a presidential candidate spoke the truth: Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, the liberal press and their favorite politiciams screamed not true. Will Americans ever pay attention to what is going on? Why do we keep putting self serving idiots in charge of our money and our lives?
“All wealth is the product of labor. -John Locke c1620.”
Labor of grave diggers to legions of over-educated underachievers.
These schemes are pyramid cartels to rob all wealth over time. Including 401K, pensions plans, rigged markets, investment vehicles.
Pyramids by tax-differred “NOT TAX FREE” confiscate labor and wealth over time.
Individuals are waging bets that labor and wealth will not be ravaged over time while the rigged system has the power and total control over; prices, futures, contracts, inflation, future taxation, bankster service charges.
“Magic of Compound Interest” is a concept created by Wailing Wall Street. An unattainable pyramid scheme confirmed by the rigged banksters wailing “Too big to Fail.”
Check your beta blocker intake.
SS is a specified tax. Medicare is a specified tax.
If the citizens of America decide to default on debt, they can choose to honor the one they specifically paid into and default on debt that was obligated by the lawmakers.
But to be fair to the bold holders: the citizens could rule that all former law makers were personally responsible for that other debt.
That’s a win-win for the majority. There are lots of rich senators who could have their assets liquidated to pay a penny on the hundred dollars of outstanding.
Quite a haircut for the bond holders … but all is relative… remember ENRON.
In this way the non-SS debt becomes the PONZI scheme of past and present politicians and present and the deficit is cut to less than 20 percent of GDP.
Hows thoes apples?
well maybe not till recently.but the government borrowing fromm ss coffers has turned it into one and not taking into account the baby boomers soon to spply for ss and living longer not adjusting the costand raising amount workers should pay into it based on todays earners and not the older low wages from past.this program should have taken into account a cost of living not only for recipients but those still paying into it.so even though not deliberate it has now been viewed as a ponsy scheme.they also need to review those under 45 for recieving ss/ssi especially for adhd.this can be controled by meds and these recipients many excons,are able to work,with job training continuing adult ed,and counceling and meds.
Pingback: jazda konna
Pingback: work at home
Pingback: European golf course
Pingback: build android apps
Pingback: how to win the lottery book suggested looking at
Pingback: empower network review
Pingback: Zalando Gutschein
Pingback: bronx home inspection
Pingback: mlpTue3Htx mlpTue3Htx
Big government doesn't come cheap. And right now the U.S. government is one of the biggest in history. So far the budget writers have been able to move money around to keep the machine moving. But as Byron King points out, that will soon become much more difficult. Read on for the full story...
In the late '90s, financial TV personalities like Jim Cramer became mega stars - often drawing more ratings the ESPN. But that was over 15 years ago... That couldn't happen again, could it? Today, Wayne Mulligan details the new flock of personalities that are set to cash-in on a different kind of investment boom. Read on...
Being a "whistleblower" is no easy task. Regardless of whom you're blowing the whistle on, there's bound to be a fair amount of risk involved... and that's especially true if you're going after the "powers that be." But there's more to it than that... And as Chris Campbell explains, none of it matters if you can't protect yourself. Read on...
Last week was a rough one for most of the world's markets. Investors saw red almost everywhere they looked. And that's got a few media outlets ready to declare a top in stocks. Greg Guenthner explains why this line of thinking could be dangerous... and why, if you follow it, you could be doing your portfolio a disservice. Read on...
As conflict with ISIS looms, the Pentagon appears to be in a pickle... They've got all kinds of things on their "wish list", and they're not likely to get all of them. But they may have found a loophole, and that could mean big bucks for a handful of investors who know where to look. Peter Coyne explains...