by Summary:
As a further comment on “funded” public pensions (link to previous note), I just want to comment on the side effects of such “funding.” (To recap, a central government could create fictitious bonds to match “pension contributions,” which has the same cash flows as a pure “pay-as-you-go” scheme. The alternative Canada has switched towards is to buy financial assets with the “pension contributions” — although some of those assets would be reinvested in bonds guaranteed by the Government of Canada.) As I discussed, this is economically equivalent to the Government of Canada levering up its balance — issuing bonds to the private sector to buy private sector assets.In this article, I will make some random comments about the implications of that policy. Although I believe that the procedure is
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
As a further comment on “funded” public pensions (link to previous note), I just want to comment on the side effects of such “funding.” (To recap, a central government could create fictitious bonds to match “pension contributions,” which has the same cash flows as a pure “pay-as-you-go” scheme. The alternative Canada has switched towards is to buy financial assets with the “pension contributions” — although some of those assets would be reinvested in bonds guaranteed by the Government of Canada.) As I discussed, this is economically equivalent to the Government of Canada levering up its balance — issuing bonds to the private sector to buy private sector assets.In this article, I will make some random comments about the implications of that policy. Although I believe that the procedure is
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
New Economics Foundation writes Is the Labour government delivering on its promises?
Robert Vienneau writes Why Is Marginalist Economics Wrong?
John Quiggin writes Dispensing with the US-centric financial system
New Economics Foundation writes Whose growth is it anyway?
As a further comment on “funded” public pensions (link to previous note), I just want to comment on the side effects of such “funding.” (To recap, a central government could create fictitious bonds to match “pension contributions,” which has the same cash flows as a pure “pay-as-you-go” scheme. The alternative Canada has switched towards is to buy financial assets with the “pension contributions” — although some of those assets would be reinvested in bonds guaranteed by the Government of Canada.) As I discussed, this is economically equivalent to the Government of Canada levering up its balance — issuing bonds to the private sector to buy private sector assets.Usually the logic behind what a neoliberal government does is some special interests' profits.In this article, I will make some random comments about the implications of that policy. Although I believe that the procedure is somewhat silly from an economic standpoint, there is a logic behind it.
Bond Economics
Further Comments On Funded Public Pensions
Brian Romanchuk
Brian Romanchuk