Wednesday, September 14, 2011

HOT: Paul Krugman Debates Himself

Paul Krugman disses  his 1997 article when he called Social Security a "Ponzi game" that "will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics":
Well, I gather that a lot of right-wingers are quoting selectively from a piece I wrote 15 years ago in the Boston Review, in which I said that Social Security had a “Ponzi game aspect.” As always, you should read what I actually wrote. Here’s the passage:
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).
Notice what I didn’t say. I didn’t say that the system was a fraud; I didn’t say that it would collapse. I said that in the past it had benefited from the fact that each generation paying in to the system was bigger than the generation that preceded it, and that this luxury would be ending in the years ahead.
So why did I use the P-word? Basically because Paul Samuelson had done the same; he was basically just being cute, and I was emulating him — which now turns out to be a mistake.
Uh, I think I'm giving the debate to the 1997 Krugman. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.


  1. I think I agree with Lew Rockwell, Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are voluntary.

  2. I don't think Krugman is stupid enough to not think it a Ponzi scheme...He is just a parasitic elitist lying brat.

  3. It is not a Ponzi scheme since it is not voluntary...It is plain Terrorism.

  4. Krugman has a history of never saying what he means. LOL This reminds me of his the "Fed needs to create a Real-estate bubble" essay defense. I seriously don't think this chap is all that bright.

  5. Krugman thought Samuelson was cute? and thought he would emulate him? Is that the Janet Napolitano standard of cuteness?

  6. Just sent this tweet to Krug-

    @NYTimeskrugman he's right- Ponzi schemes are voluntary- this is just flat out theft from the poor to the rich, like all politics

    We need to start attacking these morons on twitter and drive them crazy.

    Twitter has turned into my favorite tool for goading these intellectually vapid statist collectivist socialist communist morons- some don't reply, but many of them do, and you can tell that they get exasperated defending their idiocy and state-worship.

  7. Wow, first the prevaricating doofus instructs us to read what he wrote (it's a ponzi), then in the very next sentence, tells us to read what he didn't write.

    Uhh, which is it K-man?

    A ponzi collapses when the balance tips from having sufficient new suckers to an insufficient number of new suckers. Isn't that what you, in fact, wrote? How's the view from up there on your own petard Mr. K?

  8. So Krugman chastises conservatives who say Ponzi and SS in the same sentence.

    But it's OK when he does it, because he's not evil. He means well. After all, he didn't say it would "collapse". He just said it was "coming to an end." They mean different things. He also didn't say that it was a "fraud", but then again neither did conservatives whom he chastised.

    What a dishonest creep.

  9. This gives insight into how the establishment types repeat what others say to sound in the know. It also shows how stupid most of them are!

  10. "Krugman is stupid."

    But I am not insulting him. I dont really mean stupid. Im just being cute.

    This is great. I can say whatever I want and then go back on it, because I was just being cute. Krugman is a true politician.