|
Hippiekinkster -> RE: Social Security Funding? (10/15/2010 5:14:54 PM)
|
Good post, HoH. Your second chart is a definitive example of a misleading, dare I say fraudelent, sales tool. As you note, a log-linear graph completely visually distorts the data. A log-linear graph simply cannot be justified, as there is no logarithmic function in the dats, unlike, say, a graph of pH vs. hydroxyl ion concentration.
I would also add this, from a Wiki Actuarial Science (weird, I'm thinking of going back to school for this at 57. Too old for Med School and can't deal with diff-eqs for chemistry [:D]) article:
"Product design adds another dimension to the debate. Financial economists argue that pension benefits are bond-like and should not be funded with equity investments without reflecting the risks of not achieving expected returns. But some pension products do reflect the risks of unexpected returns. In some cases, the pension beneficiary assumes the risk, or the employer assumes the risk. The current debate now seems to be focusing on four principles:
financial models should be free of arbitrage
assets and liabilities with identical cash flows should have the same price. This, of course, is at odds with FASB
the value of an asset is independent of its financing
the final issue deals with how pension assets should be invested.
Essentially, financial economics state that pension assets should not be invested in equities for a variety of theoretical and practical reasons. (Moriarty 2006)."
The Social Security Trust Fund is a pension vehicle. Do you right-wingers understand? Because I know the mathematical basis for keeping Wall St. the fuck away from SS eludes 99.44% of you.
|
|
|
|
