Re: Modigliani and the Common Sense of Social Security

["John Gelles" <indexed-savings@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear John Doe**,

I was thinking of social security and Medicare that
seniors generally get and younger persons do not.

This means that relative to the young who are poor,
the old (who are poor) are very well off.

The way I wrote it -- leaving out "relative to
younger poor people" -- is a fatal error. It asserts
that seniors are generally not poor -- when we
know that many are just that.

Thanks for pointing out the weakness in the piece.

I guess its strength was in my vision of all those
dead economists whom I shot for not agreeing with
me that:

        We need to focus on producing the THINGS
        we make -- not just on creating the money to
        buy them.

        If only Uncle Sam will attend to supply, via
        GREENBACKS  to pay for the cost of goods
        sold and "thing stamps" to pay at the check-
        out counter for anything not paid for in cash,
        then the money we need to keep America
        afloat will be there: supply will have created
        sufficient demand to keep your parents out
        of the poor house and off  your back --
        assuming you're a voter of middle age.

----- Original Message -----
From: ** Pkt Member
To: "John Gelles" <indexed-savings@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: Modigliani and the Common Sense of Social Security

John,

"Seniors are generally very well off -- ...."

 Do you have data to back this?

Obviously it will be necessary to define "very well off" ,
"generally" , "are" and "seniors"  but I'll accept any
definitions you suggest.

      Signed by: ** Member (in a private message, who
                        added  "I agree with everything else.")