大家论坛

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2145|回复: 0

[经济学人] [2011.09.24] Pensions, Ponzis & pyramids养老金,是庞氏骗局还是老鼠会

[复制链接]

269

主题

299

帖子

2683

金币

大家网大学二年级

Rank: 15Rank: 15Rank: 15

积分
1949
发表于 2011-9-26 12:38 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
Buttonwood

Pensions, Ponzis and pyramids
养老金,是庞氏骗局还是老鼠会[1]


The retired are always supported by their children
不论如何,退休者都是由子辈供养



IN OLDEN days it was quite common for families to keep a store of spare cash in a cake tin or cookie jar to save for future expenditure, such as Christmas presents. Just occasionally this petty-cash fund had to be tapped for immediate needs, and raiders would ease their consciences by leaving an IOU for the requisite sum.
把多余的现金存在饼模里或者饼干罐中,以备未来的花费,比如用来买圣诞礼物什么的,这在过去是很常见的,很多家庭都这么做。当然,偶尔也会因为急需,不得不动这种小金库,不过用钱的人会留下一张写明数目的欠条,因而也不会觉得有什么内疚。

One way of viewing the American Social Security Trust fund is as a massive cookie jar filled with IOUs. The assets of the fund are Treasury bonds, in other words promises to pay by the federal government. The scheme is thus dependent on the ability of future taxpayers to keep funding it.
我们可以把美国的社会保障信托基金[2]看做是一个大的饼干罐,里面装满了欠条。这个基金的资产是美国国库债券,换句话说就是一堆联邦政府的付款承诺。因此,这种社保模式可行的前提在于未来纳税人有能力不断注入资金。

In 1999 the Office for Management and Budget said that the fund’s assets “do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the government’s ability to pay benefits.”
99年的时候,行政管理和预算局说,社保信托基金的资产中“没有在未来可以被拿来用于支付津贴的真实金融资产。相对的,支付津贴的钱都要来自国库,也就是说,当社保基金所持有的国库债券被赎回的时候,政府就会通过增加税收、从公众借取、和减少抚恤金及其他支出来为社保注入资金。因此,即使政府欠下大量的社保资金,欠款本身并也不会影响政府支付津贴的能力。”


Does this make Social Security a Ponzi scheme, to quote Rick Perry, the governor of Texas and a leading Republican presidential candidate? Not really. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a Ponzi scheme as “an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks”. The first part of that definition applies to Social Security but not the second. The scheme’s costs have been monitored and the rules adjusted by raising payroll contributions and extending the retirement age. Such shifts have extended the period before the trust fund runs out of assets, and further shifts are perfectly possible.
引用德州州长,也是领先的共和党总统候选人里克·怕瑞的话说,社保就是一个庞氏骗局。真是这样么?其实真不是。因为韦氏字典给庞氏骗局的定义是:“一种投资骗局,以后来投资者的钱作为快速盈利付给最初投资者以诱使更多人上当。 ”社保只符合这个定义的前半部分,却不符合后半部分。在社保的这种模式下,其花费是受到监视的,其规则也是可以通过增加所得税和延长退休年龄来调整。这些手段都可以在社保资金用完之前延长期限,并且在下个期限到来前,还有更多的手段可以用。


A better term for Social Security would be a pyramid scheme, which the same dictionary defines as “a usually illegal operation in which participants pay to join and profit mainly from payments made by subsequent participants”. Illegal it isn’t, but future workers do have to generate the tax revenues that pay the benefits of future pensioners, and that is a problem if one generation is smaller than the one before.
所以说更适合形容社保的词儿是老鼠会,韦氏字典给老鼠会的定义是:“通常是非法的运作,新进者付入会费并且之后其收入主要来自于后进者的入会费。”当然,社保并不是非法的,不过确实需要未来的工人们产生税收来供给未来退休者的养老金。所以说如果下一代的人口比上一代的少,社保就会有麻烦了。


Although the term “pyramid” may sound rather pejorative, it is true of all pension schemes. Many European governments do not bother with a formal fund but use pay-as-you-go schemes, funding benefits out of future taxes. The effect is the same. Funded or unfunded, a pension scheme is a claim on a future generation.
尽管说成是“老鼠”这词儿听起来带有强烈贬义,但是事实上所有养老金计划都是这样。许多欧洲政府虽然不费神去设立一个正式基金,但是他们用一种叫现收现付制度,这个是由未来税收支付。其实这个和社保基金换汤不换药,都差不多。不论设不设立基金,退休金都得依靠下一代来支付。


Nor would it make much difference were Social Security to be invested in other assets such as equities, investment-grade bonds and property. The value of such assets is dependent on their future cashflows (dividends, interest and rents). But by 2030 or 2040, those cashflows will be generated by our children. If the economy were then in a dire state, equity and property prices would have plunged and the assets would not cover the liability.
就算把社保投资到股票、投资级债券、和不动产这种真实资产上,也不会有什么多大不同。因为这些资产的价值依赖于未来的资金流(分红、利息及租金)。但是在2030年或者2040年为止,这些资金流都得由我们的子辈来创造。如果到时候经济处于极糟糕的状态,那么股价和不动产价格也会跳水,而且届时这些资产将无法保证退休金的发放。


Indeed, Social Security is in a rather better financial condition than many state and local funds which have followed the diversified-portfolio route. Thanks to some dubious accounting, a large number of such schemes have not been funded properly.
多元化投资组合是基金选择的老路。但是事实上,社保要比许多选择这条老路的国有和当地基金财务状况要好得多。因为存在一些可疑账目,使得用多元化投资组合的基金有很多不能得到合适的资金保障。


Some may argue that a funded pension scheme encourages savings, and that higher savings boost economic growth. That sounds good in theory but is hard to spot in practice. Britain and America both have pension-fund assets worth more than 100% of GDP, but very low savings rates. Germany has a high savings rate but pension-fund assets of just 14% of GDP.
许多人说,把退休金建立成基金有利于鼓励存款,并且高存款有助于经济增长。理论上听起来好像有道理,但是事实上却很难分辨出有什么不同。比如,英国和美国的退休金基金资产超过100%GDP,但是两国存款率却很低。德国有高存款率,但是他们的退休金资产只有GDP的14%。


Perhaps the existence of a fund makes it easier to monitor the liability and to make needed adjustments accordingly? That seems a little doubtful, too. Even without such a structure, European countries have reduced future pension costs.
有人说建立基金使得养老金可以被更好地进行监管并且也能因此做出及时调整,是这样么?这种说法也有点让人怀疑。比如欧洲国家就不存在这样一个基金体制,但是他们还是做出了调整,并且已经减少了未来养老金的开销。


Some of the pyramid problems could be avoided if developed-world pension schemes invested in those emerging markets with more favourable demographic trends. Workers in rich countries could accumulate claims on the wealth generated by future Brazilian, Indian and Turkish workers. But America and Britain have done the opposite, running current-account deficits so that central banks in Asia and the Middle East have accumulated claims on them instead.
老鼠会的一些问题是可以被避免的,比如发达国家的养老金可以投资到未来人口有增长趋势的新兴市场中。这样在富国的工人们可以越来越依赖由未来巴西、印度和土耳其工人所创造的财富。但是美国和英国所作的正相反,他们的经常账目[3]是赤字,导致亚洲和中东各中央银行反过来要依靠他们。


America’s pyramid is not as shakily constructed as Europe’s, however. The American fertility rate is around the replacement rate of 2.1, compared with 1.4 for Germany and Italy, where populations are in decline. It is health-care costs, rather than pension costs, that are the bigger threat to American finances.
但是美国老鼠会的结构比欧洲的要结实些。因为美国出生率在人口替换率2.1周围浮动,而意大利和德国的只有1.4,因此意大利和德国人口正在减少。所以说,现在对美国财政威胁更大的是医保开销,而非养老金开销。
回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则



诚聘英才|移动端|Archiver|版权声明|大家论坛 ( 京ICP备06071611号,京公网安备11010802018363号 )

GMT+8, 2020-11-25 21:39 , Processed in 0.296938 second(s), 13 queries , Redis On.

Powered by Discuz!

© Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表