The controversy over the US Social Security Surplus. A non conventional view
AbstractThis paper examines the US controversy over the Social Security ‘Trust Fund’ (SS-TF). It is shown that, according to neoclassical theory, the SS-TF has a substantial meaning as a safety belt in view of the alleged pending problems of, but, according to more Keynesian principles, it does not play this function. On the opposite, the establishment of a SS-TF will have deflationary effects on the economy
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Department of Economics, University of Siena in its series Department of Economics University of Siena with number 418.
Date of creation: Jan 2004
Date of revision:
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- E1 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General Aggregative Models
- H55 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Social Security and Public Pensions
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Peter Diamond, 2004. "Social Security," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 1-24, March.
- Thomas Palley, 2002. "Social Security: Prefunding Is Not the Answer!," Challenge, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., vol. 45(2), pages 97-118, March.
- Feldstein, Martin & Liebman, Jeffrey B., 2002.
Handbook of Public Economics,
in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 32, pages 2245-2324
- Martin Feldstein & Andrew Samwick, 1998.
"The Transition Path in Privatizing Social Security,"
in: Privatizing Social Security, pages 215-264
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Martin Feldstein & Andrew Samwick, 1996. "The Transition Path in Privatizing Social Security," NBER Working Papers 5761, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Henry J. Aaron & John B. Shoven, 1999. "Should the United States Privatize Social Security?," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262011743 edited by Benjamin M. Friedman, June.
- Sergio Cesaratto, 2002. "The Economics of Pensions: A non-conventional approach," Review of Political Economy, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 149-177.
- Modigliani, Franco. & Ceprini, Marialuisa E. A. & Muralidhar, Arun Sundarram., 1999. "An MIT solution to the social security crisis," Working papers WP 4051-99., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
- Kotlikoff, Laurence J, 1979. "Social Security and Equilibrium Capital Intensity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 93(2), pages 233-53, May.
- Eric M. Engen & William G. Gale, 1997. "Effects of Social Security reform on private and national saving," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue Jun, pages 103-142.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Fabrizio Becatti).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.