Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
Post Gives Rave Review to Anti-Social Security Propaganda Flick
Okay, it's a propaganda flick directed more broadly against government social programs, but the review appears on the front page of the business section, not the opinion section where it belongs. The film is intended to scare people about the size of the government debt, as is indicated in the subhead.
To further this goal the review reports the size of the debt and the projected future growth in the debt in trillions of dollars, not relative to the size of future GDP. Every competent reporter and policy analyst knows that virtually no one can understand what it means to have a debt over all future time of $53 trillion, a number presented in the review.
On the other hand, if the review had told readers that the projected debt is equal to 6 percent of future income, then nearly all readers would be able to understand its meaning. Using the $53 trillion figure is an effective way to scare people, but not to inform them.
Perhaps more importantly, virtually the whole debt story is due to projections of exploding health care costs. If per person health care costs in the United States followed the cost path in Germany, Canada, or any other country with better health outcomes than the United States, then the debt problem would be relatively minor.
The makers of this film have an agenda (apparently shared by the Washington Post) to seriously cut Social Security and Medicare. To advance this agenda, they deliberately deceive the public about the nature of projected budget shortfalls and conceal the fact that the projected crisis is entirely a health care story. An honest film on the projected debt problem would be devoted to discussing the U.S. health care system.
(The review implies that this debt view is correct because the makers of the film anticipated the housing meltdown in 2007. Any competent economist should have been able to foresee the collapse of the housing bubble. It was not necessary to believe scary stories about the debt to recognize the bubble.)
--Dean Baker
COMMENTS (17)
Well Dean you actually had it right the first time. I don't know the relation is any between Agora Financial (which sponsored the movie) and the Peterson Foundation which now owns distribution rights, but in any event the net effect is that this ended up as a house production of PGPF/Concord Coalition. And whether you start by visiting sites and pages devloted to the movie or sponsored by PGPF or Concord you find they always start out with discussing overall debt but end up circling around to Social Security. It always ends up being the starting point for 'reform'.
I don't believe much in coincidences and think "Anti-Social Security Propaganda Flick" is a perfect descriptor of the intent of the film makers.
Posted by: Bruce Webb | August 7, 2008 4:31 PM
Dean
did you get a chance to talk about this with Bill Moyers?
Posted by: coberly | August 7, 2008 10:36 PM
fyikjmkjk
Posted by: Jean | August 8, 2008 5:48 PM
We should liken it to a young doctor with $130k annual income having a $530k mortgage.
I have a book somewhere by Peterson about how debt would soon destroy the country -- it must be about 25 years old by now.
Posted by: jm | August 8, 2008 7:13 PM
Who's this competent reporter you speak of? I'd like to read his articles, what paper does he work for?
Posted by: Ed Sanders | August 9, 2008 3:59 PM
well,
npr gave it a plug too, and david walker a forum, unquestioned by the reporter.
except she may have said "wow" at one point.
i put your name in for equal time.
Posted by: coberly | August 9, 2008 9:55 PM
Wasn't Social Security destroyed by Democrats, Republicans and Alan Greenspan during the 80s. It is just that American public have yet to find out the bamboozlement.
Isn't England sending their patients to India because of wait and cost. Samething is happening here. Japan won't be able to keep their plan for too long because the severe imbalance of old people to young.
What do you think is going to happen to all the Indian doctor in America when you have universal healthcare. Do you think they are going to stick around and all those nurses you keep stealing from South Africa, etc.
Posted by: no | August 10, 2008 2:22 AM
no
you got the 1983 soc sec "reform" wrong so i suppose you have the japanese problem wrong as well.
1983 adjusted rates to take care of a problem...and has been very successful.
with the possible exception that the resulting expansion of the "trust fund" has created an opportunity for demagoguery and fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between the Trust Fund and Social Security.
it is that misunderstanding going forward that threatens Social Security.
the Trust Fund will run out of money as it was designed to do. The liars are calling this "broke." It is nothing of the kind. No more than spending the money in your Christmas Fund makes you broke.
Unfortunately many friends of Social SEcurity get fooled by this and drawn into a debate about the predictions of early or late Trust Fund Depletion... a depletion that has no effect whatsoever on the solvency ofSocial Security... which depends only the ability of the people to be smart enough to understand that what they pay in determines what they will take out. And that what they pay in will never be greater than 10% of their nominal pay, and what they take out will be the ability to retire at a reasonable age inreasonable comfort.
And I am fairly sure the Japanese will also always be able to do this, whatever the demographics. Under pay as you go... and it always comes down to that... the "young" would have to be pretty poor not to be able to afford to pay for the basic needs of the elderly... and absent elder-suicide...no way for them to avoid it anyway. Meanwhile they can understand that whatever they pay, that is what it will take to provide for them in turn in their own old age.
All the rest is hand waving by liars or by the people who don't understand the concept.
Posted by: coberly | August 10, 2008 2:33 PM
coberly,
I don't think I got anything wrong. when
the trust fund is just IOUs. The congress can dip into it all the time it wants. It should not be counted in the budget at all. Let them put the money back then I will believe you. That is what the real problem is.
Also, my point of Japan is not wrong.
just recently they are pushing their patients to generics which they never use to do. In so much that Japanese drug companies are buying into Indian drug companies.
I am for Universal Health Care. I am just not convinced that rich people will allow it in this country. The corporations believe in it as much as they don't have the burden for it.
Doctors will create loopholes in it because they want to maintain their status in the society. now the only question is whether you keep the private insurance companies or not.
The real demagoguery of medical industry is that the patient believe in the illusion that they are getting better. Not the supercomputer made any difference in drug discovery. Genome project won't make any difference when every cell has different genes turned on depending on environment. This epigenome can never be mapped. So everyone keeps taking placebo hoping to get a different outcome.
Posted by: no | August 11, 2008 2:45 AM
But what about Medicare and Medicaid. Isn't that the bigger problem than Social Security? About to swallow up everything but our interest on the debt?
Posted by: laurel | August 11, 2008 7:31 PM
买不锈钢管,找双森不锈钢管公司,信誉好,不锈钢管品种齐全,不锈钢管销售热线:0576-82521580
Posted by: 不锈钢管 | October 27, 2008 6:35 AM
You are wonderful and distinct I thank you
Posted by: دردشة مصر | May 14, 2009 11:18 PM
You are wonderful and distinct I thank you
Posted by: شات مصر | May 14, 2009 11:19 PM
thaanks
Posted by: بنت السعوديه | June 2, 2009 6:17 PM
thankss
شات
Posted by: بنت جده | June 6, 2009 8:20 PM
thaaanks
دردشه">http://www.saher4.com">دردشه
Posted by: دردشة | June 6, 2009 8:26 PM
بنت">http://www.sa-girl.com/city/1.html">بنت جده
Posted by: شات بنت جده | June 16, 2009 2:24 PM