My Times piece has prompted a couple of very good critiques (maybe more, but I have no proper internet connection now).
The problem is, as described, the change in the ratio between productive workers and the non-productive. Whether the money to pay for that second group comes from taxation of the first, or from dividends from the profits of their efforts, makes little difference to the fact that we have got this change in the ratio of the productive to the non-.
And he has some good comments there, too.
And this chap also takes me task:
Pollard is right to identify the demographic problem, yet his solutions highlight a lack of depth in his analysis. He should have at least acknowledged the double payment problem in pensions reform, which is one of the best known problems in policy studies. Similarly, he should have acknowledged that privatisation might not be best for the NHS and would not solve the problem of pensioners without medical insurance.
I'd hotly dispute his assertions about the NHS, but he's quite right to point out the double payment problem. Given that I devoted only four sentences to the idea of funding, however, I couldn't deal with every tecnicality.
As soon as BT do their job and connect me, I'll link to my pamphlet on this issue where I deal with just that issue.
