ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax
SHARE
For a moment I thought it said "The Economics of Immorality" which seemed both rather more realistic and more fun.
Maybe a future topic?
Doesn't AARP start recruiting at age 50? If they have one key issue, it's health care with a decidedly pro-government approach. So, if they can hold the line at 50 being the age to join, longevity increases, and government health care programs expand for AARP membership, doesn't that lead to de-facto national health care?
The AARP has little to fear from de Grey's assertions. Most do not understand DNA and Gene construction, even among scientists in the field. Rejuvenation is a process of Zerox coping of a Gene model. Rejuvenation requires continual exact copying, which will never happen. No amount of Drug theropy or other treatments will ever lead to exact, continual replication.
The AARP in economic terms also would not face any restriction if it could be done, except for the hazards of size--bureaucracy. lgl
It seems that the AARP will have a strong constituency as long as people are retiring, a practice which should continue despite advances in medicine. At very worst the average age of a retired person could increase, yet the size of their membership should still increase. Political organizations of this type seem to be able to evolve fairly effectively in order to preserve power.
"Retirement benefits are for frail people" -- Pfaghh! That is a normative statement; let's, instead, be positive (pun intended)! Retirement benefits (that is, benefits supplied by a government Ponzi scheme) are for the powerful! That is, the politically powerful. AARP's success is as a lobbyist, representing the voting "old" in their efforts to maximize their share of other people's money. If government takes away (read: defaults on) that "free lunch", then AARP will shrink to the size of the Federalist Party.
What we are neglecting here is what other technologies that arrive with 'immortality' that seriously distort the economic picture. Likely when death is due to choice or accident rather than the inevitable grip of age, it will probably be at least partly due to the ability to 'upload' brains into software... And the economics of inexpensive artificial intelligence grossly distort the static economic models we know and love, where the labor supply is either static, or grows at a rather modest rate... rather than being a demand driven feedback loop that we will see when human level AI becomes inexpensive.