---
author: Money & Macro
date: '2026-04-21'
guest: ''
layout: post.njk
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqSwRHc-1MQ
speaker: Money & Macro
tags:
- demographic-shift
- pension-systems
- economic-outlook
- social-sustainability
title: 谁来支付亿万婴儿潮一代养老金？——全球养老金体系的挑战与未来
summary: 报告分析了全球人口老龄化带来的严峻养老金危机。随着“婴儿潮”一代步入退休，劳动人口与退休人口比例急剧下降，传统的“现收现付”模式面临不可持续的困境。文章探讨了提高退休年龄、削减养老金、增加税收和增加政府债务等四种艰难的应对选项，并深入分析了“充分养老金”模式的承诺与潜在风险，特别是“资产崩盘假说”。通过对多国养老金体系的研究，揭示了人口结构变化对经济前景的深远影响，以及AI在解决这一挑战中的潜在作用。
insight: ''
draft: true
series: ''
category: macro-economy
area: finance-wealth
project: []
people:
- Jos Goodhart
- Prajan
companies_orgs:
- OECD
- Denmark
- Netherlands
- Iceland
- France
- Germany
- Italy
- United Kingdom
- Canada
- Mexico
- South Korea
- Chile
- The Economist
products_models: []
media_books: []
status: evergreen
---
### 严峻的养老金危机：人口结构下的经济挑战
当**婴儿潮**一代开始工作时，大约每五个人中就有一个人需要为一位退休人员提供支持。如今，在富裕国家，这个数字已经下降到大约每三名劳动者供养一名退休人员。而这一趋势只会愈演愈烈。根据**OECD**的预测，30年后，当所有婴儿潮一代都退休时，每名退休人员将不足两名劳动者的供养。这前景不容乐观。因此，**“Z世代”和“千禧一代”真的负担得起所有婴儿潮一代的养老金吗？**在法国，这个问题并非理论上的数学难题，它已经引发了一场无休止的政治危机。
数千人在首都走上街头，因为法国总统**埃马纽埃尔·马克龙**强行通过了一项不受欢迎的法案，将退休年龄从62岁提高到64岁。考虑到法国实际上是相对年轻的富裕国家之一，而且除了养老金，随着婴儿潮一代进入75岁，**医疗成本**也将飙升。经济学家**约斯·古德哈特**教授指出，除非人工智能能带来远超目前所见的经济奇迹，否则未来40年的经济前景将远不如过去40年。
面对这样的局面，我们能期待什么？法国、英国和德国的政治危机表明，当前的养老金体系——即Z世代和千禧一代支付婴儿潮一代的养老金——只有在**大幅提高退休年龄、削减养老金或让年轻人接受高昂税收**的情况下才能维持。然而，希望并非完全渺茫。像丹麦、荷兰和冰岛这样的小型北欧国家，其体系允许每位退休人员为自己的退休储蓄。这些储蓄被投入股市，而股市历史上总是上涨的。这让人不禁wonder：这些国家是否真的找到了神奇的养老金解决方案，还是它们又在吹大另一个金融泡沫？
Original English
When
baby
boomers
started
working,
about
five
of
them
had
to
work
to
provide
for
every
pensioner.
Today,
this
number
has
gone
down
to
around
three
workers
per
pensioner
in
rich
countries.
And
this
will
only
get
worse.
Based
on
OECD
projections,
30
years
from
now,
there
will
be
less
than
two
workers
per
single
pensioner
when
the
baby
boomers
all
retire.
This
does
not
look
good.
So,
of
course,
this
raises
the
question.
Can
Gen
Z
and
millennials
actually
afford
to
pay
for
all
boomer
pensions?
In
France?
This
question
is
not
a
theoretical
math
problem.
It
is
already
leading
to
a
neverending
political
crisis.
>> In
the
capital,
thousands
of
people
taking
to
the
streets
after
French
President
Emanuel
Mccron
forced
through
an
unpopular
bill
that
raises
the
retirement
age
from
62
to
64
years
old.
And
given
that
France
is
actually
a
relatively
young
rich
world
country
and
that
on
top
of
pensions,
medical
costs
will
of
course
also
skyrocket
as
the
boomers
turn
in
75.
Economists
like
professor
Jos
Goodhart
from
the
law
school
of
economics
have
said
that
unless
AI
gives
us
a
miracle
far
bigger
than
anything
we're
seeing
so
far
economically
speaking
>> the
next
40
years
are
not
going
to
be
anything
like
as
wonderful
as
the
last
40.
>> So
what
can
we
expect?
Political
crisis
in
France,
the
UK,
and
Germany
make
it
clear
that
the
current
pension
system,
where
Gen
Z
and
millennials
pay
boomers
can
only
be
sustainable
if
we
drastically
increase
the
retirement
age,
cut
pensions,
or
if
young
people
accept
sky
high
taxes.
But
there's
hope.
Small
North
European
countries
like
Denmark,
the
Netherlands,
and
Iceland
have
systems
where
every
pensioner
saves
for
their
own
retirement.
All
of
these
savings
are
then
pumped
into
the
stock
markets
which
have
historically
only
gone
up.
Right?
Right.
H
it
makes
you
wonder,
have
these
countries
really
found
a
magical
pension
solution
or
are
they
blowing
yet
another
financial
bubble?
### 养老金融资模式：两种核心体系的解析
为了解答上述问题，研究团队花费数周时间采访专家，深入研究了全球所有富裕国家的各类养老金体系和人口数据。他们发现了一个相当有趣的现象：丹麦和荷兰可能找到了正确的方向，但并非以他们自己认为的方式。然而，在深入探讨如何同时拯救“婴儿潮”一代的养老金和年轻人的收入之前，我们必须首先面对现实。如果不采取任何行动，将会发生什么？以下是第一章：我们养老金体系的不可持续现实。
广义而言，国家有两种方式为其养老金体系提供资金：一种是**基金制**（funded systems），即劳动者为自己的养老金储蓄；另一种是所谓的**“现收现付”制**（pay-as-you-go, PAYG），即当前的劳动者支付给当前的退休人员。在实践中，大多数国家会混合使用这两种体系，但其侧重程度差异很大。
像**德国**、**西班牙**和**意大利**这样的国家，几乎完全依赖“现收现付”养老金，其福利由当今的劳动力融资。相比之下，**丹麦**和**荷兰**等国家则更侧重于基金制，人们通过公共或私人养老金基金为自己的退休进行储蓄，这些基金投资于债券和股票市场。他们利用这些市场赚取的收益来最大限度地减少缴款。
目前，像意大利、德国和法国这样依赖“现收现付”体系的国家正面临严重的养老金危机，因为很明显，它们的养老金体系并没有为快速老龄化的人口做好准备。劳动者数量减少，但他们需要支付相同的缴款来支持期望获得稳定养老金收入的退休人员数量的增加。数学上，这根本行不通。因此，各国尝试了四种颇具争议的方式来使体系可持续化。
Original English
To
answer
these
questions,
our
team
has
spent
weeks
interviewing
experts,
diving
into
the
various
pension
systems
and
population
data
of
all
rich
countries
around
the
world.
And
what
we
found
was
quite
interesting.
Denmark
and
the
Neelens
may
be
right,
just
not
in
the
way
they
think.
But
before
we
get
into
how
we
can
save
boomer
pensions
and
young
people's
incomes
at
the
same
time,
we
first
need
to
confront
reality.
What
happens
if
we
do
nothing?
Here's
chapter
one,
the
unsustainable
reality
of
our
pension
systems.
Broadly
speaking,
there
are
two
ways
countries
finance
their
pension
systems.
There
are
funded
systems
where
workers
save
for
their
own
pension
and
the
so-called
pay
as
you
go
system
where
current
workers
pay
for
current
retirees.
In
practice,
most
countries
use
a
mix
of
both
systems,
but
the
balance
varies
widely.
Countries
like
Germany,
Spain,
and
Italy
rely
almost
entirely
on
pay
as
you
go
pensions
where
benefits
are
financed
by
today's
workforce.
By
contrast,
countries
like
Denmark
and
the
Netherlands
depend
much
more
heavily
on
funded
systems
where
people
save
for
their
own
retirement
using
public
or
private
pension
funds
that
invest
in
bond
and
stock
markets.
They
use
these
returns
earned
there
to
minimize
contributions.
Right
now,
countries
like
Italy,
Germany,
and
France
that
rely
on
pay
as
you
go
systems
are
facing
severe
pension
crisis
because
it
is
very
clear
that
their
pension
system
was
not
built
for
a
rapidly
aging
population.
Fewer
workers
that
pay
the
same
contribution
to
support
more
retirees
that
want
a
stable
pension
income.
The
math
simply
does
not
work.
Therefore,
countries
have
tried
four
controversial
ways
to
make
the
system
sustainable.
### 养老金可持续性的四种争议性路径
第一种选择是**提高退休年龄**。德国、英国和荷兰都在向67岁迈进。而意大利则更进一步，将退休年龄与预期寿命挂钩，意味着退休年龄将提高到70岁。然而，正如你所能想象的，许多接近退休年龄的人并不“兴奋”。为什么他们应该为不可持续的养老金体系买单？这尤其适用于从事体力劳动的人。因此，意大利总理**梅洛尼**正面临来自工会的强大压力，要求将退休年龄冻结在67岁。
幸运的是，梅洛尼还有其他三个选项。第二种选择是**削减养老金支付**。到目前为止，这种情况只发生在政治危机严重的时刻，例如希腊债务危机期间希腊的养老金支付被削减。但一些政府采取了相当“聪明”的做法：他们承诺在未来而非当下削减养老金支付。毕竟，人们不太可能抗议一项他们尚未感受到的较低收入。例如，在德国，平均养老金水平设定为到2040年从平均工资的48%降至45%。尽管如此，三点百分比的降幅对老年工人来说似乎还是太多了，他们进行了反抗，迫使政界人士将其提高到46%。
这就引出了第三种选择：**提高劳动者养老金缴款**。例如，在2018年至2023年间，**加拿大**已逐步将缴款率从5%提高到6%。同样，**墨西哥**和**韩国**也宣布将提高劳动者缴款。但这同样是一个政治上的难题。
最后，在养老金改革方面，没有“好”的选择。似乎更多的退休人员和更少的劳动者，终究会有人需要承担代价。这就是为什么“现收现付”养老金改革几乎总是会引发大规模的公众强烈反对。法国2/3的人仍然反对养老金改革。
然而，当然也存在一个更简单的选项。例如，世界上老龄化最快的国家迄今为止通过**增加政府借贷**来避免了非常艰难的政治选择。坦率地说，尽管人们喜欢将政府债务的不断增加归咎于政府的低效和官僚主义，但现实情况是，对于大多数富裕世界而言，这主要是由于不断增加的社会保障支付给退休人员以及日益增长的医疗费用，而这些费用也大多花在了退休人员身上。
可悲的是，如今越来越多的政府似乎已触及其不顾巨大后果而可以借贷的极限。英国和法国最近都曾濒临政府债务危机。而并非巧合的是，这两个国家拥有一些最慷慨的养老金支付。因此，政府现在似乎不得不面临三个糟糕选项中的一个艰难抉择：**增加退休年龄**（这将惹恼接近退休的X世代和年轻的婴儿潮一代）；**削减养老金福利**（这同样会惹恼婴儿潮一代退休人员或接近退休的X世代）；或者**大幅增加税收**（这将惹恼Z世代和千禧一代的劳动者）。
Original English
The
first
option
is
to
raise
the
retirement
age.
Germany,
the
UK,
and
the
Netherlands
are
all
moving
towards
67.
Meanwhile,
Italy
will
go
even
further.
They
have
tied
the
retirement
age
to
rising
life
expectancy,
meaning
that
it
will
rise
to
70.
However,
as
you
can
imagine,
many
people
who
are
close
to
retirement
are
not
exactly
thrilled
about
this.
Why
should
they
pay
the
price
for
the
unsustainable
pension
system?
This
applies
especially
to
workers
in
physically
demanding
jobs.
Therefore,
Italy's
Prime
Minister
Maloney
is
now
facing
strong
pressure
from
labor
unions
to
freeze
the
retirement
age
at
67.
Luckily
for
Maloney,
there
are
three
more
options.
The
second
option
is
to
reduce
pension
payments.
So
far,
this
has
only
happened
in
case
of
massive
political
crisis
such
as
when
Greek
pension
payments
were
cut
during
the
Greek
debt
crisis.
What
some
governments
have
done
though
is
pretty
smart.
They
pledged
to
cut
pension
payments
in
the
future,
not
today.
After
all,
people
are
less
likely
to
protest
getting
a
lower
income
if
they
don't
feel
it
yet.
For
example,
in
Germany,
the
average
pension
was
set
to
fall
from
48%
of
the
average
wage
to
45%
by
2040.
Still,
here
are
a
threepoint
drop
seemed
actually
a
bit
too
far
for
older
workers
especially,
and
they
have
revolted
causing
politicians
to
raise
this
back
to
46%.
This
then
brings
us
to
the
third
option,
raising
worker
pension
payments.
For
example,
between
2018
and
2023,
Canada
has
been
gradually
increasing
the
contribution
rate
from
5
to
6%.
And
similarly,
Mexico
and
South
Korea
have
announced
worker
contributions
will
have
to
increase.
But
again,
this
is
politically
super
tricky.
When
it
comes
to
pension
reforms,
there
are
just
no
good
options.
It
seems
more
retirees
and
fewer
workers.
Of
course,
someone
will
have
to
take
a
hit.
This
is
why
pay
as
you
go
pensions
reforms
almost
always
trigger
massive
public
backlash.
>> You
still
have
2/3
of
the
French
opposed
to
the
pension
reform.
>> Although
there
is
of
course
a
simpler
option,
for
example,
the
most
rapidly
aging
country
in
the
world
has
so
far
avoided
politically
very
hard
pension
choices
by
simply
increasing
government
borrowing.
And
honestly,
while
people
like
to
think
about
government
inefficiencies
and
bureaucracies
that
are
behind
ever
rising
government
debt,
the
cold
hard
reality
is
that
for
most
of
the
rich
world,
it
has
mostly
been
about
increasing
social
security
payments
to
pensioners
and
everinccreasing
healthcare
costs
that
also
mostly
go
to
pensioners.
Sadly,
today
it
seems
like
more
and
more
governments
are
hitting
the
limits
of
what
they
can
borrow
without
facing
massive
consequences.
Both
the
UK
and
France
recently
flirted
with
a
government
debt
crisis.
And
not
coincidentally,
these
are
the
two
countries
with
some
of
the
most
generous
pension
payments.
So,
it
seems
like
governments
now
have
to
make
a
really
hard
choice
between
three
bad
options.
Number
one,
increase
the
pension
age.
This
will
piss
off
Gen
X
and
young
boomers
who
are
close
to
the
pension
age.
Option
number
two,
cut
pension
benefits.
Again,
this
will
piss
off
boomer
pensioners
or
again
Gen
Xers
who
are
close
to
the
pension
age.
So,
there's
also
option
three,
increasing
taxes
massively,
ticking
off
Gen
Z
and
millennial
workers.
### 基金制养老金：承诺与潜在陷阱
但情况会不会有所不同呢？因为实际上，当进行本次视频的研究时，一个奇怪的想法闪过我的脑海。**小型老龄化国家**如丹麦和荷兰，是否有可能比其他国家更优越地采用**充分养老金**（fully funded）体系？
你看，**“现收现付”制**是民族化的。德国Z世代工人支付德国婴儿潮一代的养老金。德国的人口结构决定了德国养老金体系的可持续性。然而，丹麦和荷兰的养老金基金已将大部分丹麦和荷兰婴儿潮一代的养老金储蓄投资于海外，特别是在美国，那里的人口结构状况要好得多。那么，是否有可能，虽然充分养老金体系本质上是一个可能在大多数婴儿潮一代退休时导致巨大资产崩溃的“把戏”，但较小的、老龄化程度较低的国家可以通过投资于足够年轻的经济体来长期避免这种情况呢？我们拭目以待。
事实上，这就是整个视频的结论：我们拭目以待。你看，世界从未经历过如此大规模的人口转型。因此，“资产崩盘假说”以及**古德哈特**教授关于通胀、高税收和低收入不平等加剧的预测，在西方从未得到过科学检验。
然而，有趣的是，“资产崩盘假说”可能在**智利**因COVID-19疫情期间被意外检验过。为了缓解许多家庭在疫情期间感受到的经济压力，政府允许他们提前提取养老金储蓄。结果如何？首先，**当地股市崩盘**；其次，**出现了大规模的通货膨胀飙升**；第三，也是新的一点，政府介入，基本上**将养老金体系国有化**，使其从相对充分的基金制转变为“现收现付”制。没错，当智利的养老金体系被提取时，古德哈特的两个主要预测几乎同时成为现实。
因此，我悲观地认为，古德哈特教授可能很快就会被证明是对的：“未来40年将远不如过去40年那样美好。”除非我们真的看到了AI带来的奇迹，虽然目前有一些令人难以置信的进展。
Original English
Or
will
it?
Because
actually
when
doing
the
research
for
this
video,
a
strange
thought
popped
into
my
head.
Could
the
fully
funded
system
be
superior
after
all?
At least
for
small
aging
countries
like
Denmark
and
the
Netherlands.
You
see,
a
pay
as
you
go
system
is
national.
German
Gen
Z
workers
pay
for
German
boomer
pensioners.
German
demographics
determine
the
sustainability
of
the
German
pension
system
right
now.
But
Dutch
and
Danish
pension
funds,
they
have
invested
the
majority
of
Danish
and
Dutch
boomer
pension
savings
abroad,
especially
in
the
US,
which
has
quite
a
bit
better
demographic
profile.
So
could
it
be
that
while
fully
funded
pension
systems
are
essentially
a
trick
that
may
cause
a
big
asset
meltdown
when
most
boomers
retire,
smaller
older
countries
may
avoid
this
scenario
for
a
long
time
if
they
invest
in
sufficiently
young
economies.
We
will
have
to
see.
In
fact,
that
is
the
conclusion
for
this
entire
video.
We
will
have
to
see.
You
see,
the
world
has
simply
never
gone
through
this
massive
demographic
transition
before.
So
the
asset
meltdown
hypothesis
and
good
hard
predictions
of
increased
inflation,
higher
taxes,
and
lower
inequality,
these
have
never
been
scientifically
tested,
at
least
not
in
the
west.
Because
interestingly,
the
asset
meltdown
hypothesis
may
have
accidentally
been
tested
in
Chile
during
CO
19.
You
see,
to
alleviate
the
financial
stress
many
households
felt
during
the
pandemic,
the
government
allowed
them
to
access
their
pension
savings
early.
Guess
what
happened?
Number
one,
the
local
stock
market
crashed.
Number
two,
there
was
a
massive
inflation
spike.
Number
three,
and
this
is
new,
the
government
stepped
in,
essentially
nationalizing
the
pension
system,
making
it
from
relatively
fully
funded
to
pay
as
you
go.
That's
right.
Two
of
Goodart's
main
predictions
immediately
came
true
when
Chile's
expension
systems
were
drawn
down.
So
sadly,
I
suspect
there
is
a
real
chance
Professor
Goodhart
will
soon
be
proven
right
that
>> the
next
40
years
are
not
going
to
be
anything
like
as
wonderful
as
the
last
40.
>> That
is
unless
we
do
actually
see
a
miracle
from
AI
where
honestly
there
are
some
pretty
incredible
developments.
But
if
you
want
to
know
more
about
those,
I
have
to
refer
you
to
the
following
three
follow-up
analysis
from
our
advertising
sponsor,
The
Economist.
Specifically,
I
recommend
you
check
out
this
detailed
analysis
about
how
AI
is
disrupting
shopping.
Then
follow
up
with
this
analysis
on
how
AI
is
transforming
the
pharma
industry
for
the
better.
And
finally,
this
analysis
on
how
big
the
threat
to
entry-level
jobs
already
is.
As
these
analysis
show,
The
Economist
delivers
insight
that
truly
helps
you
to
see
the
bigger
picture.
This
is
why
I
highly
recommend
you
subscribe
to
The
Economist,
which
now
offers
an
exclusive
35%
discount
for
money
macro
viewers.
Whether
you
prefer
their
daily
journalism
in
the
Economist
app
or
you
are
like
me
and
prefer
to
catch
up
on
the
global
economy
during
the
weekend,
sitting
down
with
a
nice
cup
of
coffee
and
the
paper
edition.
You'll
always
stay
on
top
of
the
latest
global
developments
no matter
where
you
are.
So
don't
miss
out.
Click
the
link
in
the
description
or
top
comment
below
or
head
over
to
economist.com/moneymackro
to
claim
your
exclusive
35%
discount
### inescapable demographic reality and future outlook
尽管如此，经济学家们发现，迄今为止，许多退休人员实际上并没有完全花完他们的养老金储蓄。通常，他们去世时名下仍有可观的资产，这些资产会传给下一代。这在一定程度上可以缓和冲击，但根本的人口结构现实依然难以逃避。无论您是“现收现付”国家还是基金制国家，冷酷的人口现实是：当退休人员多于劳动者时，产出的商品和服务就会减少，而退休人员的需求却保持高位。
因此，**古德哈特**和他的合著者**普拉扬**预测，“伟大的**人口结构逆转**”（great demographic reversal）将导致未来几十年出现：
1. **较低的资产价格**。
2. **较高的通货膨胀**（因为所有退休人员都会继续消费）。
3. **较高的税收**。
4. **出人意料的较低收入不平等**，这或许是唯一积极的方面。毕竟，如果劳动力不足，尤其是在低薪护理行业，那么这些工人可以要求更高的工资。然而，即使是这些工人也将面临更高的通货膨胀。
总而言之，现实依旧严峻。老龄化将导致三个艰难的政治选择：第一，**晚退休**；第二，**降低养老金支付**；第三，**增加税收**。
或者，真的只有这些选择吗？世界从未经历过如此大规模的人口转型，因此“资产崩盘假说”以及古德哈特教授关于通胀、高税收和低收入不平等的预测，从未得到过科学检验。
Original English
Now
I
have
to
say
luckily
economists
have
found
that
so
far
many
pensioners
actually
do
not
perfectly
spend
down
their
pension
savings.
Typically
they
die
with
substantial
saved
up
assets
still
in
their
name
which
are
then
passed
on
to
the
next
generation.
So
this
could
soften
the
blow
but
still
the
underlying
demographics
are
hard
to
escape.
Whether
you
are
a
pay
as
you
go
or
a
fully
funded
country,
the
cold
hard
demographic
reality
is
that
if
more
people
retire
compared
to
those
who
work,
less
stuff
is
made
while
demand
by
pensioners
remains
high.
Therefore,
economists
like
Goodart
and
his
co-author
Prajan
predict
that
what
they
call
the
great
demographic
reversal
will
lead
to
decades
of
number
one
lower
asset
prices.
Number
two,
higher
inflation
because
all
these
pensioners
do
keep
spending.
Number
three,
higher
taxes
and
number
four
surprisingly
lower
inequality
which
perhaps
the
only
positive
takeaway.
After
all,
if
there
are
not
enough
workers,
especially
in
the
low
paid
care
sector,
then
these
workers
can
demand
higher
wages.
Yet,
even
these
workers
will
face
higher
inflation.
So,
overall,
the
reality
will
remain.
Aging
will
lead
to
three
tough
political
choices.
Number
one,
retire
later,
number
two,
lower
pension
payments,
or
number
three,
increase
taxes.
### 结论与对未来的展望
然而，正如**The Economist**在分析中所指出的，AI正在颠覆购物、改造制药行业，并对入门级工作构成重大威胁。这些分析表明，**The Economist**提供了真正帮助您看到宏观图景的洞察。这就是为什么我强烈推荐您订阅**The Economist**，他们目前为Money Macro的观众提供独家35%的折扣。无论您是喜欢**The Economist**应用程序中的日报，还是像我一样，喜欢在周末在纸质版上阅读全球经济新闻，您都能随时掌握最新的全球发展。
Original English
Or
will
it?
Because
actually
when
doing
the
research
for
this
video,
a
strange
thought
popped
into
my
head.
Could
the
fully
funded
system
be
superior
after
all?
At least
for
small
aging
countries
like
Denmark
and
the
Netherlands.
You
see,
a
pay
as
you
go
system
is
national.
German
Gen
Z
workers
pay
for
German
boomer
pensioners.
German
demographics
determine
the
sustainability
of
the
German
pension
system
right
now.
But
Dutch
and
Danish
pension
funds,
they
have
invested
the
majority
of
Danish
and
Dutch
boomer
pension
savings
abroad,
especially
in
the
US,
which
has
quite
a
bit
better
demographic
profile.
So
could
it
be
that
while
fully
funded
pension
systems
are
essentially
a
trick
that
may
cause
a
big
asset
meltdown
when
most
boomers
retire,
smaller
older
countries
may
avoid
this
scenario
for
a
long
time
if
they
invest
in
sufficiently
young
economies.
We
will
have
to
see.
In
fact,
that
is
the
conclusion
for
this
entire
video.
We
will
have
to
see.
You
see,
the
world
has
simply
never
gone
through
this
massive
demographic
transition
before.
So
the
asset
meltdown
hypothesis
and
good
hard
predictions
of
increased
inflation,
higher
taxes,
and
lower
inequality,
these
have
never
been
scientifically
tested,
at
least
not
in
the
west.
Because
interestingly,
the
asset
meltdown
hypothesis
may
have
accidentally
been
tested
in
Chile
during
CO
19.
You
see,
to
alleviate
the
financial
stress
many
households
felt
during
the
pandemic,
the
government
allowed
them
to
access
their
pension
savings
early.
Guess
what
happened?
Number
one,
the
local
stock
market
crashed.
Number
two,
there
was
a
massive
inflation
spike.
Number
three,
and
this
is
new,
the
government
stepped
in,
essentially
nationalizing
the
pension
system,
making
it
from
relatively
fully
funded
to
pay
as
you
go.
That's
right.
Two
of
Goodart's
main
predictions
immediately
came
true
when
Chile's
expension
systems
were
drawn
down.
So
sadly,
I
suspect
there
is
a
real
chance
Professor
Goodhart
will
soon
be
proven
right
that
>> the
next
40
years
are
not
going
to
be
anything
like
as
wonderful
as
the
last
40.
>> That
is
unless
we
do
actually
see
a
miracle
from
AI
where
honestly
there
are
some
pretty
incredible
developments.
But
if
you
want
to
know
more
about
those,
I
have
to
refer
you
to
the
following
three
follow-up
analysis
from
our
advertising
sponsor,
The
Economist.
Specifically,
I
recommend
you
check
out
this
detailed
analysis
about
how
AI
is
disrupting
shopping.
Then
follow
up
with
this
analysis
on
how
AI
is
transforming
the
pharma
industry
for
the
better.
And
finally,
this
analysis
on
how
big
the
threat
to
entry-level
jobs
already
is.
As
these
analysis
show,
The
Economist
delivers
insight
that
truly
helps
you
to
see
the
bigger
picture.
This
is
why
I
highly
recommend
you
subscribe
to
The
Economist,
which
now
offers
an
exclusive
35%
discount
for
money
macro
viewers.
Whether
you
prefer
their
daily
journalism
in
the
Economist
app
or
you
are
like
me
and
prefer
to
catch
up
on
the
global
economy
during
the
weekend,
sitting
down
with
a
nice
cup
of
coffee
and
the
paper
edition.
You'll
always
stay
on
top
of
the
latest
global
developments
no matter
where
you
are.
So
don't
miss
out.
Click
the
link
in
the
description
or
top
comment
below
or
head
over
to
economist.com/moneymackro
to
claim
your
exclusive
35%
discount