There is great speculation about the uncertain future of the United States and the rest of the world. Socioeconomic and demographic projections portray a future in which the Social Security system will not have enough payroll taxes on workers to fund benefits for current retirees from older generations. Changes in human demographics, such as increasing life expectancy and decreasing fertility rates, mean that current economic policies will not be compatible with future human populations. Others, however, feel that these issues are hyperbolized and obfuscated, posing only a moderate problem. Kotlikoff and Burns, who write of a horrific future in which “pedestrians will outnumber strollers,” budgets will be cut, and taxes will skyrocket, present a terrifying picture of what will happen unless there is change rapid and of great impact in today's policies. Krugman, taking the stand, argues that Kotlikoff and Burns expose faulty relationships between current issues and moderate, preventable problems in conveying their message. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Kotlikoff and Burns argue in The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know About America's Economic Future that unless policies undergo drastic changes immediately, future generations will pay dearly for haphazard decisions made today. People are living longer lives. Numerous baby boomers are beginning to retire and benefit from Social Security. Social Security is currently funded by working-class payroll taxes, which the two argue are too small to fund Social Security. Changes in demographic dynamics, such as women having fewer children and increasing life expectancy, mean that the retirement of baby boomers will be a wave that the system cannot handle without major and immediate changes. If today's imprudent policies and actions are not changed in the interests of future generations, they warn, the future of the economy will be catastrophic. On a lighter note, Krugman, in response to Kotlikoff and Burns, states that they misrepresent the problems of rising costs and demographic change by presenting such a strong interrelationship. Even if the government has not made structured economic decisions for a better future, he argues, the social security system has been managed to ensure long-term security and should not be associated with inadequate economic policy. He says that Kotlikoff and Burns neglect to mention that a decrease in funding does not necessarily imply a deficit, but rather implies a decrease or total loss of the surplus, for which a trust fund exists. Krugman says privatizing the Social Security system is too precarious, citing uncertainty in stock premiums and future spending ratios, the obvious economic risk involved, and certain fees that will reduce tax returns. Concluding his reaction, Krugman addresses the prospect of rising health care costs by acknowledging that a solution may be impossible, but that prepaying expected costs or allocating a Medicare trust fund could postpone the problem. While Kotlikoff and Burns actually should have defeated potential counterarguments upfront in their paper (e.g. "Eventually, we will be close to having only two covered workers per beneficiary, which is expected to deplete the trust fund in 20XX"), I find their argument extraordinarily persuasive.