My latest column on Forbes has the above title. The core of the argument is this:

We’ve neglected a fundamental contract between generations. Here’s how it should work: One generation, whilst still working, must create sufficient capital prosperity that in retirement they can sell to the next generation. In return, that second generation gives up part of their income to ensure that the old have the funds they need to survive. This is a long-term investment cycle.

One generation needs to leave the schools, highways, communication and defense infrastructures in good shape so that the next generation doesn't have a backlog of investment to undertake while also looking after the old. In the commercial sphere enough technical and production capacity must have been created before the generation that helped make it has passed away. Without a deal that’s fair to both sides, the next generation won't be contracting with the previous one, they'll just be subsidizing it.

Right now I'm not convinced we're in anything like that fair position.

And I do, of course elaborate.