Brad DeLong used to run a series of posts asking "why oh why can't we have a better press corps?" Coverage of the pensions triple lock reminds me of his lament, because in one respect it is flat wrong.

The Guardian and the Independent agree that it is "expensive."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The minor problem is that it the triple lock doesn't matter in the short-term. if inflation is over 2.5% - which is likely this year and possible next - the triple lock adds nothing that bog-standard uprating won't. The FT wins a spotter's badge for this:

The triple lock only becomes a bigger burden on the economy and public finances when the highest of prices, earnings or 2.5 per cent is greater than the growth in the absolute size of the economy.

Even this, though, is wrong. The lock will not be a "burden on the economy." It is not a cost. It is a transfer from one group to another. As I've complained before, a transfer is NOT the same as a cost*. The pretence that it is serves a reactionary function as it creates the impression that the state is a burden when it is (often) not.

You might object that the transfer is a cost to the young. No. Most young people will become old and thus will get a state pension. The triple lock is therefore a transfer from us to our future selves. And it is our future selves that will benefit more than today's pensioners. If the triple lock remains place, young people will benefit from decades of compound growth, whereas today's old folk will see only a few years of such growth before they die. As Albert Einstein said, "the most powerful force in the universe is compound interest."

In fact, from the point of view of young people, it's not clear that the triple lock is a cost even today. We must provide for a pension income somehow. The question is: do we do so via the state or via private pensions? And there is, as I've said, a strong case for doing so more via the state. Not only is it better placed to bear risk, but it is also cheaper: the charges on some private pensions can be pretty close to legalized theft.

We should think of the triple lock not just as part of fiscal policy but as part of pensions policy. From this perspective, it makes sense. Even for youngsters, it's a saving insofar as it reduces the need to pay pension fund managers.

The triple lock, then, isn't expensive**.

In saying this, I'm not just making an economic point. I'm also making a political one. Even when political journalists try to be neutral they are in fact biased. We, and they, should be more conscious of these biases.

* Actually, even in narrow fiscal terms, the triple lock isn't that expensive. The OBR reckons that state spending on pensions will rise from 5.2% of GDP now to 7.1% by 2066-67 (table 3.7 of this pdf). This would leave spending lower than it is in many countries today: as the OECD says, UK state pensions are low relative to other rich nations. This is perfectly affordable, if we want it to be.

** Econ 101ers might object that pension provision via savings would increase the capital stock whereas provision via taxes wouldn't. I doubt it. Even insofar as pension contributions go into the UK stock market, they only indirectly add to the capital stock simply because capital spending isn't financed by issues of new equity. There are countless better ways of increasing the capital stock than by encouraging private pensions.