Here's a perfect example of why a "retirement age" is is just another invention by the government along with unions and other interest groups who want people to exit the workforce before their time that amounts to nothing more than a big waste of resources,

British adventurer Sir Ranulph Fiennes has reached the summit of Everest on his third attempt at conquering the world's highest mountain, a spokeswoman said.

The 65-year-old arrived at the top of the 8,848-metre peak just before 10:00am (Australian time), she said.

He began his latest attempt to climb the mountain three weeks ago, according to the BBC, and now becomes the oldest Briton - and the first British pensioner - to scale the mountain.

Joking about his advanced age, which in Britain brings free travel on some public transport, Me Fiennes was quoted by the BBC as saying: "It's amazing where you can get with a bus pass these days." -- Source

If a 65-year-old can climb Everest, surely people can keep working (especially desk jobs!) well into their 70s and beyond. Rather than just play golf and watch TV all day they could be using their skills productively. That said, everyone should have the option to retire, regardless of age, but the government should stop providing endless incentives to exit the workforce once you turn 65 (pensions, discounts, access to super, and so on).

It goes much deeper though -- there's a huge disincentive to save in our society with the constant debasing of the dollar, debtor bailouts, heavy taxes and so on. Rather than forcing people to save (super) and providing them with a pension and other benefits if that's insufficient, a return to sound money so that savings aren't forever eroded (indeed their purchasing power would increase over time) would be a good start to bringing back some incentive to save.

While Federal Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner says the latest retail sales figures[1] show the Government is taking the right steps to fight the economic downturn, the truth is probably the opposite. While I'm going to ignore the blatant issue with cause and effect (we have no idea based on the evidence alone whether the stimulus worked or didn't work. What if retail sales are up on some unrelated issue?), the downturn we're experiencing is a response to an artificially inflated economic structure, not a lack of consumption and spending.

Loose credit, courtesy of the Federal Reserve in the US and our own RBA, was lured into certain sectors and industries in an unsustainable way, known as malinvestment. The natural response is for failed businesses to sell off assets and allow the labour and capital currently held up in those industries to be reallocated.

Some real good news would be further declines in retail spending, which would perhaps indicate that consumers were taking on less debt. They might be saving more. They might be adjusting their time preferences and thinking about long-term plans rather than short-term wants. Unfortunately, it seems that the stimulus is serving its purpose: prolonging the downturn and the misallocation of capital so that the political muppets can claim a victory based on some government statistics.

All of the above (less debt, more savings) are pre-conditions for recovery. The sudden increase in retail sales is only good news if one adopts the crude theory that economies are sustained by consumer spending. Consumer spending is simply the 'reward' for the real foundations of growth: real savings and investment. I find it highly unlikely this recent jump in retail sales are a result of an improvement of those foundations; the more likely answer is that it was caused by further capital destruction for short-term gains.

[1] Source: Sales surge 'shows stimulus success', ABC Australia, 06/05/2009