Re: Privatizing SS will destroy SS


Thumper wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:05:01 -0700, El Castor
<anyonethere@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote:

El Castor wrote:

Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote:


js wrote:


Alan Lichtenstein wrote:


Thumper wrote:


On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:57:00 -0700, El Castor
<anyonethere@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




California Poppy wrote:



Harry Thompson wrote:

From Brad DeLong's blog:



People have brains designed by evolution to figure out whether it's safe to
leap to the next branch and when the fruit is ripe. They don't have brains
designed to make long-run investment decisions.

Then he points to this depressing study:
http://www.capitalspectator.com/archives/2006/07/selection_risk.html

The subjects are MBAs at Wharton. Read the report and weep.


This was a very dumb test given to these students. Any person could
develop a decent portfolio just by looking around them. They might buy
Toyota, Safeway, RiteAid, Costco, Motorola, etc. The idea that most
couldn't do this is elitist. Of course a small percentage will
speculate with their money and lose it. A small percentage of people
are compulsive gamblers, too. We don't have the right to protect them
against themselves.


What will you do with those who fail?

Surprisingly, I agree with you. I don't have a problem with social
security being a guaranteed social safety net. I also don't have a
problem with a million dollar lump sum paid to everyone when they
retire -- if we had it to give to them. When Social Security was
conceived most people didn't live long enough to collect what they
contributed -- now they are vastly out-living it, and as the
percentage of people contributing declines versus those who are
collecting, it's only going to get worse. It has to be put back on a
sound financial footing -- which probably means shaving the COLA and
extending the retirement age. It does not mean funding Social Security
out of general tax revenues, or the usual solution for everything --
redistribution of income.



Why not? The rich have no trouble redistributing income to them.

Jeff thinks income redistribution occurs only when the Government shifts
income( an erroneous conclusion ) from the wealthy to the less affluent,
but doesn't think income redistribution occurs when the free market
shifts income from the less affluent to the more affluent.

Consequently, Jeff thinks it's OK for the rich to get richer and the
poor to get poorer, but it's not OK for the rich to get rich more
slowly( or simply remain as they are ), but have the less affluent get a
little richer.


I think Alan thinks for everyone else but is troubled by his own
thinking.

Your problem is that you think you're thinking. Don't try to think; you
get in trouble when you try to think.


How exactly does the private sector redistribute income?

Charging excessive profits for commodities( like oil, for example ) and
reducing pay to employees.

Got that?

I got the

government part worked out pretty welll - 40 plus years experience
playing that game - but I'm still curious how GM differentiates between
it's shareholders. Do rich shareholders get more dividends per share?

No, you got what you rationalize is the Government's role. And we have
already established that you get in trouble when you try to think, so we
can eliminate your assertion above.

See above. The shareholders get richer while the employers get poorer.
Got it now?


Please share with us your proposed solution to these grievous wrongs.

Union shops.

Forcing people to join a union. Collectivism at it's best.


no one is forced to join a union.

That's exactly right Thumper - but everyone can organize IF they have
enough support from their fellow workers. But I don't think that was
Alan's point - he argues that the solution that gives workers power is
through unionization and the only way this works is if all the workers
are in this collective.

So - now what? Is Alan advocating a mandated collective or endorsing
the status quo?

js

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Privatizing SS will destroy SS
    ... The rich have no trouble redistributing income to them. ... shifts income from the less affluent to the more affluent. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Privatizing SS will destroy SS
    ... The rich have no trouble redistributing income to them. ... shifts income from the less affluent to the more affluent. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Privatizing SS will destroy SS
    ... The rich have no trouble redistributing income to them. ... shifts income from the less affluent to the more affluent. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Privatizing SS will destroy SS
    ... The rich have no trouble redistributing income to them. ... shifts income from the less affluent to the more affluent. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT: To Be A Good Republican These Days . . .
    ... FICA taxes. ... They has Adjusted Gross Income as a group of $4,227,839,000,000. ... In fact, in year 2007, $784 Billion in FICA taxes were received. ... So the extra $200 Billion to be raised by taxing the remaining income of the very rich would add more than 25% per year to the Social Security Trust Fund. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)