Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] Social Security---no panaceas around the world

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] Social Security---no panaceas around the world
  • Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:26:41 -0700


Such accounts, he said, "would reduce Americans' reliance on
government and give individuals greater ownership of wealth, as well
as responsibility for and control over their own lives."

I think that is the crux of the philosophical belief driving the reform effort by Bush. He thinks like a rich man advising his children, children who take wealth for granted. I heard a minister-author interview yesterday: the guy said he was one of several ministers Bush had asked for advice. During their talks, Bush had openly stated that he does not understand how poor people think. I am reminded of his father, about whom it was said he never went through a store checkout line in his life.

Most of us like the idea of being independent of government as much as possible. A few of us would provide for our own retirement. Most would not. Hence the need for a mandatory program.

"Sweden shows that most
people don't want this kind of responsibility. They want the
government to do it for them."

Which is why we have so many government programs. Modern human nature prefers a balance between personal freedom and government care. The preferred balance is different between political parties, between countries, between individuals. Then there is expertise. We have a wide range of interest and expertise, from day traders to non-investors who, left to their own, would never invest beyond home ownership. Which, by the way, is a good investment for retirement.

Unless we are willing to turn our backs on destitute retirees, which would mean that we would be purposely creating greater poverty, we must have a mandatory program, and if we want something that is better than what we have, it must somehow be smarter than the present system, and cost less.

Because of my life experience, I wish real estate were being discussed as part of the mix of potential investments that could replace part of the current investment in government securities. All investment entails risk; the greater potential for high return is riskiest. If we find that government bonds, with their safe but modest returns, are not the ideal retirement vehicle, then all other investments should be considered. With the present limited proposal, it looks to me like Wall Street firms would benefit big. They are being suspiciously quiet. Follow the money.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page