By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should Social Security in the U.S Be Privatized?

 

Should Social Security Be Privatized?

Yes 28 24.14%
 
No 78 67.24%
 
Maybe 3 2.59%
 
Undecided 7 6.03%
 
Total:116
enlightenedmaster said:
sc94597 said:

Like they do in Australia?

i don't really know the Australian system

 

but i wudn't compare USA with Australia,Japan,Europe,etC

 

USA is much much more rowdy and cut-throat capitalist then any of those places and a higher risk of fraud

Yep Union Participation in Australia is also around 30% and alot more regulations on many businesses. Let's also not forget if it was privatized in 2009, it would be gone.



Around the Network
sc94597 said:
generic-user-1 said:


changing demographics influence asset prices too...  more old people=more seller...

Wouldn't more old people => fewer sales because they are going to be using their assets when they are old  rather than paying into them? Like it has been said, if somebody doesn't want to play the market game, they can always buy bonds instead.

the number of sales will stay the same, but the prices will crash realy fast if alot more people want to sell their assets because they are old, somebody will buy when the prices are low enough.

there is a market for bonds too, and bonds arent riskless...

a social net is needed anyway, some people just dont earn enough and others lose their money in the market.

ohh and high stock price are a huge malinvestment for the society, every dollar that flows into the stock market is a wasted dollar as long as its not going into an ipo.  



enlightenedmaster said:
Aielyn said:

1. The government can put a guarantee on the money for those situations (meaning, in the situation in which the corporation squanders the money, the government will provide the money as a replacement; gives the government more motivation to properly regulate to prevent the problem in the first place, too).

well why waste money,why not let government handle it and secure it

also it shudn't be governments duty to pay for corporate shenanigans and where wud government bring the money from,they don't actually frow it on trees

no matter what,govenrment will fuck up regulations,they actually like it.if you know USA's false flag history,government will actually make it happen

they were 2-3 years ago trying to start a war with IRAN,RUSSIA on the basis of financial warfare

2. But beyond that, like I said, proper regulation is more than sufficient. Corporations have extensive restrictions on what they can do with superannuation money. It's not like in America with the repeal of Glass-Steagal and related issues. 

well they have in the past

3. Super funds don't actually "own" your money at any point - they manage it,

thast waht i am worried abt,if they just held it in some safe,then i wud be tension free

but them playing with my money won't let me sleep properly

4. but beyond the standard charges, they can't actually access it directly. They just instruct where to invest, etc... and it's pretty much required that they diversify the investment, to minimise the risk. And then all the strict regulations apply on top of it. Even if the company collapses, your Super is safe.

not really,companies have a way of misplacing funds and resoruces and cooking books and just using someone's money to fix somebody else's problem

5. It's certainly not perfect, but I'm not aware of any country with a better system. And that most certainly includes America, where your purely-public system is bankrupting you.

well,USA need an absolute overhall not just money system but politics,culture,religion,people,etc

 

if you know history and have studied history cycles and have studied Roman History

Its almost time for American republic to go under like Roman republic and birth of an American Empire with an Emperor

back in Rome,it was the same poistion USA's in right now.Nobody had the balls to fix it other than Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar

6. In fact, Australia's a good demonstration on the possibility of proper balancing of public and private (although there are certainly issues, they're mostly down to the government not doing it right) - not just Super, but also our Health system, our Education system, etc.

yeah Australia,Canada - both European centric countries and Europe have poreety good regulations compared to the fuck-up that is USA

1. It doesn't waste money. Indeed, what it means is that the government is generally never out of pocket, yet your money is still safe. And like I said, the whole point is that proper regulation prevents the companies from "shenanigans" with your money. So the only way your money disappears is some massive worldwide economic collapse... in which case, the government isn't going to have the money, either. As for the claim of the government "fucking up" regulations... the Australian government hasn't. If Americans are being screwed over by their government, they need to stop voting them in. And don't waste your time bringing up "False flag" claims - they're nonsense.

2. I'm not even sure what you're responding to, here. Who have what in the past?

3. Super funds are required to invest according to your wishes. So you can ask them to put the money in safe investments that garner only small returns (not unlike regular bank accounts). Or you can be more risky, and ask them to invest for long-term returns. And there's even "self-managed super funds", which go further and basically let you be the manager of your own investments (there are, of course, laws about what you can "invest" the money in - you can't "invest" it in a holiday home for yourself, for instance).

4. Maybe in America. In Australia, there are all sorts of safeguards for superannuation, and more generally for anything where companies have control over individuals' money.

5. I'm sorry, but that's just plain nonsense. The 'history repeats itself' logic is massively flawed (among other things, technology wasn't present in the past, and technology makes massive changes to how society operates). The US is going to undergo some turmoil, I suspect... but only until Americans realise that they actually can vote for who they want, even if they're not one of the two main parties. But I think step 1 for America is to introduce preferential voting (which Australia has) - it will open up the system to allow more parties and fairer elections (Remember Nader? He wouldn't have harmed Gore's chance of winning in 2000 if the US used a preferential system).

6. "European centric"? What? Are you talking about Australia? If you are, then you really don't know Australia.

EDIT: By the way, if you think the government is "fucking up" and failing to do various things, and even setting up "false flags"... why would you trust them with your money?



Americans don't even like being forced to have health insurance. Do you think Americans would like being forced to have a 401k? They would be screaming about "tyranny" "socialism" "communism" and all types of fear mongering buzz words. lol



sc94597 said:
sethnintendo said:

Yea let us over-inflate the stock market and cause a huge bubble again.

When most of these new assets cannot be taken out until 30-50 years from now (you are not allowed to touch it until retirement) how exactly would the boom, bust? Nobody will stop investing or remove their assets out of fear, because they can't. They'll just move it to other assets, if they are afraid. By the time people can collect, the stock market would have grown large enough to accomodate, assuming no interim disasters. This is also especially true if we consider that the diversification of assets wouldn't make any single investment more popular than any another. Also if it is done gradually (slow decrease in social security and slow increase in personal account mandates this would also not be an issue.) It would have to be done gradually anyway, because there are people already invested in the social security system. Social security would likely still exist, but mostly for the poor and disabled. 

Sure, any circumstance in which resources are being allocated unoptimally will lead to a bubble, but some bubbles are much worse than others. And this one is at least predictable. 

This would be much less endangering to the stock market than the poor manipulation of interest rates by the FED anyway. 

Agreed.

Whilst I again stress that you can choose to invest in anything that meets the 'one purpose' rule, most people are with funds. As a young adult, it is generally recommended that I have a higher proportion of my wealth in moderate risk investments, and a small amount in high risk investments. If I were too lose money, I would retain ~30 years in which to rebuild my wealth.

If I was 50, it would be recommended that the majority of my wealth be in small risk, small return investments.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network

Also why change the system? All they would have to do is lift the cap that is now on SS for the rich. The rich only pay in on there first 117,00 made, Meaning if they make 1 Million in a calender year. 983,000 would have not paid into SS, However 117,000 would have. If this cape was lifted SS could be expanded, pay out more and last forever.



How about you privatize your National security instead?



Ruler said:
How about you privatize your National security instead?


lol

we will have an American CAESAR within 10years if that happened



sc94597 said:

1. Sorry let me rephrase that. I meant that they still have personal funds elsewhere which likely exceed what they've lost (corporately) during the process towards bankrupsy. Often when a company goes bankrupt, its employees responsible for said bankruptsy also don't go bankrupt. They've secured themselves. 

YUP THE WHOLE managing funs urself and even that in old age and shifting it constantly is not very appealing

 

and abt the employees securing themselves,thats exactly what happens most time and why frauds happen as the employees are mainly taking care of themselves not their clients

2. Wasn't it already said that in this situation you are the one who has most control over the funds? For example, this personal account follows you from employer to employer (at least from what I gather.) So if the company that you've worked for is gone, you still have your personal account. They were only responsible for docking your pay and putting it in to something, that something being of your choice.

yeah but i was talking abt the private fund itself going down

3. Sure, but why do we care about that? As long as the country is functioning, people are producing, and benefiting themeselves why does it matter if one is a "global player?" The U.S was an economic powerhouse regardless of its global status. 

well being a PLAYERS has many rewards but also many responsibilities and expectations

economic power itself is nothing and is always pre-cursor to military and polical power

4. Not likely. The U.S was able to stave off Britain, and benefit from France and Spain BECAUSE of their wars. If they weren't at war with each-other, than Spain and France would have bigger claims in their North American assets (no Lousiana Purchase, no former Mexican states) and the colonies would never had won the Revolutionary War nor the War of 1812. The U.S was successful because everybody else was at war, not peace. After that Britain became a superpower, but it still wouldn't dare to go to war with the U.S for the same reason the U.S doesn't go to war with China, and they were the only ones capable of it.

well yeah but the main reason USA won and prospered was that Colonies themselves at first and the other unused land in North America not of that much importance to Global Empires of BRITAIN,FRANCE,SPAIN

do you really think the BRITISH EMPIRE or NAPOLEAN's FRENCH EMPIRE cudn't beat USA............hehe............it wasn't of much importance back then

INDIA was the jewel in BRITAIN's crown and Ottoman Empire and China were more important to BRITAIN than USA

5. Since after the end of the middle ages the amount of production and useable resources in the world has only increased. Before that it was flat. Destitution (absolute poverty, not relative poverty) has greatly decreased from something like 80% of the world's population at the end of the 18th century to only 20% today.

Production efficiency has improve,not production on its own otherwise

useable resoruces have imporved as NEW WORLD(North America,South America,Australia,North Pole,South Pole) were discovered,not by itself

 

the production and resources were never ever flat,as i said before - hisotry goes in cycles.When there were ROMAN,CHINESE,IRAN-PERSIAN,MESPOTAMIAN,EGYPTIAN,INDIA,ISLAMIC empires then more population and more land conquest and technology brought in more production and resources

otherwise if you look at small empires,production and resources were down almost like 100times down

After ROMAN EMPIRE collapsed,resources and production collapsed in Europe

 

POVERTY today is the same as in ROMAN times,if you earn $100,000 and a billionaire earns $500,000,000,you are still poor.Poverty is an idea used relatively.

Of course people want economic growth. That is the long term struggle, to remove scarcity of resources as much as possible. And you can only do that through production.

nope,people wish economic growth as they wish WEALTH,BEAUTY,HEAVEN,HAPPINESS,etc not want economic growth 

 

scarcity of resources will always be there as it has been in the past,conquering NEW WORLD added HUGE amounts of farmlands to existing world farmlands but quickly the population rose very fast almost making farmland space increase nill or even decreased per human born on earth

actually that is wrong and used by economist and liberals to show how much we have progressed and fool people

Wealth mostly never increases or decreases,it just gets tranfered from one place to another

 

for example,USA Government and Federal Reserve say,USA economy has grown over the last 70 years

the economy has grown but only in nominal terms not real terms because of dollar devaluation aka if salaries doubled from$20,000 to $40,000 but eveything cost 10times,then there isn't really any increase but a decrease

 

 

but if you see share of  USA gdp in world gdp then you wud know that there hasn't been any wealth increase as wealth tranfers from 1 individual or country to another.

 





Aielyn said:

1. It doesn't waste money. Indeed, what it means is that the government is generally never out of pocket, yet your money is still safe. And like I said, the whole point is that proper regulation prevents the companies from "shenanigans" with your money. So the only way your money disappears is some massive worldwide economic collapse... in which case, the government isn't going to have the money, either. As for the claim of the government "fucking up" regulations... the Australian government hasn't. If Americans are being screwed over by their government, they need to stop voting them in. And don't waste your time bringing up "False flag" claims - they're nonsense.

both the companies themeselves and the government regulators have not really performed well throughout ages to trust them to do so in the future

also if USA can fuck-up,Australie sure can as it is a smaller country with much power and support.And it isn't really abt voting USA government out when corporations control the government itself

 

false flag claims are in no way non-sense,think tanks and government personels themselves agree with it and it is common throughout history

2. I'm not even sure what you're responding to, here. Who have what in the past?

didn't glass steagle get repealed in 1999 and also other laws after corporations influence and lobby the government

3. Super funds are required to invest according to your wishes. So you can ask them to put the money in safe investments that garner only small returns (not unlike regular bank accounts). Or you can be more risky, and ask them to invest for long-term returns. And there's even "self-managed super funds", which go further and basically let you be the manager of your own investments (there are, of course, laws about what you can "invest" the money in - you can't "invest" it in a holiday home for yourself, for instance).

do you really expect after working 40years,people want the headahe of managing their retirnment and the risk?

4. Maybe in America. In Australia, there are all sorts of safeguards for superannuation, and more generally for anything where companies have control over individuals' money.

well,they can regulate and control but at the end the funds are with the company  and they can fuck it up any time as they did during 2008 crisis and lost alot of money

5. I'm sorry, but that's just plain nonsense. The 'history repeats itself' logic is massively flawed (among other things, technology wasn't present in the past, and technology makes massive changes to how society operates).

no it isn't,my commnet wasn't just a casual 'history repeaets itself' trying to be wise joke

i ama student of deep history and comparative civilzations,i know what i'm talking abt.if you wanna debate then i can easily explain to you what you think is not correct with my argument

 

abt technology,it has always been present,it Roman and Indian and Chinese and Islamic times,various technologies were present and major upgrades were done to increase productivity

technology isn't some magic trick but just an upgrade in efficiceny and productivity that simplifies and improves things.

for example,in olden times armies had Infantry,Cavalry and Artillery - the same is there today,just that Infantry has guns instead of Swords and Armored Core has Tanks instead of Horses & spears and Artillery has guns instead of bow and arrow

 

the technology we have today is mainly a BIG upgrade because of Industrial Revolution which had an Enery revolution brought on by COAL compared to Animal Power used before - the same happened as we produced forward with Fossil fuels,Hydro and Atomic energy and as we are doing now with Solar energy,they are all basicall upgrade to the what was available before allowing us to do more.We will have many more upgrades when we Colonize Space as we will need more energy to go to Moon or Mars.

 

The US is going to undergo some turmoil, I suspect... but only until Americans realise that they actually can vote for who they want, even if they're not one of the two main parties.

not really,USA system is outright broken and also past the Liberal democratic state of government

not once throughout history has any nation repaired wihtout a STRONG MAN and heavy-handedness and surely America is not gonna

 

and when that STRONG MAN comes and the state USA is in,it isn't gonna be people who are gonna decide whats gonna happen but the STRONG MAN himself electing him to power.

But I think step 1 for America is to introduce preferential voting (which Australia has) - it will open up the system to allow more parties and fairer elections (Remember Nader? He wouldn't have harmed Gore's chance of winning in 2000 if the US used a preferential system).

more parties will come but democratic elections will surely be dead by the end of this century

 

and don't give an exmaple of Australia,it is just one of the Western European off-shoots so they all have the same political system.When cultures and civilization grow powerful,they become more liberal and democratic as they have alot of wealth to spare and don't need to normal old-time hierarchical structure of soceity

but at the same time when the culture and civilization become old and frail and starts to lose dominance and vigor,they go back to the old ways to get the soceity back in form and to make things happen and secure themselves as an EMPIRE.

You can see examples of this in ISLAMIC,INDIAN,EGHYPTIAN,CHINESE,ROMAN empires all the way and if you compare,USA is exactly following the same pattern perfectly

 

6. "European centric"? What? Are you talking about Australia? If you are, then you really don't know Australia.

by european-centric i meant heritage and culture and political system and basic character not that Australia like Europe or is focused towards it

EDIT: By the way, if you think the government is "fucking up" and failing to do various things, and even setting up "false flags"... why would you trust them with your money?

as government is mainly fucking up as todays they are basically ruled by MONEY and CORPORATIONS

but at the end of the day Government is seen in different light no matter what to Private Companies and people aren't really gonna be more pissed and make corporations accountable but they sure as hell will make government accountable

 

Also as i have mentioned before,there are periods in hisotry where governments are very unstable and also that every EMPIRE has a Life of 250years,the first 100-150,the country is very stable,the next 50years it devalues its currency but still stable,the last 25-50years can be pretty much outright downward slide and can get very unstable

USA is close to the end of its 250year cycle from 1776 to now in 2015 and you can clearly show the cracks and crisis all-around since they started to outright devalue the DOLLAR since 1971 GOLD STANDARD de-pegging by Nixon