Should Social Security in the U.S Be Privatized?

[enlightenedmaster]

sc94597 said:

1. That money isn't recovered, but compensation is still made through other assets that individuals in that company own or if the company still exists (assets that the company owns.) As it is now individuals in said companies have limited liability, so once the company goes bankrupt that's the end of that. However, these people are the ones who made the fraudulent decisions, and if they aren't held accountable through the criminal system then the civil system will hold them accountable. I don't see how the criminal system prevents bribes any more than the civil system does, to be honest. In fact there is more incentive to bribe when taken to criminal court because the cost of imprisonment is quite high. If people are suing for the return of their assets however, the cost to bribe might likely exceed the cost to settle. As Aielyn mentioned, another way to prevent this is to diversify the assets. Instead of investing everything into one company, invest into multiple companies and if you so choose - natural resources (I'm not sure if Australia allows the other or not, but it should be possible.) 

well most the time time,remaining assets do not really cover the amount of fraud that has taken place

diversifying assets is good but most of all government shud be taking of certain basic things in human life

 

people who have worked 40 years in a corporation ahev their pensions lost as the company they worked for went under and as corporations have ups and downs and no company has more than 10-20 of high stability normally,its better not to trust private sector

also the headache of shifting money over and over again in ur old age is not the most liked scenario

 

2. The U.S remained quite low-key in the economy until the progressive era (early 1900's.) Besides protectionism and patents, both of which were overburdening on their system, the U.S let money stay in the hands of its people without many intrusions.  3% of GDP was government owned, and they still performed functions like enforcing anti-fraud laws, maintaining a defensive military, navy, and reserve, court system, etc, etc. I am not saying things were perfect then, or even better. They were a lot simpler though, and people couldn't get away with fraud so easily due to convulusion and high legal costs caused by such convulusion. There is a balance somewhere in the modern world. Furthermore, without such huge government expenditures (30-40% of GDP) the U.S could afford to not take out debt, and live within its means. People want their cake (social programs and military programs) and to eat it too (a stable economy that allows for employment and retirement through your own individualized actions where hyperinflation is not looming around the corner.) 

USA was a small country back then so people didn't expect much

today,USA is the biggest and greatest EMPIRE the world has ever seen

 

People expect better things as a Nation progresses and prospers

also if you know,USA was able to live happily and work-out its democratic experiment only because World Security and Trade was maintained by Britain without which USA wudn't have succeeded