Should Social Security in the U.S Be Privatized?

[sc94597]

enlightenedmaster said:

sc94597 said:

1. what?

they almost certainly do

2. if the company has done shenanigans with funds itself then the savings go down with the company

3. yup but still as a global player BRITAIN,FRANCE, dominated the global scene.It is nowhere near what it is today

4. if trade and world security wud not have been handled by BRITAIN then there wud be war happening all over the place and actually cud even happen in North America which USA was trying to conquer and influence

5. nobody really wants economic growth as economy can only grow upto a certain point,peak and then go down as in a cycle throughout history

unemployment and downturn will always be there but can't be stabalised to a certain extent

 

not all people want safety net,its only the Modern Liberal west who is crazy anout Welfarism

Soviet and China and other communist and socialist states were more of a peiordic problem not historical

 

abt large militaries,everything goes in cycle and with a Nations growth comes conquest and other responsibilities and so do more prosperity and more taxes

 

we probably can't have everything,but there can easily be a very very stable system

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.