Should Social Security in the U.S Be Privatized?

[enlightenedmaster]

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.