So those two graph are in no way misleading?

1. I can guarantee you that these individuals don't suffer when their company goes in bankruptsy. They have secured funds elsewhere. 

2. It doesn't matter if the company you are employed by goes under. All that matters is that the companies and resources you've invested in go under. And if you invest in many of them the probability is low for you to lose a sizeable portion of your savings. 

3. No it wasn't. It was the largest economy since the 1870's when it surpassed Britain, and it was quite large even before then. That is a good generation before the progressive era. 

4. A huge proportion of the growth was internal. So I definetely would not say the U.S would not had suceeded without world trade. World trade was actually a problem for the U.S's establishment at the time and that is why tariffs were so high during that period.  I don't think Americans truly took advantage of free-trade during that period, like they could've - again, because of protectionism. It's natural resources allowed it to be self-sufficient, in contract, however.

But all of that is besides the point: people want their cake and to eat it to. They want low unemployment and large economic growth with no downturns, AND they want huge safety nets (for which they are not responsible) and/or large militaries. You can't have both, at least not in the excess that there is today. 

One of the graphs describes how one system has succeeded in its goal (by producing returns on investments, represented as GDP shares) and the other graph shows the huge cost of a purely public retirement system (through deficits.) The juxtaposition of the two is not suppost to be a direct comparison, but a highlight of the advantage of the first and a highlight of the issues with the second. 

Notice the headings,

"Australia's Private Retirement System Generates Big Increases in Wealth" - substantiated with the graph. 

"America's Social Security System Produces Huge Budget Deficits" - substantiated with the graph. 

I chose to post the graphs as they were interesting pieces of the blogpost, but there is more to the blogpost than the graphs, and the author did say this: 

"The two charts aren’t analogous, of course, but that’s because there’s nothing to compare. The Social Security system has no savings. Indeed, it discourages people from setting aside income."

I believe the stock market is already over inflated.  The bubble has grown and many companies stocks are pumped up more than they are really worth.  If all of a sudden the SS money is dumped into 401Ks then this will cause the market to jump up way too high.  The people that can pull money will to make a decent profit.  Sure the SS money would perhaps stabilize it overtime but it would be an almost instant cut in overall SS money when the bubble pops shortly after the huge spike.  No worries then it would take about 5-10 years to recover that lost money before another bubble.  The overall trend would be up but imagine if you became of retirement age when the market was way down.  Your money would be cut in half during the down years but you still would like to start taking money out.  If anything it should be put into CDs or some other low interest but less volatile market. 

First thing that need to happen though is that the government needs to stop spending/drawing from the SS fund for other things besides SS.

It isn't going to happen like that. It will happen gradually. There is no "SS money" to put into 401 k's anyway. The 401 k's would be future investments, and would likely start out at a very low mandated rate (like 1%-3% of a person's income) and grow gradually. Social security would be scaled down gradually to make up for the burden on employees. A sizable portion of the workforce already has 401 k's (something like 50%) so the effect is even more minsicule that would be thought. Plus you can put a sizable portion of this money into bonds if you are afraid about stock market fluctuations. 

I think Starcraft has done a pretty good job at explaining but to be clear it is the only 'privatised' social security that we have in Australia, at least as far as I know, and as already mentioned we still have the pension for those who have not accumulated sufficient Super for whatever reason.

Just to clarify with an example. My employer contributes a minimum of 9.75% per year which is separate from and quoted independently from my salary. We are then encouraged (by our employer) to contribute additional amounts from our salary, with our employer matching additional contributions that we make up to a maximum of 5%. i.e. if i put in 5% extra, so will they. Just to sweeten the deal we can make our optional payments pre income tax. As a result you can be banking up to 19.75% Super per year (14.75 from the employer and 5% by the employee) This is set to increase to nearly 24% in the next couple of years.

I presently have my Super invested (my choice) in a 'high risk' portfolio (figured it was a good option post GFC) which has seen an average return of nearly 20% over the last 5 years. My contributions at the moment total only 13.75% (because I'm still paying student loans), but all in all I've accumulated nearly 100K in the past 5 years, on a decent, but not particularly high, salary. That's money sitting in my Super account, managed by a company of my choosing and invested as I see fit.

If you ask me I reckon that's pretty good.

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.

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.