Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Czechlist] Re: Putin's wisdom, was GWB at it again..

Expand Messages
  • James Kirchner
    ... No, come to think of it, you didn t say it was good. Sorry for the oversight. ... That is if they don t tailor the plan in such a way as to provide for
    Message 1 of 32 , Feb 28, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Monday, February 28, 2005, at 08:27 AM, Michael Grant wrote:

      > On Feb 27, 2005, at 9:40 PM, James Kirchner wrote:
      >
      > > Beyond that, you're going to have to explain to me why a society-wide
      > > flow-through redistribution scheme is good.
      >
      > Why would I have to do that--did I say it was good?

      No, come to think of it, you didn't say it was good. Sorry for the
      oversight.

      > I was just pointing
      > out that those who complain about the poor "return" they're getting on
      > their SS "investment" are implicitly leaving two generations of seniors
      > in the lurch.

      That is if they don't tailor the plan in such a way as to provide for
      the seniors and the very poor while the thing is being fully
      privatized. They're going to have to. Once you've got a Ponzi scheme
      going, it's hard to call it off without a lot of people suffering.

      > My personal view is that SS should probably be cut back and turned into
      > a pure anti-poverty program to provide a minimum decent level of
      > sustenance for those who need it. Everyone else probably *can* do
      > better with real private-sector investments, not pseudo-private
      > "individual accounts" in a gummint system.

      I agree with you there. But it sounds to me as if Bush really is
      proposing really private individual accounts but under intense gummint
      scrutiny. I just hope the scrutiny is intense enough and that no one
      throws a wrench into it. We've already had that bad savings & loan
      failure, in which, contrary to what some claim, the banking regulations
      were in place to prevent catastrophe, but certain people in Congress
      threatened the inspectors and prevented them from enforcing the
      regulations. Account holders lost a lot of their savings, and those
      Congressmen merely got written reprimands.

      Jamie


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • James Kirchner
      ... No, come to think of it, you didn t say it was good. Sorry for the oversight. ... That is if they don t tailor the plan in such a way as to provide for
      Message 32 of 32 , Feb 28, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On Monday, February 28, 2005, at 08:27 AM, Michael Grant wrote:

        > On Feb 27, 2005, at 9:40 PM, James Kirchner wrote:
        >
        > > Beyond that, you're going to have to explain to me why a society-wide
        > > flow-through redistribution scheme is good.
        >
        > Why would I have to do that--did I say it was good?

        No, come to think of it, you didn't say it was good. Sorry for the
        oversight.

        > I was just pointing
        > out that those who complain about the poor "return" they're getting on
        > their SS "investment" are implicitly leaving two generations of seniors
        > in the lurch.

        That is if they don't tailor the plan in such a way as to provide for
        the seniors and the very poor while the thing is being fully
        privatized. They're going to have to. Once you've got a Ponzi scheme
        going, it's hard to call it off without a lot of people suffering.

        > My personal view is that SS should probably be cut back and turned into
        > a pure anti-poverty program to provide a minimum decent level of
        > sustenance for those who need it. Everyone else probably *can* do
        > better with real private-sector investments, not pseudo-private
        > "individual accounts" in a gummint system.

        I agree with you there. But it sounds to me as if Bush really is
        proposing really private individual accounts but under intense gummint
        scrutiny. I just hope the scrutiny is intense enough and that no one
        throws a wrench into it. We've already had that bad savings & loan
        failure, in which, contrary to what some claim, the banking regulations
        were in place to prevent catastrophe, but certain people in Congress
        threatened the inspectors and prevented them from enforcing the
        regulations. Account holders lost a lot of their savings, and those
        Congressmen merely got written reprimands.

        Jamie


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.