Comments on: A Tale of Four Countries- Part 2: Chile and Social Security Reform

By: Dave_A

Dave_A — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 04:24:55 +0000

The entire crisis was a creation of government meddling and over-regulation…

Everything the banks did, was perfectly logical AND would have worked perfectly if not for government interventions that poisoned the marketplace.

As for 401(k) options, firms offer what people want – which generally means rates of return not possible with ‘safe’ investments like money-market accounts… I would have to imagine that the more choices a firm offers, the more their HR & benefits contractor charges for the service…. So I don’t see ‘undue influence’, I see market-choice…

Just like I don’t see anything wrong with the death of true ‘savings accounts’ due to market-preference for high-services, low-interest spending-accounts…

By: dragan

dragan — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:25:50 +0000

However, I am surprised that you are willing to put your trust in today’s bankers. The current financial crisis is due to the BAD marriage between government and the financial industry. If you hate the government for its role in this mess, as we all should rightfully do, why should we support the financial institutions ?

I hate government interference in my life and I also hate the bankers lobbying the government to get a hold of my social security money and gambling with them. Many private firms, in their 401ks, offer no or least number of money market fund choices. This is due to the influence of the financial industry who want to gamble away our money without any risk to them.

I am NOT a paulbot or a birther. I am just a guy who doesnt want to part his money away as taxes to the government or as an “investment choice” to Wall Street. WallStreet and Government have reduced my wealth (401K, home value etc). Why should I continue to trust them with my money ? Just to be sure I am staunch fiscal conservative and not some OWS crackpot

By: davenj1

davenj1 — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:57:25 +0000

to post part 4 of this series (the final part) which deals with banking reform. Given the conversation here and use of terms like “bankster,” it should make for some good comments. Needless to say, whether social security is reformed based upon the Chilean model of investment or the banking model of Galveston, despite those “evil” bankers, the rate of return is considerably higher than the current system and all its drawbacks. Its a question of degrees- if banks profit while consumers profit in retirement, assuming there is no fraud and everything is on the up-and-up, isn’t that a win-win-win situation for banks, retirees and the government? Believing in the inherent evil of banks begets laws like Frank-Dodd.

By: Dave_A

Dave_A — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:38:17 +0000

It’s something we’ve unfortunately had floating around in our political discourse since Thomas Jefferson – although the last politician to be truly successful with the anti-bank ideology was Andrew Jackson (to the massive detriment of the nation)….

The term is often used alongside claims that fractional reserve banking is ‘counterfeiting’ or ‘fraud’, and that bankers are evil because they don’t ‘work for the money they make’…

It’s also economically retarded, repugnant, and an absurd view of things….

By: Melody Warbington (rwm52)

Melody Warbington (rwm52) — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:34:46 +0000

about the Galveston and Chilean models were during the primary from Gingrich, Perry & Cain.

I know Ryan may be a long shot for the VP nod, but his plan and courage to confront these issues are why I like him as well. Would that others had the same courage.

By: davenj1

davenj1 — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:26:37 +0000

Local governments had the ability, with two year’s notification to the Social Security Administration, to opt out and set up their own retirement plans. That was changed in 1983 as part of legislation under the Reagan social security reforms. Since it was changed in 1983 by legislation, then that opt-out provision can be restored by legislation.

The only thing preventing this from happening is political considerations. Nobody wants to touch social security beyond tinkering with retirement ages or means-testing benefits and other such gimmicks. The word “privatization” scares people and the AARP/Democratic Party/MoveOn.org advertisements only prey upon that fear. No one in Chile was thrust into abject poverty as a result of their moves in 1981. In fact, if anything, it lifted a greater number of people out of poverty.

The plan in Galveston is still in effect. During the Republican primary this year, both Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry (the only candidate to call Social Security out for what it really is) pointed to the Galveston plan as a model of reform. Actually, it is Galveston county and two others in Texas that have this plan in place.

And finally, the only thing stopping the US from adopting the Chilean model which, incidentally was the brainchild of free market economist Milton Friedman, is the political will and courage to do so. That is one of the reasons I really like Paul Ryan. Of course, the reforms in Chile were enacted by a dictator which kind of cut through all the political opposition BS.

By: hobarticus

hobarticus — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:19:21 +0000

Because that’s where we’re at now, apparently…

Why have educated opinions when 3rd grade name calling feels so much better?

By: gekster

gekster — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:27:52 +0000

and wait for us to say ‘mike check’ before you posted.

By: Repair_Man_Jack

Repair_Man_Jack — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:20:21 +0000

I just find the term “bankster” another one of theose obnoxious, undefined buzzwords like “neocon” that get thrown around as undefined but generally insulting terms designed to defame others w/o getting into specifics. Either define specifically what a bankster is or don’t use sloppy degenerative semantics.

By: dragan

dragan — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:18:23 +0000