This Forum has been archived there is no more new posts or threads ... use this link to report any abusive content
==> Report abusive content in this page <==
Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
If goerge bush had been sucessful at privatizing social security, would there be any money left?
10-13-2012, 09:14 AM
Post: #1
If goerge bush had been sucessful at privatizing social security, would there be any money left?
What I mean is had we given full control to wall street like we did our housing markets? Would there be anything left in social security? After this last recession do people really still believe we should privatize this?

Ads

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-13-2012, 09:22 AM
Post: #2
 
When did wall street have full control over housing markets?

You do understand that the government sets the interest rate that loans are based on, sets quotas to assure "equal access" to housing loans, set up incentives by buying mortgages (the crappy ones) as well as many other things, right?

Also, why should people not be able to decide what to do with their own money? Please, tell us.

Ads

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-13-2012, 09:22 AM
Post: #3
 
You mean like the money left in the banking sector even after the first bailout?

There are things that the private sector does well and there are others that are best left publicly owned.
My criterion for what is best, private or public is this:

Can the provider of the product or service be allowed to go bankrupt?

If the answer is YES then it is best in the private sector. If it does go bankrupt then the shareholders loose some money and there may be some temporary inconvenience to the public until another provider takes over. This ensures that market competition gives the consumer a fair price, and in my opinion that is good. In this sector I envisage all business where fair competition can exist and second sourcing is always available from multiple suppliers.

If the answer is NO, as is the case with national defense for example, then it must be publicly owned and funded. The taxpayer will always be the provider of all necessary funding for this product or service. If it is privately owned then the taxpayer will be providing the profits for the shareholders and any money necessary to keep the business afloat, hardly a model that encourages efficiency. This makes it a shareholder's dream a no loose situation and it is not fair on the taxpayer who has absolutely no control on how that business is run.
Can one imagine what it would be like if the army was to be privatized, there may indeed be huge savings to be made by outsourcing that service to the Chinese but how prudent would that be.
It is the same with social security, if the provider fails then the taxpayer will be responsible for a bailout, the mere temporary disruption in the service may be enough to cause public unrest on an unprecedented scale, a revolution even.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)