do-it-yourself government

[jrtom]

NY Times: Learn to Swagger: Do-It-Yourself Government

In fact, this management idea of taking the big decisions away from the so-called experts could move well beyond Social Security. From here on, for example, Americans could be running the military directly; after all, we could protect ourselves better than those tired government "experts." Here's your M-16, citizen soldier. Your fantasy baseball club is now running the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment.

I'm probably smart enough to play the stock market and win . . . in the long run . . . if I devote much or all of my time to figuring out how to do it, and if the stock market itself continues to gain value, without any inconvenient crashes. But, you know, I'm pretty sure that I'm smarter than the average bear. And I have no interest in figuring out how to do this well. What does this imply for the average bears who can't afford to devote even an hour of each day to learning this particularly esoteric set of skills--even making that last assumption, which seems a particularly large thing to swallow? (For the record, I bought stock several years ago. By the time I unloaded, about a year ago, its value had worked its way back up to just over half what I paid for it.)

Finally: the reason why some people can make a lot of money in the stock market is, generally speaking, other people lose a lot to them. If Social Security becomes privatized, who's going to win, and who's going to lose? Statistically speaking, the people that would do well are, I would conjecture, those that had enough resources (and time) to make their own separate investments anyway. And those that would lose would be precisely those that can't afford to. What would Bush and the rest claim we should do for them if that happens?

On the bright side, there are an awful lot of people that don't want SS messed with . . . if Bush & co. insist on pushing it, perhaps they'll get the 2x4 across the noggin that they deserve. (NO! Bad pre{si,ce}dent!)

Comments

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

My biggest problem with the whole privatization of SS issue is that Bush has been pushing for this since running for office for the first time. The reasons why he thinks it a good idea change (when this first came up, it was because of the strong economy and now it's because of the weak economy) but not his conviction. To me, this says that it's not a considered position but a prejudice.

SS's current model is broken, but if we're going to fix it then I want it fixed, not made worse but differently.

I did really well on the stock market when I did nothing else.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

*shrug* This is Bush all over: he decides, and then he comes up with whatever justifications he thinks will sell the best.

What do you think is broken about SS's current model? (Not saying I disagree, but I'd like to hear what you think.)

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

Briefly, too few people paying in, too many people taking out. It's not sutainable. The only reason why the population of the US is not in the more extreme coffin shape of, say, Sweden or Japan, is because of immigration.

And yes: that's classic Bush. I may notice this one more because I agree with the basic idea--SS is broken--but don't think that he's really thinking about how to fix it, just pigheadedly holding onto the original idea. In my snarkier moods, I could think that he's clutching this one for dear life because he doesn't get enough ideas to squander them.