No, it strictly depends on (a)if the ROI is greater than the alternative, AND (b)if it is used to reduce the federal obligation. AND, of course (c)if the public is told the truth. All are necessary.
There could be benefits to the individual having discretionary account, and still not benefit the treasury's obligation... see how that works?
The rhetoric doesn't claim specifics, but like a lot of SS nonsense, tries to paint a picture of goodness and light, and accountability.
One benefit described is greater yield from non-government investments. That's a combination of (a) a one-time event, since the flow of trillions into the system will decrease yield ratio once those funds are priced into the market. And (b)further benefits to the capital markets, increasing liquidity and decreasing costs, since (supposedly) private enterprise will now have invested capital that previously went to government. R
Please remember, the low yield of gov't paper is precisely due to the low risk (technically zero).
Higher yields are from higher risk, there's no free lunch.
The "supposedly" above is because it also assumes other policy issues don't change for the worse. Since gov't is voracious and unaccountable, it's likely that any leeway provided by improved capital formation will be quickly met by legislation to "make up the difference" for lost direct government-invested SS funds.
If gov't were that accountable, trillions would be saved without SS changes. (See Rumsfeld's $2 trillion "Oops" at DOD earlier this year).
So, a much greater priority is how to create government transparency and accountability, regardless of SS policy:
Laws making two FELONIES: for public officials to lie in public about issues of substance, and for any government funds to covertly influence public media would go a long way. We are currently deliberately misinformed and lied to by top officials daily (see aformentioned "Dependent on DC" for hundreds of documented examples). |
