Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fangorn who wrote (18577)	5/9/2000 7:52:00 AM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

What makes you presume I would not read the articles? Do I know you? You must be a lovely person to know, addicted as you are to the gratuitous insult. I did read the articles. The presumption is that the private funds would be professionally managed--yes, just like the banks that were deregulated in the 80's were professionally managed. The author of the first article glibly intimates this professional management would be mandated, perhaps even a subject of overregulation. Who would the government mandate to be capable of professionally managing retirement funds? The answer is: no one! How could you legislate who among tens of thousands of fund managers or money managers would be allowed to manage my retirement savings? You couldn't! It's unworkable. I've seen many people woefully mismanage IRA's and 401K's. If this were only a private matter, I'd say it sounds like a great idea. But, as with bank deregulation, you will unleash an unregulated Pandora's Box here, which we all will pay dearly for if it goes awry.

To: Fangorn who wrote (18577)	5/9/2000 9:13:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You're welcome Steve, I especially liked these paragraphs in the first link which specifically addresses chulu2's fear regarding our inability to manage our own account. For goodness sake, trust in the intelligence of the American people! __________________________________________________________ heritage.org This demeaning claim is irrelevant, since personal retirement accounts presumably would be professionally managed. Nonetheless, if people can be trusted to choose their careers, vote for a President, buy homes, and raise families, they certainly can be trusted to make basic choices about investments. The argument that workers are incapable of participating in a private Social Security system is morally, analytically, and empirically flawed. First, people make very important choices every day of their lives. They get married, change jobs, and select insurance policies. Many of these choices are just as important as--if not more important than--picking a pension fund. Critics respond by saying that many poor people are financially illiterate, but this claim assumes that they are not capable of learning once there is a reason to do so. In any event, this assertion is a red herring. Almost all of the proposals to create personal retirement accounts require professional management of the funds. At most, workers could choose from a list of approved pension fund providers. Indeed, it is far more likely that the government will over-regulate the new system than that workers will be thrown into a system they cannot comprehend. Finally, one need only look at the experience of other countries to see that people are perfectly capable of making choices and planning for their retirement. Americans may not be financial experts, but they are presumably as knowledgeable about finances as are the British, Chileans, Mexicans, and Hungarians. In all of these countries, as well as about two dozen others, workers are responsible for choosing an appropriate private pension fund. And while it would be an exaggeration to claim that any of the systems set up in other countries is perfect, the shift to personal accounts has proved successful, and there is no campaign to reverse those reforms.