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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (14641)	12/12/2004 9:55:15 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 20773

SOCIAL SECURITY AROUND THE WORLD.... A post from Washington Monthly: washingtonmonthly.com Airy fairy theorizing is one thing, but how about some concrete data in the great Social Security privatization debate. In particular, how has Social Security privatization fared in other countries that have tried it? After all, the United States isn't the first country to think about doing this. Let's take a peek. First there's Chile. They implemented privatization a couple of decades ago, and originally the World Bank was enthusiastic. Today, though...not so much. Greg Anrig of the Century Foundation summarizes: * Investment accounts of retirees are much smaller than originally predicted — so low that 41 percent of those eligible to collect pensions continue to work. * The World Bank found that half of the pension contributions of the average Chilean worker who retired in 2000 went to management fees. The brokerage firm CB Capitales...found that the average worker would have done better simply by placing their pension fund contributions in a passbook savings account. * The transition costs of shifting to a privatized system in Chile averaged 6.1 percent of GDP in the 1980s, 4.8 percent in the 1990s, and are expected to average 4.3 percent from 1999 to 2037. Bummer! Still, maybe that's just Chile. How about results from some nice, progressive, wealthy country instead? How about Sweden? Sweden implemented a partial privatization back in 2001. Here's what the president of the Swedish Society of Actuaries reports: General benefit levels have been significantly lowered, future benefits are impossible to forecast, and administrative costs have quadrupled — mostly because of the mutual fund part — to 2.0% of total benefits. (If real investment return is 3% per annum, the amount accumulated after 30 years of regular annual savings will be 22% lower if the cost factor is 2.0% instead of 0.5%.) ....Everyone in the new system is forced to speculate in mutual funds and results in the first years have been disastrous. From March 2000 until March 2003, the Swedish stock market declined by 68%. As of 31st January 2004, 84% of all accounts had lost money, despite the upturn in the market since March 2003. Aren't you glad that President Bush wants to follow in the footsteps of glorious successes like these? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.8 - Release Date: 12/8/2004

To: Dale Baker who wrote (14641)	12/12/2004 9:55:43 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 20773

SOCIAL SECURITY AROUND THE WORLD.... A post from Washington Monthly: washingtonmonthly.com Airy fairy theorizing is one thing, but how about some concrete data in the great Social Security privatization debate. In particular, how has Social Security privatization fared in other countries that have tried it? After all, the United States isn't the first country to think about doing this. Let's take a peek. First there's Chile. They implemented privatization a couple of decades ago, and originally the World Bank was enthusiastic. Today, though...not so much. Greg Anrig of the Century Foundation summarizes: * Investment accounts of retirees are much smaller than originally predicted — so low that 41 percent of those eligible to collect pensions continue to work. * The World Bank found that half of the pension contributions of the average Chilean worker who retired in 2000 went to management fees. The brokerage firm CB Capitales...found that the average worker would have done better simply by placing their pension fund contributions in a passbook savings account. * The transition costs of shifting to a privatized system in Chile averaged 6.1 percent of GDP in the 1980s, 4.8 percent in the 1990s, and are expected to average 4.3 percent from 1999 to 2037. Bummer! Still, maybe that's just Chile. How about results from some nice, progressive, wealthy country instead? How about Sweden? Sweden implemented a partial privatization back in 2001. Here's what the president of the Swedish Society of Actuaries reports: General benefit levels have been significantly lowered, future benefits are impossible to forecast, and administrative costs have quadrupled — mostly because of the mutual fund part — to 2.0% of total benefits. (If real investment return is 3% per annum, the amount accumulated after 30 years of regular annual savings will be 22% lower if the cost factor is 2.0% instead of 0.5%.) ....Everyone in the new system is forced to speculate in mutual funds and results in the first years have been disastrous. From March 2000 until March 2003, the Swedish stock market declined by 68%. As of 31st January 2004, 84% of all accounts had lost money, despite the upturn in the market since March 2003. Aren't you glad that President Bush wants to follow in the footsteps of glorious successes like these? ENDS

To: Dale Baker who wrote (14641)	12/12/2004 9:57:02 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

SOCIAL SECURITY AROUND THE WORLD.... A post from Washington Monthly: washingtonmonthly.com Airy fairy theorizing is one thing, but how about some concrete data in the great Social Security privatization debate. In particular, how has Social Security privatization fared in other countries that have tried it? After all, the United States isn't the first country to think about doing this. Let's take a peek. First there's Chile. They implemented privatization a couple of decades ago, and originally the World Bank was enthusiastic. Today, though...not so much. Greg Anrig of the Century Foundation summarizes: * Investment accounts of retirees are much smaller than originally predicted — so low that 41 percent of those eligible to collect pensions continue to work. * The World Bank found that half of the pension contributions of the average Chilean worker who retired in 2000 went to management fees. The brokerage firm CB Capitales...found that the average worker would have done better simply by placing their pension fund contributions in a passbook savings account. * The transition costs of shifting to a privatized system in Chile averaged 6.1 percent of GDP in the 1980s, 4.8 percent in the 1990s, and are expected to average 4.3 percent from 1999 to 2037. Bummer! Still, maybe that's just Chile. How about results from some nice, progressive, wealthy country instead? How about Sweden? Sweden implemented a partial privatization back in 2001. Here's what the president of the Swedish Society of Actuaries reports: General benefit levels have been significantly lowered, future benefits are impossible to forecast, and administrative costs have quadrupled — mostly because of the mutual fund part — to 2.0% of total benefits. (If real investment return is 3% per annum, the amount accumulated after 30 years of regular annual savings will be 22% lower if the cost factor is 2.0% instead of 0.5%.) ....Everyone in the new system is forced to speculate in mutual funds and results in the first years have been disastrous. From March 2000 until March 2003, the Swedish stock market declined by 68%. As of 31st January 2004, 84% of all accounts had lost money, despite the upturn in the market since March 2003. Aren't you glad that President Bush wants to follow in the footsteps of glorious successes like these? ENDS

To: Dale Baker who wrote (14641)	12/12/2004 9:57:30 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 20773

Sorry to all about the "run time error" redundancy.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (14641)	12/18/2004 1:25:12 AM
From: Yogizuna	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

As early as 1990 we debated the sanity of having stocks in a "social security portfolio", and most agreed it was a nutty idea... But that was before the bubble years made many dream of buying their own personal island, and of course all you had to do was buy some tech stocks to become the next Bill Gates... You would think the fairly recent breaking of the bubble and the horrible bear market in the Nasdaq stocks would have ended any plans for including stocks in social security reform, but no, because greedy pipe dreams truly die hard in the Bush administration.