Replies

First of all, Greenspan will say whatever he has to say to make whatever politically motivated point he is trying to make even if he has to contradict what he has said before on the very same subject. Logic alone, however, dictates that the expected real return from regular treasuries will EXCEED the return from inflation adjusted treasuries. In an efficient market, the higher the risk the higher the expected return.

Secondly, history is no indication (let alone guarantee) of the future vis a vis stock market, but even using 8% real return expectation from stocks and 2.79% for bonds/SS produces only a 4.35% return (less than double, let alone triple).

Third, counteracting your scenario where you die before 67, is the scenario where you fritter away your investment and have nothing under the private scenario and live a long life. Which leads to the fourth and most important point that all of this privatizing Social Security seems to blatantly ignore:

The very purpose of the system (whether you agree with it or not) is to transfer funds, inter-generationally, from workers to retirees. It is not now, nor has it ever been intended to be a plan for current workers to provide for their own retirement.

Logic alone, however, dictates that the expected real return from regular treasuries will EXCEED the return from inflation adjusted treasuries. In an efficient market, the higher the risk the higher the expected return.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If you buy a regular treasury yielding 5 %, you are locked in. If inflation jumps to 5%, your real return on your original investment is zero. An efficient market will give you a higher yield on your next bond purchased. If you were correct in your logic there would be no market/demand for inflation adjusted bonds.

Secondly, history is no indication (let alone guarantee) of the future vis a vis stock market, but even using 8% real return expectation from stocks and 2.79% for bonds/SS produces only a 4.35% return (less than double, let alone triple).

I agree there is no guarantee, but I'd rather bet on the market than on the government. If my wife's and my own SS contributions had been invested in the S & P 500 over the last 15 years, I'd have enough money now even with the recent market drop to more than pay for an annuity to give me double or triple my expected SS check in 2032.

Third, counteracting your scenario where you die before 67, is the scenario where you fritter away your investment and have nothing under the private scenario and live a long life.

Well, if you want protection against your own poor choices, you could move to Cuba and get free healthcare too. TANSTAAFL.

The very purpose of the system (whether you agree with it or not) is to transfer funds, inter-generationally, from workers to retirees. It is not now, nor has it ever been intended to be a plan for current workers to provide for their own retirement.

I have to disagree with you on this one.

To quote FDR.

"The civilization of the past 100 years with it's startling industrial changes has tended more and more to make life insecure. Young people have come to wonder what would be their lot when they came to old age. ... We have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty stricken old age."

I think if we can protect seniors without screwing workers we'll be achieving what Roosevelt intended.