Soft privatization

[Seth Ackerman]

I can accept that there might be undesirable consequences from pouring
billions into the stock market, and that there would be no boon to real
investment, but I don't see why there would be commissions (presumably
the trust fund would hire its own managers) and I think it's a little
dogmatic to oppose it because it's "giving something up." As long as
Wall Street doesn't get its mitts on the loot, isn't that better than
raising the most regressive tax? (Of course, doing nothing would be best
of all).

seth


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	James Baird [SMTP:jlbaird3 at hotmail.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, July 30, 1998 5:28 PM
> To:	lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject:	Re: Soft privatization
> 
> 
> 
> >Do I gather that Doug and some others see equity purchases by the
> trust
> >fund as unacceptable? True, there's no urgent need for reform. But 
> isn't
> >that a more palatable one than tax increases/benefit cuts?
> >
> >seth ackerman
> >FAIR
> >
> 
> When you get beyond all the rhetoric of higher returns, etc., this 
> proposal is really a method of subsidizing Wall Street (through 
> commissions, etc.) and the rich (through inflating their equity
> values).  
> And it would do nothing for real investment.  The idea that it's "not
> as 
> bad as full privativation" neglects the rachet effect - give up an
> inch 
> today, they'll be back for a foot tommorow, and a mile next week.  If 
> you accept their assumptions on this, they've won already.
> 
> Jim Baird
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com