Soft privatization

Doyle Saylor djsaylor at
Thu Jul 30 18:19:41 PDT 1998

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).

Doug Have we all given up on even talking about what needs to be done, putting aside for the moment its attainability? We need a equitable system of income distribution (forgive the politicalese) for all ages. What you get from the program shouldn't depend on years worked or lived. This is simplistic, but sometimes you have to state the bleeding obvious so you don't forget it.

Doug Sometimes compromise is necessary. But if you don't move back to your absolutist (no pejorative in my book) position immediately, you're going to find yourself on the waterslide of phony pragmatism. I may be just an ex-Baptist from the great and sovereign state of Mississippi who heard something different from what my pastor wanted me to hear, but we need to hang onto what we believe should be, and not spend what little time we have devising clever schemes for divvying up the crumbs.

Doug So there.

Doyle Just to chime in here, we need to keep from swallowing the idea that it will happen whether we want it to or not. Social Security is damn important to a lot of people. It won't take much to get these people riled up! Max makes the point that the sound bites around SS are easily countered if we can make people understand how counterproductive the proposals are. Let's get cracking and awake as many people as possible to this gigantic rip-off scheme. regards, Doyle Saylor

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list