On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Probably not, but we should be honest about this. Clinton was on his way
> to a privatization, until it was derailed by Monica. And it wouldn't
> surprise me at all that a Pres Hillary would do the job. We should be
> grateful Bush proposed it, because it's getting opposition it might not
> otherwise get.
I'd be the first to second this. But we shouldn't lose sight that there was an additional factor dissipating opposition in the 90s that was at least as important if not more so, namely that we were in the midst of an epochal bubble. Back then (as you've shown better than anyone) Dow 36,000 was not only treated with respect, it was literally a conservative estimate. And anyone who brought up P/E or other ratios were derisively mocked off stage as Old Stock Market. Even Warren Buffett and Paul Krugman sounded defensive back then. Against that background, the kind of returns that would make SS privatization work seemed not only plausible but conservative. And the objection that it would violate all known laws of financial reality seemed quaint.
Five years later, most opinion leaders are so embarassed they ever believed this they've forgotten they did, and most of America -- the half that has no stock, and half the half that does -- seems to have reverted to its default skepticism of Wall Street sharpies. So now the same objections fall on much more fertile soil.
When they say the only group that supports the plan is people in their 20s, it's probably no accident that that's the only group that was too young to have lost any money in the NASDAQ.
Michael