RE: More on risk

[Michael Jones <powderfinger99@yahoo.com>]

<<<<
But those adjustments will be worked out collectively through
our political system by our elected representatives.

.....

Variations of this magnitude would be neither
desirable nor politically sustainable.
>>>>

The fact that the current system does not assign ownership of
contributions or benefits to workers creates political conflict.
The system is ripe for political manipulation by all sorts
of interest groups, because the benefits are defined purely
by political decisions.

Individual accounts remove this conflict and do not make it
worse.

<<<<
Under these assumptions, the replacement rate for those 
turning 62 in 1969-70 would have been close to 100 percent;
for those turning 62 in the mid 1970s only 40 percent.
>>>>

I'll take the risk. The current system is a GUARANTEED loser.
My benefits will never even equal my total contributions (a
negative return, adjusted for inflation). How can a system
such as this be defended when the investment return is not 
even equal to the long term treasury rate? 

Will everyone need to suffer in this system which benefits few
people, just because this so-called expert doesn't like the risk?
Who are you to determine what is acceptable risk with MY MONEY!
Does the fact that some small percentage of people won't do
well negate the ability of the other 90% who could do well?
Do we live in a capitalist or socialist country?


Michael