An interesting post on the Blogger Alliance wesite notes that the NY TIMES worries about the 15 percent of people who will not "maximize" their returns on their investments. I'm willing to bet that the lowest returns will be larger than what they would have gotten under Social Security. Further, our society will not let any senior starve if they don't build the same nest egg as their neighbor. Means testing is the solution that no-one wants to talk about yet. Anyway, here's the whole post, which I assume I can republish as a member of the "Alliance":
NY Times to Workers: “You’re Just Too Stupid to Manage Your Own Money!”
Did you see that the know-it-alls at the NY Times ran an article this morning headlined, “When It Comes to Managing Retirement, Many People Simply Can’t”?
While Ed Porter’s article actually does point out that most people who have invested in 401(k)’s or IRAs have done very well for themselves, the focus is on the fact that some people — 15 percent by the Times’ estimation — have not exactly maximized their returns or made the correct investment decisions 100% of the time.
The clear implication in the Times’ headline is that personal accounts are too “risky” because not everybody’s got a Harvard MBA. That we must protect the unwashed masses from themselves before they ruin their lives — or — perish the thought — prove that free markets operate more efficiently than huge government bureaucracies!
The NY Times and the liberal establishment just love to talk about how much they CARE about the little guy… but how much do they really TRUST the little guy?
I hope you already know to believe the opposite of whatever the NY TIMES' editorial page says, if not everything in the damn rag. I have seen friends of mine espouse this same absurd theory verbatim. The fact is that the whole mainstream media (MSM) is fighting against the idea of private accounts, when they are the best way to secure our children's future. The plan is also a good deal for seniors if the President's promise to lock in the benefits for the over 55 crowd is adopted. The difference will add to the deficit, but in the long run it will save the econmy. This could be a model for future reforms of the medical system, oriented around the consumer instead of the bureaucracy, but that's another argument!
PS: NO RESPONSE, EITHER PRIVATELY OR PUBLICLY, FROM REP. CAROLYN MCCARTHY, MY CONGRESSWOMAN, TO MY POSTED AND EMAILED LETTER ASKING HER TO COMPROMISE WITH THE REPUBLICANS ON THIS MATTER!