(March 18, 2012 at 5:22 am)theVOID Wrote: They have a far lower chance of getting your money if you are in control of it than if the government is in control of it, look at how much of their action was contingent upon the backing of the taxpayer via subsidies, guarantees and limited liabilities. If that percent of income that you're paying to social security is cash in your hand then the only way that Wallstreet is going to get it is if you give it to them. If people took some responsibility for their own retirement there would be LESS centralisation of power, financial and otherwise.
there would also be a much bigger gap in classes as well, further removing the middle class from the picture. agree? it sounds like wealth distribution isn't part of your mantra and that's ok, but i'm just trying to clarify what your position is.
there are not very many people who would do any kind of well for themselves, left to invest their own money in whatever they choose. a little direction is quite a help to some who haven't the means to know how to grow their money. and the rich would always have the option of not investing a dime, which would again help not a soul in the middle or lower class. granted, they want to pinch every dime they can, so i'm sure they would invest, but it'd still all be going to sach, so private or not, sachs wins.
they can land a rover on mars, yet they still have to stick a human finger up my ass to do a prostate exam?! - ricky gervais
