Again...the Invisible Hand

[theVOID]

it means that it is a "private" decision,

Horseshit.

Are you really this dense? There is no debate here, this is a SIMPLE case of definition. When a proponent of free markets talks about private retirement funds they mean "private" in the sense that it is entirely the responsibility of the individual, not "private" as in "the government dictates which private companies you MUST give your money to"

It means you have no decision except which bunch of Wall St. criminals you want to hand your retirement money to.

Are you really telling me that if you were responsible for your own retirement, that this was cash in your own account, that you couldn't think of any other ways to save and invest other than to give it to Goldman and co? If that's the case you deserve to be broke.

And who the hell do you think the public schemes benefit anyway? Only the people in command of the cash at the time! The only reason pensioners have anything AT ALL is not because the capital they saved was put to good use and provided them dividends, it's because government has the power to fucking steal the difference from people who are currently working.

---

Look at how many people lost their life savings in 401Ks when Wallstreet tanked in 2008. Let them get hold of my Social Security? No way!

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.