The Future of Social Security?

One of the slowly-simmering issues I try to follow is the future of Social Security. Eventually, the current Ponzi scheme is going to go bankrupt, and right now there's no morally principled reform on the horizon. So one big question is what sort of response to this brewing problem can we expect, given the current political and cultural climate?

Last week, there were a couple of high-profile news stories that indicate which way we'll be headed. And it's not a pleasant picture.

First, there was a 10/22/2008 Wall Street Journal story about the Argentinian president's attempt to nationalize their current private retirement accounts:
"Argentina Makes Grab for Pensions Amid Crisis"

...President Kirchner painted the move as an attempt to help workers weather the financial crisis. The value of private retirement accounts in Argentina has probably fallen in recent months due to a declining stock market, economists say. President Kirchner said in a speech: "The main member countries of the [Group of Eight] are adopting a policy of protection of the banks and, in our case, we are protecting the workers and retirees."

Buenos Aires economist Aldo Abram, among many other economists, wasn't buying that argument. "They were in a tight situation and this was an accessible source of funds," he said.

The step requires approval of Congress, where the governing Peronist party has a majority. Opposition leader Elisa Carrio vowed to contest it, saying, "The government measures aren't designed to better the retirement system but rather to plunder the funds of the retirees."
The current financial crisis is being used as a pretext to confiscate that money, in the name of "protecting" the Argentinian workers. Of course, in reality it's just a way for a bankrupt government to attempt to steal enough money to keep going for a little while longer.

The second story was from the 10/23/2008 issue of US News & World Reports on a proposal to nationalize private 401(k) retirement plans in the US:
"Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?"

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return.
By taking over this huge pot of private 401(k) retirement money, but promising to pay out only a pittance to the nominal "owners", the government would (quite literally) make out like bandits.

Although this is just an academic proposal at the moment, these ideas have a way of leaping from academia and think tanks to the floor of the US Congress in a surprisingly short period of time.

Several of my friends and co-workers have independently told me that they fear that their own private retirement money will no longer be available to them by the time they retire. (They already recognize that Social Security won't be). The government might not engage in a complete confiscation this private money. Instead, they might use an indirect approach, such as imposing, say, a 40% tax on any balance over $1 million on 401(k) accounts. That way, it would only harm evil "millionaires", whom the government would claim could easily afford such a tax.

Or it might be mandatory conversion of private 401(k) accounts into government accounts as proposed by Ghilarducci, where the government would then control which retirees could receive any money, and how much.

Another less likely possibility (which some libertarian groups advocate) is that the government might propose some sort of faux-privatization scheme, in which our current Social Security system was replaced by a system of "private" accounts (but still heavily regulated by the government). In that case, there is still the worry that current 401(k) plans would have to be folded into these new accounts (in the name of "efficiency"). Such a pseudo-privatization would merely gives the government more control over private assets, not less. Hence, this would still not protect Americans from the possibility of confiscatory taxation of those nominally "private" accounts -- not if there were political and economic pressure to do so, as I predict there will be.

Given that (1) there are lots of working Americans who will not have saved enough for retirement, and (2) there will not be anywhere near enough Social Security money to pay for these people, the gloomy scenario predicted by my friends may not be too far-fetched.

Furthermore, I predict that many statists will argue that the need of those who didn't save outweighs any alleged claims of "right" to the money by those who actually did save, and that the savers have an obligation to bail out the non-savers. This would be the predictable end result of the altruist morality that is too-prevalent in our culture.

Based on numerous conversations, those who have been responsible and who have saved enough money for their retirements are understandably angry at the prospect that they will be punished for their frugality in order to reward those who didn't exercise proper long-range thinking and failed to save when they could have.

What they need is the moral sanction to be told that this money is rightfully theirs and that it's therefore wrong for the government to steal their money to give to others.

Most of society won't give them that sanction. Objectivists will.



Paul S. Hsieh, MD, is a physician in practice in the south Denver metro region and he is a founding member of the Colorado group "Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine" (WeStandFIRM.org).

World population projected to reach 7 billion in 2011

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The world's population is forecast to hit 7 billion in 2011, the vast majority of its growth coming in developing and, in many cases, the poorest nations, a report released Wednesday said.


Riders cram into a train last month in New Delhi, India. India's population is expected to be 1.7 billion by 2050.

A staggering 97 percent of global growth over the next 40 years will happen in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, according to the Population Reference Bureau's 2009 World Population Data Sheet.

"The great bulk of today's 1.2 billion youth -- nearly 90 percent -- are in developing countries," said Carl Haub, a co-author of the report. Eight in 10 of those youth live in Africa and Asia.

"During the next few decades, these young people will most likely continue the current trend of moving from rural areas to cities in search of education and training opportunities, gainful employment, and adequate health care," Haub continued, calling it one of the major social questions of the next few decades.

In the developed world, the United States and Canada will account for most of the growth -- half from immigration and half from a natural increase in the population -- births minus deaths, according to the report.

High fertility rates and a young population base in the developing world will fuel most of the growth, especially in Africa, where women often give birth to six or seven children over a lifetime, the report says. The number is about two in the United States and 1.5 in Canada.

Don't Miss
13 million abortions in China
A stark contrast can be drawn between Uganda and Canada, which currently have about 34 million and 31 million residents, respectively. By 2050, Canada's population is projected to be 42 million, while Uganda's is expected to soar to 96 million, more than tripling.

"Even with declining fertility rates in many countries, world population is still growing at a rapid rate," said Bill Butz, president of the bureau. "The increase from 6 billion to 7 billion is likely to take 12 years, as did the increase from 5 billion to 6 billion. Both events are unprecedented in world history."

By 2050, India is projected to be the world's most populous nation at 1.7 billion, overtaking current leader China, which is forecast to hit 1.4 billion. The United States is expected to reach 439 million for No. 3 on the list.

Will the world end in 2011?

Things just wouldn't be right without a few end-of-world prophecies looming. Dwelling on possible cataclysmic world-ending events is a serious waste of time. Whether or not one is coming, every individual on earth is facing the world-ending event of her/his own death, and it rarely comes at a convenient time. Doesn't it make more sense to embrace living?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above answer is not mine.

Look all these predictions will never give you the correct answer. I have a book that came out in 1924 that said the World would be ending in 1930 well that never happened. Now let us really use the

Bible.

Mathew 24:42 Watch therefore for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

Mathew 25:13 Watch therefore,for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the

Son of man cometh.

There is no where in the Bible it says God will return in 2011.Read the Bible and see if you can find that date mention in it. Again God says man will not know the day or hour when he will return. It does not hurt to be ready for the Lord return,but use common sense. In 1924 people thought the Lord would come back before 1930 well we are still here. There was even books written on the return of the Lord at that time. All I have to say is be ready for his return,but know man cannot give you and exact date,and that comes right out of the Bible.

Here is more on this subject

1Thes:5:2: For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

This states that the return of the Lord will be like a thief in the night. Well you cannot predict when a thief is coming to break in your home, so what make people think they can predict when GOD is coming back. Here another verse out of the Bible

2nd Peter:3:10: But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Again it mention his return will be like a thief,so how many of you can predict a theif breaking into a house,store,or so on. If you cannot do this what makes you think you can predict the returning of GOD. I am putting this up here so you can see this would be a very hard thing to predict unless GOD himself came to you and said I am coming back on this date and year. Well the Bible state no man will know. Well there is no exceptions to this in the Bible. God meant no man will know,so let use some common sense when people start trying to convince us that the end of the world will be in May of 2011...I have heard people throwing this date around. Well what are they using to back this up with. I can tell you it not the Holy Word of God found in the Bible.

I just gave you what God said in the Bible about this, so they are using some other source besides the Bible. So be very carefull because there alot of people who will

want to decieve you about what really going to happen. Use your best judgement,and

becarefull,and look it up for yourself.

Take care and GOD BLESS

2011 World Cup final in Mumbai

NEW DELHI, India : 2011 World Cup one-day final in Mumbai, which is being jointly hosted by India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Mohali will stage a semi-final and Ahmedabad a quarter-final.

Local organizing committee met on Wednesday and finalised venues for India’s 29 matches, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) said in a statement. A total of 49 matches will be played in the three countries during the event