On 5/15/05, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005309.html > > May 11, 2005 > > Regulating risk > > There's a debate that we should be having in this country, about risk, > but aren't, because everyone's trading scare stories about Social > Security. > > In a follow-up post, Matthew Yglesias argues with Alex Tabarrok about > whether the United Airlines bankruptcy, in which they have just shed > their pensions, means that Social Security is more obviously bad, or > more obviously good, than it was before. (Will Wilkinson chimes in > here). Defined benefit programmes are risky, Alex points out, because > when conditions change, they tend to become insolvent. That's why the > government needs to have one, argues Matthew; with corporate programmes > blowing up left and right, people need some safe harbor in their sea > of troubles. (That's one coherent metaphor, if you imagine the pension > system to be something like Pearl Harbor. Luckily, that's not very hard > to imagine.) > > Who's right? Well, basically, there are three entities that can bear > retirement risk: a company, a person, or a government. > > There are problems with all three. People are too small to be > actuarially sound; they can be wiped out by adverse events. Also, some > of them are incredibly stupid about money; others like to gamble. <snip>
Who is Jane Galt? ~Maru /had to ask _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
