A Dangerous Financial Product

Dr Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek responds to an essay and email proposing yet another regulatory commission to protect consumers from ourselves.


Reagan Gahagan’s take on immigration

Reagan Gahagan’s take on illegal immigration:

For some reason, I never thought about the fact that other countries had a similar baby boom after WWII just like the US had. In fact, every country that was involved in WWII had a similar baby boom after the end of the war when their respective soldiers came home from war. This also includes Japan and Germany. Every day I listen to the news around the world for no other reason than I like to hear world news as opposed to the US only news that is broadcast in the US. NHK, which is the equivalent to the BBC in Japan, is running a special daily series about how other countries around the world are handling their increasing lack of workers, due to baby boomer retirement. While the assholes in the Senate are trying to solve our retiring baby boom situation by allowing millions of Mexicans to gain citizenship, other countries are handling it much differently and some of them have some great ideas. I am convinced that the only reason that the Senate and Bush is so adamant about allowing millions of Mexicans to become citizens is so that the Social Security system will not go bankrupt while a large number of baby boomers in America are retiring. Other countries have this exact same problem with their social welfare systems. Here are some pretty interesting takes on how other countries are solving their problems. You may want to check this out soon because they only leave the broadcast up for 7 days and then they are replaced with a new broadcast.


(Japan, Canada, Sweden, Netherlands and Australia)

Big government versus corporate theft?

I’ve been a big fan of privatizing social security, at least reforming it, on the basis that the richest group of people in America are 65 and older. No matter how rich someone gets, they still benefits. I’m sure those old fogies are sending their SS checks directly to the nearest charity. Also, it sucks that people get no return on their initial investment with SS. That is essentially the government stealing from the poor to give to …whomever. So, I like privatization, but why does an American have to invest in the stock market for tax free status. I’ve been burned by the stock market big time. Am I supposed to feel good if my money is yoinked by mutual fund managers and crooked CEOs, rather than the government?

Why can’t I invest my money in other capital and allow the return on that capital to pay for my retirement? Let’s say I save up 3K a year and purchase a lumber yard with a couple of partners. Why can’t I save up my money and do that, say, when I’m forty, instead of giving it to a company managed by people I don’t know?

Posted at 10:53 am by Johnny B

Posted by BP @ 03/09/2005 08:15 AM PST
Three points…

One, income tax is not in the least bit constituitional anyway, and neither is social security, however the former has created a monster that unfortunately needs to be fed, and the latter was a “promise” that was made to seniors 70 years ago that needs to be kept, and the only way to keep it is to get better returns than the one percent that the current fund is getting is to privatize.

Two, you don’t have to put money in AOL, Intel, and Ebay stock to get decent returns. The money can easily be invested in municipal bonds and blue chip stocks and get double or triple the returns that they’re currently getting at very very low risk.

The logic is that your average person doesn’t have the resources or the know-how to put their money to get virtually risk-free decent returns, and since it’s not politically feasible for lawmakers to say…”Hey let’s just get rid of that Social Security thing altogether and let folks invest their own damn money!”, the “lesser of two evils” is the one that’s going to actually keep up with inflation.

Posted by Jordan @ 03/13/2005 05:53 PM PST
U.S. Constitution
Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

You meant, income tax shouldn’t be constitutional?

Posted by BP @ 03/14/2005 11:10 PM PST
I stand corrected.

Here’s an interesting little history…http://www.wealth4freedom.com/16thHistory.htm