(SS means Social Security. But you knew that).

I often miss things, I'll admit. Don't understand, don't quite get the point, that kind of thing.

But this....surely this is just incoherent babbling. (I'm saying that, this time, my lack of understanding is not really my fault, see).

There is some pretty strange stuff here, but check this:

The wealthy oligarchical families that had directed the Synarchist/Nazi movement from 1921-45—and were defeated by Roosevelt—saw in the Mont Pelerin Society the instrument to re-establish that program internationally. The Mont Pelerin Society's economics was no different than that of the Bank for International Settlements, Hitler, or Mussolini.

I'm pretty sure there are some differences, actually, between the MPS and Hitler. And there are certainly differences between CATO and Hitler. (Though...Boaz used to have that little mustache....Hmmmm).

LaRouche seems to have become a leftist (again), or else is just living on his own little plane of existence. (You might enjoy this)

On the other hand, it is true that one can make pretty good arguments against privatization of Social Security. To me, it comes down to two questions:

1. If someone takes their retirement funds, and squanders them on blue sky, get-rich-quick schemes, will we as a society let them starve? Or will we reward them for risk-taking behavior by giving them another stake to squander?

2. Which scheme gives government more power, and more ability to interfere with both markets and peoples' private lives? Social Security makes us all beholden to the SSA, and the funds can be used for redistributive purposes like the notorious "supplemental" Social Security activities of the 1980s. On the other hand, if everyone had money in the stock market, or bonds, or whatever, there would be irresistible political pressures to intervene to prop up security prices, or force interest rates down, or whatever.

I am cautiously in favor of increased privatization, but only cautiously. I don't think we can trust government not to reward extreme risk-taking, and I don't think we can trust ourselves not to force government to meddle in securities markets. While I might concede in principle that a thorough transformation to private ownership and management of pension funds is a good thing, the sort of 1/3 transformations being proposed might end up looking like power "deregulation" in California.

In other words, if we are not willing to try full-blown market solutions, it is by no means clear that we won't just make people skeptical about the market in temporizing "solutions" that are doomed to fail.

(nod to RP of SN)