Some New Arguments Against Privitization of Social Security

More NYTIMES articles about Social Security. This time by someone other than PAUL KRUGMAN. :)

See Choose and Lose by BARRY SCHWARTZ at http://www.tedpavlic.com/lqb/NYTIMES_choose_and_lose.php.

One quote:

THERE are three arguments being
made in favor of privatizing part of Social Security.
First, the Social Security Trust Fund needs money and
privatization will, in the long run, increase the amount of
money available to retirees. Second, privatization will
give people choice, and choice is good. And third, "it's
your money," and you ought to be able to do with it as you
wish.

Each of these arguments is dubious, or disingenuous, or
both.
. . .
There are several problems with this argument, however. For
starters, there is no guarantee that equities will return
more than Treasury bills. One of the reasons that equities
have a higher rate of return than other types of
investments is that investors have to be compensated for
taking risks. Perhaps equities will outperform Treasury
bills in the long term but that doesn't mean that they will
be outperforming Treasury bills at the specific moment you
retire.
. . .
What's more, the administrative costs of keeping track of
these private accounts, according to President Bush's
Commission to Strengthen Social Security, will be 10 to 30
times the cost of administering the current system, eating
up almost all of the hypothetical gains that equity
investments could provide.

I recommend you read the entire article (it's short). It brings up a lot of "new" good arguments against privitizing Social Security.