It's not "privatizing", or about "ownership": it's "commercializing".

[bleever]

They want us to think that they're "privatizing" Social Security, and with that and other moves, creating an "ownership society".

Hey, private is good. Ownership is good.

But what they're doing, and I believe we need to frame it this way, is commercializing Social Security. They want a more commercial society.

Commercial. Bought and sold.

The people with the most money, incidentally, can buy and sell more.

Remember the wise words of Wall Street barons Duke & Duke in "Trading Places": when the market goes up, Duke & Duke makes money. When the market goes down, Duke & Duke makes money.

What can ruin even Christmas? Commercialization.

What can destroy a young child's fascination with his Little Orphan Annie Secret Decoder Ring? A crummy commercial.

No commercialization of Social Security.

That is all.

[stray cat]

1. Excellent point: Bush's plan to commercialize social security.

What about Bush's plan to "sell off" social security?

[McKenzie]

2. the imperative of Social Security is well-being of people

The fundamental aim of a commercial organisation is profit. Nothing is more important than that so it follows that a commercial organisation will do whatever is necessary to survive. If profits start to decline the organisation won't regard the well-being of its clients as over-riding the need to stay afloat.

Maybe I've just stated the patently obvious. However, it does illustrate the failure of commercialism to take people's well-being into account as the primary aim. In my life I try to exercise moral choice. The people at large just want the cheapest price irrespective of the human cost. That's why Nike can sell footwear made by kids in appalling conditions and Bophal has never been cleaned up.

You are right to be so strongly opposed.

[EVDebs]

3. The one true god, mammon AKA 'the Almighty Dollar' n/t

[Up2Late]

4. It's not even that complicated, it's, plain and simple GREED

It's just killing *, and his Wall Street Buddy's, to see all that Money just sitting there not "working" to make "them" MORE money.:hurts:

I also think :think:they might want to use it to "cook the books," to make it look like we have a Federal Government that's NOT near the tipping point of financial ruin.

[keith the dem]

6. Even simpler: THEFT!!!!

[kansasdemocrat]

11. Many accountants are not pleased with Bush's plan

My CPA permit is for OK and I saw an article on the OSCPA wire which indicated that most accountants view Bush's plan as a plan that will cost most plans more money in paperwork costs than they would get in new business at least in the short run. Commerical bankers are against the plan because it is geared towards the stock market and has no provision for regular saving accounts.

[Helga Scow Stern]

5. Good frame job, bleeve....the simple truth is always best. n/t

[we can do it]

7. How we can help protect SS

Nice post. Here's a link with lots of ideas for action.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/22/10396/0985

[ezee]

8. TOTALLY AGREE

[suston96]

9. Not "privatizing".

Republicans changed their minds about "privatizing". Too easy to make it into "piratizing".

This 100% capitalism, as it is called by Newt Gingrich, where every American is a stockholder in the American dream. Good idea?

Flash back to 1929.

Every American and all their relatives were in the stockmarket. The shoeshine boy, the newspaper stand guy, the street cleaner - all owned stocks. It was a mania. Compare today to lottery ticket players.

So what happened in October, 1929?

Crrrrrrrash!

And all those dreams went out the window along with a lot of those stockholders and brokers.

Neat idea, Mr. Gingrich! Sell your dream to these modern day capitalist wannabes!

Hold your breath, sir. They ain't gonna buy.

[KittyWampus]

10. Ownership Society= Debtor Society

[izzybeans]

12. Just read this from an old Daniel Bell book...

"The point is that today ownership is simply a legal fiction.
A stockholder is an owner because, in theory, he has put up equity capital and taken a risk. But only a minor proportion of corporate capital today is raised through the sale of equity capital. A more significant portion comes from self-financing (internal corp. revenues)...
True owners are involved directly in the state of the enterprise; and this...better fits the employees of the corporation, not its stockholders." (pg. 294 in his The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, 1973).


This statement is a small part of a larger point he was making on the growing social responsibility (out of historical necessity) of the corporation.

Is the statement still true that the equity capital of stockholders is a small proprtion of corporate capital at large? (he was speaking roughly of the late 60's early 70's). If so, this notion of ownership as a legal fiction (given the rise of both collective and personal debt, as well as, this that the majority of stockholders make minute and "sight unseen" investments in the larger capital picture of any given firm) seems to strike the core of this whole "ownership society" slogan being thrown about with reference to privitizing SS.

[FormerDittoHead]

13. Clarification from my own perspective...

In the old days, the rich were vast majority shareholders of the given company they or their parents founded. They actively ran the company and guided its course, a'la Henry Ford.

As time went on, however, esp when the founders died and left the business to their children and grandchildren, many of these rich people saw that they, themselves, weren't the sharpest tools in the shed and realized that hiring others to do the heavy lifting of management would give them more time to enjoy life.

They look at the public stockmarket as a means to get out of running the business 24/7 like their ancestor did and diversify their risk at the same time.

The vast majority of common shareholders, however, own well less than 1% of stock, with no voting power. Why not sell of some of your 50%, diversify into other industries yet maintain virtual complete control with your remaining 20% along with a seat on the board of trustees paying you a ridiculous salary?

The rest of us are just along for the ride.

[izzybeans]

14. True,

the overall point of this passage was how this model was being deligitimated because the workforce had grown so dramatically and differentiated so drastically that the biggest actual stakeholders in any given company are the employees-who have much more at stake than the major and minor shareholders-it's the largest percentage of their income. The point was that individual ownwership had become a myth. It no longer exists except for those few private shops and companies who have bought off their creditors.

I think the book in general is a warning about privatizing public goods. Retirement is necessarily a communal property because individual initiative is impossible except for a few. Though its not the point he was making. Placing your future in the stock market, beyond having to pay brokerage fees, is like handing your livelihood over completely to the board of trustees whose stake in the success of the company is basically nill outside of stock prices. Rather than aid people who invest their entire lives in a company they pull stakes and leave them behind. The same thing happens to the minor stockholder. It basically amounts to theft and will further increase inequality amongst the working and business classes.