Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Then you need to first prove that it was the fact that the pensions were collective that fixed this issue, and you then have to prove that it will revert if they get uncollectivized.

There is very little concept of "proof" in the social sciences, and the fact that the modern, collective, state-backed pension system is what got older people out of misery is obvious. I won't waste my time "proving" that. As for what happen after uncollectivisation, see Chile or even the US.

Well, evidently they can, since they pay for the collective pensions. That money doesn't dissappear just because the pensions aren't run by the state.

Actually, in France, they can't. Salaries around minimum wage don't pay much charges sociales.

And this becomes easy if your pensions are collectivized?

Because running a collective insurance contract means you can even out pension lengths across the population, which isn't possible for individualised pension accounts.

So? Despite the fact that private companies always have to go with a profit, private companies also always provide the same service cheaper than when the state does it. That there has to be a profit does not make it more expensive, it's a red herring. What makes something expensive is lack of competition.

You completely miss my point. An insurance company can't make a contract for an individual that runs the risk of making a loss. Pensions are only viable over a large pool of subscribers.

As for the private companies providing cheaper service, see the example of health care. That's simply not true.

Which is easily controllable by gradually moving over the savings to safe investments with low returns the closer you get to retirement age. Hence not a problem.

It is not easily controllable. See the recent failure of AAA-rated CDOs . And systemic crashes can wipe out any and all assets. It is a problem, and you are waving it away all too fast.

You are using the word "democratic" as in "majority rule". It is true that they are democratic in that sense. That means that with unions and the state, the majority decides over your life.

Much better than the markets where a dozen large market players control your retirement assets' valuation.

I don't see how that automatically means that old peopl become poor, but you are welcome to explain.

Said market players, and others, are very good at swindling the majority of people out of their retirement, have they have done in the recent and more ancient past.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Wed Oct 24th, 2007 at 12:58:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

DoDo 4


Occasional Series