Trouble With Choices
WashPost.com | Choice = Double Plus Bad
The economics of Social Security privatization get plenty of attention: how to think about transition costs, the effect on national savings, the risk of equity investment. But the political philosophy of privatization is often taken for granted: It's just assumed that, if the economics were neutral, people would be happier with private accounts than with a public program. ... People want control over their lives; they value their freedom. But the first reason to wonder whether "ownership" is always good is that it can be stressful. It may be true, as promoters of ownership like to say, that nobody ever washed a rented car; but renters are very happy not to have to get the hose out. If it's up to you to choose how to invest your pension account, agonizing over health stocks vs. Asian bonds may not be such a privilege.

Of all the good arguments against Bush's SS privatization plan, why the profoundly stupid "choices are stressful" one? *sigh*, last sane liberal muttermuttermutter...

Edit: For example: Bush Needs to Make a Decisive Change of Course, C. Fred Bergsten, IIE, Financial Times


Edit: It's high of 20*, low of 13*, with windchill 4*F. California Dreamin'...