Another thing, pure capitalism is not an utopia. Thats another myth of the left. The fact that current welfare states are parasiting on capitalism should give you an idea, if there were no markets to „build upon“ states would be standing on water and quickly collapse. Another myth is that the current mixed welfare states are maintanable in the long run. I could give you another link refuting this myth, but again you would dismiss it as far right fearmongering. The main difference between countries is the ratio between free markets and state coercion, in other words „how much“ of capitalism they tolerate. I hope you arent going to argue that standard of living in highly capitalist countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong is lower than in Sub Saharan Africa where capitalism is non existent.
Back to the topic at hand though. You are pointing out that many people do not think ahead. Well thats one of main points – different time preferences of individuals. Some people have high time preferences some low, some prefer to spend now, some prefer to save for later consumption. Imagine a young family raising kids – they need to spend their money now, but your caring state comes over and forces them to hand over bucks for their retirement. I ask why? How are these people better off if you change their choices using force? Dont they have a rigth to do whatever they want with their earned money? Maybe they prefere spending their money now and expect their kids to look after them when they grow old. How does the state know?
You argue that CPP is different from the US system. That is just another lack of common ground between us. The fact is, though, both are based on forced payments. Details do not really matter. People are forced to fork out money now in exchange for a pretty promise they will receive retirement payments later. No explanation why this should be so, other than ill informend opinions that they will die if they were let to take care about themselves.
Another of your arguments is that the Canadian system has recovered nicely over the past couple years after an increase in contributions, decent market returns, the establishment of a committee to ensure growth and sustainability (and the implementation of many of their suggestions), and a general commitment to ensure a viable CPP system for our elderly. I can give you hundreds of examples this is not so, but you would dismiss them as rants of the far right.
So I will ask you this – how can you say the system is getting decent market returns (for example)? How do you know what I consider decent market returns? If i was free to use my money in a fund of my choice, i would be chosing between low risk/low return or high risk/high return or something in between. Now i have no such choice, CPP invests my money the way it does and i have no way of changing anything. How am i better off now if i would invest my money differently if i was allowed to do so? Your opinions that „all is good“ are only arbitrary. Why not people let invest themselves? Why be so paternalistic? Because people are stupid and would die if the state didnt take care of them? And who governs the state? People, who are in their office because those stupid voters voted for them. But how can someone so supid and unable to look after himself be smart enough to vote right?
You flat out dismiss studies done by Fraser Institute and Montreal Economic Institue as far right fear mongering. But how is that fearmongering, when they merely show data given by the state itself? Governmental figures show in how bad shape their system is. Fraser Institute and Montreal Economic Institue do nothing else than explain why did it happen and what can be done to fix it. I hardly see any fearmongering there.
I am not saying studying the mistake history has no benefits. But the main benfit is to learn from them. The left has not done so, and is dragging down everyone with them.
|