É tramado
No Canhoto apanhei um post que reproduzo aqui, sobre a privatização dos sistemas de reforma. Para quem não sabe, Stiglitz é este senhor aqui. Não é propriamente uma figura política ou enviesada. É interessante ler isto e depois olhar para o debate actual em Portugal. Muita gente esquece-se que o objecto de uma empresa é maximizar o seu lucro. Não é garantir a maximização do bem estar social.. :|
America and the world should remember: Argentina’s privatization of its pension system was at the center of its recent fiscal woes. Had Argentina not privatized, its budget would have been roughly in balance. The US is starting on its privatization venture with a fiscal deficit of 4% of GDP.
Privatization advocates insist, however, that investments in stocks would yield sufficiently higher returns to provide individuals the same retirement income as before, with the surplus used to fill the gap. But if markets are working well, then returns will be higher only because risk is higher. There is still no free lunch in economics.
With higher risk, there is a chance that, 40 years from now, many individuals will find themselves with less than they need to retire. But if one really thinks that free lunches exist, there is still no reason to privatize: government could get the additional returns by investing in the stock market itself. Indeed, President Clinton proposed doing just that.
With increased transaction costs, worsening solvency for the system, increased budget deficits, and decreasing benefits and security for retirees, why the drive for privatization? One reason is the interest financial markets have in grabbing a piece of all those transactions costs. A second is the Bush administration’s ideological hostility to the modest amount of wealth redistribution implied by the public system. America’s Social Security program has been so successful in reducing poverty because the poor get back a little more than they contribute, and the rich get back a little less.
Even with Social Security’s mildly redistributive effect, poverty and inequality in America are increasing. Privatization will only make matters worse.
America and the world should remember: Argentina’s privatization of its pension system was at the center of its recent fiscal woes. Had Argentina not privatized, its budget would have been roughly in balance. The US is starting on its privatization venture with a fiscal deficit of 4% of GDP.
Privatization advocates insist, however, that investments in stocks would yield sufficiently higher returns to provide individuals the same retirement income as before, with the surplus used to fill the gap. But if markets are working well, then returns will be higher only because risk is higher. There is still no free lunch in economics.
With higher risk, there is a chance that, 40 years from now, many individuals will find themselves with less than they need to retire. But if one really thinks that free lunches exist, there is still no reason to privatize: government could get the additional returns by investing in the stock market itself. Indeed, President Clinton proposed doing just that.
With increased transaction costs, worsening solvency for the system, increased budget deficits, and decreasing benefits and security for retirees, why the drive for privatization? One reason is the interest financial markets have in grabbing a piece of all those transactions costs. A second is the Bush administration’s ideological hostility to the modest amount of wealth redistribution implied by the public system. America’s Social Security program has been so successful in reducing poverty because the poor get back a little more than they contribute, and the rich get back a little less.
Even with Social Security’s mildly redistributive effect, poverty and inequality in America are increasing. Privatization will only make matters worse.
Autoria de Irreligious as 20:12
0 Comments:
Enviar um comentário
<< Home