it is regulated by many the same groups who utilize the system, and so it is inherently corrupt.

  • southsamurai
    link
    fedilink
    English
    115 months ago

    Yeah, it’s kinda hard to tell if this is unpopular or not on the surface, because it’s not exactly a rare opinion, and it’s one that’s shared by a shit ton of people. But it’s definitely an opinion that draws a shit ton of heat because it goes right to the heart of realism vs idealism. Three should part looks like it’s only about the current system because you focussed on the stock market, despite the fix for your should being systemic rather than specific.

    The way the system currently works, it’s necessary, and should be part of a retirement fund.

    But the current system sucks, and we should have robust funding in place to take care of each other as we age out of work. And that goes for other forms of retirement like disability.

    I think that your post deserves an upvote as unpopular because what you’re talking about is fundamentally shifting the economic model towards a more socialist way of handling the safety net. That is distinctly unpopular in a lot of the world, and particularly unpopular in capitalist nations.

    Now, ignoring the C/ that we’re in and the question of popularity, there is the middle ground solution of improving oversight and regulation of the market which would take the reins of power into the hands of the government. The flaw in that is in it being in the hands of governments, but that’s a flaw in any social safety net that exists stay anyway.

    I err on the side of formal programs with tight regulations on reducing them that are funded by the populous and heavy taxation on wealth and capitalist actions, if we’re going to stay capitalist rather than entirely upending the system as it is. But I’d prefer the system itself to change.