> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Americans don't like to support something called "socialism," but
> > they often support socialism by some other name.
> > David
> 
> All but a very few Americans, including economists, are in favor of
> socialized money.  That is the most pervasive socialist 
> program in the USA.

It's a mistake to confuse the word "socialist" by refering to gov't 
money as socialist money.  Most folks, I'm sure, would state that
"socialist money" means the gov't gives more money to those who
need it, taking from those who have it.  E.g. gov't socialist 
redistribution.

I don't even know why you want to call the monopoly legal tender laws 
socialized money -- but now I'm not certain this is what you mean.

There has long been a freedom-security trade off.  People want both,
but will usually choose more real/ "felt" security in return for small
amounts of (unrecognized?) freedom.

Social security is widely supported because of the certainty element,
folks are sure that they'll be taken care of by the SS program.  

Since one of the main costs of inflation is the greater uncertainty,
a reduced inflation/ uncertainty is worth quite a lot of freedom to
many people.


One conclusion I draw is support for mandatory savings programs,
including, in Slovakia, a 3-pillar pension reform where the first
pillar is a minimum poverty amount, pay-as-you-go from the budget;
the second pillar is a required savings amount, which becomes your
own inheritable property; the third is a tax-advantaged optional
savings amount.

Generally the irresponsible folk need to be forced to save more 
for themselves, to reduce the number of needy in the future.

Tom Grey

Reply via email to