Is it possible that the Bush Administration's talk about privatization isn't aimed solely at the American public, but at the global financial market, particularly China? Read this:
"US-China "Balance of Financial Terror" Game. A Prisoners Dilemma Game: hard landing MAD or Chinese pre-emption as the likely solution?"
Nouriel Roubini's Global Economics Blog
Is this the *real* crisis driving this reckless push, a burgeoning economic meltdown? (I think this is the real driver, when Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley says we're on the brink of "financial Armageddon").
Is it possible that the Administration is trying to navigate two dueling challenges -- keeping the U.S. economy from plummeting while trying to implode the size of government under its own weight (so that Norquist can drown it in the bathtub)?
No one at the top of this Administration does anything out of generosity, after all. Everything they do is motivated at a personal level, bordering on out and out conflict of interest. What's in it for these rich white guys to privatize Social Security when they will never have need of it? What do they personally stand to lose, depending on the real drivers at work?
This bit only makes me more certain there's more going on than "saving" Social Security; there's an M.O. at work yet again:
"Having first looted the University of Texas, Bush now aims to loot Social Security."
By Frederick Sweet / Intervention Magazine
It's this kind of stuff that makes me wonder whether we can really look at Britain or Chile or any where else for real parallels on privatization. The massive potential for corruption and the possible tanking of a global economy make this an entirely different kettle of fish.
