No. of Recommendations: 8
Did somebody argue for zero social safety net? I must have missed that, because it wasn't in anything I typed.
You said no bailout - and you've repeatedly in past conversations criticized the growth of existing social safety nets.
If you let people take high levels of risk in their 401K, you're allowing them to privatize the risk but socialize the losses. They get more money if they win, but if they lose they add an enrollee to those social safety nets that would otherwise have had enough resources to pay for their own stuff. That's generally a bad outcome for everyone else.
If somebody wants to park 100% of their retirement savings into crypto, are you willing to fund a bailout if it goes sideways on them? Because I'm not.
I'm not, either. Which is why I would prefer not to let people park 100% of their retirement savings into crypto. Because if it goes sideways on them and we don't bail them out, we're all going to have to pay more in taxes because they blew their retirement savings on a gamble.
