[jdasdf]

>Public pensions and family benefits may seem old-fashioned compared with asset-based solutions. But they provide security without locking households into markets, without generating trillion-dollar investment pools, and without driving asset inflation that prices younger generations out of housing and wealth. Sometimes, the non-assetising path may simply be better.

It's an obvious propaganda post intended to demonize the financial markets, and promote unsustainable social security policies.

[toomuchtodo]

If the options are pensions or self investment, how is one sustainable and the other isn’t? The investment dollars in scope are similar, with pensions being better managed than your average human would do.

[bluGill]

> with pensions being better managed than your average human would do.

Only if they are. Some pensions are well managed. Some are not. Some seem well managed for years, but in fact they are not. Some have been well managed for a long time, but someone incompetent gets in power. Can you tell the difference.

Oh, and if you can tell the difference, can you convince everyone else and thus get this fixed? Or will voters be happy with the mismanagement because it is returning great results now on low investment leaving more money to spend on other things now?

[jdasdf]

Most pensions are Pay as You Go systems where no investment actually occurs (or if it does it is vestigial).

Effectively no different from a regular ponzi scheme being used to purchase votes.

Self-investment has the actual investment there.

If pensions were fully-funded you'd be right, but they aren't in almost every country. Unfunded pension liabilities are well over 300% of GDP in most european countries, but since they don't show up on debt to gdp metrics, people aren't aware of it.

>The investment dollars in scope are similar, with pensions being better managed than your average human would do.

Also that is untrue.