In the specific case of the defined benefit corporate pensions,
what exactly are the people to do? In good faith, the employees
accepted management promises that if they would defer immediate
cash compensation for their labor, the money would be invested to
provide a pension with medical care after they retired. It is
not their fault that management either never invested the money
(i.e. stole it) or invested in it non-productive areas.

If the abrogation of defined benefit pensions by corporate
America though sham chapter 11 bankruptcys is allowed to proceed,
particularly when combined with an implosion of the domestic
real-estate sector caused by elimination of the mortgage interest
deduction, the effect on the stock/bond markets and financial
structure will be catastrophic.

It is only a short step from the disavowal of corporate pensions
to the abrogation of obligations under the Social Security act,
and then only a shot hop to the invalidation of U.S. bonds and a
currency recall. (The government appears to be ginning up
justification for this by the stories about North Korea's
counterfeiting of the 100$ bill.)

Is the next step to blame the people for keeping their retirement
funds in stocks, bonds, money market accounts and U.S. paper
money? Are the only people "worthy" of a comfortable retirement
those who bought and held gold? (If so they had better put some
of their retirement funds in guns and ammunition….)

America of 2005 is a very 'brittle" society/culture with little
flexibility or adaptability by most of its
residents/institutions. The large majority of the American
population lives in mega-urban areas, which as New Orleans
proved, are "death traps," if anything goes wrong (and it always
does - the question is "when" not "if").

We seem to have two groups here, both of which in my not so
humble opinion need to step back and carefully examine their
tacit assumptions about the typical individual within American
society, American cultural values, and the current and likely
short term future American economy/infrastructure.

It is wisely observed that there are only a very few things you
can do by yourself, one of which is to die. No matter how well
you prepare and no matter how much determination you have, at the
end of you life you will be dependent on others, if only for your
funeral/burial. At the other end of life, the young must depend
on one or more adults for food, shelter and clothing (and
hopefully education). Even during their best years as adults,
most people will find they must rely on others from time to time
for services such as medical care, emergency services (fire and
police) and common defense which they cannot provide for
themselves (in any meaningful way).

On the other hand there is the compulsion of increasing numbers
of people in positions of authority, as government and as
employers, to meddle in every aspect of life from the amount and
type foods people eat, what types of activities they engage in,
even to how tight they wear their shoes. In itself this is a
major PITA, but even more egregious is the rapidly increasing
trend of these people to micromanage every aspect of individual
activity while ignoring activities for which they are accountable
(i.e. activities for which they have both the capability and
responsibility to act on). A few of these are uncontrolled
immigration, de-industrialization, financial irregularities,
economic perturbations (such as the dot cons, derivatives,
currency speculation and the real-estate bubble) and
physical/social infrastructure deterioration.

The reality is that the days of the "rugged individualist" have
long been over, if they were ever here in the first place. On
careful examination of the historical record, it appears this
myth developed because of what we refer to in the trade as "file
drawer bias." That is of 1000 erstwhile "rugged
individualists," 999 died in the attempt, and the sole survivor
told their story. There is also the "the older I get, the better
I was" phenomena.

GmcD