NeantHumain wrote:
People tend to be the most supportive of free markets and deregulation where the regulations would directly negatively impact their bottom line or hamper with their ability to innovate (of course, corporations also love regulations that shut out the competition). Free markets, though, at their least regulated, can be unstable with prices sometimes fluctuating wildly and supply and demand shifting to and throe. For an individual whose attention may be focused elsewhere, having to constantly evaluate and also reevaluate ongoing service relationships and purchasing decisions can prove burdensome. Caveat emptor isn't good enough. People don't want to have to analyze the supply chain for the food they buy again and again, so they value the assurance of a government agency.
I see, in financial planning, some people love the flexibility of a 401(k) while others dislike leaving their retirement savings to the whims of the stock market. Republicans, even if not directly involved in banking or finance, tend to take a stronger than normal interest in money and finances. Directly managing their 401(k) or maybe working with a financial adviser (whom they may be able to assess well enough or have social connections to find one who knows what they're doing and isn't a huckster). For someone who'd rather be doing something else than obsessively watching the stock ticker, this is an unpleasant burden; they would be less likely to see privatization as favorable to them and see it more as a way for another middleman to get their cut as profit.
Either you watch the market yourself or hire someone to do it for you, with the understanding that he will be compensated for his time from the profits he makes investing -your- money.
It is no different than growing food to keep you alive. Either you grow your own or you hire someone to grow it for you, and he takes a piece for his wage/profit.
ruveyn
30 Aug 2010, 11:18 pm
