I'm glad that somebody reads these letters.
This is the conundrum of these kinds of funds. We consult with actuaries all the time. We're not actuaries, although we're rapidly getting there--I'm thinking that will be my next career.
My understanding from the people who look more closely at these issues than I do is that it has never worked anywhere, ever. I know that's not a good answer.
You talked about Quebec. It's the taxpayer subsidizing....
So who gets the subsidy? The unfortunate reality, from a macroeconomic standpoint, is that you have the good companies, and of course personal taxpayers as well, subsidizing the bad. That has been the experience. That's a fact.
You can say set up a fund.... The Ontario government just devoted half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money to its fund, which they've had in place for quite a while. It's a royal failure. If you want a Canadian example, there is a recent one.
You're right. We're repeatedly subsidizing. They tend to be more standard industrial industries--steel, autos, and that kind of thing. We're representing the small businesses, and our members don't get those kinds of bailouts. They're never eligible for them, but they are subsidizing them.
From a macroeconomic standpoint, you're getting the successful repeatedly subsidizing the unsuccessful. I think anybody can see that's kind of.... You might agree you want to do that but you don't really know why.
The line about pensions is that everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. Everybody wants a guarantee, but ultimately people pay for those guarantees. That's the problem in a nutshell, and that's the challenge for policy-makers. How do you balance off these competing interests?
The last time I checked, nothing is guaranteed on this planet. We do the best we can. This is where we hopefully can find a mix of things that will help people help themselves. Everybody wants a decent retirement for everyone. We can all agree on that. How do we best achieve that without overly burdening any one group?