Giving head way to his last examples and thoughts, I would like to pick at them in which they were addressed. Some will not be covered of course and I hope they will be in the meeting this Thursday. Now on the lovely topic of efficiency. Efficiency in some relative degree is beneficial to both parties when regarding the short-run that is observable, comparative to the long-run which will most likely never be reached. Of course efficiency will be the best of outcomes. When has efficiency not been the better outcome? That is it's definition is it not? (When regarding to the time-frame and reference at hand)
Knowing this I think Frank has some interesting thoughts regarding retirement. If people were to be 'forced' to have a savings that could be mandated I think many more people would be frustrated with this than the normal anti-government groups. People would most likely view this as just another large tax and less say about what they can afford or not. The pessimism I would most likely assume would be enough to disrupt the consumption and GDP growth of the country as a whole. While this could possibly work for most elderly people, the costs I believe would vary as with any other social policy. These variances could have large impacts on a massive macroeconomic scale.
In the end I'm all for efficiency and the understanding of it. Yet I believe in using a Kaizen (sorry if the spelling/lettering is bad) approach like in accounting. Rather than changing policies that can have large effects quickly, perhaps it should be a slower approach? This may seem a bit of a stretch but if baby policies or laws were implemented, for the greater good of the people and not just a select few, could benefit the country slowly rather than rapidly I think the effects or variances would almost be non-existant outliers. But perhaps maybe I'm just a dreamer as well.