Read on Twitter
Imagine being wealthy and privileged enough to think that if a dollar isn’t being used to generate a return, it must be “theft”. Now imagine if everyone actually took this device. The system would fail. ->
This gets complicated, but you can only generate a return on investment if you’re the sole proprietor of that investment. For example, if everyone in the country tried to buy stock in Apple at once, it would drive the price of Apple stock so high, no one else could buy it. ->
This is what happens in bubbles. Some lucky people who got in on the craze early will get rich, but everyone else will be bankrupt when the bubble bursts. SOCIAL SECURITY is a system designed to help EVERYONE. ->
There’s an assumption here that if EVERYONE put their money into industries that generate returns, you could get more out of social security, but if EVERYONE pitched in, it would just create a bubble that will burst and leave most people destitute. ->
“Returns” here are assumed to be continually safe and guaranteed no matter what the conditions of the market are, and that’s precisely the process social security is designed to bypass, *so we can guarantee that elderly people who can’t work aren’t left to die.* ->
“But if *I* had invested that money myself, *I* would have gotten more benefit out of it when *I* retire.” The problem here is that social security isn’t about YOU. ->
It’s just another example of naïve libertarian “rugged individualism” blinding people from how GROUPS of people work in a larger socioeconomic context, and how those interactions affect the growth and success of industries that receive investments through, ahem, LABOR. ->
“Well, *I* invested money into Apple and *I* made a ton of money. Why doesn’t everyone just invest money into Apple, then everyone can be rich! Duh!” Libertarians are the ones who understand economics though. 
I honestly can’t get over how asinine this tweet is.
