There are a few improvements possible. One is to make employers a bit more careful about finding low cost money managers by mandating that fees be paid up front by the employer rather than taken from program earnings. Individual workers do not have the resources to find the lowest cost provider - employers quickly would and would have the bargaining power of a large account. The debate on Social Security Personal Accounts was, sadly short-circuited - largely because the Democrats and the UAW used it as an electoral issue rather than showing any willingess to deal. The emergence of the Enron situation also poisoned the well on probably the best option - diverting funds toward the purchase of employer voting stock. Had that situation been settled on in 2002, or even earlier in 1982, the market would not have collapsed in 2008 because there would be no market. Employee-owned firms in the U.S. would have likely had major union participation and would have adopted the European practice of offering mortgages to members, which would have prevented the need to lower mortgage rates in 2002 to keep the housing market going, effectively preventing the housing bubble. It would certainly have stopped liar loans from happening to the extent it occurred. There is the possible criticism that employee ownership is unsafe, however if a third of the contributions to such a fund were made to a mutual fund that holds the stock to all such firms, that fund could pay off in the event of failure. Additionally, such a fund would be non-market - so it could be managed at a much lower cost than anything operated by Wall Street - and with no commissions. The last provision is why such a proposal was never taken seriously. The drive toward Social Security Personal Accounts invested in index funds would have been a bonaza for Wall Street - and would have deepended the collapse we are experiencing today, rather than averting it.