That’s the question. And here are a bunch of answers.
Starting with a pro/con in the Wall Street Journal between Alicia Munnell of the Center for Retirement Research and Mike Tanner of the Cato Institute.
I followed up at Forbes with some thoughts that Munnell and Tanner hadn’t hit on. Namely, that while stock investment is kind of a nothing – higher expected returns, but higher risk to match – people who propose it do so instead of full-solvency reforms rather than in addition to them. So stock market investment could encourage Congress to further delay real reforms.
And here’s another write-up from Alicia Munnell at Marketwatch.