Pages

Jump to bottom

8 comments

1 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Sep 17, 2011 11:16:11am

It’s not a Ponzi scheme. The artifact of its creation means that the first generations on it got more than they ‘should’ have. Now that they’re passing, it will no longer have any aspects of a Ponzi scheme.

2 mikiesmoky2  Sep 17, 2011 12:37:11pm

re: #1 Obdicut

It’s not a Ponzi scheme. The artifact of its creation means that the first generations on it got more than they ‘should’ have. Now that they’re passing, it will no longer have any aspects of a Ponzi scheme.

Whereas I appreciate your response, it is an, absolutely, incorrect perception.

REGARDING: It’s not a Ponzi scheme.
Defintion (dictionary.com): PONZI SCHEME - an investment swindle in which early investors are paid with sums obtained from later ones in order to create the illusion of profitability.

The first recipient was a female who “invested” about $25 and received more than $20,000 during her retirement.

At its inception, the SS system was not designed to be an actuarially sound program.
The funding was from the workers, rather than from the federal government, as the funding should have been from the beginning.

The workers paid a maximum of $30 per year (1% of the first $3,000).
The program was designed to fund the current retirees, i.e., it was not designed actuarially correctly.

Perhaps I should re-characterize the program as a quasi-pyramid scheme (definition: a fraudulent scheme in which people are recruited to make payments to the person who recruited them while expecting to receive payments from the persons they recruit; when the number of new recruits fails to sustain the hierarchical payment structure the scheme collapses with most of the participants losing the money they put in), rather than a quasi-Ponzi scheme.

As time passed, adjustments were made to better fund the program, but they were insufficient to eliminate the pyramid descriptor.

About 4 months ago, Bill Clinton made a comment that we need MORE immigrants for the purpose of supporting the SS program, i.e., he was aware of the lack of actuarially soundness of the program.
Although, I have supported him over the years, I lost respect for him as I saw and heard him make that comment.

REGARDING: The artifact of its creation means that the first generations on it got more than they ‘should’ have. Now that they’re passing, it will no longer have any aspects of a Ponzi scheme.
RESPONSE: Is that perception derived from NEW or OLD math?
If the hole was never filled in, isn’t the hole still there?
lol

mz

3 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Sep 17, 2011 12:42:02pm

re: #2 mikiesmoky2

Defintion (dictionary.com): PONZI SCHEME - an investment swindle in which early investors are paid with sums obtained from later ones in order to create the illusion of profitability.

Right. So SS is not a Ponzi scheme because there is no attempt, at all, to create any illusion of profitability. It is transparent and open in its working.

What I don’t get is how you can cite that and not immediately see that SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme.

Perhaps I should re-characterize the program as a quasi-pyramid scheme (definition: a fraudulent scheme in which people are recruited to make payments to the person who recruited them while expecting to receive payments from the persons they recruit; when the number of new recruits fails to sustain the hierarchical payment structure the scheme collapses with most of the participants losing the money they put in), rather than a quasi-Ponzi scheme.

That would be even more inaccurate. There is no exponential growth, there is no recruitment. It is not a pyramid.

Is that perception derived from NEW or OLD math?
If the hole was never filled in, isn’t the hole still there?

I don’t think you understood what I said. For someone who entered the workforce after the creation of SS, it is not a Ponzi scheme.

4 mikiesmoky2  Sep 18, 2011 6:47:53pm

re: #3 Obdicut

re: #2 mikiesmoky2
Defintion (dictionary.com): PONZI SCHEME - an investment swindle in which early investors are paid with sums obtained from later ones in order to create the illusion of profitability.

REGARDING: Right. So SS is not a Ponzi scheme because there is no attempt, at all, to create any illusion of profitability. It is transparent and open in its working.
RESPONSE: Please substitute “legitimate reward”, “rational payoff”, “rational payment, et cetera for “profitability” and you may understand. Therefore, the adjusted definition: A concept in which early investors are paid with sums obtained from later ones in order to create the illusion of a legitimate reward.
The “bottom line” is that the SS program has never been actuarially sound.

REGARDING: What I don’t get is how you can cite that and not immediately see that SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme.

RESPONSE: Call it a quasi-Ponzi scheme, a quasi-pyramid scheme, a quasi-chair-letter scheme, et cetera. Call it what you want, but, in the final analysis, it is not an actuarially sound program. How many times must I repeat this until you get it? BTW, how would you describe the program? lol
Perhaps I should re-characterize the program as a quasi-pyramid scheme (definition: a fraudulent scheme in which people are recruited to make payments to the person who recruited them while expecting to receive payments from the persons they recruit; when the number of new recruits fails to sustain the hierarchical payment structure the scheme collapses with most of the participants losing the money they put in), rather than a quasi-Ponzi scheme.

REGARDING: That would be even more inaccurate. There is no exponential growth, there is no recruitment. It is not a pyramid.
RESPONSE: Okay, let’s try the mathematical and logic concept of “substitution”, again. How about an “adjusted” definition: A concept (fraudulent scheme) in which people are mandated (recruited) to make payments to the SS fund, while expecting to receive payments from the fund which will be funded by others who will be mandated to pay into the fund; when the number of new mandates fail to sustain the hierarchical payment structure the concept collapses with many of the participants losing money they put in.
Is that perception derived from NEW or OLD math?
If the hole was never filled in, isn’t the hole still there?

REGARDING: I don’t think you understood what I said. For someone who entered the workforce after the creation of SS, it is not a Ponzi scheme. RESPONSE: Is that perception derived from NEW or OLD math?
If the hole was never filled in, isn’t the hole still there?

NOTE: Please re-read the original posting and pay particular attention to the “concept” of such a program and the appropriate funding thereof.

mz

5 Rightwingconspirator  Sep 19, 2011 3:07:13pm

Geez, Mikie, why not argue for your changes which have some merit, rather than arguing the proper use of a word?

Lifting the limits makes great sense to me. I’d love to see that happen. Lift it to $1,000,000. That ought to do it, but I lack the proof. Got any charts on what might happen if the limit was raised?

6 mikiesmoky2  Sep 19, 2011 5:23:33pm

re: #5 Rightwingconspirator

Geez, Mikie, why not argue for your changes which have some merit, rather than arguing the proper use of a word?

Danny, you may not realize this, but words ARE important. Concepts are important.
I have attempted to offer the beginning of a discussion as to whether SS should exist, and if it should, how should it be funded. That is the first step.

I have attempted to explain to Obdicut that SS is not now, nor has ever been an actuarially sound program.
Apparently, he remains confused since he hasn’t thanked me for the time I have taken to lift his fog of confusion, or he lacks the integrity to admit the realization that he was confused.

Lifting the limits makes great sense to me. I’d love to see that happen. Lift it to $1,000,000. That ought to do it, but I lack the proof. Got any charts on what might happen if the limit was raised?

I am glad that lifting the limits makes sense to you. Why do you suggest a limit of $1,000,000?
What is your “theory” to establish that amount?
That ought to do what?
You lack the proof for what?
This is the job of the CBO (Congressional Budget Office).

You didn’t address taxing “unearned” or “passive” income, such as royalties, dividends, capital gains, rents, interest, et cetera.

I suggest that you reread the article for the more important points to discuss.

Thank you for your comments.

mz

7 Rightwingconspirator  Sep 20, 2011 6:03:38pm

re: #6 mikiesmoky2

Nice job of making an argument out of a post that agrees with a point you made. If you find my answer to be inadequate, consider how little time you give other peoples Pages. It’s a give and take world.

8 mikiesmoky2  Sep 20, 2011 11:06:40pm

Nice job of making an argument out of a post that agrees with a point you made. If you find my answer to be inadequate, consider how little time you give other peoples Pages. It’s a give and take world.

I just finished my comments on your posting, as per your request.

mz


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Analysis: Gun Deaths Dropped in California as They Rose in Texas: Gun Control Seems to Work - Los Angeles Times Poll after poll has shown for years that large majorities of the public agree on at least some, limited steps to further regulate firearms. A survey last year by the Pew Research Center, for example, showed that by 87% ...
Rightwingconspirator
11 hours, 25 minutes ago
Views: 140 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
Los Angeles Sheriff Scandal: 41 Deputies Alleged to Belong to Gangs - Rolling Stone You don't need to be an investigative agent or journalist to sense the difference between the Los Angeles Sheriff Deputies and our Los Angeles Police Officers. For instance, the subway has hired both over the years. The differences were ...
Rightwingconspirator
2 days, 1 hour ago
Views: 226 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 8 •
YUNGBLUD (With WILLOW) - Memories (Official Music Video) YUNGBLUD (with WILLOW) - Memories (Official Music Video) Stream and download “Memories (with WILLOW)” : yungblud.lnk.to watch more official YUNGBLUD videos: yungblud.lnk.to SIGN UP to YUNGBLUD's Mailing List: yungblud.lnk.to subscribe to YUNGBLUD: yungblud.lnk.to connect with YUNGBLUD online:visit the official ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 5 days ago
Views: 1,395 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 3 •