Mumia W wrote: > Perhaps, Steve, you should have read this section: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme#Are_national_retirement_programs_Ponzi_schemes.3F
> That section explains why national retirement schemes are *not* ponzi
> schemes.
What makes you think I didn't. I read the entire page before posting.
Just because it is on Wikipedia doesn't make it gospel. And just because
Someone wants to nitpick that it isn't a ponzi scheme based on two dubious
claims[1] doesn't change the the basic principle. I'm very much with Thomas
Sowell when it comes to what Social Security is.
[1] Those being that just because it doesn't make outlandish claims of
immediate returns. However it does make an outlandish claim of extended
returns. The second is that somehow the state using it's power of taxation
somehow makes it alright. Lemme see, suckering someone to give you their
money of their own free will = bad. Forcing someone to give you their money
even if they don't want to = good! Sorry, I don't buy into the notion that
the state's power of taxation changes the fundamental nature of the beast.
Besides, that section of the page is flawed by the very facts in this
nation. It says that since the state can tax the scheme won't fail. Yet what
are we facing here in this nation? Oh, right, the collapse of the Social
Security system in the mid 2020s. Sorry, already saw the man behind the
curtain, Mumia. Might I suggest before you take anything on Wikipedia as
gospel you do a minute amount of critical thinking. Flaws like the above
aren't hard to spot.
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
