The social security system is by definition NOT a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi scheme, the investors are not told that the system depends on funds form additional investors in order to make profits. The investors are lied to, that the growth of the fund is due to the profits the fund is earning, when in fact the growth of the fund, such as it is, comes from additional duped investors. When the supply of duped investors dries up, the fund crashes. The social security system would have crashed a long time ago if it was a ponzi scheme. The social security fund is explicitly based not on earnings from the existing fund, but on ongoing tax receipts from wage earners.
Social Security has paid every single penny it promised for 76 years. How can that be a failure? How can it be a Ponzi scheme.? It keeps many of our elderly from destitution.
Like any insurance-like scheme, SS has some “winners” (those who live a long time) and losers (those who die before they collect.) That reduces the money needed for the winners. In an individual trust fund scheme, where does the money for the losers go, and where does the extra money for the winners come from - or does everyone have to invest assuming they will live to 100?
Are you claiming that the change in demographics is a surprise to anyone? Why do you think there has been a surplus? The Reagan reforms addressed this, the ones needed now are relatively minor.
BTW, please tell me of a real Ponzi scheme that maintained reserves against future withdrawals and which opened its books for all to see. Calling SS a Ponzi scheme is a sign of the lack of a real argument.
Those were not my words that you quoted. That was Krugman.
Except he called it a" Ponzi scheme that works" Your selective quoting makes it yours because it totally distorts the meaning.
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR21.6/krugmann.html
Please try to find the words “Ponzi scheme that works” in there.
Terr,
Krugman was making a quip when he used the word Ponzi-scheme. He has flat out said that your interpretation of his words are wrong. It seems to me that Krugman is the ultimate cite for what Krugman meant by that quote.
If you aren’t willing to let people clarify their meaning than you may just as well conclude that we were 5 minute from Armageddon when Regan stated
“My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”
Just because Krugman backpedaled for all he’s worth doesn’t mean that my interpretation of his words is wrong.
It is patently absurd that you claim to know Krugman’s intention with his comments better than Krugman himself.
It’s patently absurd that you accept Krugman’s backpedaling his earlier remarks with no scepticism whatsoever.
Skepticism in the absence of evidence is nothing more than partisan paranoia.
I get the Times, and so I read Krugman all the time. If you think he seriously ever thought it is a Ponzi scheme, as opposed to twitting the morons like Perry who make this claim, you haven’t understood a word he has ever written.
Even Krugman has an occasional moment of lucidity.
It’s patently absurd that you somehow think the fact that someone backpedaled means they were telling the truth BEFORE they backpedaled.
Right back atcha (except replace with AFTER). See how that works?
Since I know what you are saying better than you do, thank you for agreeing with my point. I will take any future disagreement with your endorsement of my views as being meaningless backpedaling.
Thank you for your support.
When Krugman called SS a" Ponzi scheme that actually work"s, it was far different than simply calling it a Ponzi scheme. It is a huge distinction. What it has that makes it Ponzilike, is that today’s workers pay for yesterday’s geezers on faith that it will be there for them. The big difference is that it will be. There will be workers paying for them when their time comes.
A real Ponzi scheme is one where the money is not there at all. it is spent by the managers .
i am sorry TERR can not understand the distinction.