Is it too late for anyone to live a half-good life in the US

Post Reply New Topic

The definition of a "PONZI scheme" has nothing to do with "individuals and government"; it is a method of operation.

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator". [source 1]

This is how the US operates; it borrows ever greater debt to pay back its old investors. The US never uses its profits (revenues subtract expenses) to pay the debt, rather the debt only gets paid by new investors. And no this is not how all governments operate.

Further, [see source 2] is a list of famous Ponzi schemes, some perpetrated by governments.

sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ponzi_schemes



Ad hominem

Apparently, you are unable to look up the definition so you argue that all information on the internet is not factual.

The federal government has constant sources of revenue. Many agencies are self-funded. The only way that you could label the federal government a ponzi scheme is if you label any individual who has a job and has ever paid bill with a personal loan, payday loan, or a credit card the same way.



No, I am saying that if you use a phrase that is inherently biased to look for information, then you will only find inherently biased information. I am not saying the entire internet is lies, only that the tiny portion you will get on the first few pages of Google using those specific terms are unlikely to be credible references.
If I tell you to Google "lies of evolutionists" you aren't going to pull up scientific and unbiased facts.

And for the record, I know exactly what a ponzi scheme is. If you were a little more careful in actually understanding what a ponzi scheme is, you may be able to figure out the many differences that you are overlooking. The two biggies:

The government does not promise huge yields or massive returns on investment. Their treasuries and securities promise much less than most financial institutions.

The government has many assets, not just cash. The amount of federally owned land alone is worth hundreds of times what it owes.

For someone who is so anti-government spending, you sure don't seem to have a problem with taking their money.

Most Ponzi schemes do have a constant source of revenue. Bernie Madoff, Allen Stanford and nearly every Ponzi scheme have investment revenue. However, the problem is that like the US government, the revenue minus expenses is insufficient to pay back the old investors. So, they need new investors willing to lend ever greater sums of money to keep the operation working.



You are inserting your own opinions into the definition of what is a Ponzi scheme.

I showed you the definition of a Ponzi scheme, and where in the definition does it say that "promises of huge yield must be made"? The infamous Ponzi schemer, Bernie Madoff was convicted by the US government for running a Ponzi scheme, and he never promised huge yields.

Again , Madoff had assets, Ponzi schemers generally have a building and land. Many Ponzi schemers live lavishly with yachts, multiple homes, many cars, even as the Ponzi scheme crumbles. Because they have no intention of ever selling the assets. The US does have a lot of land, however, it has no intention of selling its lands to pay creditors. Further, assets are not part of the definition of what is a Ponzi scheme.

Ponzi scheme is simply a method of operation as discussed above.




Ad hominem

From one of your links defining what a ponzi scheme is.



A ponzi scheme does not exist if the total asset value exceed total liability.



If that is the case than every single publicly traded corporation that has not made a net profit every single second of every single hour of every single day of its existence is a ponzi scheme.




Just an observation. It was not meant to be specific to your ponzi scheme accusations. You frequently attack government spending, government debt, and government waste. You go on and on about how lazy and terrible government employees are, and demean their value and worth as human beings. You constantly complain about every aspect of government finance. And then you pay your bill for internet access with that same money being spent in a way you so morally object to. I just find it strange. That's all.

Odd, I'm hard-pressed to think of even ONE agency that turns a PROFIT. I certainly don't know how many (of all) agencies are truly self-sufficient (not needing funding subsidy from Congress to operate).

Odd, I'm hard-pressed to think of even ONE agency that turns a PROFIT. I certainly don't know how many (of all) agencies are truly self-sufficient (not needing funding subsidy from Congress to operate).

The NRC, Export-Import Bank, FDIC, NCUA, FCA, PCAOB, the USPS used to be (until they failed to realize this internet thing had popped into existence), the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

"a good life" is a relative term. It doesn't cost much to live a simple, comfortable life as long as you don't get caught up in the "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality and think that everyone has to have all the same things. Which would be simple if the Jones would stop behaving as if anyone who does not life like them is inferior. As long as the Joneses and their ilk feel the need to segregate and isolate themselves from everyone else, in gated compounds and communities which breed the mindset that the value and worth of a human being is dependent upon his possessions and status instead of character. People don't generally rob and steal out of envy, but rather out of anger and frustration at being treated as inferior beings and pariah.

No. Companies can survive off of their original debt and revenue. Ponzi scheme is a method of paying back old investors with capital from new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator.

You have asserted so far:
- it must be "promises of high yield" , nope that is not in the definition
- liabilities must exceed assets, nope that is not in the definition
- no net profit publicly traded companies would be a Ponzi schemes, nope that is not in the definition

*Sigh* The definition is quite clear.

Wikipedia: A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator.



I am a good person, however, I don't have much in the way of morals, being ASD makes me more like an animal, like I am semi-alive. So I know I never said I morally object to how the government spends its money. That is you making assumptions about the motives of people. You seem want to assign a motivation to why people research information. ASD people may research information because to know facts/information about a topic is an obsessive passion, not because they have a hidden political conviction. You are conversing with ASD people, not "normal people".

I work for the government because I can be lazy and overpaid. I worked for a few software companies and I could see how much easier, better paying, and safer government jobs are, so I changed to government employment.

By that definition, Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, as the payouts from the trust fund are from the amount you pay into the trust fund, not what someone else pays. Even if you want to pretend otherwise, the current amount collected is higher than the amount paid, so it could still be argued that the payouts are from the "profits."

Social Security is structured similar to pension and retirement plans, but with generally lower returns. Are pensions ponzi schemes as well?

On paper, that's what they claim.

In practice, the benefits come from people currently paying into the system. There is no separation of fund or fiduciary accountability. The SS fund is empty. If we didn't approve a budget each year to run the government, the current tax revenue would largely be consumed by SS expenditures.

You are incorrect. As of the end of 2013, the trust fund has the following amounts in reserve:
OASI $2.6 TRILLION
DI $122.7 Billion
HI $220.4 Billion
SMI $67.2 Billion

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

It is PROJECTED to run dry in another 20 years or so if nothing at all changes. If you wanted to completely solve the problem for the foreseeable future, all that needs to be done is to remove the cap on wages subject to social security collection (currently you no longer pay into social security for anything above $117,000).