10 ms·
His terminology makes sense and it hits directly to the core of the problem: It's a ponzi scheme. These people were not saving into "retirements". They were giv
by csomar 4y ago
His terminology makes sense and it hits directly to the core of the problem: It's a ponzi scheme. These people were not saving into "retirements". They were giving their money, freely, for other people in the expectation that the next generation will do the same.
- tomcam 4y agoAgree completely that it’s a Ponzi scheme
- matthewdgreen 4y agoThe same thing is true of your investment account. When you buy bonds you're giving money to a company or the US Treasury who then spend it. That money is gone. You're assuming the borrower will choose pay you back from some future revenue stream. When you buy into a stock IPO you're betting that the company will pay you dividends from a future revenue stream (or do related things that make the stock perceived as valuable.) In the case of Social Security that future revenue stream is taxes drawn from the US taxpayer. None of this is a Ponzi scheme.