Re: Social Contract
- To: debian-user <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Social Contract
- From: Mike McCarty <Mike.McCarty@sbcglobal.net>
- Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 01:07:25 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 4456F71D.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <4452E3E8.email@example.com>
- References: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <44526D1F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <44528C48.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <44529C84.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4452A25A.email@example.com> <4452E3E8.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mumia W wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
Erm. What does "ponzi" mean? I can't find it in any of my
dictionaries, so I assume it's American Slang...
Indeed, thanks Steve.
Perhaps, Steve, you should have read this section:
That section explains why national retirement schemes are *not* ponzi
It also contains factual errors. For example, the very first bulleted
Retirement systems, like Social Security, are openly declared for what
they are. In a genuine Ponzi scheme, the perpetrators falsely claim that
there is some business that generates the promised revenues. In Social
Security, people know where the money comes from, and actuaries supply
written predictions of future cash in-flows and out-flows.
I don't know about in other countries, but in the USA politicians
speak openly of "Social Security Accounts", which actually are
non-existent. All monies going to "Social Security" go directly
to the US Treasury. FDR made his ever so famous speech indicating
that it set up a "retirement fund". I didn't bother to read the
rest, since the first bulleted item indicated that whoever wrote
that bit didn't actually check whether the claims made by
government officials were fraudulent.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!