Re: Social Contract
- To: debian-user <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Social Contract
- From: Mike McCarty <Mike.McCarty@sbcglobal.net>
- Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 01:14:03 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 4456F8AB.email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <4452EB05.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <44526D1F.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <44528C48.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <44529C84.email@example.com> <4452A25A.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4452E3E8.email@example.com> <4452EB05.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Steve Lamb wrote:
Mumia W wrote:
Perhaps, Steve, you should have read this section:
That section explains why national retirement schemes are *not* ponzi
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 doesn't change the the basic principle. I'm very much with Thomas
Sowell when it comes to what Social Security is.
 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
Well, even the Wikipedia article cited states that the things
that it lists which "are not" [sic] characteristics of the Social
Security System are not necessarily parts of all Ponzi Schemes.
Ponzi himself really wasn't *intending* to perpetrate a fraud. He
really thought he was doing somthing good, as far as I can tell.
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
Umm, this is the official word from the Social Security Agency:
*Your estimated benefits are based on current law.
Congress has made changes to the law in the past
and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit
amounts may change because, by 2041, the payroll
taxes collected will be enough to pay only about
74 percent of scheduled benefits.
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.
Remember: "Net" means "not entirely true". You can find all sorts
of things in the Wikipedia. Not all of them are true, or even
reasonable. Some of it even has disclaimers *stating* that some
of the statements are not factual.
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!