Largest Ponzi On Earth.

[bb113]

I should say that as a tax it is not a ponzi. Unfortunately many people think it is an investment (it will be there for them), and those will be the ones hurt if it collapses.

[Littleshop]

I should say that as a tax it is not a ponzi. Unfortunately many people think it is an investment (it will be there for them), and those will be the ones hurt if it collapses.

Well it will probably not collapse unless the US government collapses.  But people are both hurt and helped.

If you are smart and plan ahead you are hurt on SS.   It does not take a rocket scientist to invest 14% of their income and get a good retirement. If you did put in the same amount into a retirement plan or even just in the bank, you would have far more money then SS provides on average. 

If you do not save, can not save or just blow your money, the government going to give you your money back at retirement time even if you screw up everything else.  It will not be much, but you can probably live on it.   

[myrkul]

It will not be much, but you can probably live on it.   

As long as you don't mind cat food. And the government has enough people paying into the system to support you.

[Littleshop]

It will not be much, but you can probably live on it.   

As long as you don't mind cat food. And the government has enough people paying into the system to support you.

The smart move is to move to an area in the country that has lower costs for non-working people.  This applies to people living off of SS as well people who properly invested.  You can live in South Carolina, Florida and many other places on just SS not that I would want to.  What you can not do is live on SS with a sizable mortgage or debt. 

[Sage]

The Federal Reserve system is hands down the single largest Ponzi scheme humanity has ever been burdened with.

Social security is a drop in the bucket when you consider the amount of dollars held around the world (thanks to petrol dollars and the US military that is used as a pawn by the Federal Reserve to force the world to use and hold those dollars).

Social security collapses the US retiree is affected.  The dollar collapses (as every Ponzi scheme does) it will affect just about every single living human in modern society.

[odolvlobo]

I don't feel that Social Security is technically a ponzi scheme because although it has all the characteristics of a ponzi scheme, it is not fraudulent. Anyone that wants to know how it works can easily look it up.

On the other hand, it is unfortunate that a large portion of the population believes that "I have paid into Social Security all my life, therefore I am entitled to [insert misconception here]." That the government is doing nothing to educate these people (because that would cost votes) is where Social Security borders on fraud and therefore might qualify as a ponzi scheme to some.

[SysRun]

I don't feel that Social Security is technically a ponzi scheme because although it has all the characteristics of a ponzi scheme, it is not fraudulent. Anyone that wants to know how it works can easily look it up.

On the other hand, it is unfortunate that a large portion of the population believes that "I have paid into Social Security all my life, therefore I am entitled to [insert misconception here]." That the government is doing nothing to educate these people (because that would cost votes) is where Social Security borders on fraud and therefore might qualify as a ponzi scheme to some.

this

[miln40]

Well the whole free market economy is giant Ponzi. New credit relies on old credit being paid regularly. When a large proportion of the debtors cannot pay, the whole system crumbles. Greece is a fresh example of that.

Free market != Credit-based economy.

You're mixing things up and muddying the discussion.

Sorry for muddying the discussion. Can you explain why my statement is wrong?

[myrkul]

Well the whole free market economy is giant Ponzi. New credit relies on old credit being paid regularly. When a large proportion of the debtors cannot pay, the whole system crumbles. Greece is a fresh example of that.

Free market != Credit-based economy.

You're mixing things up and muddying the discussion.

Sorry for muddying the discussion. Can you explain why my statement is wrong?

Well, your statement is actually correct, with the exception of calling it "free market."

You're calling this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-based_monetary_system, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy, and that's where you're wrong. The same thing calling what the US does "capitalism." All the right problems, attached to the wrong label.

[Jermainé]

With 300 million strong, i dont see any other scam that would compete on this mass scale.

+1

[miln40]

Well, your statement is actually correct, with the exception of calling it "free market."
You're calling this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-based_monetary_system, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy, and that's where you're wrong. The same thing calling what the US does "capitalism." All the right problems, attached to the wrong label.

Hm, you do have a point. However, isn't the debt-based monetary system a version of the free market? The basic assumption behind a free market is that you are free to trade in any way you want ideally without taxation. Now what prevents some people in this ideal free market to start printing out currency, then offering credit to cover it? That gives them more fluidity and a perceived expansion of wealth, therefore making them the power players in the system. The only difference to the real world would be that the fiat currency printers would not be central banks under government control, but private banks. However they would get big enough to behave in a government-like manner.
In essence, my argument is that once you have a no-holds barred free market, a debt-based system occurs sooner or later. Some scholars from the wikipedia articles you linked to seem to agree with this statement.
To quote: "In his 2011 book Debt: The First 5000 Years, the anthropologist David Graeber asserted that the best available evidence suggests the original monetary systems were debt based, and that most subsequent systems have been too". Haven't read it though, but I think I will now

[bb113]

Well, your statement is actually correct, with the exception of calling it "free market."
You're calling this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-based_monetary_system, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy, and that's where you're wrong. The same thing calling what the US does "capitalism." All the right problems, attached to the wrong label.

Hm, you do have a point. However, isn't the debt-based monetary system a version of the free market? The basic assumption behind a free market is that you are free to trade in any way you want ideally without taxation. Now what prevents some people in this ideal free market to start printing out currency, then offering credit to cover it? That gives them more fluidity and a perceived expansion of wealth, therefore making them the power players in the system. The only difference to the real world would be that the fiat currency printers would not be central banks under government control, but private banks. However they would get big enough to behave in a government-like manner.
In essence, my argument is that once you have a no-holds barred free market, a debt-based system occurs sooner or later. Some scholars from the wikipedia articles you linked to seem to agree with this statement.
To quote: "In his 2011 book Debt: The First 5000 Years, the anthropologist David Graeber asserted that the best available evidence suggests the original monetary systems were debt based, and that most subsequent systems have been too". Haven't read it though, but I think I will now

That's not my definition, but I have little training in economics. Where does it come from?

I would say that a free market is one free from any kind of violent coercion on either supply or demand side. This violent coercion does not have to be the work of a government or via taxes. A 100% free market is probably impossible under most circumstances.

Also just because many societies in the past have used debt-based money doesn't make it have anything to do with a free market.

This paper is a nice read btw:
http://szabo.best.vwh.net/shell.html

[Domrada]

Well, your statement is actually correct, with the exception of calling it "free market."
You're calling this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-based_monetary_system, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy, and that's where you're wrong. The same thing calling what the US does "capitalism." All the right problems, attached to the wrong label.

Hm, you do have a point. However, isn't the debt-based monetary system a version of the free market? The basic assumption behind a free market is that you are free to trade in any way you want ideally without taxation. Now what prevents some people in this ideal free market to start printing out currency, then offering credit to cover it? That gives them more fluidity and a perceived expansion of wealth, therefore making them the power players in the system. The only difference to the real world would be that the fiat currency printers would not be central banks under government control, but private banks. However they would get big enough to behave in a government-like manner.
In essence, my argument is that once you have a no-holds barred free market, a debt-based system occurs sooner or later. Some scholars from the wikipedia articles you linked to seem to agree with this statement.
To quote: "In his 2011 book Debt: The First 5000 Years, the anthropologist David Graeber asserted that the best available evidence suggests the original monetary systems were debt based, and that most subsequent systems have been too". Haven't read it though, but I think I will now

This is a huge difference. The central banks under government control maintain their monopoly using violent coercion. Private debt issuers do not. Hence, no free market.

[myrkul]

Well, your statement is actually correct, with the exception of calling it "free market."
You're calling this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-based_monetary_system, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy, and that's where you're wrong. The same thing calling what the US does "capitalism." All the right problems, attached to the wrong label.

Hm, you do have a point. However, isn't the debt-based monetary system a version of the free market? The basic assumption behind a free market is that you are free to trade in any way you want ideally without taxation. Now what prevents some people in this ideal free market to start printing out currency, then offering credit to cover it? That gives them more fluidity and a perceived expansion of wealth, therefore making them the power players in the system. The only difference to the real world would be that the fiat currency printers would not be central banks under government control, but private banks. However they would get big enough to behave in a government-like manner.
In essence, my argument is that once you have a no-holds barred free market, a debt-based system occurs sooner or later. Some scholars from the wikipedia articles you linked to seem to agree with this statement.
To quote: "In his 2011 book Debt: The First 5000 Years, the anthropologist David Graeber asserted that the best available evidence suggests the original monetary systems were debt based, and that most subsequent systems have been too". Haven't read it though, but I think I will now

This is a huge difference. The central banks under government control maintain their monopoly using violent coercion. Private debt issuers do not. Hence, no free market.

Exactly. Any debt-based currency would not last long in open competition with commodity monies (such as Bitcoin, silver, or other metallic currencies). At least, it wouldn't if they tried to inflate it too much.

[miln40]

This is a huge difference. The central banks under government control maintain their monopoly using violent coercion. Private debt issuers do not. Hence, no free market.

What would be the guarantee that in an AnCap society (I guess the ultimate in free market?) private debt issuers would not use violent coercion? The argument that they would face overwhelming opposition does not hold in my opinion, because developing the means of coercion costs a lot, and therefore would be affordable only to those with sufficient means, i.e. the fiat printers. You end up with governments in the end.

Exactly. Any debt-based currency would not last long in open competition with commodity monies (such as Bitcoin, silver, or other metallic currencies). At least, it wouldn't if they tried to inflate it too much.

Same argument as above, they can use violent coercion to ensure they are on top of the competition.

[Domrada]

This is a huge difference. The central banks under government control maintain their monopoly using violent coercion. Private debt issuers do not. Hence, no free market.

What would be the guarantee that in an AnCap society (I guess the ultimate in free market?) private debt issuers would not use violent coercion? The argument that they would face overwhelming opposition does not hold in my opinion, because developing the means of coercion costs a lot, and therefore would be affordable only to those with sufficient means, i.e. the fiat printers. You end up with governments in the end.

I don't know what you mean by "AnCap society". That is the first time I have seen that term in this discussion. However, a free market is an environment free of violent coercion, by definition.  That is why it is described as free. If you are envisioning some other type of market that is not free of violent coercion, than you are not envisioning a free market. This is what Myrkul correctly pointed out to you originally, and bitcoinbitcoin113 reemphisized this same point. Trying to argue that a free market must necessarily not be a free market is just obtuse.

If what you originally meant was, "the whole (of our current monetary system) is a giant ponzi," I think you would get enthusiastic agreement.

[miln40]

I don't know what you mean by "AnCap society". That is the first time I have seen that term in this discussion. However, a free market is an environment free of violent coercion, by definition.  That is why it is described as free. If you are envisioning some other type of market that is not free of violent coercion, than you are not envisioning a free market. This is what Myrkul correctly pointed out to you originally, and bitcoinbitcoin113 reemphisized this same point. Trying to argue that a free market must necessarily not be a free market is just obtuse.

If what you originally meant was, "the whole (of our current monetary system) is a giant ponzi," I think you would get enthusiastic agreement.

I brought AnCap into the discussion, because many envision that to be the ultimate in free markets. I understand that we have a problem with semantics when discussing free market. You were using the absolute definition, which is of course fine; I was using the widespread definition, as used by many politicians, claiming that what we have now is a free market, as opposed to the planned economies of the socialist world.
My point was that an ideal free market cannot exist, because it immediately reverts to being non-free due to several factors, but I guess this is a discussion for another time, since we are discussing SS here

[odolvlobo]

I don't feel that Social Security is technically a ponzi scheme because although it has all the characteristics of a ponzi scheme, it is not fraudulent. Anyone that wants to know how it works can easily look it up.

On the other hand, it is unfortunate that a large portion of the population believes that "I have paid into Social Security all my life, therefore I am entitled to [insert misconception here]." That the government is doing nothing to educate these people (because that would cost votes) is where Social Security borders on fraud and therefore might qualify as a ponzi scheme to some.

I guess I have to change my position. The President stated the other day,

I want to emphasize, Medicare and Social Security are not handouts. You've paid into these programs your whole lives. You've earned them.

The truth is that nobody has "earned" Medicare and Social Security. To state that they have "earned" them is fraud and makes Social Security and Medicare a ponzi scheme according to all the criteria.