Claiming SS is a Ponzi scheme but billionaires manipulating the market isn't? Please explain exactly how that works?
The Entirely Made Up Claim That Corporations Pay No Taxes
- Thread starter m.knox
- Start date
I already explained to you what a Ponzi scheme is. I never said SS is one, just pointed out similarities to bridge the conversation that was already happening ITT. And market manipulation is different than a Ponzi scheme, by definition.
This is now multiple times that you have illogically confused points and positions. Before the influx of new posters, I generally knew who was bright and interesting enough to make an exchange worthwhile. Still figuring it out with all of the new folks, but I know where you sit now.
Honestly, that has to be one of the dumbest statements ever. The stock market is simply a place where buyers and sellers come together to make a voluntary transaction. It's much like going to a grocery store. Are grocery stores ponzi schemes?
Good. SS isn't a Ponzi scheme. Glad you agree with me and disagree with the posters in here claiming that it is.
I'm using the definition supplied in this thread. That a system dependent on new investors with the promise of high returns is a Ponzi scheme. If you want to disagree with those definitions, I'm happy to do so. Otherwise my point is that it's dishonest to claim that SS is a Ponzi scheme but not billionaire markets. Are you in agreement that the claims of SS being a Ponzi scheme are stupid?
billionaire markets...Approximately 167 million American adults, or about 62% of the U.S. population, are invested in the stock market. This includes both direct ownership of individual shares and indirect ownership through mutual funds or workplace retirement accounts like 401(k)s or IRAs. [1, 2]...there aren't that many billionaires in the US
LOL.. SS is a Ponzi scheme. It was designed that way. Heck, a retired farmer once sat down at our table, laughed and said, "you boys keep working; I need the money."
How you can rationalize that a market is a ponzi scheme should be embarrassing to you.
LOL... Here's the democratic party. The party of division and hate.
man vs. woman
black vs. white
straight vs. gay
worker vs management
rich vs poor
religion vs. government
You do realize the majority of your party's platform is built on grievance, do you? In fact, they brought it to a whole new level with "intersectionality."
So you disagree with the definition of a Ponzi scheme? Fair enough. What's your definition then and how does that definition fit SS but not the market?
200 million people are invested in Social Security. More than the market. Is SS Ponzi scheme?
I disagree with your definition.
Here's THE definition.
A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays early investors with funds gathered from newer investors.
And that's precisely what happens with SS, BY DESIGN. The money good hard working republicans pay today goes to lazy and stupid democrats like you NOW.
In a market, one buys something one wants from another. That dynamic does not exist with social security.
I think I can help out eith this Pan/Pam thing. It wasnt the "ordinary" people that skrewed the pooch. It was the dipshit who designed a system that paid people today on money brought in from future generations based off a system that required every generation to be larger and produce more than the one on top of it. ( like how a pyramid gets wider at the bottom)
If any other company tried doing what the government did it would get shut down immediately.
People should piss on FDRs grave.
They take a cut by paying high payrolls to monitor a program that is failing due to funding. Hope this helps.No. 1: Social Security is not fraudulent.
No. 2: Social Security’s operators do not take a cut.
No. 3: Social Security is operated in the open.
No. 5: Social Security offers realistic returns.
No. 6: If financially stressed, Social Security is able to adjust its funding or benefit streams.
Your claim is rated
No. Not really. The fact that I buy a mutual fund that I hope will grow and pay dividends has nothing to do with social security or how it works.
This might be a good time to let you know you are talking to a guy who proudly declares himself the board socialist and has created post talking about his inability to pay for a pizza. Dude has zero net worth. He needs the government to answer his questions.
Lol...... No huey.
Hey huey, if I want to borrow against my 401k can I? If I want to pull it out early can I? What about my 401k averaging 5% ( or whatever it is right now) compounding interest wpuld you compare to social securities ability to pay you a fraction of the money you put in?
You are speaking out of your *** bud.
The two work the same way. Current workers pay in which supports previous workers who are taking out. So why do you have an issue with SS and not the market when functionally they are the same? Explain this.
I have explained it. You are too stupid to understand.
SS is a ponzi scheme, again, by design. The stock market is a market.
I knew what you meant. Huey is just fiscally foolish. There are people far worse than that on here.
Wish I was. Like I said. Wishful thinking.
Wait until the dipshits start infighting over where the REAL problem within the dem party comes from.
They can just ask me. A big part is "intersectionality." Viewing issues through the lens of who is oppressed and who is the oppressor. There is a moderate dem by the name of Ruy Teixeira who tried to tell his party members the problem. He railed against intersectionality. What happened to him? Couldn't get funding to continue. Wasn't extreme enough.
Here's one of his older articles on the subject.
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/time-to-throw-the-intersectional-left-under-the-bus/
What is wrong with these people?
In my opinion, the rot goes very deep. This is not a one-off. Over the last number of years, huge swathes of the American left have become infected with an ideology that judges actions or arguments not by their content but rather by the identity of those involved in said actions or arguments. Those identities in turn are defined by an intersectional web of oppressed and oppressors, of the powerful and powerless, of the dominant and marginalized. With this approach, one judges an action not by whether it’s effective or an argument by whether it’s true but rather by whether the people involved in the action or argument are in the oppressed/powerless/marginalized bucket or not. If they are, the actions or arguments should be supported; if not, they should be opposed.
This approach was always a terrible idea, in obvious contradiction to logic and common sense. But it has led much of the left and large sectors of the Democratic Party to take positions that have little purchase in social or political reality and are offensive to the basic values most people hold. The failure to unequivocally condemn the Hamas massacre as a crime against humanity is just the latest example of this intellectual and moral malignancy.
Fine. You're a financial wiz then. So answers these questions:
1. What will happen if the 150 million workers who pay into SS stop contributing?
2. Now what will happen if the nearly 100 million workers who contribute to the market stop contributing?
The answer is the same. Both systems collapse.
Will you be man enough to agree?
What happens if the 59% of workers who contribute to the market stop? Answer is obvious. Market collapses. Are you saying the market won't?
The earnings, assest, and dividends of the companies themselves keep the value of the stock stabilized ( using that loosely)
Unlike your ponzi scheme which would totally collapse.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Nearly 100 million people drop out of the market and the market stays stable? That's your answer? Trillions will be gone with that money stays permanently gone. And you think the market will be fine?
No, read it again, those things would provide stability and thus the market would not hit zero unlike your social security example. There would be a massive dip, but the market isnt based off dollars from you and I..... ill be nice and leave that..... it also has a company value aspect unlike social security.
So you admit that there would be a massive dip. Thank you. I would comfortable say that if 60% of American workers dropped out of the market it would lead to a historic collapse, but we're making progress.
So great. Market doesn't zero out. But it gets pounded into dust and what remains is a small husk of it's former self.
Not much of an argument you've got there.
Do you understand the difference between a dip and a total collapse? Because social security WOULD actually collapse. That is only one of the multitude of differences.