That is not the definition. A pyramid scheme counts on infinite growth.
A pyramid scheme counts on bringing in more dupes. If it was really to work it would have to have an infinite growth in the number of members which is not possible as there are only a limited number of people on the earth, and many of them would be hard for the scheme to recruit. The pyramid scheme does not count on actually creating new wealth but rather transferring exiting wealth between members. Economic growth is the creation of new wealth.
A Ponzi scheme (a type of pyramid) has a central administrator (government, investors, citizen groups) that profits while the pyramid grows and whose personal wealth is never affected by the failure of the system at large.
Thank you for that definition. I had used ponzi scheme, and pyramid scheme interchangeably, but it appears that they are not exactly equivalent. According to your ponzi schemes are pyramid schemes but the reverse is not always true.
This is a pretty good description of the U.S.'s role in the world right now.
The US is rich and powerful but it is hardly the central administrator of the world or the world's economy.
We are taking from the environment at a rate that would destroy the planet if everyone did it. But, because we control the distribution and infrastructure it is sustainable for us.
"Destroy the planet" is a very misleading phrase. We could not destroy the planet even if we made it the main goal of all human life on earth. What you really mean is obviously that we would cause some great environmental harm. But its hard to reply to you when you are not specific about the nature and extent of this harm. As far as taking from the environment the main things we take in order to support and grow our economy and population are energy, food, water, minerals and land. Water is abundant on the earth but most of it is salt water. However if we have enough energy we could (and in some cases do) desalinate ocean water, so water is not a limitation even though energy is. There is plenty of space for people to live, so land isn't an issue (I have separated out food and minerals which of course come from land). Minerals can be recycled if new supplies become scarce or substitutes can be used. Food production has increased faster then population growth world wide for a long time. That brings us to energy. Yes oil will some day be used up, but alternatives are available they just aren't economical given the cheap price of oil. If you are talking about pollution of the environment rather then lack of resources, I would point out that in developed countries many pollution levels are lower then they were a few years or decades ago. In developing countries pollution might increase as they develop their economies, but as their people become richer they tend to start caring about the environment more, plus they gain the wealth to do something about it.
Tim |
