Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (195767)	7/25/2004 10:15:39 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572786

I thought we covered this before. I noted ted's reply at the time... Thanks........I need to read up on that stuff. Now, ted is the resident expert.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (195767)	7/25/2004 11:54:42 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572786

Ted, Let me see.......a pyramid scheme? You put money into a retirement fund so that you will have some income when you retire. I thought we covered this before. #reply-19210588 SS is indeed a Ponzi scheme, but that's the way it was set up in the first place. It worked back in 1935 because the ratio of payees to beneficiaries was a lot larger than it is now. People are living longer, but the retirement age is still 65, the same as when SS was set up back in the beginning. Ponzi or pyramid schemes.........those terms mean nothing to me. The original intent of the system sounds reasonable but like you said people are living longer and there are less payees. The problem may well correct itself as the baby boomer cohort dies off. If not, then just fund the shortfall each year. I'm sure that proposal will make every go ballistic, screaming socialism at the top of their lungs, but its really the only reasonable one. I hardly think 'playing the stock market' makes good sense. ted