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: Road Walker who wrote (211698)	11/15/2004 11:34:04 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573365

"Pyramid scheme" is a cute negative phrase, but doesn't describe SS. Sometimes (as now) it is over-funded, sometimes it is under-funded, depending on demographics. It is somewhat accurate. Social Security like any Pyramid scheme relies on new entrants to pay off the recipients. If the population is growing fast enough, and if the government can force people in to the scheme it can work for a long time, certainly much longer than most schemes. But the trend in population growth is headed down. We not only have to deal with the retirement of the baby boomers (which will put a huge strain on the system) but with the longer run reduction in fertility. Even if we can somehow get past the baby boom the only ways to deal with the even longer term problem is to increase our birth rate (or our rate of bringing in productive immigrants) or to have productivity grow at a very good clip indefinitly. Tim

To: Road Walker who wrote (211698)	11/25/2004 4:00:07 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573365

John, "Pyramid scheme" is a cute negative phrase, but doesn't describe SS. Sometimes (as now) it is over-funded, sometimes it is under-funded, depending on demographics. It is kind of sad how the Dems have managed to manipulate the least knowledgeable among us (you). Over-funded? I am not sure if I should laugh or cry. "Unfunded"? More exaggeration, of course. I read somewhere that it would take dumping less than 1/3 of the Bush tax cuts, if they were targeted to SS, to "fix" the system. I think you need different reading from your current reading list. Here are some tips: - Arithmetics - Algebra - Calculus As far as understanding "funded" or "unfunded", funded means that you don't have to put in an extra dollar, and all the obligations will be paid out from the assets of the pension system. SS started as an unfunded system from day 1. The current unfunded obligations are in 10s of trillions of dollars, a multiple of officially recognized debt. And how does the Bush proposal "fix" the "pyramid scheme"?. There are countries out there with a lot more modest means that are managing to free themselves from the death spiral of the SS-like pyramid scheme. Presumably 80% of funds would still go into SS and benefits would be reduced by 20%. Plus you add a few $Trillion (with a "T") to the national debt. It's not adding anything. It is just recognizing the obligations that started with the original sin - FDR's creation of SS. The more we postpone it, the more severe the consequences will be. The first step, IMO, should be recognizing what kind of pickle we are in, how much of the unfunded liabilities have accumulated from FDR until today. This should be done using sound accounting and actuarial methods. Most people (you are a good example) have no clue about any of this. Once the problem is recognized, a more rational discussion can take place. Joe