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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (403523)	1/11/2011 9:31:39 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794042

I don't see the difference.

To: TimF who wrote (403523)	1/11/2011 9:54:53 PM
From: DMaA	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794042

I think it's wrong to call SS a ponzi scheme. In fact based on the assumptions of the designers it was not a bad idea. They assumed smooth steady population growth. Perfectly reasonable assumption. What they did not anticipate was WWII. They did not foresee that the soldiers would come home and begin an orgy of procreation. And when that orgy was over 10 years later SS was doomed. In 1964 it was absolutely inevitable that 50 years later it would fall apart. Inevitable. And people did predict it. I remember. I listened to them. I believed them. And this is what is wrong with these big government programs. These BIG beautiful plans invented by very smart well intentioned people. They are fragile. They are incapable of adapting to change. And the only thing certain in this world is change. Our rulers have not learned this yet.