613
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
613 points (99.7% liked)
World News
34002 readers
668 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Capitalism is totally different from a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi scheme, the profits go up to the person at the top and you always need new people that come in, otherwise the whole thing will fall apart and the people at the bottom will be the ones that suffer. Under capitalism however, the profits of everyone's work will go up to the top and you always need new workers to come in, otherwise the system will fall apart and the people at the bottom will suffer. Totally different.
Hm. There is a difference.
Once crapitalists run out of "new horizons" to "expand" into, they start cannibalizing their current workforce and raise prices while lowering quality for customers.
Do not be fooled. Quality is going down because profits are going up.
Don't you mean "suffer more"?
True
*MarkWahlburg.gif
Maybe this ponzi. Unfunded state pensions use workers contributions to pay current pensioners.
Less workers = less pensions.
I think it actually fits quite well.
Meanwhile, the current pension system in most countries depend on a growing population to spread out the payments for pensioners over multiple workers.
Ponzi schemes collapse when there aren't enough investors to sustain the dividends to be paid to the existing investors. Most countries' pensions rely on an increasing amount of working age inhabitants to pay retirees and are now having issues paying out pensions due to the shift in demographics, that's why many countries have been increasing the retirement age recently.
There are 2 solutions to this.
Of course I understand that the money that is put in is invested, but that doesn't mean the problem goes away when the system relies on the "pot" growing at a certain rate.
EDIT:
I'm not implying that it's the same, just that the comparison fits better than you might expect.
In most PAYG state pensions the contributions made by workers are not invested. They are paid directly to pensioners.
This misunderstanding is on your side. There is a method of funding pensions refered to as pay as you go (PAYG).
This is exactly how many unfunded, state sponsored pension schemes function. No pot of money exists. Only the ability to collect taxes.
This is true for private pension schemes run by companies and individual pension schemes. Funded pension schemes are (usually) not ponzis.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
The UK State Pension is unfunded, which means that its obligations are not underpinned by an actual fund or funds. Such schemes are often referred to as “Pay As You Go” (PAYG). The pension payments made by the government for unfunded pensions are financed on an ongoing basis from National Insurance contributions and general taxation.
Early ~~investors~~ pensioners are paid off with money put in by later ones.
Sounds like a ponzi to me.
Your misunderstanding of the process and confusion with private pensions doesn't make it false.
PAYG funded State pensions fit the definition of a ponzi. Therefore they are a ponzi. The fact it is government approved and transparent does not negate the fact that current investors are directly paying early investors.
Taxes is the same source of funding. Workers.
Er. The government.
Exactly. State Pensions are promised but there is no money held aside for them.
I've already given you the Ponzi literature, and shown that PAYG pensions satisfy the description.
Cos, like your PAYG error, you just can't admit being wrong.
"Tell me the difference between stupid and illegal and I'll have my wife's brother arrested"