Capitalism isnt the problem but the answer

Hardly

Pon·zi scheme
/ˈpänzē ˌskēm/

noun

a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.

I repeat: Social Security is one of the greatest programs ever passed in this nation. It most assuredly is not illegal...nor is it a Ponzi scheme.

If you think it is illegal (which it would be if it were a Ponzi scheme)...you simply do not understand our nation's laws. I doubt there is a prosecutor anywhere in America who would bring that particular action. And if one could be found, he/she would be laughed out of court.
 
I repeat: Social Security is one of the greatest programs ever passed in this nation. It most assuredly is not illegal...nor is it a Ponzi scheme.

If you think it is illegal (which it would be if it were a Ponzi scheme)...you simply do not understand our nation's laws. I doubt there is a prosecutor anywhere in America who would bring that particular action. And if one could be found, he/she would be laughed out of court.

Repeating it doesn't make it true. You get that right?

Point to where the definition doesnt apply to social security
 
Repeating it doesn't make it true. You get that right?

I do get that. But I am correct that Social Security is not illegal...nor is it a Ponzi scheme.

Point to where the definition doesnt apply to social security

I am not defending what I said using a dictionary. I am defending it using the law. The Social Security law has been challenged many times...and at least 2 cases made it all the way up to the Supreme Court back in the late 1930's. In both cases the SCOTUS ruled favorably to the legality (constitutionality) of the law. (I think there was a third case back then also.) I know there was at least one SCOTUS challenge later (in the 1960's?) with the same result. There have been many challenges decided in lower courts in favor of legality.

I am not going to do the research to cite the actual cases.

I know of NO CASES that have ever ruled the Social Security law to be illegal (which it would have to be if it were a Ponzi scheme)...so all you have to do to show me to be wrong is cite one case where the courts held the law to be illegal or unconstitutional.

Ball in your court.
 
I do get that. But I am correct that Social Security is not illegal...nor is it a Ponzi scheme.



I am not defending what I said using a dictionary. I am defending it using the law. The Social Security law has been challenged many times...and at least 2 cases made it all the way up to the Supreme Court back in the late 1930's. In both cases the SCOTUS ruled favorably to the legality (constitutionality) of the law. (I think there was a third case back then also.) I know there was at least one SCOTUS challenge later (in the 1960's?) with the same result. There have been many challenges decided in lower courts in favor of legality.

I am not going to do the research to cite the actual cases.

I know of NO CASES that have ever ruled the Social Security law to be illegal (which it would have to be if it were a Ponzi scheme)...so all you have to do to show me to be wrong is cite one case where the courts held the law to be illegal or unconstitutional.

Ball in your court.

Its most definitely a ponzi scheme

I gave you the definition of a Ponzi scheme and social security fits it perfectly. And please don't use that, it's not illegal because it hasn't been prosecuted. By that logic you would have to admit that trump hasn't done anything illegal because he hasn't been prosecuted.
 
Its most definitely a ponzi scheme

It most assuredly IS NOT A PONZI SCHEME.

I gave you the definition of a Ponzi scheme and social security fits it perfectly.

What we are referring to as Social Security...is part of a law passed by a Congress; signed by a President; challenged in the courts up to and including the SCOTUS...and found to be lawful and constitutional. It IS NOT A PONZI SCHEME.

And please don't use that, it's not illegal because it hasn't been prosecuted.

It HAS BEEN PROSECUTED. SEVERAL TIMES. And each time it has been found legal and constitutional.

I am not suggesting it is not illegal because it has not been prosecuted...

...I am declaring that it is not illegal because it HAS BEEN PROSECUTED...

...and found to be legal and constitutional by our courts.


By that logic you would have to admit that trump hasn't done anything illegal because he hasn't been prosecuted.

Okay. But that is not what I am saying.

Ball back in your court.
 
It most assuredly IS NOT A PONZI SCHEME.



What we are referring to as Social Security...is part of a law passed by a Congress; signed by a President; challenged in the courts up to and including the SCOTUS...and found to be lawful and constitutional. It IS NOT A PONZI SCHEME.



It HAS BEEN PROSECUTED. SEVERAL TIMES. And each time it has been found legal and constitutional.

I am not suggesting it is not illegal because it has not been prosecuted...

...I am declaring that it is not illegal because it HAS BEEN PROSECUTED...

...and found to be legal and constitutional by our courts.




Okay. But that is not what I am saying.

Ball back in your court.

But it is a ponzi scheme as early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones. That's the essential element of a ponzi scheme. That's what makes a ponzi scheme a ponzi scheme. And beyond that it's a lousy investment which is separate from whether or not it's a ponzi scheme. Which it is.

Then we can agree that something can be true regardless of all evidence to the contrary.
 
Capitalism is just fine...except when it is allowed to become as unfettered as it is here in the United States.
Frank, I'm going to extend to you the courtesy of pulling you aside and letting you know that when you make really stupid comments like the above, you are broadcasting to the world that you are a total moron who spent his teenage years playing hooky. When people identify you as being totally brain-dead and you wonder "how did they know?", at least now it won't be a total surprise. You can recall that you posted the line above and realize "Oh yeah, I did tell them."

Capitalsim is just Karl Marx's slur for solid economic principles. Karl Marx seethed with hatred for economics because he himself was a hater of humanity and a lazy good-for-nothing who simply would not lift a finger to add value to society. Marx ensured that he was totally uncompetitive in a world that requires competition. As such, everything he wrote was in complete denial of the economic reality of human society. On the other hand, if you peruse an economics textbook, you are reading capitalism. When you look at the supply-demand curve, you are looking at the very definition of capitalism. When you write "Economic principles are just fine...except when they are completely sound as they are here in the United States", you are effectively raising your hand and screaming "Hey, everybody, look at me! I'm a total moron! Let me say more stupid schytt for your amusement!"

Most of those "freer capitalistic" countries mentioned in the linked article would cringe at the thought of allowing their versions of capitalism to be replaced by the US version.
Frank, I'm going to do you another favor. When you make really stupid statements like this one above in which you presume to speak for other countries, you are effectively raising your hand and screaming "Hey, everybody, look at me! I'm a total moron! Let me say more stupid schytt for your amusement!" You can ask around, or maybe make a poll, and ask if there any any people who actually believe that you speak for any country at all, much less all of the countries. Try asking others if they will just give you carte blanche to speak for them. That should prove very interesting. I'd like to see who signs up for that.

Socialism learned a lot of lessons from capitalism.
Frank, socialism is not a person. Socialism has never learned anything. That was an amazingly stupid statement, i.e. par for the course.

Now, capitalism needs to learn some lessons from socialism.
Frank, you just wrote "Sound economic principles need to be abandoned in order to usher in socialism's guaranteed economic failure." Hopefully you are beginning to see why you are making it obvious that you are totally clueless and should never have jumped into this conversation. Who do you imagine is ever going to say "Oh, that's Frank Apisa commenting, I had better take notes!"?
 
There will be no capitalism in UTOPIA, the economy will be managed by global bureaucrats, most likely primarily operating out of the UN.
 
But it is a ponzi scheme as early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones.
Yakuda, it is not a Ponzi scheme ("Ponzi" is capitalized because it is a proper name).

1. There is no investment and hence, no investors. Taxes are not investments. There is no risk, just a firm guarantee that one will underperform all actual investments.
2. Those receiving payments are paid out of current Federal funds, not from money paid long ago in taxes. That money has been long-since spent.
3. If you are actually intending to call it a pyramid scheme that will collapse, well it's not that either. Social Security can only collapse if the US economy collapses. If that happens, then you would have to point to the activity that caused the economy to collapse as the pyramid scheme, not social security.

Don't get me wrong. Social Security is an abomination that should never have been spawned. Nonetheless, mischaracterizing it is neither honest nor productive.
 
I understand where Greta Thunberg is coming from, but calling for the downfall of capitalism is not the answer.

Capitalism is just fine...except when it is allowed to become as unfettered as it is here in the United States. Most of those "freer capitalistic" countries mentioned in the linked article would cringe at the thought of allowing their versions of capitalism to be replaced by the US version.

Socialism learned a lot of lessons from capitalism. Now, capitalism needs to learn some lessons from socialism. Integration of more facets of socialism (some are already incorporated) had better start soon or we are going to be wiped out.

is that a threat from Klaus Schwab?
 
Specifically in Brussels ... and specifically by UNELECTED bureaucrats who cannot be fired.

There will likely still be elections, but those elected will only decide the trivial. Our overlords will decide everything important, and everything they decide to decide.
 
Capitalism goes from competition, to buyouts and mergers and then oligopoly on its way to monopoly. We repeat that mantra that a business's only obligation is to max profits. Thereby making stockholders richer. We do not say they owe anything to America or the people. Pollution is expected because running cleaner is more expensive. They fight that with all the considerable power they have. Wages? Keep them down as low as possible. Fight the min wage. Fight workers powers. Fight unions.Fight worker safety. Fight Product safety. Not if it lowers profits. Fight it.
We have not had capitlism with competition in a few decades. Comepetition forces compnies to have price wars, to innovate and improve products, and to lure people with good service. In dfact, we are deep in oligopoly. Competion is a fantasy, except in small businesses.
Regulation is the only tool the people have. You can see how hard the Repubs and corporations have fought them. They connvince the mases that reglations are bad. Yeah, give up more power to the plutocrats. That will work out for you in the end.
 
The plans are fully in view now, and the people are generally too ignorant and too cowardly to resist their enslavement.
 
The question of whether capitalism would be good to do now is purely an intellectual endeavor, the answer is irrelevant in realty, those in power have no interest in it.
 
The question of whether capitalism would be good to do now is purely an intellectual endeavor, the answer is irrelevant in realty, those in power have no interest in it.

Companies have no interest in maintaining capitalism. It would be good for the consumers, but not the ownership and investment society.
 
This article makes a great case for the efficacy and morality of capitalism. Plus it has a hilarious cartoon of that little retarded climate kid, helga

https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/...t-the-problem-but-a-solution-worth-defending/

Capitalism is the voluntary production of products and services for voluntary sale at an agreed upon price.
It need not government to function. No one needs to 'manage' it. Only capitalism creates wealth. No one is barred from the game of capitalism. Anyone can play. All you need to succeed is drive and a bit of innovation.

Only whiners with little or no marketable skills whine about 'the rich'.
 
I understand where Greta Thunberg is coming from, but calling for the downfall of capitalism is not the answer.

Capitalism is just fine...except when it is allowed to become as unfettered as it is here in the United States. Most of those "freer capitalistic" countries mentioned in the linked article would cringe at the thought of allowing their versions of capitalism to be replaced by the US version.

Socialism learned a lot of lessons from capitalism. Now, capitalism needs to learn some lessons from socialism. Integration of more facets of socialism (some are already incorporated) had better start soon or we are going to be wiped out.

Socialism is based on theft of wealth. It does not create wealth. Only capitalism creates wealth.
Capitalism does not need to be 'managed'. It does not require nor does it involve socialism in any way.
 
Capitalism goes from competition, to buyouts and mergers and then oligopoly on its way to monopoly.
Economics is a set of falsifiable models. No economics model has ever participated in a buyout.

I take it that you are one of those people who becomes violently opinionated over topics of his complete ignorance. You're going to be a lot of fun when the topic is economics. Let's get to it.

We repeat that mantra
Awesome! Another Marxist using the Marxist "we" to delude himself into believing that his words artificially carry much more weight.

Sorry. You only speak for you. You understand nothing about what you write and your opinion is stupid.

that a business's only obligation is to max profits.
I can see why a simple-minded person such as you would need to oversimplify an otherwise complicated concept.

What does "max profits" mean, to the best of your education and understanding? What do profits represent in your limited understanding of the matter?

Thereby making stockholders richer.
That is the job of the corporation's board. Of course this does not apply to the majority of businesses that are not even corporations, so why are you pretending that corporations are somehow all that exist?

We do not say they owe anything to America or the people.
Are you claiming to be any good at accounting? (just say "no")

Any business owes everything that it owes. You can check the books, look up the liabilities etc... Did you never learn this?

Pollution is expected because running cleaner is more expensive.
You didn't qualify the pollution with a specific amount that you "expect." You need to do that. At the moment, your statement becomes true if there is any microscopic amount of anything, which renders your panic-mongering totally absurd.

They fight that with all the considerable power they have.
They have no power. What magical superpowers are you claiming they have? Specify.

Wages? Keep them down as low as possible.
Incorrect. You are a moron. Workers have all the power; they cannot be forced to labor and no one can force them to accept any level of compensation they find undesirable *AND* workers can always just walk away at any time.

Any business that does not offer competitive wages won't attract the workers needed to be profitable and will quickly go out of business. All the businesses that simply kept wages as low as possible have gone out of business.

Fight the min wage.
There should never be any minimum wage. It's a very unsound economic principle. It's a bad idea that hurts everybody.

Fight workers powers.
Workers' power cannot be fought. Any worker can simply walk away if the mood strikes him.


Fight unions.
Unions are very bad. Unions hurt everybody. They should be abolished.


We have not had capitlism with competition in a few decades.
What does this even mean?

Comepetition forces compnies to have price wars, to innovate and improve products, and to lure people with good service.
That's exactly what we have. I presume you are blind.

Regulation is the only tool the people have.
Elimination of regulation and nurturing free markets is the only chance the people have.

You can see how hard the Repubs and corporations have fought them.
The Democrats funnel Federal funds to Corporate donors through cryptocurrencies in a creative cycle that rewards corporations for their political alignment so that they don't have to compete against other businesses with better products or lower prices or better value.

They connvince the mases that reglations are bad.
Educated people learn that regulations are bad from studying basic economics. You would be wise to study up a bit.
 
Back
Top