Tell me: Am I frickin' Dreaming?

Because Laura Vanderkam says its a Pyramid scheem it is? You are silly.

The rato of workers to users does not have to constantly expand to keep up with SS, thus its not a pyramid scheem. NOW if you want to change the meaning of Pyramid to mean a static situation where the base is larger than the top, but not required to expand... then you could call it a pyramid scheem.
 
Jarod said:
Because Laura Vanderkam says its a Pyramid scheem it is? You are silly.

The rato of workers to users does not have to constantly expand to keep up with SS, thus its not a pyramid scheem. NOW if you want to change the meaning of Pyramid to mean a static situation where the base is larger than the top, but not required to expand... then you could call it a pyramid scheem.
Click to expand...

there are many articles correctly describing ss as a pyramid scheme. Not just one. You're an idiot. You know that right?






Pyramid schemes are not a static situation you retard.
 
AssHatZombie said:
there are many articles correctly describing ss as a pyramid scheme. Not just one. You're an idiot. You know that right?






Pyramid schemes are not a static situation you retard.
Click to expand...

I cant belive you idiots belive something just because some of the media says its so. Its laughable that you would present media opion articals as proof of something. Shows how warped your perception of reality is.
 
scheme /skim/ P, verb, schemed, schem·ing.
–noun 1. a plan, design, or program of action to be followed; project.


You see if you are talking about a scheme itself, the in other words, you are talking about a static thing, not something that changes. So to say SS is a pyramid scheme you are saying that the plan, the static plan, is a pyramid scheem. Now if you are talking about the way it is operating today you could say that it looks like a pyramid based on the way its working based on todays numbers. But you still fail to take into account the fact that SS does NOT require an exponintantly expanding base. The origoinal point was that an exponintantly growing base is unsustainable. Essential to the point was that the scheem require an exponantly growing base, see the flaw.
 
Jarod said:
I cant belive you idiots belive something just because some of the media says its so. Its laughable that you would present media opion articals as proof of something. Shows how warped your perception of reality is.
Click to expand...

First of all, don't assume that because AHZ believes something to be true because of the media, that all of us are under the same reasoning for believeing the truth about how Social Security works. Social Security can not be stable in a 1 to 1 environment, meaning the base will have to expand. For every individual receiving benefits, we need multiple people to support them. In order to support those people when they retire, we will need multiple people. So say we start with one, and need 3 people to support them, let just take a look at how that works:

1
111 (3 t0 1)
111111111 (3 to 1)
111111111111111111111111111 (3 to 1)

This is equivalent to 3 contributors per 1 receiver over 4 generations. Here is what you consider a pyramid scheme, saying the 'ratio' must increase. Lets start at 2 to 1:

1
11 (2 to 1)
11111111 (4 to 1)
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 (8 to 1)
I wont even bother with the next ratio....
 
Jarod said:
scheme /skim/ P, verb, schemed, schem·ing.
–noun 1. a plan, design, or program of action to be followed; project.


You see if you are talking about a scheme itself, the in other words, you are talking about a static thing, not something that changes. So to say SS is a pyramid scheme you are saying that the plan, the static plan, is a pyramid scheem. Now if you are talking about the way it is operating today you could say that it looks like a pyramid based on the way its working based on todays numbers. But you still fail to take into account the fact that SS does NOT require an exponintantly expanding base. The origoinal point was that an exponintantly growing base is unsustainable. Essential to the point was that the scheem require an exponantly growing base, see the flaw.
Click to expand...
No, you are ignoring the fact that the flaw in the pyramid scheme is that the base cannot expand as needed and they ultimately fail as the bottom of the pyramid can no longer expand. You keep pretending that it isn't a pyramid scheme because it has begun to fail, in order to keep it going we have to pay more in than before, that is one of the first steps to failure as they have to increase the buy in because the base can't expand.

The next step in failure is when the base begins to collapse. In one that isn't being "tweaked" constantly in order to keep it alive this happens more quickly than in a more managed system like SS. When you are getting to 2 to 1 ratios and even 1:1 we simply will no longer be able to afford it, and those who are paying in will be unwilling to pay as much as would be necessary in order to keep it alive.
 
Damocles said:
No, you are ignoring the fact that the flaw in the pyramid scheme is that the base cannot expand as needed and they ultimately fail as the bottom of the pyramid can no longer expand. You keep pretending that it isn't a pyramid scheme because it has begun to fail, in order to keep it going we have to pay more in than before, that is one of the first steps to failure as they have to increase the buy in because the base can't expand.

The next step in failure is when the base begins to collapse. In one that isn't being "tweaked" constantly in order to keep it alive this happens more quickly than in a more managed system like SS. When you are getting to 2 to 1 ratios and even 1:1 we simply will no longer be able to afford it, and those who are paying in will be unwilling to pay as much as would be necessary in order to keep it alive.
Click to expand...


You dont see that the ratio stays the same. Thats whay its not a pyramid scheme. If it takes 2 to support 1 then it takes 4 to support 2, but it does not take 8 to support 2, thats the difference some cant see.

Another point is that one day the population will begin expanding again, during those times we will end up with a surplus, the smart thing to do would be to save that surplus for times when we have a declining population. That would not happen or work in a real pyramid scheme.
 
DigitalDave said:
First of all, don't assume that because AHZ believes something to be true because of the media, that all of us are under the same reasoning for believeing the truth about how Social Security works. Social Security can not be stable in a 1 to 1 environment, meaning the base will have to expand. For every individual receiving benefits, we need multiple people to support them. In order to support those people when they retire, we will need multiple people. So say we start with one, and need 3 people to support them, let just take a look at how that works:

1
111 (3 t0 1)
111111111 (3 to 1)
111111111111111111111111111 (3 to 1)

This is equivalent to 3 contributors per 1 receiver over 4 generations. Here is what you consider a pyramid scheme, saying the 'ratio' must increase. Lets start at 2 to 1:

1
11 (2 to 1)
11111111 (4 to 1)
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 (8 to 1)
I wont even bother with the next ratio....
Click to expand...


You are correct, your first example is not a true pyramid schem, your second example is. Look at the illistration earlier that AHZ posted. He was using the true pyramid scheme example to say SS will not work.
 
Jarod said:
You dont see that the ratio stays the same. Thats whay its not a pyramid scheme. If it takes 2 to support 1 then it takes 4 to support 2, but it does not take 8 to support 2, thats the difference some cant see.

Another point is that one day the population will begin expanding again, during those times we will end up with a surplus, the smart thing to do would be to save that surplus for times when we have a declining population. That would not happen or work in a real pyramid scheme.
Click to expand...
A stable pyramid scheme is still a pyramid scheme. And a failing pyramid scheme is also still a pyramid scheme.
 
Jarod said:
You dont see that the ratio stays the same. Thats whay its not a pyramid scheme. If it takes 2 to support 1 then it takes 4 to support 2, but it does not take 8 to support 2, thats the difference some cant see.

Another point is that one day the population will begin expanding again, during those times we will end up with a surplus, the smart thing to do would be to save that surplus for times when we have a declining population. That would not happen or work in a real pyramid scheme.
Click to expand...

A pyramid is not built by increasing the ratio of bricks underneath each time, it actually decreases if you just look at ratios. The top brick needs 4 to support it, then those for need 9 to support it. Those nine need 16. That sixteen needs 25. That 25 needs 36.

You increase the Ratio every time, then its a damn hershey kiss, not a pyramid! It starts with a point then curves out further and further. Thats what you are calling a pyramid.
 
DigitalDave said:
A pyramid is not built by increasing the ratio of bricks underneath each time, it actually decreases if you just look at ratios. The top brick needs 4 to support it, then those for need 9 to support it. Those nine need 16. That sixteen needs 25. That 25 needs 36.

You increase the Ratio every time, then its a damn hershey kiss, not a pyramid! It starts with a point then curves out further and further. Thats what you are calling a pyramid.
Click to expand...
Correct. In fact it wouldn't even be a Hershey's kiss it would quickly become a piece of paper with a fold laid back on a table.
 
Jarod said:
You dont see that the ratio stays the same. Thats whay its not a pyramid scheme. If it takes 2 to support 1 then it takes 4 to support 2, but it does not take 8 to support 2, thats the difference some cant see.

Another point is that one day the population will begin expanding again, during those times we will end up with a surplus, the smart thing to do would be to save that surplus for times when we have a declining population. That would not happen or work in a real pyramid scheme.
Click to expand...

The point you are missing (or ignoring) is that the base is still required to expand despite the ratio staying the same (and the ratio is not staying the same... the base is contracting and the system is in the process of failing)

If life expectancy continues to increase, that means the retirees are drawing money LONGER than anticipated. That means future generations have to put more into the system to support it. The base HAS to expand to cover this. But it is already failing... and the system will see further collapse as the base expansion fails dramatically when the boomers retire.

If you want to see the pyramid structure... look back at DigitalDaves example.
 
Jarod said:
You are correct, your first example is not a true pyramid schem, your second example is. Look at the illistration earlier that AHZ posted. He was using the true pyramid scheme example to say SS will not work.
Click to expand...

Are you blind? The first example is most certainly a pyramid scheme. What has made you assume that the ratio has to increase for it to be a pyramid scheme?
 
Damocles said:
Correct. In fact it wouldn't even be a Hershey's kiss it would quickly become a piece of paper with a fold laid back on a table.
Click to expand...

It's a melted hershey kiss! lol

But its a curve and not a straight plane from top to the ground, to where it is almost a whole giant flat layer before it reaches bottom. A pyramid requires a straight plane.
 
Thanks for calling us idiot's though. It's a great feeling to be called an idiot by someone who is just plain ignorant. You're an idiot? No, you're just confused.
 
Somehow I don't think Jarod is coming back. The picture on wiki just caved any further effort to try a support his previous assertation.
 
I'm guessing he is going to try and find something that might back him up that actually addresses the math of a pyramid scheme, but every link he finds that agrees with him doesn't ever address the math.
 
My guess is he is a lawyer getting ready for a trial next week, and isn't giving you two guys anywhere near the thought you are giving to him.
 
Darla said:
My guess is he is a lawyer getting ready for a trial next week, and isn't giving you two guys anywhere near the thought you are giving to him.
Click to expand...

No. He's come back a couple times to try and defend his idiocy. He obviously cares. He's just in it so bad at this point. It's embarrassing for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top