Social Security is banrupt, so why the extra bump in the rate?

[OohPooPahDoo]

Otherwise, no P/E ratios do not normally exceed long term averages.

A given sample point will exceed the median exactly half of the time. The median is close to the average for sample sets that aren't skewed in some ridiculous manner.

Currently the S&P average is 16x. The long term average around 18x during 2007. The Forward 12-month P/E ratio was moving as high as 27x during the Dot-Com bubble. After the bursting of the bubble, P/E's returned to their range around 15x.

And before the bubble burst a lot of folks made a lot of money in spite of high P/E ratios.

Again, there are plenty differences you choose to ignore. Ponzi Schemes yields 0% return if no one participates or if less and less people choose to participate. Not the case with stocks. There is a difference between stocks which are 'worthless' and stocks which are 'worth less' than their previous market price. Stocks are worthless when their market price reaches zero. This means that the company has no value whatsoever. As long as the company has earning potential, then the stocks have value whether or not people choose to buy.

They can have all the "value" they want, if no one will actually pay for them they are worthless.

Just mere sentiment cannot increase prices alone.

Sentiment has nothing to do with it. The act of paying money for it is all that matters.

There are plenty of micro/small cap companies worth pennies where people are investing into the stock, hoping that the stock will go up. This is not a Ponzi Scheme, but rather what is known as a 'Pump and Dump' scheme.

??? No, that's not "pump and dump" - that's just investing. "Pump and dump" is when an brokerage firm convinces its clients a shit stock is hot so their clients buy it and the stock jumps up in price. That's the "pump". The "dump" comes when the firm then shorts the stock and it then crashes and they make a ton at the expense of their clients. It - like the Ponzi scheme - also requires dishonesty. The brokerage firm is misleading its clients into buying the stock.

The whole point of a con is to gain someone's confidence, hence the word 'con.' How is it any less of a con simply because it's legal or legit? Are schemes only schemes if they operate under false pretenses?

I didn't say it was less of a con because it was legal. I said it was less of a con because there is nothing being hidden, there is no dishonesty involved. That actually makes it NOT a con at all.

If you decide to run a legitimate business or operation, acquire funds from old investors and pay new investors without any method of making profits, that is a ponzi scheme.

Look up the definition of Ponzi scheme:
Ponzi Scheme Definition | Investopedia

Do you see the second word? Its FRAUDULENT. A PONZI SCHEME REQUIRES FRAUD You need to get that through your sophomoric little brain before you continue in this conversation. What you have outlined above in quotes is a Ponzi scheme ONLY if it also involves telling the investors that their money is being invested in something other than paying off older investors.

If your business model operates like this, you can be charged with running a Ponzi Scheme, whether it's fraudulent or not. Just because the Government can do it doesn't mean it's not illegal. The again, the Government really does hate competition.

There's plenty of competition. Ever heard of a life annuity?

 

[itfitzme]

Otherwise, no P/E ratios do not normally exceed long term averages.

A given sample point will exceed the median exactly half of the time. The median is close to the average for sample sets that aren't skewed in some ridiculous manner.*

Currently the S&P average is 16x. The long term average around 18x during 2007. The Forward 12-month P/E ratio was moving as high as 27x during the Dot-Com bubble. After the bursting of the bubble, P/E's returned to their range around 15x.

And before the bubble burst a lot of folks made a lot of money in spite of high P/E ratios.*




They can have all the "value" they want, if no one will actually pay for them they are worthless.

Sentiment has nothing to do with it. The act of paying money for it is all that matters.*



??? No, that's not "pump and dump" - that's just investing. *"Pump and dump" is when an brokerage firm convinces its clients a shit stock is hot so their clients buy it and the stock jumps up in price. That's the "pump". The "dump" comes when the firm then shorts the stock and it then crashes and they make a ton at the expense of their clients. It - like the Ponzi scheme - also requires dishonesty. The brokerage firm is misleading its clients into buying the stock.



I didn't say it was less of a con because it was legal. I said it was less of a con because there is nothing being hidden, there is no dishonesty involved. That actually makes it NOT a con at all.

If you decide to run a legitimate business or operation, acquire funds from old investors and pay new investors without any method of making profits, that is a ponzi scheme.

Look up the definition of Ponzi scheme:
Ponzi Scheme Definition | Investopedia

Do you see the second word? Its FRAUDULENT. A PONZI SCHEME REQUIRES FRAUD You need to get that through your sophomoric little brain before you continue in this conversation. What you have outlined above in quotes is a Ponzi scheme ONLY if it also involves telling the investors that their money is being invested in something other than paying off older investors.*

*If your business model operates like this, you can be charged with running a Ponzi Scheme, whether it's fraudulent or not. Just because the Government can do it doesn't mean it's not illegal. The again, the Government really does hate competition.

There's plenty of competition. Ever heard of a life annuity?

This is why I say that she has seriously overestimated her own intelligence. She has*created a personal definition of "ponzi scheme" and decided it is objective. Problem is, as you note, the requirement for a Ponzi scheme is fraud. Rather, her definition is "I don't like it."

So, yeah, she overestimates her own intelligence which allows her to elevate her sense of not liking it above the legal and objective definition of "ponzi scheme".

As far as I can infer, so far, the word "fraud" doesn't clue her in because it is also an "I don't like it" term, so OASDI fits with it just fine.

Take this last sentence, "Just because the Government can do it doesn't mean it's not illegal."

Notice the triple negative. *Try collapsing them and see what you get.

Obviously, by definition, if it is illegal for the govt to do it, the govt can't legally do it. *

Sure, there are instances where some specific gov entity has done what it believed was legal, came in after the fact and got the law retroactively changed, or was taken to the Supreme Court and lost. *None of this has anything to do with OASDI.

By definition, by practice, by time, by presentation, OASDI is legal.

We have all the time we want, to construct clear and sensical statements here. *Failure to do so is on us.*

We might just as well read it as "Just because the Government can do [something I don't like] doesn't mean it's not [something I don't like]." *And you may notice that the previous triple negative now actually makes more sense.

Her full intent is to manipulate language so that she can define "I don't like it" as objectively bad and illegal. *

She's not using reality to define words, and words to describe reality. *She is using her feeling to define words and words to define reality.

She simply doesn't like paying taxes.

 

[AmazonTania]

A given sample point will exceed the median exactly half of the time. The median is close to the average for sample sets that aren't skewed in some ridiculous manner.

Currently, stocks are being inflated and the Forward PE is still lower than the S&P average, and the long term average.

And before the bubble burst a lot of folks made a lot of money in spite of high P/E ratios.

That's great. How did they do after the bursting of the bubble?

They can have all the "value" they want, if no one will actually pay for them they are worthless.

That's your opinion. Stocks are worthless when the company is worthless. Meaning, the company isn't making money, operating expenses exceeds revenue and has small capitalisation. Even if stocks are worth near nothing, it's not worthless, whether or not it is worth the value you want it to be. If a stock goes from $100,000 to $1,000,000 in profit making while the share price remaining the same, it could mean that the value of the sto

Sentiment has nothing to do with it. The act of paying money for it is all that matters.

Sentiments and future expectations plays a role in stock prices. Otherwise, there would be no need for guidance reports. No one buys a stock with a mere chance that the stock is going to lose it's value the moment money chances hands. It's not that simple.

I didn't say it was less of a con because it was legal. I said it was less of a con because there is nothing being hidden, there is no dishonesty involved. That actually makes it NOT a con at all.

Oh, so it's an 'honest' con. Politicians leading people on that Social Security is safe and solvent when it actually isn't doesn't seem very honest to me. The way the securities industry is regulated today, if I did something similar I would be charged with committing securities fraud.

Look up the definition of Ponzi scheme:
Ponzi Scheme Definition | Investopedia

Do you see the second word? Its FRAUDULENT. A PONZI SCHEME REQUIRES FRAUD You need to get that through your sophomoric little brain before you continue in this conversation. What you have outlined above in quotes is a Ponzi scheme ONLY if it also involves telling the investors that their money is being invested in something other than paying off older investors.

What you don't seem to grasp about ponzi schemes is that they are far more sophisticated than just merely taking funds from new investors and using those funds to pay off old investors. Some of these schemes involves some uses of real capital and have legitimate profit making methods. Bernie Madoff used actual options and derivatives. Mark Drucker was a day trader using a real brokerage account, buying and selling real US securities. Others have used US Treasuries and even currencies. The only difference between Bernie Madoff and Mark Druker was that Madoff actually made money off his ponzi scheme, and went to greater lengths to lying about his revenue streams.

But Mark Druker was still convicted of running a ponzi scheme, with an honest business model. The only thing which wasn't honest about his business mode was his promise of high returns. You can still be convicted of running a ponzi scheme, even if your perfectly legitimate business model operates like a ponzi scheme. Fraudulent or not, a ponzi scheme is a ponzi scheme.

There's plenty of competition. Ever heard of a life annuity?

Who needs life annuity when you have the U.S. Treasury?

Madoff: 'Whole government is a Ponzi scheme' - Business - US business | NBC News

 

[AmazonTania]

Oh, OK, I get it. You're supposed to make unsupported claims without evidence to support them - and I'm supposed to do all the work to prove or disprove them. I don't seem to remember signing up to work for you, is the thing

I already told you were you can acquire this information: The Flow of Funds Account provided by the Federal Reserve. Thought you'd take the time to digest all of this information yourself. You're a pretty crafty Google user, no?

I'm very sorry, again, I wasn't aware I worked for you. It was my impression it was incumbant upon YOU to provide evidence for YOUR claims, not me.

If you were too lazy to verify what I was saying -- given the proper direction --, just as I was too lazy in providing the information, you could have just taken my word for it.

 

[AmazonTania]

This is why I say that she has seriously overestimated her own intelligence. She has*created a personal definition of "ponzi scheme" and decided it is objective. Problem is, as you note, the requirement for a Ponzi scheme is fraud. Rather, her definition is "I don't like it."

So, yeah, she overestimates her own intelligence which allows her to elevate her sense of not liking it above the legal and objective definition of "ponzi scheme".

Yep. You got me all figured out...

As far as I can infer, so far, the word "fraud" doesn't clue her in because it is also an "I don't like it" term, so OASDI fits with it just fine.

You do realise that something totally legitimate can still be illegal, correct?

Take this last sentence, "Just because the Government can do it doesn't mean it's not illegal."

Notice the triple negative. *Try collapsing them and see what you get.

Obviously, by definition, if it is illegal for the govt to do it, the govt can't legally do it. *

Sure, there are instances where some specific gov entity has done what it believed was legal, came in after the fact and got the law retroactively changed, or was taken to the Supreme Court and lost. *None of this has anything to do with OASDI.

By definition, by practice, by time, by presentation, OASDI is legal.

No one disputes that OASDI isn't legal. The point is that it is a ponzi scheme. It runs under false pretenses, it provides negative returns for it's investors and has the business model of a classic ponzi scheme.

It's a Ponzi Scheme, whether it's fraudulent or honest.

We have all the time we want, to construct clear and sensical statements here. *Failure to do so is on us.*

You might, but I work 11 hours a day. Some of us don't have the luxury of hanging around an internet forum at every possible opportunity like you do.

We might just as well read it as "Just because the Government can do [something I don't like] doesn't mean it's not [something I don't like]." *And you may notice that the previous triple negative now actually makes more sense.

Her full intent is to manipulate language so that she can define "I don't like it" as objectively bad and illegal. *

She's not using reality to define words, and words to describe reality. *She is using her feeling to define words and words to define reality.


She simply doesn't like paying taxes.

If that is what you want to believe, go for it. I don't like gambling, but I don't call it unorthodox charity. I call it gambling. I'm not into professional gaming, but I don't call it e-sports. I call it professional gaming. I don't like prostitution, but I don't call it Independent Performance Artistry. I call it Prostitution.

I am merely calling a spade a spade. The reality is that Social Security is propped up to be in good health when it is not. It always guarantees negative returns on investments and runs through the same business model as a ponzi scheme. It's a Ponzi Scheme.

The plan reality is that a businesses and individuals have operated their ventures using real business methods, and were still convicted of running ponzi schemes. It doesn't matter if your business is 'fraudulent' or 'honest.' In the eyes of the law, a ponzi schemes all operate the same way.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why Social Security Cannot Go Bankrupt - Forbes

Social Security is not bankrupt.

The money owed Social security does not exist. We spend almost 2 trillion a year in deficits. Social Security is bankrupt.

Dang. Really? But I got my check last month.

 

[itfitzme]

Obama is the one who signed the law to TEMPORARILY lower FICA taxes in the first place. Would have preferred he not done that?

Yeah, it's based on what is taken as the baseline. *In this case, th FICA increase is compared to what it is suppose to be, not what it actually has been. That it initially was lowered temporarily doesn't count.

It's similar math with the deficit. *Deficit = Revenues - Outlays. *Outlays =*Discretionary*+ Non-Discretionary. *It doesn't matter that Revenues were not increased to account for an increase in Discretionary spending. *After all,*Discretionary*spending increased for a good reason, Revenues were suppose to be lower, so the problem is the Non-Discretionary*spending that isn't suppose to be there. *

I am thinking it is a cascade of rule based reasoning vs consequential reasoning.

I loaned myself $100 today, so I must be $100 richer. *

I just borrowed $250000 from BofA to buy a new house. *Am I $250000 ""richer?

What are you talking about?

 

[regent]

According to some, Social Security was bankrupt since the day it started. We get these bankrupt notices every so often, and yet Social Security has been paying since it began in the Thirties, not only paying but new programs have been added. Since the birth rate is not uniform, i.e. baby boomers, at times more comes in than spent and at other times more goes out than comes in--but SS just keeps paying. The biggest problem with Social Security is that it was a very successful Democratic program, and that has gotta kill Republicans. Even Mission Accomplished didn't have the staying power of Social Security.

 

[Rozman]

More people will be withdrawing from SS then putting in from here on out.
Those that will be taking benefits out will be living longer...

Yeah I don't see a problem..... heh heh heh

 

[itfitzme]

More people will be withdrawing from SS then putting in from here on out.
Those that will be taking benefits out will be living longer...

Yeah I don't see a problem..... heh heh heh

And those that will be paying into it will be living longer. And production efficiency keeps going up. And population keeps increasing. And the OASDI age limit keeps going up, so people are working longer.

So, more people continue to put in then are taking out.

And the simplest thing is to raise FICA when unemployment is low and output is high. Then Granny doesn't have to suppliment her OASDI with SNAP.

 

[jwoodie]

More people will be withdrawing from SS then putting in from here on out.
Those that will be taking benefits out will be living longer...

Yeah I don't see a problem..... heh heh heh

And those that will be paying into it will be living longer. And production efficiency keeps going up. And population keeps increasing. And the OASDI age limit keeps going up, so people are working longer.

So, more people continue to put in then are taking out.

And the simplest thing is to raise FICA when unemployment is low and output is high. Then Granny doesn't have to suppliment her OASDI with SNAP.

Longer life spans mean more people will be RECEIVING social security, not paying into it. Raising the eligibility age much past 66 is problematic, since less productive older workers would be keeping jobs that could be filled by more productive younger workers.

 

[itfitzme]

More people will be withdrawing from SS then putting in from here on out.
Those that will be taking benefits out will be living longer...

Yeah I don't see a problem..... heh heh heh

And those that will be paying into it will be living longer. *And production efficiency keeps going up. And population keeps increasing. *And the OASDI age limit keeps going up, so people are working longer.

So, more people continue to put in then are taking out.

And the simplest thing is to raise FICA when unemployment is low and output is high. *Then Granny doesn't have to suppliment her OASDI with SNAP.

Longer life spans mean more people will be RECEIVING social security, not paying into it. *Raising the eligibility age much past 66 is problematic, since less productive older workers would be keeping jobs that could be filled by more productive younger workers.

Not if the retirement age is increased.

Not if older workers are healthier. Can think of quite a few older folk that are more productive than younger folk. *It doesn't take a lot of physical effort to type and process data. And, older people have more experience.

I know, it's so complicated because there are more than two variables. *And they change over time. *

Production efficiency
Production tools
Physical health
Medical advancements
Retirement age
Population past retirement
Population before retirement
Experience, knowledge, skill level
Tax rate
OASDI trust fund balance
T-bill interest rates

What else?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No one disputes that OASDI isn't legal.

Except every single federal judge in America.

It's a Ponzi Scheme, whether it's fraudulent or honest.

Not by the definition of the term "Ponzi scheme" that the rest of the world uses.

 

[AmazonTania]

No one disputes that OASDI isn't legal.

Except every single federal judge in America.

It's a Ponzi Scheme, whether it's fraudulent or honest.

Not by the definition of the term "Ponzi scheme" that the rest of the world uses.

That's nice. I've read a Gallup Poll which has stated that majority of Americans believes the Sun revolves around the Earth. I don't think they're going to grasp the sudden nuance of modern finance.

But keep clinging to that majority sentiment. I'm sure it'll make a difference to someone...

 

[boedicca]

The extra bump is vote buying.

Nuff said.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No one disputes that OASDI isn't legal.

Except every single federal judge in America.

It's a Ponzi Scheme, whether it's fraudulent or honest.

Not by the definition of the term "Ponzi scheme" that the rest of the world uses.

That's nice. I've read a Gallup Poll which has stated that majority of Americans believes the Sun revolves around the Earth.

OK. What does that have to do with the definition of the word "Ponzi scheme" ? You can't show me a SINGLE source which defines a Ponzi scheme as something that does not require fraud.

I don't think they're going to grasp the sudden nuance of modern finance.

It doesn't take grasping subtle nuances to be able to understand that by definition, Ponzi schemes require fraud.

 

[AmazonTania]

Except every single federal judge in America.

Not by the definition of the term "Ponzi scheme" that the rest of the world uses.

That's nice. I've read a Gallup Poll which has stated that majority of Americans believes the Sun revolves around the Earth.

OK. What does that have to do with the definition of the word "Ponzi scheme" ? You can't show me a SINGLE source which defines a Ponzi scheme as something that does not require fraud.

It doesn't. In the eyes of the law, if you are running something similar to a Ponzi Scheme, it' is a Ponzi Scheme. I already discussed this in the first quote you conveniently cherry picked and I've already named examples.

I don't think they're going to grasp the sudden nuance of modern finance.

It doesn't take grasping subtle nuances to be able to understand that by definition, Ponzi schemes require fraud.[/QUOTE]

Fraud is an example. The operations of a ponzi scheme are always relative and never absolute.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That's nice. I've read a Gallup Poll which has stated that majority of Americans believes the Sun revolves around the Earth.

OK. What does that have to do with the definition of the word "Ponzi scheme" ? You can't show me a SINGLE source which defines a Ponzi scheme as something that does not require fraud.

It doesn't. In the eyes of the law, if you are running something similar to a Ponzi Scheme, it' is a Ponzi Scheme.

In the eyes of which law?

 

[AmazonTania]

OK. What does that have to do with the definition of the word "Ponzi scheme" ? You can't show me a SINGLE source which defines a Ponzi scheme as something that does not require fraud.

It doesn't. In the eyes of the law, if you are running something similar to a Ponzi Scheme, it' is a Ponzi Scheme.

In the eyes of which law?

Which law do you think? Must I do everything for you. This has been addressed before:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...the-extra-bump-in-the-rate-7.html#post7441053