541
submitted 2 days ago by Garibaldee@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de 42 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 4 points 17 hours ago

otherwise the system will fall apart and the people at the bottom will suffer.

Don't you mean "suffer more"?

[-] john89@lemmy.ca 5 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

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.

[-] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

*MarkWahlburg.gif

Maybe this ponzi. Unfunded state pensions use workers contributions to pay current pensioners.

Less workers = less pensions.

[-] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

That’s still not a Ponzi scheme even if it isn’t sustainable.

[-] qaz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think it actually fits quite well.

A Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors.

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.

  1. Increasing birth rates, this option is not sustainable in the long term but is commonly preferred for reasons mentioned below.
  2. Migration. There are currently plenty of countries with a large working-age population and a weak economy. Letting those migrate would solve the demographic issue, but is political suicide.
[-] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how these funds work.

The goal is not to pay people with the money from new people paying into the pot. They invest the money and then the pot grows and that money is used to pay out. When the pot is not growing enough - whether because investments aren’t doing well enough, or you designed a you designed an bad system where people can withdraw from it for too long, or any other many possible issues - then yes you functionally end up dipping into the money given by new people, but this is not how it was designed to be used.

You are acting like this is a one-to-one system where you just put money in, then you get money out later, and all of the money given out is 100% the money that people put in in the first place with no intention of growing that money or finding a sustainable way of disseminating it long-term.

Mismanagement/poorly built systems are not the same as Ponzi schemes. Unless you think, I don’t know, US Social Security is also a Ponzi scheme?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how these funds work.

This misunderstanding is on your side. There is a method of funding pensions refered to as pay as you go (PAYG).

The goal is not to pay people with the money from new people paying into the pot.

This is exactly how many unfunded, state sponsored pension schemes function. No pot of money exists. Only the ability to collect taxes.

They invest the money and then the pot grows and that money is used to pay out.

This is true for private pension schemes run by companies and individual pension schemes. Funded pension schemes are (usually) not ponzis.

[-] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

State pension plans are primarily funded (in order of what comprises the most) by 1) the government 2) investments and 3) employee contributions.

Pay as you go is about employee contributions, which is typically the smallest pot being contributed. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago
[-] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

That’s not a fucking Ponzi scheme dude! It’s right there in your own comment!

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Early ~~investors~~ pensioners are paid off with money put in by later ones.

Sounds like a ponzi to me.

[-] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 hours ago

It can sound like someone’s whistling Dixie if you want to claim that, it doesn’t make it true.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

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.

[-] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 minutes ago* (last edited 2 minutes ago)

It has two sources of funding (taxes being the second) and there isn’t a middle man skimming a cut while paying older participants simply with new participants’ money while claiming their money is invested to generate money to pay them all out. The entire point of a Ponzi scheme is you are pretending there is money being generated that isn’t, you are just using new victims money for as long as possible until the music stops. They literally make up numbers to cover their tracks. It’s a fraudulent enterprise by design.

It is not a Ponzi scheme. It is literally not a Ponzi scheme by definition. You are making up your own rules and definitions because of how it feels to you. Do I think it is flawed and not a great way of handling these funds if you want them to be steady in the longterm? Absolutely. But it is not a Ponzi scheme.

I’m done man.

[-] xavier666@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

Mismanagement/poorly built systems are not the same as Ponzi schemes

"Tell me the difference between stupid and illegal and I'll have my wife's brother arrested"

[-] qaz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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:

Mismanagement/poorly built systems are not the same as Ponzi schemes. Unless you think, I don’t know, US Social Security is also a Ponzi scheme?

I'm not implying that it's the same, just that the comparison fits better than you might expect.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

In most PAYG state pensions the contributions made by workers are not invested. They are paid directly to pensioners.

[-] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

When did I ever say the problem goes away? I am saying it is not a Ponzi scheme. You were saying it is a Ponzi scheme. Don’t move the goalposts here.

this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
541 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32510 readers
384 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS