BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Peter (Yes, that one)

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:50:40 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

Well, SS does not at all fit the Ponzi model.
You actually know the accounting of it, and it was never an investment,
but a requirement.
The accounting of nothing, and I mean nothing, on Wall Street can be
looked upon with anything but skepticism.
And SS is not "upside down" or in "deficit" technically.
Good, honest accounting proves that.
That is why you know exactly what is in the trust fund, and are able
to make actual projections with it.

Of course it fits the ponzi model. The people taking money out get it
directly from those new "investors" putting money in and when outgo
exceeds income the system quickly fails.

And how is that different than any transactional flow of money?
Are you saying that that selling shares in Ford is a Ponzi scheme?
As I said, the accounting is what determines whether or not a Ponzi fund
exists.
Can you tell me that the Ford balance sheets are honest, and that all
required government filings have real figures?

There is no real money in the trust fund. Every penny was borrowed and
spent since 1939 when the "trust fund act" was passed.

Reminiscent of a common home mortgage, isn't it.
Please don't say the U.S. government has no collateral.
The Treasury and IRS will instantly disagree.

The government now has to borrow that money again, from China or
Europe, to make its obligations. That is exactly what happened to
Madoff and Ponzi.

Actually Japan is our largest creditor now. China has sold off U.S
debt. And I noticed the sun rose yet once again this morning.
Who examined the books of Ponzi and Madoff?
Who was examining the books of AIG and Goldman Sachs?
The same people who examine the Ford books?
Though I am not an accountant, I do balance my sales at the register
each day, and know a bit about how fraud can be performed in many
flavors. Sadly, I have seen more than a few staff come and go due
to fraudulently reporting sales.
Not one has been criminally charged, but all have been required to make
restitution to avoid charges. Some have not done so for various reasons
and the losses were written off as theft.
In nearly all cases the fraud is quite easily detected, but there have
been a few sophisticated enough that it required a sharp auditor to
uncover their scheme.
I am speaking of shoe sales people here stealing at most a few thousand
dollars. It greatly saddens me when I think of it.
Can you imagine the schemes of Wall Street where books never get
examined by a good auditor?
I shudder at the very thought.

The government has been pay as you go since we came off the gold
standard, they have no vehicle to actually save money and whenever we
spend more than the revenue we take in, we either print money or
borrow money.
They have a creative name for printing money. They call it monetizing
the debt. The rest of us call it inflating the dollar.
The only good thing is China will not have to engage in a
thermonuclear war with us to get access to our resources. We will just
trade vast parts of the country for all the worthless paper we sold
them to try to maintain our credit..

And yet I can take that "worthless paper" called a dollar to the auto
dealership and purchase an automobile.
And when a customer pays with that "worthless paper" I have no qualms
about ringing up the sale for a good pair of shoe.
I have heard SS called a Ponzi scheme for many years, and predictions of
its failure for as many.
And yet it continues to pay retirees with money that can be spent to
purchase real goods and survive. And has never missed a payment.
Because it has accountability. I predict the negative cash flow into
the trust fund will be fixed soon by the revenue increases and outflow
reductions I mentioned, and you didn't address.
And here we are back where we began.
You calling it a Ponzi scheme, and me calling it an retirement insurance
plan that is well accounted and has never broken a promise.
Such is the nature of disagreement.
Of course the proof is always in the pudding.
If I hear SS misses a check that is promised, I will reconsider.
That is the acid test of a Ponzi scheme.
Late "investors" don't get back what was promised or suggested as a
return.
And where your argument falls flat.
You have only predictions, and ignore many realities regarding
accounting, politics and the social fabric of our country.
Anybody can predict anything.
I have myself predicted that the negative SS cash flow will be addressed
soon. I predict that President Obama can't avoid breaking his pledge to
not raise taxes on those with less than $250k income.
Simply raising the SS earnings cap will do that.
And I think instantly solve the SS cash flow problem, though I haven't
done that accounting, so I may be wrong.
But in my business I deal with realities, such as how a shoe will wear
in for a customer, and if I can perhaps recommend a style that I find
more suitable without causing offense.
Then there is keeping track of stock and dealing with the occasionally
unreasonable management.
I never have a defeatist attitude. It is 100% can do.
I can not tell you how many times a customer of mine has predicted "sky
is falling" scenarios.
It is the nature of some to do so.
It doesn't mean they are bad people and don't need a good new pair of
shoes. In the end, a comfortable pair of shoes has more value than
their dire predictions.
And that's what gets me up every morning, bright eyed and bushy tailed,
and off to the store to make as many customers as I can happy, with a
new pair of shoes for them, and a sale for me.
As a long-time customer once said to me, "Life should be measured by the
good you can do for others, while taking care of yourself so you can do
it with vigor."
She was a nice lady, favoring low pumps, and I miss her.
I am off shortly, and wish you as good a day as I intend mine to be.

Peter