Military question

[Darth Wong]

SS was a pyrimid scheme. The money YOU put in isn't for you, its for the current recipients. When (not that it'll happen) its your turn to recieve benifits, the money You put in won't be there, it'll be the next generation that funds your benifits.

How does that make it a pyramid scheme? Is social security being advertised by the government as an investment plan rather than a social program? Do you get a bonus for signing up other people on the program?

[Son of the Suns]

SS was a pyrimid scheme. The money YOU put in isn't for you, its for the current recipients. When (not that it'll happen) its your turn to recieve benifits, the money You put in won't be there, it'll be the next generation that funds your benifits.

How does that make it a pyramid scheme? Is social security being advertised by the government as an investment plan rather than a social program? Do you get a bonus for signing up other people on the program?

I think we should make social security into a reality TV show. Then people might take enough interest in it to do something about the situation.

[Knife]

SS was a pyrimid scheme. The money YOU put in isn't for you, its for the current recipients. When (not that it'll happen) its your turn to recieve benifits, the money You put in won't be there, it'll be the next generation that funds your benifits.

How does that make it a pyramid scheme? Is social security being advertised by the government as an investment plan rather than a social program? Do you get a bonus for signing up other people on the program?

Sorry, perhaps an upside down pyrimid scheme. Where the larger portion pays for the few, unfortunatley the bigger part keeps getting smaller and the smaller part keeps getting bigger.

But your right, wrong choice of words.

[Stormbringer]

SS was a pyrimid scheme. The money YOU put in isn't for you, its for the current recipients. When (not that it'll happen) its your turn to recieve benifits, the money You put in won't be there, it'll be the next generation that funds your benifits.

How does that make it a pyramid scheme? Is social security being advertised by the government as an investment plan rather than a social program? Do you get a bonus for signing up other people on the program?

Actually, Mike Social Security (and the other attached sort of programs) were supposed to be bare bones sort of investment for retirement. Naturally that's been backed off of as things have gone down hill, but that was the intent.

PS: Why would they need to recruit. You don't pay you go to jail.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, Mike Social Security (and the other attached sort of programs) were supposed to be bare bones sort of investment for retirement. Naturally that's been backed off of as things have gone down hill, but that was the intent.

I don't see what difference that makes. Income tax was originally supposed to be temporary, but I don't see anyone calling it "temporary" nowadays.

PS: Why would they need to recruit. You don't pay you go to jail.

I was just pointing out that pyramid schemes are a particular type of scam and Social Security doesn't look like one. No one is promising big commissions to people for getting retirees to collect benefits or signing up other people to do the same, so it is not a pyramid scheme. You may argue that it's grossly mismanaged, but the term "pyramid scheme" has a particular meaning and it doesn't fit here, that's all.

[Stormbringer]

I don't see what difference that makes. Income tax was originally supposed to be temporary, but I don't see anyone calling it "temporary" nowadays.

The intent hasn't changed, it's just the politicos and paper pushers have clammed. It's just been so grossly mismanaged that no one but the AARP believes in Social Security as the retirement secruity it was meant to be. But it's basic intent hasn't been changed.

I was just pointing out that pyramid schemes are a particular type of scam and Social Security doesn't look like one. No one is promising big commissions to people for getting retirees to collect benefits or signing up other people to do the same, so it is not a pyramid scheme. You may argue that it's grossly mismanaged, but the term "pyramid scheme" has a particular meaning and it doesn't fit here, that's all.

It doesn't fit mostly because it's involuntary. But the hallmark of a pyramid scheme, paying out the previous level with the current is definitely a trait they have in common.

[HemlockGrey]

Bullshit how?
Should/could and what we did are two diffrent things, I'm pointing out valid uses of our military(Prehaps we have not been using many of them)How is it bullshit to use the military to stop genocide, because we have not done it before?

You say that we need a strong military in order to prevent stuff like African tribes from butchering each other, yet we NEVER EVER DO THAT. The only recent time was sending a token force to Haiti which hardly validates your argument.

[Darth Wong]

The intent hasn't changed, it's just the politicos and paper pushers have clammed. It's just been so grossly mismanaged that no one but the AARP believes in Social Security as the retirement secruity it was meant to be. But it's basic intent hasn't been changed.

Where does it say what the basic intent of social security is?

It doesn't fit mostly because it's involuntary. But the hallmark of a pyramid scheme, paying out the previous level with the current is definitely a trait they have in common.

Actually, the hallmark of a pyramid scheme is a multi-tiered commission system. There are no multiple tiers or commissions, and this "previous level with the current" nonsense is nothing but a clumsy attempt to force a round peg into a square hole for the rhetorical purpose of slapping the "pyramid scheme" label on something where it doesn't belong. Do you also consider welfare to be a "pyramid scheme" because the people paying for it are never the ones receiving the benefits?

[Stormbringer]

Bullshit how?
Should/could and what we did are two diffrent things, I'm pointing out valid uses of our military(Prehaps we have not been using many of them)How is it bullshit to use the military to stop genocide, because we have not done it before?

You say that we need a strong military in order to prevent stuff like African tribes from butchering each other, yet we NEVER EVER DO THAT. The only recent time was sending a token force to Haiti which hardly validates your argument.

Oh, wait. There have been times like Bosnia and Kosovo as well (though those largely turned out to be on an overblown basis). Not to mention Somolia, despite the clusterfuck that was.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I would say it is a testament to the vibrancy of the American economy that they can afford to blow nearly half their budget on defense spending and still have a good economy, but to a certain extent a lot of this is borrowing from the future, and they sort of need another boom to come along in order to pay for it all.

I don't expect a miracle or some fantasy world where everyone gets along, but I do think it's unlikely any 1st rate power will go to war with each other again like they did in the early 20th centuries. Too costly and the death toll would be enourmous. Going by how the public hates to lose a few hundred soldiers in modern "war," I don't think they are going to tolerate high casualties. There should be more UN involvement instead of US involvement everywhere. The idea of the global policeman seems too expensive to let fly indefinitly.

As you said, they are taking the money from somwhere important to pay for this, and it's sort of a gamble.

How much better/worse would it be for the United States if say...England or another ally had a more powerful militarya nd took a bigger stance in the world, or if nations divided up it. If more did it, a defrayed cost would certainly be better for everyone, no?

On the issue of humanitarian concerns abroad. No. I don't think there should be genocide, but I don't think the US has the responsibility to play moderator in every land, especially when it ends up pissing other countries off.

[Trytostaydead]

R O F L!!!

I don't expect a miracle or some fantasy world where everyone gets along, but I do think it's unlikely any 1st rate power will go to war with each other again like they did in the early 20th centuries. Too costly and the death toll would be enourmous. Going by how the public hates to lose a few hundred soldiers in modern "war," I don't think they are going to tolerate high casualties. There should be more UN involvement instead of US involvement everywhere.

History DOES repeat itself.

When the industrial revolution occured, that was the EXACT same thinking the world had. War would become TOO costly in both men and material.

Both the American Civil War and WWI started under those premises. They believed in decisive battles and quick resolutions due to economic factors and their improved killing abilities. But war started anyway and they resulted in TREMENDOUS debt and DEATHS. After the Civil War you'd think that Europe would have learned from that but they went on to start WWI. After WWI, thinking it was the war to end all wars, WWII came along and extracted an even higher price.

Following quickly after WWII was Korea and Vietnam. Two very modern wars with also very ghastly prices.

Now we are stuck in a new industrial revolution. The nuclear revolution. So far I still have my fingers crossed. What I mean by nuclear revolution is not so much that i worry about the mad release of all our nuclear arsenal obliterating mankind.. but we have entered a new age of technology and research and better killing machines. Exactly like two hundred years ago. One hundred years ago. 60 years ago. 30 years ago.

[Knife]

I don't expect a miracle or some fantasy world where everyone gets along, but I do think it's unlikely any 1st rate power will go to war with each other again like they did in the early 20th centuries. Too costly and the death toll would be enourmous. Going by how the public hates to lose a few hundred soldiers in modern "war," I don't think they are going to tolerate high casualties. There should be more UN involvement instead of US involvement everywhere. The idea of the global policeman seems too expensive to let fly indefinitly.

Emphasis mine (well, he did have the last sentence bolded)


I find those two sentences in conflict and funny as hell.


While the US's track record on 'peacekeeping' can be called into question, the UN has an even worse record.

[Stormbringer]

Where does it say what the basic intent of social security is?

Look at the orginal intent of it and the working behind it.

Actually, the hallmark of a pyramid scheme is a multi-tiered commission system. There are no multiple tiers or commissions, and this "previous level with the current" nonsense is nothing but a clumsy attempt to force a round peg into a square hole for the rhetorical purpose of slapping the "pyramid scheme" label on something where it doesn't belong. Do you also consider welfare to be a "pyramid scheme" because the people paying for it are never the ones receiving the benefits?

Actually, a pyramid scheme as I understand it is no more than setting up tiers with the lower tiers money being used to pay off the higher. It doesn't particularly matter how it's sold to people, at least as I've been given to understanding it.

As for welfare, no it's not a pyramid scheme since the government doesn't even try to pretend they're doing anything more than just plain old taking your money.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Emphasis mine (well, he did have the last sentence bolded)


I find those two sentences in conflict and funny as hell.


While the US's track record on 'peacekeeping' can be called into question, the UN has an even worse record.

I didn't say it was the case, I said we should take less responsibility? Will the world fall apart if the USA does less?

[Knife]

I didn't say it was the case, I said we should take less responsibility? Will the world fall apart if the USA does less?

Maybe, maybe not. But US interests would fall apart with out the US actively defending it's interests. Everyone else does it, we just get shit on because our interests are literly all over the damn place.

And by saying the UN will pick up some of that responsibility, will that be with or with out US troops? Half the world waits to see if the US is onboard before they commit and the other half waits to see if the US is on board before they decide to shit all over it.

[tharkûn]

Umm Mike the definition of a "pyramid scheme" is defined by the canadian government to be, "A fraud based on recruiting an increasing number of investors." Multi-level-marketing is just one type of pyramid scheme, not the only such type.

Some of the early pyramid schemes were quite simple, the con man would ask investors for cash and in six months they would be returned double their money. Their payout would be financed by the people who payed in during that time.

This is EXACTLY how the American social security system works; it isn't paid for out of the general budget, the only "investment" the system makes is to "buy" US government debt, and the average recipient is going to take out more benifits than they paid in (largely because lifespans keep growing). An individual pays their money in, the money goes out to pay current debt, any miniscule residual gets crap for interest, and when the individual starts pulling out somebody new MUST pay in or the system goes belly up. It is a system that can only pay out because new workers are recruited in (and why it is hopelessly screwed when the babyboom retires).

This is not to be confused with a sensible government benifits plan, something that isn't assbackwards like payroll taxes or following a lousying "investment" strategy; but the American Social Security system is just about a textbook pyarmid scheme; if more people don't start paying in the system is screwed.



As far as the size of the military, compared to what? As a function of federal budget is misleading. If services are paid for privately in one country, but publicly in another; the former will have a higher percentage of the budget going towards military spending. For instance much of Europe pays for higher education while the US mainly does not; so the total budget European budget goes up (and driving down the relative amount spent on military) while the US remains flatline. Just because housing, healthcare, higher education, etc. may be publically funded in one country and privately in another should not affect the numbers for military spending.

I think a more valid comparison is simply to find out how much the average citizen spends on military compared to other expenses. While I'm sure the US still spends far more on military matters, this should give a better picture.

[Stuart Mackey]

Emphasis mine (well, he did have the last sentence bolded)


I find those two sentences in conflict and funny as hell.


While the US's track record on 'peacekeeping' can be called into question, the UN has an even worse record.

I didn't say it was the case, I said we should take less responsibility? Will the world fall apart if the USA does less?

The question you should be asking yourself, and every other nation for that matter, is not weather we should or not but rather how it will affect us if we do not.

[Knife]

I think a more valid comparison is simply to find out how much the average citizen spends on military compared to other expenses. While I'm sure the US still spends far more on military matters, this should give a better picture.

Some quick stats I dug up from the CIA factbook, globalsecurity, and the French Gov website;

*note: give adaquate ~ to these numbers since they are from differnt years but they do fall within a few years of each other 3-5*

France-
Population: ~60 million
Military expenditures: 46.5 billion (fy 2000)
Troops: ~250,000 (some civilians are added into this and I don't know why, according to the French Ministry of Defence)

China-
Population: 1.2 billion
Military expenditures: 55.9 billion
Troops: ~2.5 million

US-
Population: 290 million
Military expenditures: 276 billion
Troops: 1.3 million

**Note; discrecionary spending (which in the US is about 400 billion this year) isn't obvioulsy included**

Obviously, they bigger land mass and the higher population as a resource you have, the bigger the army you will need to defend it. The US population is no where near that of China but we do have a sizable landmass to defend with that army.

For example, France only has 1/5th of the troops than the US and a significantly smaller country to defend. If you scaled up the military spending by five to relect a theoritical expenditure on a one million man army, they are just under what the US spends (French 232.5 billion- US 276 billion). France has a 'modern' army with all the new gadgets and shit, as opposed to China.

China has roughly four times the population of the US and spends slightly more than France does on its military. Alot of that might be due to GDP of China and the massive conscript of their forces but......

When dealing with "is the military too big and spends too much cash" you have to take (IMO) population and what the army has to defend. The money angle also depends on how much cash is available. I gotta believe that if China could spend more it would, especially to get all the new toys.

[Darth Wong]

Umm Mike the definition of a "pyramid scheme" is defined by the canadian government to be, "A fraud based on recruiting an increasing number of investors." Multi-level-marketing is just one type of pyramid scheme, not the only such type.

And how is Social Security an example of this scheme, since everyone pays into it and no one is "recruited?" Were you recruited, and encouraged to recruit others?

Some of the early pyramid schemes were quite simple, the con man would ask investors for cash and in six months they would be returned double their money. Their payout would be financed by the people who payed in during that time.

This is EXACTLY how the American social security system works; it isn't paid for out of the general budget, the only "investment" the system makes is to "buy" US government debt, and the average recipient is going to take out more benifits than they paid in (largely because lifespans keep growing). An individual pays their money in, the money goes out to pay current debt, any miniscule residual gets crap for interest, and when the individual starts pulling out somebody new MUST pay in or the system goes belly up. It is a system that can only pay out because new workers are recruited in (and why it is hopelessly screwed when the babyboom retires).

There is no "recruiting", and if you are talking about birthrates, there's also this thing called "deathrates". Pyramid schemes promise to give you vastly increased pay-out compared to pay-in by trying to sucker increasing numbers of donors into the system. Social Security's payouts need not be so vastly inflated compared to payins, hence your analogy fails.

This is not to be confused with a sensible government benifits plan, something that isn't assbackwards like payroll taxes or following a lousying "investment" strategy; but the American Social Security system is just about a textbook pyarmid scheme; if more people don't start paying in the system is screwed.

Nonsense; they can simply reduce benefits in the event of a gross imbalance between recipients and supporters.

As far as the size of the military, compared to what? As a function of federal budget is misleading. If services are paid for privately in one country, but publicly in another; the former will have a higher percentage of the budget going towards military spending. For instance much of Europe pays for higher education while the US mainly does not; so the total budget European budget goes up (and driving down the relative amount spent on military) while the US remains flatline. Just because housing, healthcare, higher education, etc. may be publically funded in one country and privately in another should not affect the numbers for military spending.

How is it misleading? It indicates the government's priorities. In America, health care is not as much of a priority as the military.

I think a more valid comparison is simply to find out how much the average citizen spends on military compared to other expenses. While I'm sure the US still spends far more on military matters, this should give a better picture.

Any idea what that figure is?

[tharkûn]

And how is Social Security an example of this scheme, since everyone pays into it and no one is "recruited?" Were you recruited, and encouraged to recruit others?

Population growth. One is recruited the moment they start earning legitimate money.

There is no "recruiting", and if you are talking about birthrates, there's also this thing called "deathrates". Pyramid schemes promise to give you vastly increased pay-out compared to pay-in by trying to sucker increasing numbers of donors into the system. Social Security's payouts need not be so vastly inflated compared to payins, hence your analogy fails.

Promising, hell they are already giving it out. Someone born in 1940 paid in ludicriously less than they suck out of the system. Do they need to be? Not in the strictest sense of the word. Do they need to be if the politicians are going to get re-elected? You better damn beleive it. Sure the Social Security system could theoretically be reformed into something that isn't a pyramid scheme, but the present incarnation most certainly is.

Nonsense; they can simply reduce benefits in the event of a gross imbalance between recipients and supporters.

I trust you know enough about American politics to realize how likely that is of happening, right? There is a reason why whenever they up the age requirements to receive benifits it happens half a century in the future; but whenever the benifits are going to be increased it happens in about four - eight years (soon enough that the elderly will vote on it, far enough out that it doesn't effect the incumbent's budgets).

Again in theory nothing requires that the system stay pyramoidal in nature, it is just the present incarnation that is.

How is it misleading? It indicates the government's priorities. In America, health care is not as much of a priority as the military.

Let's say that one two governments are indentical except for higher education. The first spends 20 billion on the military, as does the second. The total budget is 60 billion each. The first elects to offer public higher education, and increases the tax rate to pay for it. So now you have 20 billion out of say 65 billion, whereas the second is still at 33%.

Essentially this removes the effect of a large public sector, otherwise countries like Germany (where something like 55% of the economy goes through the public purse) would have lesser numbers than a country with a smaller public sector like say Canada.

Any idea what that figure is?

I don't recall the actual numbers but I recall the general rankings. North Korea is currently the worst in this regard with the US pegging in around the 2nd quartile somewhat above France but significantly below Israel; with places like Canada and New Zealand falling in the bottom quartile and the bottom being one of the microstates.

As I recall you take per capita military expenditures, adjust it against cost of living and median income. Last time I saw it was in newsprint bemoaning how much Israel pays into its military.

[Darth Wong]

Population growth. One is recruited the moment they start earning legitimate money.

The numbers of "recruits" in this scenario are not bound to increase or required to increase, hence your analogy fails. They only happen to increase if there are a lot of kids being born, but that hardly means it is an intrinsic feature or requirement of the system.

Promising, hell they are already giving it out. Someone born in 1940 paid in ludicriously less than they suck out of the system. Do they need to be? Not in the strictest sense of the word. Do they need to be if the politicians are going to get re-elected? You better damn beleive it.

Utterly irrelevant to your claim that it is intrinsically pyramidal.

Sure the Social Security system could theoretically be reformed into something that isn't a pyramid scheme, but the present incarnation most certainly is.

The fact that something ends up generating inflated payouts because of high intervening birthrates does not mean the system is intrinsically pyramidal. By this ridiculous definition, a corporate IPO is a pyramid scheme because the original investors get a huge payout and the late entrants will never get the kind of return on investment that the early ones did.

Again in theory nothing requires that the system stay pyramoidal in nature, it is just the present incarnation that is.

You're still not getting it; a pyramid scheme is designed in such a way that it must be pyramidal. The same is not true for this scheme, which only appears pyramidal because of high birthrates since it was started. Hence, it is not a pyramid scheme. By your definition it would have been impossible to create any form of social security which was not a pyramid scheme, because the high birthrates would have made it accidentally "pyramidal" regardless.

Let's say that one two governments are indentical except for higher education. The first spends 20 billion on the military, as does the second. The total budget is 60 billion each. The first elects to offer public higher education, and increases the tax rate to pay for it. So now you have 20 billion out of say 65 billion, whereas the second is still at 33%.

Essentially this removes the effect of a large public sector, otherwise countries like Germany (where something like 55% of the economy goes through the public purse) would have lesser numbers than a country with a smaller public sector like say Canada.

How does that change the fact that it shows Germany as a society places greater value on social programs than we do? All you've done is show how the math breaks down, without altering the conclusion.

I don't recall the actual numbers but I recall the general rankings. North Korea is currently the worst in this regard with the US pegging in around the 2nd quartile somewhat above France but significantly below Israel; with places like Canada and New Zealand falling in the bottom quartile and the bottom being one of the microstates.

As I recall you take per capita military expenditures, adjust it against cost of living and median income. Last time I saw it was in newsprint bemoaning how much Israel pays into its military.

What other nations are above the US? Are any of them what we would characterize as healthy democracies, or is the US the most militarized western democracy?

[tharkûn]

The numbers of "recruits" in this scenario are not bound to increase or required to increase, hence your analogy fails. They only happen to increase if there are a lot of kids being born, but that hardly means it is an intrinsic feature or requirement of the system.

And under the current system, when the number of kids being born goes down, the system goes broke.

One could rewrite the current system, but given what it currently is it is a pyramid because it does go broke without an expanding base paying in.

Utterly irrelevant to your claim that it is intrinsically pyramidal.

I never said it intrinsically was; I specifically said this is not to be confused with a sensible policy that is a pyramid.

Sure some form of social security could exist which isn't a pyramid in nature; but that form is not what actually exists or can be pragmatically expected to exist in the US.

The fact that something ends up generating inflated payouts because of high intervening birthrates does not mean the system is intrinsically pyramidal. By this ridiculous definition, a corporate IPO is a pyramid scheme because the original investors get a huge payout and the late entrants will never get the kind of return on investment that the early ones did.

Many IPO's are; some are not. Companies like Apple, Coca Cola, IBM, Microsoft have paid out far more to the late entrants than the original investors. A pyramid scheme is what will not be paying anything out if no one new invests; so if you have a junk IPO (like so many dot-bombs) then yes it is a pyramid scheme. If you have an IPO where you will eventually be paid back by dividends then it isn't.

Not all social security systems are pyramid schemes, the current one in the US is.

You're still not getting it; a pyramid scheme is designed in such a way that it must be pyramidal. The same is not true for this scheme, which only appears pyramidal because of high birthrates since it was started. Hence, it is not a pyramid scheme. By your definition it would have been impossible to create any form of social security which was not a pyramid scheme, because the high birthrates would have made it accidentally "pyramidal" regardless.

If the US fails to have a positive birth rate, the system goes broke. The only way the system "makes money" is because more people pay in.

Try setting up a corporation where you take people's money, buy bonds, and then pay out more cash to individuals than interest you earn on bonds. Have a balance sheet where if you ever run short on new investors the whole works goes belly up ... then see how long before the government closes you down.

How does that change the fact that it shows Germany as a society places greater value on social programs than we do? All you've done is show how the math breaks down, without altering the conclusion.

Look at it this way, suppose the US tommorrow decided to nationalize healthcare. Instead of everyone paying individually for private healthcare, the government just increased taxes to pay for healthcare by the exact amount they pay out. The amount of money the military gets hasn't gone down. The amount per capita being spent on the military doesn't change. The relative amount being spent on defense vs other necessities of life doesn't change. The bottom line on the federal buget doesn't change.

The only thing that changes is the total revenue.

Similarly suppose Canada took and nationalized the auto industry, all the money being paid into the auto industry is now income for the federal budget. All the money being paid as wages, dividends, etc. are now federal expenditures. Again nothing changes except the total revenue. If you have a larger public sector which offers more services it artificially deflates the amount of public spending on defense. If you have a small public sector it inflates the defense figures. Hell if the US had only defense spending and current medicare/medicaid spending would it denote a higher priority on healthcare than if a european state had nationalized the trains, electricity, plumbing, housing, petrol as well as provided "free" higher education, daycare, access to "the arts", healthcare, and pensions just because the US spends a higher percentage of the public revenue on medicare/medicaid than the other does on healthcare?

When you provide more services, each individual service takes up a smaller percentage of the budget even if you are spending the same per capita. Really I think you break it down to what percent of the total goods and services an individual pays for are military and what isn't.

What other nations are above the US? Are any of them what we would characterize as healthy democracies, or is the US the most militarized western democracy?

Israel is much higher. Taiwan and South Korea may be above the US, but definately everyone else who could be characterized as healthy democracies was below the US (i.e. all of western Europe), though not by as much as is normally seen.

[Darth Wong]

The numbers of "recruits" in this scenario are not bound to increase or required to increase, hence your analogy fails. They only happen to increase if there are a lot of kids being born, but that hardly means it is an intrinsic feature or requirement of the system.

And under the current system, when the number of kids being born goes down, the system goes broke. One could rewrite the current system, but given what it currently is it is a pyramid because it does go broke without an expanding base paying in.

You are treating the payout level as an intrinsic feature of the system. It is not.

I never said it intrinsically was; I specifically said this is not to be confused with a sensible policy that is a pyramid.

Sure some form of social security could exist which isn't a pyramid in nature; but that form is not what actually exists or can be pragmatically expected to exist in the US.

The only thing which is "pyramidal" about this scheme is that there happened to be a huge birthrate after it was started. Naturally, that produced very generous payouts for the people retiring after that baby boom hit the labour market. But how does it follow that this ratio of payout to payin is now fixed?

Many IPO's are; some are not. Companies like Apple, Coca Cola, IBM, Microsoft have paid out far more to the late entrants than the original investors. A pyramid scheme is what will not be paying anything out if no one new invests; so if you have a junk IPO (like so many dot-bombs) then yes it is a pyramid scheme. If you have an IPO where you will eventually be paid back by dividends then it isn't.

So you're seriously saying that stock IPOs for overrated companies are all pyramid schemes? All you're doing is proving my point: you have a vastly overbroad definition of "pyramid scheme".

If the US fails to have a positive birth rate, the system goes broke. The only way the system "makes money" is because more people pay in.

Actually, a pyramid scheme does not merely require a "positive" rate of new members as opposed to dying members; it requires an exponential increase in members over time.

Try setting up a corporation where you take people's money, buy bonds, and then pay out more cash to individuals than interest you earn on bonds. Have a balance sheet where if you ever run short on new investors the whole works goes belly up ... then see how long before the government closes you down.

Again, you treat it as an investment scheme. It's not an investment scheme, it's a social program. People already have individual investment schemes.

How does that change the fact that it shows Germany as a society places greater value on social programs than we do? All you've done is show how the math breaks down, without altering the conclusion.

Look at it this way, suppose the US tommorrow decided to nationalize healthcare. Instead of everyone paying individually for private healthcare, the government just increased taxes to pay for healthcare by the exact amount they pay out. The amount of money the military gets hasn't gone down. The amount per capita being spent on the military doesn't change. The relative amount being spent on defense vs other necessities of life doesn't change. The bottom line on the federal buget doesn't change.

But it would show that the US now considers health care to be a national priority, whereas it did not before. This indicates a major shift in policy and attitude, which is the point you keep ignoring.

The only thing that changes is the total revenue.

Similarly suppose Canada took and nationalized the auto industry, all the money being paid into the auto industry is now income for the federal budget. All the money being paid as wages, dividends, etc. are now federal expenditures. Again nothing changes except the total revenue. If you have a larger public sector which offers more services it artificially deflates the amount of public spending on defense. If you have a small public sector it inflates the defense figures. Hell if the US had only defense spending and current medicare/medicaid spending would it denote a higher priority on healthcare than if a european state had nationalized the trains, electricity, plumbing, housing, petrol as well as provided "free" higher education, daycare, access to "the arts", healthcare, and pensions just because the US spends a higher percentage of the public revenue on medicare/medicaid than the other does on healthcare?

When you provide more services, each individual service takes up a smaller percentage of the budget even if you are spending the same per capita. Really I think you break it down to what percent of the total goods and services an individual pays for are military and what isn't.

See above.

Israel is much higher. Taiwan and South Korea may be above the US, but definately everyone else who could be characterized as healthy democracies was below the US (i.e. all of western Europe), though not by as much as is normally seen.

I believe it's still a fair question to ask why the US needs such a large military, then. Of course, if the US runs around occupying other countries, it needs this level of armed forces. But that's the rub; most western democracies seem to have backed off the mindset of dominating foreign nations in order to expand one's power.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I believe it's still a fair question to ask why the US needs such a large military, then. Of course, if the US runs around occupying other countries, it needs this level of armed forces. But that's the rub; most western democracies seem to have backed off the mindset of dominating foreign nations in order to expand one's power.

Maybe the US should stop running around pretending to liberate other countries people and give them Democracy. We should work a bit more on improving OUR Democracy. Why go out in search of monsters to destroy

----Alan Dowd

http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public ... /mtpub.asp+

[Trytostaydead]

Maybe the US should stop running around pretending to liberate other countries people and give them Democracy. We should work a bit more on improving OUR Democracy. Why go out in search of monsters to destroy

----Alan Dowd

http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public ... /mtpub.asp+

To keep us in practice?

Well, from the cynical point of view, every liberated country is a new market for us which is ESSENTIAL if capitalism is to be maintained. Let's face it, we enjoy our freedoms, liberty and protection because WE CAN AFFORD IT. I'm not talking just monetarily, but because we can beat the $hit out of anyone else.

If you really want to talk about pyramid schemes, democracy/capitalism really takes the cake. No one can be equal, no country can equal. Someone needs to feed us cheap raw goods, and in return we need to sell our hi-priced finished goods elsewhere, and not just through internal markets as well. And that is the propogation of democracy. The hope that you can be better than you are now, and not at the bottom of the food chain.

I mean, is democracy really any more efficient than say the English Parliamentary system?

Also, you have to look at how democracy is implemented and its transition. Most historians, socialists, economists, etc, probably agree that democracy happens because of certain factors in a society push it that way. I mean, God forbid, there have been times in history when socities craved a totalitarian dictator because if anything it meant people can live by following X as opposed to living in constant fear of disappearing on the streets. But the US kind of blithely believes that they can instill democracy in a non-Western nation and immediately open them up to free-trade, which almost never helps that nation.. with the exception of probably Japan.. but Japan was a unique situation.

If you want to fix democracy here, you'll need another revolution. Or perhaps finding one GOOD HONEST man to be president. Kind of like Robert A. Heinlein, where the President gets dragged into office and gets time off for good behavior.

Also, it's good to hunt monsters. It's good to put an end to genocide, torture cells, etc. We are taught to value life, but oftentimes we put a mirror on it and we value AMERICAN lives. Which is a bit hypocritical of our teachings as well.