It all goes to relative rates of growth -- contributor/contribution v. beneficiary/benefit. Samuelson formalized this in the 50s, though the old-timers (Abraham Epstein, Isaac Max Rubinow) understood it from the get-go.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Doug Henwood <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Bill Lear wrote: > >> Is there a good refutation for non-specialists of the notion that >> Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? > > It's no more so than any pension scheme. Today's retirees are paid by today's > workers. Tomorrow's retirees will be paid by tomorrow's workers. What's Ponzi > about that? > > Doug > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
