(see the Contact Us page)
_______________________________________
09/09/2011
Is
Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?
There is a lot of political rhetoric of
whether social security is or is not a Ponzi scheme. It is as if the emperor
has no clothes, but no one is willing to say so for fear of imperial execution.
If it is a Ponzi scheme, why should we not acknowledge it unless we, those of
us who are closer to retirement, are too vested to give up our “entitlement”?
What is a Ponzi scheme?
According
to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) who is charged with prosecuting
such things, “a Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment
of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new
investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to
invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or
no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to
make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal
expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity.”
The
social security “fraudsters” assure an increasing flow of money by legally
requiring most U.S. workers and the self-employed people (there are a few
political exemptions, like Congress, federal employees, railroad workers,
Amish, etc.) to pay the FICA
contribution. To be accurate, the federal government has at times called the
FICA payment a tax and sometimes an insurance premium depending upon the case. Like
a Ponzi scheme, social security is very popular among the earlier investors
(current retirees) who receive benefits much in excess of what they contributed
or a similar private investment could have made on average.
Why do Ponzi schemes collapse?
With
little or no legitimate earnings, private Ponzi schemes require a increasing
flow of money from new participants to continue distribute to earlier
participants to perpetuate the allusion of the scam. Private Ponzi schemes tend
to collapse when it becomes too difficult to recruit an expanding pyramid of
new investors (participants) and when a number of participants (retirees) begin
cashing out or begin to suspect the scam.
Proponents
say that Social Security is different because it has enough money (including
current and future contributors who are forced to participate) to payout for
another 15 years or so. Even then, they
say, all that needs to be done is raising the contribution (by making more
income subject to the tax) and raising the cash out age. Yep, social security
is a Ponzi scheme clearly. In essence, a
Ponzi scheme is not a scam unless it collapses.
The
social security Ponzi scheme is just currently legal. It is just a
compassionate, giant transfer of wealth from the productive generation to an older
unproductive, but voting, older one. Unfortunately, declining birth rates and
the aging Baby Boom generation means the forced burden falls on fewer and fewer
productive workers.
How did Ponzi schemes get their name?
The
schemes are named after Charles Ponzi, who duped thousands of New England
residents into investing in a postage stamp speculation scheme back in the
1920s. At a time when the annual interest rate for bank accounts was five
percent, Ponzi promised investors that he could provide a 50% return in just 90
days. Ponzi initially bought a small number of international mail coupons in
support of his scheme, but quickly switched to using incoming funds to pay off
earlier investors. Charles Ponzi was convicted of fraud and sent to prison.
It
is unlikely that current or past administrators and trustees of Social Security
will face the same sentence as Charles Ponzi. After all, we who are worried
most will soon age and reap our grand reward. We got ours, let future
generations bite the bullet.
__________________________________
An you thought having a car wreck is bad for your auto insurance!
From the USDA-Risk Management Agency website:
Q: Will there be significant rate increases for the 2012 crop year because of the flooding in 2011?
A: In general, premium rates reflect historical experience over an extended period of time and any losses from the 2011 crop year will not likely be reflected in any premium rate adjustments until the 2013 crop year or later. The amount of any loss within the county will be considered in the context of historical losses over the long term, often 20 to 30 years or longer, which generally reduces the premium rate impacts of any one year. However, land that was flooded in 2011 due to the breaching or breaking of a levee will likely be considered high-risk land with potential premium rate increases for the 2012 crop year until the levee is repaired and the land is brought back to its former level of productivity.
______________________________
Make those last 40 planted acres (actually two 20s) of corn or soybeans count!
by Steve Griffin
This has been a difficult planting season for many, particularly in the eastern Cornbelt and the Northern Plains. The final planting date (for full coverage) has arrived in some areas or will arrive very soon in others. “For those farmers who chose the enterprise unit (EU) discount, it is very important that at least 20 acres are planted in two different sections (i.e., in tracts eligible for optional units) in order to preserve the enterprise unit discount,” recommends Steve Griffin, a West Des Moines-based crop insurance consultant. “If you do not have planted acres in two separate sections, your enterprise discount will be disqualified and your crop insurance premium will approximately double.” advises Griffin.
In order to qualify for the enterprise unit, two or more “optional” units of at lease 20 acres for each crop must be pooled together. Prevented planting acres do not meet this “planted” requirement. "Some farmers might be wise to late-plant enough acres of corn in qualifying locations in order to keep the keep the discount, which may be worth thousands of dollars to them in the fall," Griffin concludes.
__________________________________
IN MY OPINION:
Lucky is Better than Smart, but you can't count on always being Lucky
If you could choose to be lucky or smart, lucky is always the best choice. Being smart does not guarantee success. But, being smart does improve the odds that may seem to be against you.
People who are lucky can fall into the trap of thinking they are smart. One of my least rewarded jobs was telling senior managers of a crop insurance company that they had been lucky, not smart, in their previous successes. They wanted to stay the course with even bigger bets. The luck soon ran its course and no one was left to reward the "I told you so." including me.
But good odds aren't the only criteria. You have to be able to stay in the game long enough for the odds to work in your favor. That means you can only make bets you can survive the worst possible outcome (not the average). Russian roulette can be a very profitable game, if you survive that one bad outcome. Had I been a better teacher of that principle, a great company with wonderful people would not have crashed and burned.
Aggiexpert consultants provide expertise in negotiating the ways and means of managing the risks of production agriculture--either on the farm or beyond the farm gate. We can also diagnose what went wrong when the outcome of these strategies fail or project what can happen both good and bad.
Years of experience, education, and hands-on application make us a valuable partner in evaluating whatever problem you may have or whatever challenge you have to master.
Initial consultations are free. Call us.
_______________________