Views on whether Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme

可能很多人唔認同呢個具爭議性的睇法, 我亦非認定百份百identical, 技術上可能不一樣, 但社保的確同ponzi scheme in a parallel thinking.




Jim Cramer 2008年開始大力反對社保, 認為是史上最大ponzi scheme. 曾於cnbc及擇文聲討美國社保,


甚麼是Ponzi Scheme?
Ponzi schemes are a type of illegal pyramid scheme named for Charles Ponzi, who duped thousands of New England residents into investing in a postage stamp speculation scheme back in the 1920s. Ponzi thought he could take advantage of differences between U.S. and foreign currencies used to buy and sell international mail coupons.


Ponzi told investors that he could provide a 40% return in just 90 days compared with 5% for bank savings accounts. Ponzi was deluged with funds from investors, taking in $1 million during one three—hour period—and this was 1921! Though a few early investors were paid off to make the scheme look legitimate, an investigation found that Ponzi had only purchased about $30 worth of the international mail coupons.


Jim Cramer 認為 "Like Madoff’s investors, Social Security’s balance sheet is basically off the books, and Congress, playing the Madoff role, is using the Social Security fund as an ATM to fund pet projects, pay for earmarks, and cash in on boondoggles. And like Madoff, the last in will be among the first out of luck with Social Security. With more recipients and fewer contributors, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that is headed for the same fate that has leveled Madoff investors. The Social Security’s own 2007 trustee’s report says that the fund could run out of money by 2042, and maybe sooner."


“In a Ponzi scheme, investors get the returns from the money paid in by subsequent investors and eventually the whole thing falls apart. The last people to invest get hosed. In Social Security, a program I love, workers pay for the benefits of current retirees and hope someday future workers will pay for their benefits – it’s all a Ponzi scheme.”

No money being generated from the investment, only from future investors.

不過他強調政府當年不是有意製造出來欺騙國民, 因為當時人均年齡只有六十七歲而國民亦由六十五歲開始才能支取支票. 可是今非惜比, 人均壽命不斷增長, 以香港為例已超過八十歲, 所以如果現在已入不敷支, 當然箇中還涉及更多問題如官商勾結, 投資工具回報等, 比現在的mpf 所產生的問題一定更多. 


如果香港要實行, 大家有沒有足夠信心香港政府可以打破傳統管理比其他國家好 ? 香港可能大幅增加出生率去改變人口老化問題嗎? 抑或港人願意壓後提款再加富人不提取讓彩池養得大些? 如果落得像美國下場, 被迫減這減那, 大家不如認真面對, 否則恨錯難返.