In a recent Joe Rogan experience Podcast, Elon Musk decided it would be "clever" to present his reasoning behind the idea of getting rid of social security. The public's reactions was precisely as you would expect.
History be damned
I'm waiting for a sycophant to make this argument, and I expect it as soon as today, since X is being filled with comments attacking Musk.
Roosevelt, a known left wing operative who hated capitalism and wanted to bring forth communism to America, came up with this devilish idea.
The truth, of course, could not be further from such an idiotic statement.
This landmark legislation was a response to the widespread economic hardship caused by the Great Depression, which began in 1929. During that time, millions of Americans lost their jobs, savings, and homes, leaving many—especially the elderly—without a safety net. The Social Security Act aimed to address these issues by establishing a system of social insurance.
Before safety nets
Life in the modern world was not very different from the poorest of countries. Most people were poor. Most people would not live too long, because right after losing their ability to work, they would lose everything as a consequence.
Musk complains about people living for too long, as if it's a horrible thing. What is the implied solution he proposes? Think about it, because I doubt he thought about it himself.
We need more people to die younger? Is that what we are to take away from his "big brain ideas"?
More children
I said before, and I guess it warrants repeating. His persistence on America needing more children is fueled by this very idea that the only way for the Western experiment to continue, is to feed more people to what he also calls the Ponzi.
But, for the sake of clarity, because we ought to operate with honesty let's lay this out as bullet points.
- Entitlement programs are a Ponzi
- People are living too long
- We need more babies to feed the Ponzi
Assuming I can put on some sort of Elon cap, which I truly can't, I'm left with an unsolvable dilemma.
Why would we need to feed the Ponzi, if the Ponzi is wrong?
I'm sure he's never figured this one out either, but kicking the can down the road is just fine.
I'm left with one conclusion here...
Logic be damned
Elon has not thought this through, and doesn't care enough about the idea being cogent. He just want to pay less taxes (he already avoid paying most years, and gets insane subsidies), and can't think of another way to keep even more, then destroying the current system.
Solution: Blow shit up.
MenO
As someone who's been talking about for years how SS is a Ponzi it's at least a little nice to see the idea get more attention. Yes people are living too long and not enough slaves are being born to sustain the Ponzi. That's why it's going to destroy itself no matter what. That's what all Ponzinomics do: implode.
And yet we can't get rid of the Ponzi because the old farts in charge of the system are the ones benefiting from it. I 100% guarantee you that people our age are not going to get SS checks. We are forced to pay into a debt-based system that mathematically can not work or fulfil the promise it's made. It was even stated when the program started that it was a temporary measure because of how unsustainable it was known to be.
Of course I'm not a huge Elon Musk fan but he gets a lot of blind hate that's hard to separate from real grievances.
Spoken like someone young enough not to have any degenerative diseases.
I strongly disagree, and can provide sources of means to prevent that destruction, which consist of the excessive fortunes of the particularly acquisitive investors in corporations that have committed innumerable crimes of bribery and larcenous thefts to accumulate such fortunes on the backs of the people that have produced the wealth those investors have monetized.
Just for demonstration purposes, I'll start a list. Stop me when I get to someone you reckon hasn't somehow stolen by fraud or other criminal mechanism a significant portion of their fortune, or inherited it from someone that did.
Musk, Thiel, Trump, Soros, Gates, Ellison, then the Rockefeller, Rothschild, Morgan, Dupont, Carnegie, Jay, Bronfman and etc. fortunes. It's a short list because I'm not spending any time on it, but a few $B's here, a few $B's there, starts to add up to real money, particularly when there's no doubt some fraud to trim from SS, if Ol' Muskie hasn't already trimmed that fat by ending payments to double centenarians.
As an old fart that has been physically disabled since injury to my back in the 90s, and that to this day does not seek nor receive any benefit from the Social Security system that would easily provide such benefits if I did seek them, I assure you there are folks that continue to not only pay their own way but to pay into that 'Ponzi' instead of draw it down.
It's not a Ponzi, which is a criminal enterprise intended to defraud. The retirement system was intended to be improved as it was known advancing understanding would enable, and the rapid reduction in family size was not a predicted, nor predictable, metric when SS was created. It has been a real metric that has impacted SS, however, and does require just adjustment with the better understanding of economics available today. It's just too bad that political understanding hasn't advanced commensurately, nor has the arrogance of youth been tempered by claimed advances in psychological sciences, which are pretty much so degraded by politics as to be military rather than medical science today.
A word to the wise. Old age and treachery will defeat youth and enthusiasm every time, and nothing has changed regarding that aphorism since it was stated, whenever and by whoever first said it. Good faith covers a multiplicity of sins, and when you find yourself old enough to consider this topic to directly affect your survival, let's hope you have successfully approached it with nominal good faith before then to merit such grace as will - or won't - be available to you then.
I find it highly alarming that these words keep getting taken out of context like some kind of Gotcha! Yes, in order to sustain the scam that is modern economics we must continue perpetual cancerous growth of the species. This is not just a social security thing. It's the entire debt based system we live in. Nobody is claiming we need to strive to maintain the scam... except those who do it unknowingly or in bad faith. That's a strawman argument.
Social security is a forced system of debt that steals from the population just like any other tax. The first people that got benefits didn't have to pay into the system and the last people to pay will not get benefits. It's a scam by definition, but perhaps it is more accurate to classify it as racketeering or protection money or some other crime.
Your argument that we can somehow bail out this broken system by stemming corruption elsewhere is irrelevant sentiment. Your solution here of "tax the rich" was not on my bingo card. Social Security is one of the most blatant examples of badly articulated socialism there is. No working citizen should have to pay into this dogshit program. If SS has merit it should just be "UBI for old people". The tax itself is completely unjustifiable. Truly shocking that you're going all Bernie Bro on me right now.
Oh friend, you are not totally wrong (in my view at least), you bring up important realities of the system. But, I think I'm going to take the time (later, cuz i have a hangover) to write a good reply to you. Maybe even making it a post, because as you know the subject is very complex (at least for me).
But again, I'll grant you your points, more so the fact that me disliking Elon makes me react almost always in rejection.
Stealing from social security is a recurring topic, right? In Brazil, they stole from social security during the Collor government.
The worst part is that, despite having done this in Brazil before, they're gradually setting things up to do it again, reporting on news channels how retirement is the largest, if not one of the largest, expenses of the government.
workers are forced to contribute part of their salary to their retirement, only to receive a smaller amount than what they contributed... and even so, politicians want to stop paying retirement. Pure theft.
Just like Musk. Politics aligned with the interests of billionaires' agenda.
huh. And just what more important purpose can government be claimed to have than the felicity of the civil society governed? It is certainly appropriate that the majority of expenses of government be to provide for that felicity of the people it is intended to serve.
I'd point that out to anyone that finds that some kind of a valid argument against that being an acceptable situation.
Oh brother, in Ecuador a president completely emptied the coffers of the social security department, claiming to need it for projects that would grow the country's GDP.
Correa, very much aligned with Lula, literally nuked a basic safety net to keep the party going (he was in power 10 years). I'm well aware of how these politicians "make their money" down here.
When you say "Correa is aligned with Lula", you're implying it's likely that Lula walks the same path. Is that really what you mean? If so, on what basis?
O presidente do Equador, Rafael Correa, foi e é considerado parte do movimento político de esquerda que dominou a política sul-americana por mais de uma década. Isso não significa que sejam exatamente iguais, já que é fácil pesquisar o fato de que tinham suas diferenças, mas sim estabelecer uma afinidade ideológica.
Uma frase constante usada em campanhas: Socialismo para o século XXI.
I largely agree with you here, because moving fast and breaking things is fine in rocket science, or engineering generally, but not when it comes to politics and people. The things you break aren't things in politics, but lives and people that will suffer to death when you break them. Such policy isn't tolerable when it comes to people.
I think what he means by Ponzi is just that the rapid reduction in family size that unpredictably followed greater prosperity has created a top heavy burden for the system, that wasn't provided flexibility to adapt to changing population dynamics and increasingly burdens working people today via the mechanisms of taxation that were expected to suffice because family sizes weren't expected to crash. However, it's a poor choice of words because it implies criminality, which is an unfair and prejudicial insinuation that has further implications, none of which are good when considered from the perspective of an engineer trapped in that perspective.
For myself, I intend to die with a hammer in my hand, and have approached the expected age of expiration that has been applicable since deep into prehistory. I have no particular claim to be an essential person, nor vast wealth to throw at extending my persistence beyond my utility. Having seen folks that have lived decades beyond their utility, I neither find such prospect particularly appealing, nor worthy of undertaking anything I could expect to provide such wealth, as getting rich quick seems to usually require killing a lot of people to take their stuff, which I am temperamentally incapable of.
Hopefully Musk isn't considered remotely qualified to propose solutions to the present economic realities of corporatist power opposing the necessary humanitarian policies necessary to resolve the currenct dilemma, and that our kids aren't baffled by bullshit that causes them to disregard our societal, familial, and personal affection and love for one another that are the bonds society is connected by, and cause it to be sacred beyond any other system, mechanism, or mere institution that exists.
Thanks!
I also intend to never retire, but as with you, I'm attempting to operate in reality. A basic safety net is not only an act of humane kindness, it's also how you prevent the whole system from collapsing.
That was a long conversation with a lot of opinions flying around 🤣. People get real passionate about Social Security, taxes and the rich. Musk talking about cutting it obviously stirred things up for everyone
old age comes for us all... the white on my beard announces it
Ms Musk is deranged (I assume we don't respect pronouns any more). Like a lot of his type he doesn't seem to know what communism or a Ponzi actually are. Can't he just bugger off to Mars and run his empire there?
I spat out my drink when I read Ms Musk...