The Meanings of Words

I'm not always the best practitioner of my native language.  (That would be English or... American English, if you prefer.)  I often find myself creating new words out of thin air whenever someone cuts me off in traffic or commits some other such act.  And even in more controlled environments, I am perfectly content to use slang and, well... profanity if I believe is suits the mood of whatever I'm trying to say.  (I do my best with the punctuation and so forth though...)

Setting aside my own practices, I do take an interest in our language.  Sometimes this interest manifests itself as annoyance.  You dickheads who always write 'alot' as if it's actually a word - you annoy the hell out of me.

Sometimes, however, it's a more productive interest.  For instance - have you ever stopped to consider the meaning of the word 'amazing'?  I hadn't, until I heard a segment on NPR last week.  I mean, it's right there within the word, isn't it?  You're lost in a maze.  You can't find your way out.  Your completely flummoxed... You're 'amazed.'  But we don't restrict the word to such a meaning, do we?  Nah, we see amazing plays on the football field and we enjoy an amazing slice of pizza.  We bastardize our own language, slowly but surely, over the course of time.  Eventually the words come to mean whatever we say they mean, rather than what they were originally intended to mean.

A whole lot of people have spilled a whole lot of ink in recent days regarding a certain Texan's use of the phrase 'Ponzi scheme.'  Governor Perry seems content to stick to his guns (etymology - to continue shooting at the enemy, rather than retreat, even if one's own life might be compromised as a result) regarding this whole Social Security debate.  He says that it is, in fact, a Ponzi scheme.  The talking heads (people shown on television without the lower parts of their bodies visible) are largely convinced that he'll be unelectable as a result of his bizarre views on the subject.  But are his views bizarre?

Let's go to the world's foremost experts on the English Language.

So where's the argument? 

One might throw at me the notion that the Social Security system is not, in fact, a nonexistent enterprise.  I can throw back the fact that the "trust fund" is, in fact, a nonexistent enterprise.  And the "trust fund" is where all of us suckers have been led to believe our money is going for the last seven decades.  That's not where the money went though, is it?  Sure, there was some money being "invested" (aka - lent to the government) while the... err... pyramid was broader at the base.  Now the only way the earlier participants are getting paid is through direct transfers from the later participants.  Now that the... well... pyramid has narrowed, ole Charlie Ponzi would be running for the hills.  You see, when such a scheme is exposed, its perpetrators are generally considered to be criminals.

Which brings us full circle to the reason that Social Security, according to its defenders, is not a Ponzi scheme.  You see - they, like I, are appreciative of the true meaning of English words.  A Ponzi scheme is illegal and Social Security is not illegal.  Ipso facto - Social Security can't be a Ponzi scheme.  (I also enjoy a little Latin mixed in with my English every now and then.  But you people who constantly misspell 'ad nauseam' - you're on notice...)  Back on topic though - here's an example of this brilliantly evasive defense being offered by a well respected(?) writer from the New York Times.










See there? Not illegal, right? Therefore - not a Ponzi scheme. Governor Perry has been thoroughly debunked and Mr. Santelli has been duly chastened for his "idiotic" question. It's really that easy, apparently.

Setting all linguistics aside now - Friedman got bitch-slapped here.  When a liberal has to dodge a question and then go to the "Reagan did it" card, he has lost the argument.  When he has to resort to ad hominem  (heh, Latin) attacks on his opponent, well, make of it what you will.

Those libertarians over at Reason.com seem to agree that Perry is wrong.  Of course, 'agree' would be a misleading English word to use, wouldn't it?

One, a Ponzi scheme collects money from new investors and uses it to pay previous investors—minus a fee. But Social Security collects money from new investors, uses some of it to pay previous investors, and spends the surplus on programs for politically favored groups—minus the cost of supporting a massive bureaucracy. Over the years, trillions of dollars have been spent on these groups and bureaucrats.


Two, participation in Ponzi schemes is voluntary. Not so with Social Security. The government automatically withholds payroll taxes and “invests” them for you.


Three: When a Ponzi scheme can’t con new investors in sufficient numbers to pay the previous investors, it collapses. But when Social Security runs low on investors—also called poor working stiffs—it raises taxes. 

I guess that says it all. The entire Reason article is worth a read, and not because the word 'reason' stems from the Latin 'rationare,' meaning 'to question' (by way of the French 'raison,' of course).  That's just a handy tidbit that might serve us all well to remember. Whenever you hear about all of the "reasonable" people who see things a given way, it would help to investigate how many of them actually "question" their own dogma. Not many, I suspect. The dogma says Social Security is not a scam, so it's not a scam. Right Willard?

UPDATE (9/9/11 - 11:55am):

Looks like I'm not the only Democrat willing to tell the truth on this one...




You'll note, of course, the only defense offered by the Democrat strategist at the table. A Ponzi scheme is a criminal enterprise. Heh. Definitions...