Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Paying for existing liabilities with development fees and new taxes from new developments, which will have even bigger liabilities in the future.
|
In a Ponzi scheme, the "investment" paid by new investors provides "return on investment" to prior investors. In Calgary, the inner-city communities NEVER get return on investment. Development subsidies are a scam, but it's not a Ponzi scheme. It shares traits with a Ponzi scheme in that money is taken from one set of customers to pay another set without the overall organisation having positivie ROI, but the money is going in the opposite direction. The money is flowing from the city's older customers to it's newer ones. A correct analogy would be a scheme where ROI to new investors is delivered by charging "management fees" to old investors and draining their accounts. Would that be a "reverse Ponzi"?