It's simply being used as a metaphor. Two words that get you to look at X from a particular angle.
The function of metaphors has never been to imply complete equivalence, obviously. Rather, some aspects of the concept used as a metaphor are shared with aspects of the concept it's being likened to. By invoking the metaphor, those aspects are made salient.
Notions like the "Ponzi economy", I think, are to actual Ponzi schemes what Searle's Chinese Room is to Chinese speakers. Or, to put it another way, the Ponzi economy is simply a grand Ponzi scheme, minus the scheming.
Comments
It's simply being used as a metaphor. Two words that get you to look at X from a particular angle.
The function of metaphors has never been to imply complete equivalence, obviously. Rather, some aspects of the concept used as a metaphor are shared with aspects of the concept it's being likened to. By invoking the metaphor, those aspects are made salient.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=xpYZoVNzdykC&...
Notions like the "Ponzi economy", I think, are to actual Ponzi schemes what Searle's Chinese Room is to Chinese speakers. Or, to put it another way, the Ponzi economy is simply a grand Ponzi scheme, minus the scheming.
Metaphors are a Ponzi scheme.