[KorbenDallas]

Why should a person born today, be responsible for any debt that's not his or even his families?

In another post someone said it was ridiculous for a young Greek to call for debt deletion. I don't think its ridiculous.

I think its ridiculous that a small group of people who manipulate the media, living luxurious lives off the back of a much larger group of people, can put off their debt onto others that live near them, of money they splurged, wasted, or gave to a select few insiders, and a few scraps to the poor. Otherwise known as the government.

[Paracelsus]

First thing is that the concept of national debt is not really rightly defined as debt that any individual is ever going to have to pay directly. You can make a populace suffer horribly if you don't treat national debt with care, but national debt is probably better expressed as a broad measure of a government's creditworthiness, an assessment of the risk that a government will hyperinflate its own currency to make the debt worthless, for example Zimbabwe paying back a million dollar debt with a single million dollar banknote despite the fact the banknote's only good for toilet paper. At the end of the day, the only thing backing a fiat currency in the present day is the promise of the government that they will not devalue it - the gold standard has been gone since Nixon.

The reason the concept of national debt even exists is simply because history shows us, again and again, that when a government finds itself unable to pay for its promises out of its coffers, it eventually turns to inflating its currency - because the politicians responsible for the debt are too frightened of the consequences of dealing with the debt rationally - i.e. stopping the promises or simply outright defaulting on it. This allows the government to mostly get off scot-free from the consequences of its shitty behaviour, because inflation manifests as increased prices that don't hurt the politicians with money, and which can be blamed on businesses at large.

If you simply forgive all national debt, that does not thereby make the person with the debt any more creditworthy, any more than you'd look at a former bankrupt askance before lending them a considerable sum of money.

[KorbenDallas]

If the government, (small clique of insiders) can make people who have nothing to do with running up the debt suffer the consequences, then for all intents and purposes, individuals are paying directly.


I have a simple solution. Debt can only be private. No more public debt should be allowed.

[MMX2010]

Captain Capitalism's essay is hilarious. Hope you haven't read it before.

-----------------------------

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/20...-debt.html

To simplify my banking career, my primary job was assessing the likelihood and probability that people we lent money out to would pay us back. Of course this was a pointless task because management and bankers were paid by commission so they really didn't care about the quality of the borrower, just that the loan got approved and they got their commission. This, naturally, led to me ramming heads with management (where I would almost always lose), but on a macro-economic scale also led up to the housing bubble and subsequent crash and Great Recession.

However, in my pursuit to find genuine, real silver linings to our current economic state, it didn't dawn on me until very recently that my experiences in banking also provided the 100%

legitimate
sincere
unbiased
logical

rationale to default entirely and completely on the US national debt.

Permit me to explain.

While most of us would put the blame of our financial woes on the idiots who couldn't do 3rd grade math and borrowed way more than they could afford, it has to be pointed out that there were idiots that lent to such morons in the first place. There will ALWAYS be math impaired entitled lazy cry-babies thinking they deserve a McMansion and a luxury car. It's whether there are saner heads in the banking industry that would lend to these idiots. This is called "due diligence" and was primarily my job back in my banking days. Thus, while we certainly (and rightly) place blame on the idiots who borrowed more than they could afford, we must also place blame on the banks who were so stupid to lend to these idiots in the first place as well.

Here were have no argument from any side of any political aisle. Everybody was against the bankster bailouts. Everybody hates the banking industry and those that populate it. And nearly everybody agrees that the banks should have taken their losses, never gotten bailed out, gone belly up and died never to be seen again.

So, riddle me this, riddle me that, why do we hate the bankers so much, but love our nation's creditors to the point we still concern ourselves with paying them back?

Understand they are one and the same AND they made the exact same mistakes.

Bankers lent money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Lenders to the US government lent money to a government who couldn't afford to pay it back.

Bankers failed to do due diligence on the borrowers it was lending money to. Lenders to the US government failed to do due diligence on the borrowers it was lending money to.

Bankers created a bubble that inevitably crushed the US economy. Lenders to the US government have DEFINITELY created a bubble that will DEFINITELY crush the US economy.

If that doesn't convince you, let's view lending to the US government much in the same terms as bankers view or analyze lending to regular banking clients.

First, who are these idiots lending to?

Well, the US government or the "American people." But I think a better personification of this would be our chief representative to the world, Barack Obama.

Obama has never worked a real job in his life. He has been an academia, a spoiled brat with his grandma paying for everything, who immediately went into politics and because of his youth, looks, and race won the lottery in the democrat primary to be president.

His political platform has been to bribe voters with money that he borrows, while seeding envy and hatred against the only assets in the US that have the capacity to pay us back (entrepreneurs, hard workers, corporations, private sector, etc.)

But again, it is not so much Barack Obama US creditors are lending to, but the people who put such an idiot in office. He is merely a proxy to the caliber and character of the country as a whole, and that country seemingly has no intention of paying anybody back, let alone concerning itself with government finances.

Second, what is the money being invested in?

Understand that banks don't just "lend out money for shits and giggles." The proceeds of the loan must be invested in some kind of asset or business that generates an income. AND NOT JUST AN INCOME, but MORE INCOME THAT WHAT IS BEING CHARGED IN INTEREST. However, this is entirely a moot point because the proceeds of the loans lent to the US government do not go into ANYTHING even remotely resembling an investment.

1. 70% of government spending is income transfers, which is nothing more than bribes to the parasitic class to vote for democrats.

2. What money does make it to "education" is wasted on indoctrinating youth into socialism and not providing them the skills and jobs they need to support themselves, let alone work up the excess cash to pay back the national debt. Worse still children are so removed from labor market realities they'll blow a trillion in federal tax dollars getting masters degrees in egos and hobbies before considered a trade.

3. Health care spending is, sadly, but factual, mostly spent on people who will never work again and are just going to die soon (so again, mathematically just throwing money in a hole).

4. Wars, no matter how called for, usually are not profitable for either side. Even if the US went into the mid east "for oil," they've done a spectacularly bad job of profiting off of it.

In short, I'd rather lend to a cancer-ridden, faux 55 year old "DudeBro" "businessman" whose Beemer is leased, his house mortgaged to the hilt, and who has a trophy wife with a horse hobby farm that wants to start a bar, because at least a BAR is some kind of an investment.

Welfare bums, single moms, dying old people, tanks, and socialist indoctrination camps are NOT investments.

Third, how are we getting paid back?

You're not! Any basic financial analysis of the government's finances already tells you it is loth to run a surplus. And, once again looking at the caliber of the people in charge of the government, they have no intention of voting in fiscally conservative and astute people into office. The American people are no different than the spoiled suburbanite children and trophy wives of the beleaguered and insolvent failing "businessman" who desperately comes to the bank, begging and pleasing to be lent more money so he can keep the facade up for another 6 months.

Since repayment is not an option, banks naturally then look at the repossession of the collateral.

Fourth, what do they have for collateral?

Creditors to the US government have "the full backing and faith of the US government" for its collateral.

Translated into English?

"Nothing."

There is no collateral.

And the reason there is no collateral is because if any creditor dared tried to repossess say a piece of land or some islands or some other form of US assets a la "South Beach Tow" the full might and strength of the US military would come crushing down on it.

In other words, simplifying it a lot, people who lent money to the US government were just as spectacularly stupid and naive and negligent in their lack of due diligence that they fully deserve the US government to default on it and never pay them back.

The Chinese and foreign creditors? You were just as dumb lending money to an Obama America as you were building all those ghost towns and ghost malls that populate your landscape.

Pension funds, mutual funds and 401k plans? You were just as dumb lending money to Americans as you were actually believing social security was a great way to retire.

And even you parents who thought "teaching your little children about interest" by having them invest in a Series EE bond, are going to instead teach them a much more advanced economic lesson on government bond defaults.

My simple economic take on this is why not make it easy? Simply acknowledge the emperor has no clothes, default on it now and be done with this once and for all. Creditors to the US government will get what their ignorance deserves, and we'll all be free of the national debt...that is until you idiot creditors lend this country of spoiled, entitled brats more money and start the whole cycle over again.

[speakeasy]

(01-26-2015 01:35 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

Why should a person born today, be responsible for any debt that's not his or even his families?

In another post someone said it was ridiculous for a young Greek to call for debt deletion. I don't think its ridiculous.

I think its ridiculous that a small group of people who manipulate the media, living luxurious lives off the back of a much larger group of people, can put off their debt onto others that live near them, of money they splurged, wasted, or gave to a select few insiders, and a few scraps to the poor. Otherwise known as the government.

Under your system, it would make it impossible to find creditors. Governments just like businesses need access to lines of credit. And how would such a plan be feasible? Do you draw some cut-off point and say anyone born after 1980 has to pay no taxes? Would you lend money to a nation with such a tax structure?

[turkishcandy]

When you are granted citizenship, either by birth or afterwards, it bestows on both you and the government some rights and responsibilities. You have to pay taxes, the government has to provide services. You have constitutional rights, and the government can bind you to your legal responsibilities.

Being a Greek citizen now comes with a burden to pay more taxes to pay the national debt. That's the only way you can demand your constitutional rights, take little trips to Greek islands, enjoy the climate and Greek food and shit. Even the tourists have to pay for the Greek debt by paying taxed prices when they come visit Greece.

My point is, it's pretty damn stupid for a young Greek to simply say ''I can't be born with debt, delete my debt'' and then still feel entitled to the rights that being a Greek and a EU citizen gives him. If he doesn't like the terms, he can simply move elsewhere, Eurozone is open to him. Greeks are collectively responsible for their debt, and you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time. If he wants blame someone, it's not the debt collectors, it's his politicians who are to blame for the debt being so big.

The Republic of Turkey paid Ottoman Empire's debt for decades. Should Turkish citizens have said ''Fuck this, not my debt not my problem''? They were responsible for a huge amount of debt that was decided by the Western states simply by being born in the same territory that the original owner of the debt, Ottomans, once occupied.

[TheWastelander]

(01-26-2015 02:15 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

My point is, it's pretty damn stupid for a young Greek to simply say ''I can't be born with debt, delete my debt'' and then still feel entitled to the rights that being a Greek and a EU citizen gives him. If he doesn't like the terms, he can simply move elsewhere, Eurozone is open to him. Greeks are collectively responsible for their debt, and you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time. If he wants blame someone, it's not the debt collectors, it's his politicians who are to blame for the debt being so big.

And who elected those politicians? The people did.

This is the fatal flaw of democracies with universal suffrage.

I honestly think we're going to see this throughout the West eventually.

[KorbenDallas]

Under my system the government would simply spend less than it took in. If it wanted to spend more it would have to tax right away. Russia has a surplus right now, or a very small amount of debt, and their not all starving and they cant still travel.

[Glaucon]

Government should be prohibited from borrowing money and only print what they need for their budget. That is it – nothing more. The budget should be capped at 5% of GDP under penalty of life-imprisonment or death – their choice.

I am so fucking tired politicians never get sentenced no matter what they do.

[Paracelsus]

Remember, though, the old quote misattributed to Alexander Tytler: a democracy can only persist until the population figures out it can vote itself increasingly greater and greater benefits from the public purse. It is true that politicians feather their own nests, but Greece is a pretty strong definition of public will in action.

Assuming you take the view that the Greek voters understand how government debt actually works (okay, that's a big assumption, but still) then what you are seeing on this election is a direct expression of the Greek people: "We don't want to pay back any money that was loaned to us unless it is repaid on our terms." If you translated this sort of assertion to a bank loaning money to an individual, this would be met with a chuckle and the immediate departure of the bank for the nearest court to foreclose on the mortgage.

I am not doubting that politicians are less trustworthy than your average prostitute (the prostitute stops fucking you when you're dead) but at the same time we get the politicians we deserve. Free money -- which is given out in many forms by Western democracies in the present day -- is a very difficult habit to kick, but when hyperinflation hits you generally have no choice but to kick the habit.

[CJ_W]

(01-26-2015 01:35 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

Why should a person born today, be responsible for any debt that's not his or even his families?

In another post someone said it was ridiculous for a young Greek to call for debt deletion. I don't think its ridiculous.

I think its ridiculous that a small group of people who manipulate the media, living luxurious lives off the back of a much larger group of people, can put off their debt onto others that live near them, of money they splurged, wasted, or gave to a select few insiders, and a few scraps to the poor. Otherwise known as the government.

In the U.S. most of the National debt is in the form of social security, and medicaid (health care for elderly retirees)not to foreign countries like some people believe. so yeah, to "Forgive" all that debt, basically means ending the retirements of millions of elderly people.

This would not go well.

[Foolsgo1d]

(01-26-2015 01:54 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

First thing is that the concept of national debt is not really rightly defined as debt that any individual is ever going to have to pay directly. You can make a populace suffer horribly if you don't treat national debt with care, but national debt is probably better expressed as a broad measure of a government's creditworthiness, an assessment of the risk that a government will hyperinflate its own currency to make the debt worthless, for example Zimbabwe paying back a million dollar debt with a single million dollar banknote despite the fact the banknote's only good for toilet paper. At the end of the day, the only thing backing a fiat currency in the present day is the promise of the government that they will not devalue it - the gold standard has been gone since Nixon.

That happened with Germany. Twice.

Russia is now undergoing an economic downturn with the slaughter of its ability to manage itself yet to come.

I would think the elites would have learned by now how much history repeats itself.

[kosko]

The Govt sets the valadity of credit in the first place. No Government "needs" debt. It crates validity of money, it cab create debt as it wants. Its morals and restraint either keep it in line or burn it alive.

There is no logic to a Govt being forced to take on marker compound debt to fund itself. How can you take in $ compound debt that yiy essentially give the power to in first place? Its loony land.

[Samseau]

(01-26-2015 02:15 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

When you are granted citizenship, either by birth or afterwards, it bestows on both you and the government some rights and responsibilities. You have to pay taxes, the government has to provide services. You have constitutional rights, and the government can bind you to your legal responsibilities.

Being a Greek citizen now comes with a burden to pay more taxes to pay the national debt. That's the only way you can demand your constitutional rights, take little trips to Greek islands, enjoy the climate and Greek food and shit. Even the tourists have to pay for the Greek debt by paying taxed prices when they come visit Greece.

My point is, it's pretty damn stupid for a young Greek to simply say ''I can't be born with debt, delete my debt'' and then still feel entitled to the rights that being a Greek and a EU citizen gives him. If he doesn't like the terms, he can simply move elsewhere, Eurozone is open to him. Greeks are collectively responsible for their debt, and you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time. If he wants blame someone, it's not the debt collectors, it's his politicians who are to blame for the debt being so big.

The Republic of Turkey paid Ottoman Empire's debt for decades. Should Turkish citizens have said ''Fuck this, not my debt not my problem''? They were responsible for a huge amount of debt that was decided by the Western states simply by being born in the same territory that the original owner of the debt, Ottomans, once occupied.

This is Rousseau's "Social Contract" argument, and even Rousseau debunked his own argument after stating what a Social Contract looks like. He plainly stated that only a true democracy of a small state could ever hope to have a fair social contract, and that representative governments are unable to fairly represent its citizens, let alone a King. This is because once the representatives are elected, they are free to rule as tyrants until the next election.

If citizens do not have a fair Social Contract, then there is no obligation to obey it, since a Social Contract's validity can only come from the General Will of the people. Therefore the only options at establishing a new society is either go somewhere fresh and make a new government, as Americans did, or tear the old one down, as the French did when they beheaded their king.

So you may think by stating the Social Contract, TurkishCandy, you've logically proved that people must accept their present circumstances, but in actuality you don't understand the import of the argument which really calls for a bloodstained revolution (or a colonization of outer space, or deep sea).

[Paracelsus]

(01-26-2015 05:31 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 01:54 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

First thing is that the concept of national debt is not really rightly defined as debt that any individual is ever going to have to pay directly. You can make a populace suffer horribly if you don't treat national debt with care, but national debt is probably better expressed as a broad measure of a government's creditworthiness, an assessment of the risk that a government will hyperinflate its own currency to make the debt worthless, for example Zimbabwe paying back a million dollar debt with a single million dollar banknote despite the fact the banknote's only good for toilet paper. At the end of the day, the only thing backing a fiat currency in the present day is the promise of the government that they will not devalue it - the gold standard has been gone since Nixon.

That happened with Germany. Twice.

Russia is now undergoing an economic downturn with the slaughter of its ability to manage itself yet to come.

I would think the elites would have learned by now how much history repeats itself.

If by elites we're talking about seriously rich people who are not stupid about where they put their money and about the options they can give themselves -- as opposed to governments -- then they have learned their lesson, to great effect. Because the main thing money gives you is options: in this case, the option to quit the shitty currency you're in and find one that's a better storer of value at least for the moment. Hyperinflationary episodes tend to last less than 3 years, and more commonly 18 months, for that very reason - hyperinflation ultimately is not sustainable.

I would suspect for this very reason forex transactions are largely unregulated - mainly because there's no conceivable way to enforce any such regulation across an entire planet, but also because foreign exchanges are about as close as you might get to a true free market on the face of the earth. Unregulated, yes, and therefore no place to go if you're a beginner. But conceptually they are also important checks on governmental power, because if a government allows trading in more than one currency in its territory and then tries to inflat its own fiat currency - trade immediately and rationally shifts to the currency that reflects more closely the true value. This is why in the Depression FDR ordered gold seizures and tried to shame hoarders who were stockpiling small consumer goods - because these were alternative, or at least more trusted, stores of value than the shitty dollars he had at the time.

Politicians, though, really can't think past the next election. All that matters is holding onto power, which in democracies at least requires popularity. And popularity will generally involve
(a) saying yes to the screaming hordes far more than saying no
(b) saying yes while in fact saying no or
( c ) saying no but effectively blaming the no on a small group in society - typically, businesses or those who orient their affairs to get around the government's tactics.

[turkishcandy]

(01-26-2015 07:02 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 02:15 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

When you are granted citizenship, either by birth or afterwards, it bestows on both you and the government some rights and responsibilities. You have to pay taxes, the government has to provide services. You have constitutional rights, and the government can bind you to your legal responsibilities.

Being a Greek citizen now comes with a burden to pay more taxes to pay the national debt. That's the only way you can demand your constitutional rights, take little trips to Greek islands, enjoy the climate and Greek food and shit. Even the tourists have to pay for the Greek debt by paying taxed prices when they come visit Greece.

My point is, it's pretty damn stupid for a young Greek to simply say ''I can't be born with debt, delete my debt'' and then still feel entitled to the rights that being a Greek and a EU citizen gives him. If he doesn't like the terms, he can simply move elsewhere, Eurozone is open to him. Greeks are collectively responsible for their debt, and you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time. If he wants blame someone, it's not the debt collectors, it's his politicians who are to blame for the debt being so big.

The Republic of Turkey paid Ottoman Empire's debt for decades. Should Turkish citizens have said ''Fuck this, not my debt not my problem''? They were responsible for a huge amount of debt that was decided by the Western states simply by being born in the same territory that the original owner of the debt, Ottomans, once occupied.

This is Rousseau's "Social Contract" argument, and even Rousseau debunked his own argument after stating what a Social Contract looks like. He plainly stated that only a true democracy of a small state could ever hope to have a fair social contract, and that representative governments are unable to fairly represent its citizens, let alone a King. This is because once the representatives are elected, they are free to rule as tyrants until the next election.

If citizens do not have a fair Social Contract, then there is no obligation to obey it, since a Social Contract's validity can only come from the General Will of the people. Therefore the only options at establishing a new society is either go somewhere fresh and make a new government, as Americans did, or tear the old one down, as the French did when they beheaded their king.

So you may think by stating the Social Contract, TurkishCandy, you've logically proved that people must accept their present circumstances, but in actuality you don't understand the import of the argument which really calls for a bloodstained revolution (or a colonization of outer space, or deep sea).

In other words, every nation should have the right to deny their debt. That's what you are saying? And you think there won't be chaos? USA has the biggest debt in the world. What would happen if tomorrow every US citizen came together and denied their government's debt?

I'm not sure you understand how economy works. In today's economy, the currency is not money. It is TRUST. If Greece even denies only 1 dollar of its debt, all investments and loans into Greece will immediately stop, since there won't be anymore trust, meaning credibility. If Greece somehow cancels an x amount of debt, even if it's mutual, it's gonna cost Greece 100x in the long term.

So even if what you are saying is morally right, it's pragmatically wrong.

[It_is_my_time]

(01-26-2015 02:26 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

Under my system the government would simply spend less than it took in. If it wanted to spend more it would have to tax right away. Russia has a surplus right now, or a very small amount of debt, and their not all starving and they cant still travel.

Then you couldn't afford all the big brother govt. programs women and weaker men want. How can women replace the need of a man in their lives.

And women are over 50% of the voter base, and politicians must pander to them.

Your concept is much what the founding fathers envisioned, but unfortunately women started to vote and it all went to deficit spending to pay for the programs they demand so they can feel safe 100% of the time.

[Hades]

In my cynical view on things, with democracy you should make the peons and underlings pay their share of national debt (and reap in government surpluses), otherwise they'll vote in politicians who have no fucking sense with money whatsoever.

[TheWastelander]

Democracy leads to vote buying and decline. There's just no good way to avoid it. It's an easily infiltrated, exploitable system of government.

[Samseau]

(01-26-2015 08:26 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 07:02 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 02:15 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

When you are granted citizenship, either by birth or afterwards, it bestows on both you and the government some rights and responsibilities. You have to pay taxes, the government has to provide services. You have constitutional rights, and the government can bind you to your legal responsibilities.

Being a Greek citizen now comes with a burden to pay more taxes to pay the national debt. That's the only way you can demand your constitutional rights, take little trips to Greek islands, enjoy the climate and Greek food and shit. Even the tourists have to pay for the Greek debt by paying taxed prices when they come visit Greece.

My point is, it's pretty damn stupid for a young Greek to simply say ''I can't be born with debt, delete my debt'' and then still feel entitled to the rights that being a Greek and a EU citizen gives him. If he doesn't like the terms, he can simply move elsewhere, Eurozone is open to him. Greeks are collectively responsible for their debt, and you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time. If he wants blame someone, it's not the debt collectors, it's his politicians who are to blame for the debt being so big.

The Republic of Turkey paid Ottoman Empire's debt for decades. Should Turkish citizens have said ''Fuck this, not my debt not my problem''? They were responsible for a huge amount of debt that was decided by the Western states simply by being born in the same territory that the original owner of the debt, Ottomans, once occupied.

This is Rousseau's "Social Contract" argument, and even Rousseau debunked his own argument after stating what a Social Contract looks like. He plainly stated that only a true democracy of a small state could ever hope to have a fair social contract, and that representative governments are unable to fairly represent its citizens, let alone a King. This is because once the representatives are elected, they are free to rule as tyrants until the next election.

If citizens do not have a fair Social Contract, then there is no obligation to obey it, since a Social Contract's validity can only come from the General Will of the people. Therefore the only options at establishing a new society is either go somewhere fresh and make a new government, as Americans did, or tear the old one down, as the French did when they beheaded their king.

So you may think by stating the Social Contract, TurkishCandy, you've logically proved that people must accept their present circumstances, but in actuality you don't understand the import of the argument which really calls for a bloodstained revolution (or a colonization of outer space, or deep sea).

In other words, every nation should have the right to deny their debt. That's what you are saying? And you think there won't be chaos? USA has the biggest debt in the world. What would happen if tomorrow every US citizen came together and denied their government's debt?

I'm not sure you understand how economy works. In today's economy, the currency is not money. It is TRUST. If Greece even denies only 1 dollar of its debt, all investments and loans into Greece will immediately stop, since there won't be anymore trust, meaning credibility. If Greece somehow cancels an x amount of debt, even if it's mutual, it's gonna cost Greece 100x in the long term.

So even if what you are saying is morally right, it's pragmatically wrong.

"In other words, every nation should have the right to deny their debt."

Try again:

In other words, every person should have the right to deny someone else's debt. The national debt does not belong to me or you. None of us had any choice in the matter.

[Grit]

Funny how this discussion is worded. Thomas Jefferson has some sage advice.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/...h2s23.html

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
6 Sept. 1789 Papers 15:392--97

"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. the 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it's own existence."

"Individuals are parts only of a society, subject to the laws of the whole. These laws may appropriate the portion of land occupied by a decedent to his creditor rather than to any other, or to his child on condition he satisfies the creditor. But when a whole generation, that is, the whole society dies, as in the case we have supposed, and another generation or society succeeds, this forms a whole, and there is no superior who can give their territory to a third society, who may have lent money to their predecessors beyond their faculties of paying."

In my opinion we haven't yet reached the point of change that Jefferson talks about in this last line because the current generation is still able to benefit from the fruits of the Boomer generation.

The Boomers have their own nest eggs in the form of Medicare, SS, etc. to the point that they feel awkward not paying for their 35 year old kids. All their bills are covered. As long as mommy and daddy are still paying for graduate degrees, shit ain't going to change.

[Paracelsus]

(01-26-2015 11:07 PM)Grit Wrote:  

Funny how this discussion is worded. Thomas Jefferson has some sage advice.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/...h2s23.html

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
6 Sept. 1789 Papers 15:392--97

"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. the 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it's own existence."

"Individuals are parts only of a society, subject to the laws of the whole. These laws may appropriate the portion of land occupied by a decedent to his creditor rather than to any other, or to his child on condition he satisfies the creditor. But when a whole generation, that is, the whole society dies, as in the case we have supposed, and another generation or society succeeds, this forms a whole, and there is no superior who can give their territory to a third society, who may have lent money to their predecessors beyond their faculties of paying."

In my opinion we haven't yet reached the point of change that Jefferson talks about in this last line because the current generation is still able to benefit from the fruits of the Boomer generation.

The Boomers have their own nest eggs in the form of Medicare, SS, etc. to the point that they feel awkward not paying for their 35 year old kids. All their bills are covered. As long as mommy and daddy are still paying for graduate degrees, shit ain't going to change.

Possibly a better concept around this discussion is the idea of odious debt. Ecuador pulled it off in 2008, although no legal theory really means jack without considering the consequences, unintended and otherwise, accruing from a decision to raise the middle finger to people who have given you large sums of money by way of buying your bonds.

[N°6]

According to the international charity Oxfam, in 2016 1% of the world will own more wealth than the 99% of the world.

This is not only obscene, it is Satanic. I am not using these words lightly.

How does this come about? The central bank - national debt system whereby central banks create money as credit out of nothing and lend it at usury to sovereign governments. These governments use the energy, labour and vitality of their citizen's work as collateral.

It really is something out of the Matrix - this is another Red Pill that men need to take.

[It_is_my_time]

(01-27-2015 01:25 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

According to the international charity Oxfam, in 2016 1% of the world will own more wealth than the 99% of the world.

This is not only obscene, it is Satanic. I am not using these words lightly.

How does this come about? The central bank - national debt system whereby central banks create money as credit out of nothing and lend it at usury to sovereign governments. These governments use the energy, labour and vitality of their citizen's work as collateral.

It really is something out of the Matrix - this is another Red Pill that men need to take.

That is why I would list the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 as maybe the most self destructive law/the beginning of the end for the USA.

This law virtually gave the country back over to the wealthy elites, after thousands of men died fighting for it to be free from the elites.

[turkishcandy]

(01-26-2015 10:56 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Try again:

In other words, every person should have the right to deny someone else's debt. The national debt does not belong to me or you. None of us had any choice in the matter.

Are we talking what should happen in an ''ideal world'' or in our world? In our world, it doesn't matter how much money you owe, what matters is your ability to pay your debt. Deleting debts is a stupid, stupid, stupid idea. No sane person will lend or invest another cent to Greece. Never mind the foreign investors, all Greek bankers will stop lending money to government, selling things to government, doing any business transactions with the government. It will be nearly impossible to bid on a government contract anymore, since your chances of getting paid will be up to the impulses of Greek citizens. The only way out for Greece will be communism.

In terms of an ideal world, a Greek fully prides himself on the achievements of the Greek nation in the past. He travels across Europe due to the achievement of the past Greek government that got Greece into EU. He enjoys imported goods, government services, infrastructure, roads, hospitals, schools, public utilities and basically all the aspects of a first world country due to the achievements of the past governments. It only makes sense that he is held responsible ALSO for the debts of the past governments. It is not ''someone else's debt'' as you put it. It's collectively your debt. Let me give an example:

You are an inheritor to your father's wealth. Your father dies. He leaves 1 million euros worth of real estate and 500K debt behind. Your choices are, you can either inherit it all including the debt, or you can reject it all (which is how it works in heritage law). But you think you are entitled only to the real estate part, and that you should not be held responsible for your father's debt. You only wanna take the million euros and get away, leave the debt behind.

You= Greek citizen
Your father= Greece
Real estate= Everything Greece has to offer to its citizens, which is more than what most countries in the world have to offer
Debt= Greece's debt

Talk about the sense of self entitlement in Greeks... It's astonishing...