It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Tallima: It's our debt, so we are. Even if we don't want it. Even if we're at the polls. It is our debt and we are and will be enslaved by it.
Oh yeah? I didn't vote for Bush (both times), so speak for yourself. We went from no debt to a metric fuck-ton of debt during his administration.
avatar
Tallima: It's our debt, so we are. Even if we don't want it. Even if we're at the polls. It is our debt and we are and will be enslaved by it.
avatar
mistermumbles: Oh yeah? I didn't vote for Bush (both times), so speak for yourself. We went from no debt to a metric fuck-ton of debt during his administration.
this is true
Clinton balanced the budget. That is a solid fact, not an opinion.
avatar
mistermumbles: Oh yeah? I didn't vote for Bush (both times), so speak for yourself. We went from no debt to a metric fuck-ton of debt during his administration.
avatar
tinyE: this is true
Clinton balanced the budget. That is a solid fact, not an opinion.
I've heard before that Clinton did a pretty good job as president. As it is he would be a better candidate than Trump.

Alas things are far too in the rabbit hole and lots of big changes would be needed to slowly work things back to where they need to be... Like dropping 90% of the military budget...
avatar
tinyE: this is true
Clinton balanced the budget. That is a solid fact, not an opinion.
avatar
rtcvb32: I've heard before that Clinton did a pretty good job as president. As it is he would be a better candidate than Trump.

Alas things are far too in the rabbit hole and lots of big changes would be needed to slowly work things back to where they need to be... Like dropping 90% of the military budget...
I really shouldn't have posted anything like that TBH. I'm still waiting for the OP's answer to my 1st question about only asking for money for military and not food. :P I have a feeling his lapse was a mistake but I'm waiting for him to confirm that.
avatar
tinyE: snip
Since I'm still drunk, let me try and show you something :)
avatar
drmfro: For me, the only acceptable answer to these questions is that if we are to hold citizens ultimately responsible for the debt, then the state must not be allowed to borrow money except during times of war (and further that war must never be waged for any reason other than the defense of the citizens of that state).
So I understand you likely don't agree with "normal" welfare, but how do you feel about emergency funding in case of stuff like large natural disasters? Reserves to be kept? Extraordinary debt? Or no role for the state?

Certainly in terms of "defense of the citizens of that state" seen slightly more broadly such situations would have very similar consequences of harm to a set of citizens.
avatar
tinyE: Did this OP just set it and forget it?
The OP:

a.) is not on these boards 24/7... unlike a certain *someone* often seems to be...
b.) has expressed his thoughts and is interested in reading the thoughts of other forumites.
c.) does not feel obligated or inclined to respond to every post in this thread.
d.) will respond to certain posts when he's goddamn ready.

But I suppose I can throw you a quick bone while I have a few moments...
avatar
tinyE: So if there is a famine you say "Fuck the starving. We should only borrow money to blow people up, not feed them." :P
I'm not convinced that markets can adequately deliver reliable military protection. Defense is a necessary and legitimate function of government.

But I'd trust the market (for example, Walmart) *far* more than the government to negotiate the purchase of food from outside sources and efficiently distribute it to the population (at a markup, of course, but that's what happens in tough times: higher prices conserve scarce resources, and we might have to eat less or give up luxuries such as buying new video games until the famine passes).

I should have more time tonight. Do try to be patient. :P
Post edited July 02, 2016 by drmfro
avatar
tinyE: Did this OP just set it and forget it?
avatar
drmfro: The OP:

a.) is not on these boards 24/7... unlike a certain *someone* often seems to be...
b.) has expressed his thoughts and is interested in reading the thoughts of other forumites.
c.) does not feel obligated or inclined to respond to every post in this thread.
d.) will respond to certain posts when he's goddamn ready.

But I suppose I can throw you a quick bone while I have a few moments...
avatar
tinyE: So if there is a famine you say "Fuck the starving. We should only borrow money to blow people up, not feed them." :P
avatar
drmfro: I'm not convinced that markets can adequately deliver reliable military protection. Defense is a necessary and legitimate function of government.

But I'd trust the market (for example, Walmart) *far* more than the government to negotiate the purchase of food from outside sources and efficiently distribute it to the population (at a markup, of course, but that's what happens in tough times: higher prices conserve scarce resources, and we might have to eat less or give up luxuries such as buying new video games until the famine passes).

I should have more time tonight. Do try to be patient. :P
"An army marches on its stomach." - Napoleon Bonaparte :P
That has nothing to do with what you posted, I just love that quote. XD
Post edited July 02, 2016 by tinyE
avatar
Brasas: snip
You are one of the forumites whose opinions most interest me. :) I'll try to make time tonight to properly answer your questions, but I need to go now.
avatar
Brasas: snip
avatar
drmfro: You are one of the forumites whose opinions most interest me. :) I'll try to make time tonight to properly answer your questions, but I need to go now.
Thanks I guess. My flavor of stoicism is not something I much enjoy evangelizing - I get lots of blowback. But I was afraid you did have me in mind, certainly your OP touched some of my "buttons".
This is an easy one: Yes.
I am to say no if the debt come for thing like building unnecessary airports, rescuing banks that it's managers embezzled their found, without making any investigation of what happening with the money, no arresting anyone for this, and worse, half of the rescue money ends in the hands of the same directives in form of commissions. but because the citizens are enough brainless to continue voting to the same corrupted politicians that make all the before and more, then yes, their have deserved to pay the debt for their stupidity.

Yeah, Spain is different.
avatar
drmfro: Thoughts?
It can't be a simple yes/no question, there are many moving parts.

First of all, is is a democracy where the leaders were elected? If not, then I don't necessarily think the citizens are directly responsible for what a dictatorship have done.

If it is a democracy but the leaders have allegedly performed criminal acts in secrecy (e.g. spending lots of state money to their own things), then two questions arise:

- Whose responsibility would have been to set up a system so the leaders can't do things like that in secrecy? Isn't it the citizens? (We are still talking about a democracy, aren't we?)

- Regardless of that, were those "criminal leaders" later sued by the citizens (since they have allegedly done criminal acts by misusing money), and if not, why not? Why do the citizens let the criminal leaders go unpunished?

Overall the question: if it is not the citizens who'd be held accountable for the actions of their leaders, who then? Of course the creditors have part of the blame too, they should risk losing their money if they haven't been cautious enough when lending money, but then the creditors don't necessarily give up that easily, as they shouldn't. Aren't Argentina's debts nowadays in the hands of vulture funds, or did they already give up?


As for your idea whether a country should not borrow money except when in war (why that exception to the rule anyway?), I don't see an easy yes/no answer for that either. Doesn't Switzerland have some kind of law that the state is not allowed to go to red under certain limit, no matter what? So I feel that is a bit what you are talking about, some kind of strict limit which you can never cross.
I think you're simultaneously taking an overly simplistic view of how national debts are structured, while also unnecessarily convoluting what it means for citizens to bear the responsibility for their government's debt. The actual monetary debt is a matter between the government and whoever they borrowed the money from (although the details of this can be quite complicated, not just in how the bonds and foreign debts are structured, but that due to how national finances are structured governments often owe a substantial portion of their debt to themselves). The responsibility for repaying the debt is ultimately a matter between the government and whoever is owed the debt.

Now, the measures that the government chooses to employ to deal with the debt is something that citizens bear some measure of responsibility for, both in terms of their ability to influence how the debt is dealt with, and in the fact that they end up feeling the consequences of the various ways this can be done. For instance, the citizens as a whole may choose to elect politicians that implement austerity measures to save money, with the consequence that significantly fewer government services are available. Or they may elect politicians that choose to default on the debt, with the consequence that the government now has a much harder time borrowing money, so can't pay for many things the government is supposed to do. Or they may elect politicians that choose to print more money to pay off with the debt, with the consequence of high levels of inflation.

Finally, I'll just note that your example of the government confiscating savings is a fairly rare response, although one we have seen a couple times in recent years. The times it has been employed have typically been in response not to just debt, but to government liquidity problems, with these liquidity problems stemming from governments not having control over the monetary policy of their currency (more precisely, some of the EU countries during the debt crisis were running out of Euros, and since individual countries don't have the power to just print more Euros they used partial seizure of bank deposits for a quick infusion until additional loan deals could be worked out).
Post edited July 02, 2016 by DarrkPhoenix
citizens have to pay tax...
The state has the task of redistributing wealth, and pay for all basic services
That said, when a politician commits a crime (such as false accounting as in Greece), the blame can not fall on the citizens
The state debt is a normal thing, just by making the debt you can invest to boost the economic sectors in crisis... A state must take responsibility for those things that the market does not want to start.

The absolute liberalism has ruined many people, and I put the people above the corporate freedom.
A state should take more taxes of the rich and use them to create services for all (even for those who do not can afford them).

Finally I'm 100% against wars
Post edited July 02, 2016 by LiefLayer
avatar
LiefLayer: citizens have to pay tax...
The state has the task of redistributing wealth, and pay for all basic services
That said, when a politician commits a crime (such as false accounting as in Greece), the blame can not fall on the citizens
The state debt is a normal thing, just by making the debt you can invest to boost the economic sectors in crisis... A state must take responsibility for those things that the market does not want to start.

The absolute liberalism has ruined many people, and I put the people above the corporate freedom.
A state should take more taxes of the rich and use them to create services for all (even for those who do not can afford them).

Finally I'm 100% against wars
Generally, you are correct. But having lived all of my (un)life in that Hell-ass, i can guarantee you that it isn't the politicians' fault only. Many citizens are amoral stooges who seek fast, quick gain with little effort in return and try to bribe/ape their way to a job, or extra monetary gain. It is the civilians who illegally tip doctors for a larger sum leading to doctors become professional tax-evaders (locally, we call it "fakelaki"), it is civilians who lick the ass of a politician to benefit them, it is civilians who use smut lawyers to condemn innocents and make criminals appear as saints in society, ultimately, it is civilians who fack up their own kin this side. Leave that hell-hole outside, son. It reeks of corruption and unfortunately, it isn't only from the "fish's" head... Your parenthesis wasn't a representing example, alas... The only thing representing in Greece, is actually POLITICIANS, FOR CIVILIANS! We have the politicians we deserve. Hell, they even tried to dupe chinese recently in a very important trading deal that they offered to us to help us, too! No sane person invests in this vipers' den anymore and we earned it rightfully, fully.
Post edited July 02, 2016 by KiNgBrAdLeY7