Posted July 02, 2016

P-E-S
I like games
Registered: Nov 2008
From United States

tiny E
Find me in STEAM OT
Registered: Dec 2012
From Other
Posted July 02, 2016


Clinton balanced the budget. That is a solid fact, not an opinion.

rtcvb32
echo e.lolfiu_fefiipieue|tr valueof_pi [0-9]
Registered: Aug 2013
From United States
Posted July 02, 2016


Clinton balanced the budget. That is a solid fact, not an opinion.
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...

tiny E
Find me in STEAM OT
Registered: Dec 2012
From Other
Posted July 02, 2016

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...

Brasas
Abrasive Charpit
Registered: Dec 2010
From Poland
Posted July 02, 2016
Since I'm still drunk, let me try and show you something :)
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.

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.

drmfro
New User
Registered: Feb 2016
From United States
Posted July 02, 2016
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...
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
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...

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

tiny E
Find me in STEAM OT
Registered: Dec 2012
From Other
Posted July 02, 2016

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...


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
That has nothing to do with what you posted, I just love that quote. XD
Post edited July 02, 2016 by tinyE

drmfro
New User
Registered: Feb 2016
From United States

Brasas
Abrasive Charpit
Registered: Dec 2010
From Poland
Posted July 02, 2016
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".

nightcraw1er.488
Want some Wang!
Registered: Apr 2012
From United Kingdom
Posted July 02, 2016
This is an easy one: Yes.

DalekSec
Split says friends
Registered: Apr 2012
From Spain
Posted July 02, 2016
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.
Yeah, Spain is different.

timppu
Favorite race: Formula__One
Registered: Jun 2011
From Finland
Posted July 02, 2016
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.
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.

DarrkPhoenix
A1 Antagonist
Registered: Nov 2008
From United States

LiefLayer
I'm darkness
Registered: Jul 2013
From Italy
Posted July 02, 2016
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
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

KiNgBrAdLeY7
Слава России! ура́
Registered: Apr 2012
From Other
Posted July 02, 2016

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 KiNgBrAdLeY7