Is Government Debt Immoral?

[quadraphonics]

I'm the only one here that seems to want to *gasp* advocate having the freedom to use multiple currencies and to end Income Tax.

Exactly: those are firmly libertarian policy goals, that have nothing to do with progressivism.

Yeah, I get it, change makes people poo poo in their pants - for some reason change's never worried me enough to drop a load in my pants.

Indeed, you just spend every day crapping your pants over the status quo.

Just where the hell do you think you're going to go? Japan? Do you think you just get to walk in to their Farm and set up shop? Australia? Haaa! Wrong again Bob :-)

Japan is too crowded already, but I've seriously considered Australia before. Canada would be another option, and there are plenty of spots for ex-pats to dodge taxes in Latin America, Southeast Asia, etc. I'm not sure why you think this is such an impossibility - large numbers of people do it every year.

Most Citizen's generate their wealth through their labor.

That, and their capital and their land.

Again, this whole retrograde Marxist labor theory of value is both nonsense, and a bizarre mismatch for a libertarian.

Have you read Adam Smith? Because he's explicit that the labor theory of value only applies to very primitive societies, and breaks down as soon as there's any "means of production" to speak of. In an industrialized society, it's simply silly.

I'm not a gold bug. Although I do think having some gold is a good investment and hedge against inflation.

Very well, then.

We live in a Oligarchy where the Bankers make the decisions for us.

Funny, I'm pretty sure that a few months from now we're going to vote on who gets to make the decisions, including the decisions about who gets to run the Federal Reserve. Or whether the Federal Reserve will even continue to exist. Doesn't sound like an oligarchy to me.

Oligarchy is what they have in China.

Why people like you enjoy being told what to do is beyond me.

Why you think these inane insults have any impact is beyond me. You're clearly addressing some fantasy.

And there's millions of starving North Koreans who will happily trade places with you.

See how silly that sounds?

Nope. What do you think you're implying there?

It's immoral to sell the labor of children.

And since we have firm laws prohibiting child labor, that is not an issue.

Are you referring to the future labor of adults?

Children who have no say in how their labor is spent.

By the time anyone is actually paying taxes to finance the national debt, they have a say. This whole line of argumentation is hysterical and silly.

You do understand that inflation is stealing?

LOL, yeah right.

You might be forgiven for thinking Americans would not submit to authoritarianism. I disagree. They are and will continue to do so.

I never suggested that Americans would never submit to authoritarianism. What I said was that we'd screw over our foreign creditors before we'd impose any terrible costs on ourselves.

I stated they paid less then we do in terms of labor. Unfunded liabilities are approximated $45.6 Trillion. A child born today would owe approximately $520,000.00. If you add up all the tax, we're working 5-7 months of the year FOR the banks.

"Unfunded liabilities" isn't money that goes to "the banks." That's welfare spending - you're talking about how we're going to pay for health care for the entire population, retirement for the elderly, etc.

You may think that's moral. I find it disgusting.

What is disgusting is your villification of the process of national solidarity, wherein the able and productive are asked to support the disabled and elderly. Apart from the basic morality and political utility of such a scheme, it actually provides immense, direct economic benefits back to the workers as a whole anyway. A system of mutual cooperation for mutual benefit is not "theft."

And you know what, you probably think things are going to go back to normal.

There's nothing particularly abnormal about the current state of things.

So you raise the question of what, exactly, you are implying is "normal" there.

One where people have much much less economic opportunity. Less Civil rights. Less education. Less access to medical. Less of a chance to retire and enjoy their last few years.

Strange thing for you to say, right on the heels of your insistence that all the medicine and retirement and education paid for by taxation is all immoral theft that must be abolished forthwith.

Just take a good look at Greece. There's the future.

Except the USA doesn't have the problems and constraints that Greece does. Our debts are denominated in a currency we control - we can inflate them away, and devalue to boost competitiveness, in a way that Greece can't. You're just pushing empty bluster here - you obviously have no real understanding of these issues.

[quadraphonics]

We use multiple currencies now.

And that is one reason why your constant demands that we need to introduce competing currencies don't make any sense. If you don't like the US dollar as a store of value, you are free to invest your wealth in anything else you like.

Not to mention it worked perfectly fine then as most currencies were simply backed by silver. The only time it didn't work was when a bank issued too much currency relative to the amount of silver they had. Or there was a new mine found and silver/gold increased in circulation.

So, it worked perfectly, except for all the times that it didn't.

You really think that's a meaningful criticism of the new systems that were designed to avoid the situations where the old one didn't work? Because it is not.

The United States was built on those currencies.

The United States was also built on slavery and genocide. Are you suggesting we bring those back?

As for paying taxes, I have absolutely no problem with paying tax - if it's voluntary.

A "voluntary tax" is simply a "donation."

Unless you mean "voluntary" to mean "enacted by a democratic government that you have a vote in," which would be more meaningful and describe the actual situation.

There are ways of making not volunteering to pay tax a huge social cost ... AND still make it voluntary.

What is the difference between "a huge social cost" and "legal penalties, including fines and possibly jail?" Why is the imposition of "a huge social cost" not the use of "force," whereas fines and jail are?

"Voluntary" means exactly that there are zero repercussions imposed for refusing to participate.

For example: Suppose you were expected to pay a certain amount towards the military. Once paid, you were issued a card. Don't pay. No card. Pay and you get a card. Suppose you go to the grocery store. If you have the card, you get served. Don't and either you do not get served OR perhaps you have to pay a much higher price for your groceries.

Forcibly depriving people of food is about as textbook an instance of coercion as I can think of. This is, quite literally, the kind of thing that totalitarian dictatorships like North Korea do to impose their will.

And that's also not a "social cost." This is not "people stop inviting you to parties," but rather "your family starves to death."

See, now that took about 5 minutes thought and we just went from using force to not using force. From immorality and a bloated unaccountable government to small government and moral social contract.

No, what you suggested is the use of brutal, inhumane force, along with the introduction of an extra layer of bureaocratic control of the food distribution network (your whole system of voter cards required to purchase food). And the fact that you spent five entire minutes coming up with something so obviously retrograde doesn't speak well for your program of hectoring and condescension here. You're behaving as if you possess some kind of clear discursive supremacy here, when in fact you're a running joke who can't get through a single post without lapsing into inane fallacy and directly contradicting yourself.

If you were to ask people 250 years ago, most would call you a 'nutter' for even suggesting Slavery was not moral. AND that's a fact.

That's simply untrue. Slavery was contentious in that time period, and this is well known. That's why it was such a big point of contention in the drafting of the US Constitution, for one example.

[Michael]

Yes you are invoking another logical fallacy, another straw man. I never made that argument Michael. That is you making stuff up again.

You are the one who made the strawman Joe. You specifically stated I want to rewind the clock so we're living 500 years in the past.

That's not my argument.

I don’t have to go back in time Michael, you do. We are using the monetary system that has helped keep us out of another Great Depression for almost a century. I am advocating the economic and monetary policies that have been in place and remain in place for nearly a century, the same policies and institutions that have seen the expansions of the largest expansion of the middle class and living standards in the history of mankind.

Actually, the preceding generation and industrial revolution had a greater impact on standard of living. But don't let facts get in your way. Not when your love affair with some douche's at the Federal Reserve - I mean, if they don't tug you around by the nose who will?

I am not the one advocating let the rich do whatever the hell they want to do by getting rid of regulation, that is what you and your fellow Libertarians are arguing – going back 500 years in history.

Joe, the rich are only getting richer and owning more and more of America. Your argument that "The Fed" somehow has created equity in America does not square with reality.

Why should I want to rewind the clock? The repeal of Glass-Steagall was a huge mistake. Democrats and Republicans both do not want to reinstate Glass-Steagall. But here is the difference Michael, Democrats have reinstituted regulation of the banking industry to mitigate the risk incurred by the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Republicans on the other hand have fought that reregulation tooth and nail.

Yup, that's why Corzine is collecting another $3 million in bonuses while Farmers are laying off workers. That's why JP Morgan just gambled away another $3 Billion.

Tell me Joe. When the next round of Federal Reserve giving away money to save these psychopaths come - ARE you going to support it? Oh, of course you will. Because for Joe the Federal Reserve Chairmen are High Priests that Channel the Money Gods and can do no wrong. Oh, and the heaven's forbid the People who actually make up this country have a say in their own money and interest rates. No, that's too much responsibility for We The People. We need to leave our money supply and interest rates to our unelected Banking Masters in the Reserve.

Talk about Farce.

If you want to use the infrastructure here in the US, there is a price for it. It’s called taxation. As others have pointed out to you, if you don’t like it, you are free to leave so that you will not be burdened with paying for the infrastructure and expenses of this country. The choice is yours.

As I said: I don't have a problem with paying AS WE GO. What's immoral is borrowing against the future labor of unborn Children to give to us now.

While it's common decency not to steal - it's also immoral. I don't care if you wrap it up in a word called BONDS and you vote and call that Legal - it's still immoral. Slavery was immoral then, and it is now. The only difference is, then it was legal. But, it was still immoral.

There is nothing stopping you from leaving and renouncing your citizenship.

Ah yes, and here we are back to this again. If you don't like being financially raped and your children made into debt-slaves - leave. Hey, I got an idea Joe, how about we try... Oh, I don't know, morality?

No Michael this is pretty much fantasy. We have been through all of this before. Repeating your claims without evidence or reason ad nauseum will not improve your argument. People living today in the US have a life that is far better than medieval surfs to say otherwise as you have repeatedly done Michael is just sheer fiction. Corporations are not evil. Sometimes the men who control corporations are evil/corrupt.

And if we didn't have an immoral corrupt monetary system - life would be much better

But, that's OK Joe. Your beloved monetary system is teetering on collapse. It can save itself and doom the People. It can ruin itself and save the People. Or WAR. Which is it going to be Joe?

[Michael]

Sure! Unless you owned them all and it was your way or (no) highway.

I'm curious. Suppose you could use roads that were well maintained and had to pay $0.01 per mile to the person who owned that road - freely choosing to use or not to use their roads. OR you got to use crappy roads that cost $0.10 per mile but this was collected from you at the point of a gun by the State? Oh, and if you don't like it, tough - you're going to pay the average rate anyway. Which do you choose?

What about iPhone? Should you be forced to buy me one? And how about my internet? Should you be forced to pay for my 'free' internet? What about everything? Why are you stopping at roads? Why don't we make everything 'free' and collect all income from all people at the point of a gun? Yeah, f*ck morality. Let's have equity instead.

No, you mean you don't WANT to leave. That's fine. But that's your decision, and you get to live with the consequences.

I've left the US many times and lived in numerous countries. So, I'm not sure of your point. I understand just how difficult it is to obtain residence in other countries - it's not easy. You would be forced to return to the USA. Like any other head of Cattle - you belong to your Farmer.

Didn't you know that? Why do you think we have Passports. It's not just to keep people out. It's to keep you in

It is our economy that gives value to those bonds. Our labor is one part of that economy.

Which part of our 'economy' is devoid of labor. You said it's 'one part' what's the other parts?

I support paying our debts, yes.

Me too. I do not support forcing you to pay for my debt. That would be stealing from you. Any debt I incur, I of course pay.

Why would I do that? I use the roads, and the Internet, and the patent office, and air traffic control, and benefit greatly from them. Thus I pay for them.

And you still would. Only you'd pay less, get more and the service would be better. I'm failing to understand why you want to pay more, use force and get crappier service?

Why do you think it's Apple that makes iPhone and not some douche's in Washington DC? Can you imagine a 'smart' phone made by government employees?

If you get no benefit from them, then you can leave and go somewhere where such things are not provided to you; you then incur no debt by using them (or incur debt only to the people you prefer to pay.)

So you do think it's OK for the government to sell your child's labor? I don't. But, meh, that's me.

Yep. That's capitalism in a free society. It scares the sh*t out of some people. (Sounds like you're one of those people.)

Capitalism is simply investing private capital. It existed prior to Corporations. Corporations are legal entities used to shield owners from legality. It's 'GoldmanSux' that get's fined. It should be the CEO looses his house and property and goes to jail.

I said nothing about immorality. I said that if you don't like where you are, move. If you choose to stay, then you are supporting the US's economy and government of your own free will.

OK. And I said it's immoral to sell someone else's labor. And it is. I don't like it. But, for now, we live in a world of immoral Slavery. Which is why the rich in America will continue to get richer and the poor poorer.

So are you a supporter or not?

They would have told you to leave as well. They wouldn't have tried to keep you in a free society that you want no part of.

Well, we wouldn't have had Income Tax and we wouldn't have had a Central Bank selling Bonds on our Children's labor. I'm certain they'd have told you to leave and go back to Europe or England where such immorality was common place.

[Michael]

quadraphonics,


I seem to recall we had a few questions to answer from a previous conversation?

#1
If there were 10 people on an island. All of these people work all day to catch enough fish for each person to eat that day. One day one person forgoes his fishing and instead invents something. The next day he goes down to the water and catches enough fish for 5 people. Effectively putting half of everyone out of work. Unemployment skyrockets, what, with all the free time the people vote for a 'representative'. This representative makes a law limiting the types of nets people can make. They're too tight and catching too many fish he says. So with this new "regulation" the man can only catch enough fish to feed two people - if he's lucky. With these new inefficient nets unemployment drops like a rock as people get back to work fishing!

When was society the most prosperous? When everyone was fishing (100% employment). When half the people were fishing (50% unemployment). Or with the inefficient nets and 90% of people were fishing?




#2
Suppose there are 10 people on an island. One person promises that his son will work for another man for 5 years - if he sings to him every day for a month. The man sings for him every day for a month. When the man's child grows to adulthood he is forced to work for the singer for 5 years.

Is this moral? Why or why not?




#3
What is stealing?
Is stealing immoral?
What is inflation?
Is inflation stealing?
Why?

[joepistole]

You are the one who made the strawman Joe. You specifically stated I want to rewind the clock so we're living 500 years in the past.

That's not my argument.

Yes it is your argument Michael. You created yet another straw man argument in your previous post. Additionally you are the guy who hates modern economics and the Federal Reserve. You are the guy who has steadfastly advocated the Libertarian cause in this forum - minimalist government, no government regulation, no fed, anti-economic platform. In essense you want to take us back in time 500 years and resort the the economic and financial platfoms that were in place some 500 years ago.

Actually, the preceding generation and industrial revolution had a greater impact on standard of living. But don't let facts get in your way. Not when your love affair with some douche's at the Federal Reserve - I mean, if they don't tug you around by the nose who will?

So you think people were better off during the Industrial Revolution than they were after WW II and the introduction of the modern economics? You want to go back to the days of child labor, 80 hour work weeks, and dangerous working conditions, no environmental protections?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industr...Social_effects

Come on Michael, try reality for a change.

Joe, the rich are only getting richer and owning more and more of America. Your argument that "The Fed" somehow has created equity in America does not square with reality.

As pointed out to you before, the rich in this country may continue to get richer and the poor may continue to get poorer, but it has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve. The reason why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer is because of special interest regulation passed largely by Republicans which allows special interests to bilk the American public (e.g. Medicare Prescription Drug).

Real reform in the US requires reforming how our representative are elected and how well we inform the voters in this country. It is just that simple.

Yup, that's why Corzine is collecting another $3 million in bonuses while Farmers are laying off workers. That's why JP Morgan just gambled away another $3 Billion.

Better check your facts Michael.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Corzine#MF_Global

Tell me Joe. When the next round of Federal Reserve giving away money to save these psychopaths come - ARE you going to support it? Oh, of course you will. Because for Joe the Federal Reserve Chairmen are High Priests that Channel the Money Gods and can do no wrong. Oh, and the heaven's forbid the People who actually make up this country have a say in their own money and interest rates. No, that's too much responsibility for We The People. We need to leave our money supply and interest rates to our unelected Banking Masters in the Reserve.

Talk about Farce.

You have created another straw man Michael. No one said the Fed governors cannot make mistakes. They can and have. But the current Fed has done a pretty good job during a very trying time. And history has proven time and time again, the modern Fed has been and continues to be a success story.

And "we the people" do have control over the Fed. The Fed operates under the law and with the power and authority granted to it by Congress.

As I said: I don't have a problem with paying AS WE GO. What's immoral is borrowing against the future labor of unborn Children to give to us now.

While it's common decency not to steal - it's also immoral. I don't care if you wrap it up in a word called BONDS and you vote and call that Legal - it's still immoral. Slavery was immoral then, and it is now. The only difference is, then it was legal. But, it was still immoral.

Ah yes, and here we are back to this again. If you don't like being financially raped and your children made into debt-slaves - leave. Hey, I got an idea Joe, how about we try... Oh, I don't know, morality?

And if we didn't have an immoral corrupt monetary system - life would be much better

But, that's OK Joe. Your beloved monetary system is teetering on collapse. It can save itself and doom the People. It can ruin itself and save the People. Or WAR. Which is it going to be Joe?

As pointed out to you many times before Michael, this nation was born with debt. The Revolutionary War was financed with public debt. Slavery is not public debt. Theft is not public debt.

You like to make these inflamatory generalized statements. But you have never been able to get specific or in anyway justify them and your conclusions.

Government needs to be fiscally responsible. That is different from being anti-debt and anti spending and "deficits don't matter" as Republicans have advocated at various times over the last dozen years.

[Aqueous Id]

#1
If there were 10 people on an island. All of these people work all day to catch enough fish for each person to eat that day. One day one person forgoes his fishing and instead invents something. The next day he goes down to the water and catches enough fish for 5 people. Effectively putting half of everyone out of work. Unemployment skyrockets, what, with all the free time the people vote for a 'representative'. This representative makes a law limiting the types of nets people can make. They're too tight and catching too many fish he says. So with this new "regulation" the man can only catch enough fish to feed two people - if he's lucky. With these new inefficient nets unemployment drops like a rock as people get back to work fishing!

When was society the most prosperous? When everyone was fishing (100% employment). When half the people were fishing (50% unemployment). Or with the inefficient nets and 90% of people were fishing?

The metaphor breaks down with "they're too tight and catching too many fish he says" unless you explain how that comes up. Do you mean conservation? Overfishing could kill off the food supply? It's not clear what you're trying to gain and what you're willing to lose in this simplified model of an economy. It also seems to break down on the notion of employment, which generally is directed toward being able to eat. If there's enough to feed everybody with less work then the society has progressed, and all you need to do next is set the idle people to work creating a fish farm and growing crops to supplement their diets and to reduce their impact on nature. Or put them to work repairing nets and oaey

#2
Suppose there are 10 people on an island. One person promises that his son will work for another man for 5 years - if he sings to him every day for a month. The man sings for him every day for a month. When the man's child grows to adulthood he is forced to work for the singer for 5 years.

Is this moral? Why or why not?

That would be for the kid to decide. He can simply refuse to comply.

#3
What is stealing?
Is stealing immoral?
OK we all know.
What is inflation?
Is inflation stealing?
Why?

Inflation is not necessarily bad, and certainly is not as bad as other economic ills. Even something as intangible as uncertainty can be more harmful.

For the same reason, debt is generally good. Without debt there would be no exchange of goods except by payment upon delivery. That would be restrictive. It would prohibit the ability to engage in any transaction larger than the amount of liquid assets on hand. People would be pushing around wheelbarrows of money on the street, just trying to get a transaction completed. It would be a nightmare.

Debt is also connected to risk. Risk is something to manage, not to eliminate. Without any risk at all, nothing new would be attempted and the future would be one of "this is as good as it gets." The idea behind debt is that you borrow money to accomplish something now rather than burden future generations with the consequences of leaving the problem to fester.

[Michael]

Yes it is your argument Michael. You created yet another straw man argument in your previous post. Additionally you are the guy who hates modern economics and the Federal Reserve. You are the guy who has steadfastly advocated the Libertarian cause in this forum - minimalist government, no government regulation, no fed, anti-economic platform. In essense you want to take us back in time 500 years and resort the the economic and financial platfoms that were in place some 500 years ago.

This nation wasn't around 500 years ago first off, so I obviously didn't suggest we revert to '500 years ago'.

Secondly, the Federal Reserve monetary system is destroying this country. Most Americans think the Federal Reserve is a branch of government, do not understand inflation is stealing their productivity gains, have no idea that income tax is immoral (although they know they hate it, they don't know that we didn't used to have it) and have little if any knowledge of the past.

Which is why we are doomed to repeat it.

You think the Federal Reserve, which is currently auctioning off your children's future labor to the Chinese is great for the USA. Yeah, and I'm sure Marie Antoinette thought the Monarchy of France was great for the People of France - until her head rolled.

Don't worry Joe. The economy is going to go into the toilet taking the USD with it. Sure, we may have to live through and loose another War or three, but, as sure as eggs is eggs - people will tire of their debt-slavery.



"The introduction of Modern Economics"
No Joe, what I am saying is that people were better off before the bastardization of our monetary system through the 16th amendment and the creation of the Federal Reserve. Which, if you cared to look out your palace window, you just might be able to see

As pointed out to you before, the rich in this country may continue to get richer and the poor may continue to get poorer, but it has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve. The reason why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer is because of special interest regulation passed largely by Republicans which allows special interests to bilk the American public (e.g. Medicare Prescription Drug).

You mean criminals like Corzine?

Oh, but you couldn't dare say that, he's Obama's biggest Campaign contributor and Obama is going to wave his magic wand and change bankrupt America into flowery Hopium fields.

Sorry Joe, THINKPROGRESS (you know, that old Liberal rag) nailed Corzine:

About $5.35 million of Mr. Corzine’s compensation came in the form of stock options, which are now worthless as a result of MF Global’s failure. Still, the former New Jersey governor and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. chairman got more than $3 million in cash compensation, including a $1.25 million bonus.

You were saying something about CORRUPTNESS IN WASHINTON???

HAAA!!! In your FACE with an ACE :-p
And Arthur said Corzine would pay a hefty fine....
I told you then,
I'll you again:
Not even a Slap on the Wrist!



One last time: Inflation is stealing. Stealing is immoral.
Selling Bonds on your children's future labor is stealing. Stealing is immoral.

I know it's hard not to steal, especially from babies, but please try and refrain from it!!

[Michael]

The metaphor breaks down with "they're too tight and catching too many fish he says" unless you explain how that comes up. Do you mean conservation? Overfishing could kill off the food supply? It's not clear what you're trying to gain and what you're willing to lose in this simplified model of an economy.

What I mean is the nets were too efficient and so the 'representative' passed a 'regulation' making them less efficient thus lowering unemployment.

The question here is about employment. Just because people are employed doesn't mean the economy is becoming more prosperous. In this case, it's becoming LESS prosperous as unemployment drops.

The comparison was to Greece and Germany. Germany had low unemployment. They lent a lot of their money to Greece. Greeks bought the nicest railway network in Europe (hey, why not?). It's nicer than the ones in London, Frankfurt or Paris. The idea that this was 'good' for German economy is crazy. Yet, I heard an economist saying exactly this. His rational was because "Germany got to export to Greece and this kept their unemployment low".

You can see how asinine this statement is?

Similarly to the nets, both Japan AND the USA have idiotic 'regulations' preventing our shipping docks from using the most modern technology as it'll 'put people out of work'. This comes from a person I know who works in both Dubai and Japan directly doing this work for a shipping company.

It also seems to break down on the notion of employment, which generally is directed toward being able to eat. If there's enough to feed everybody with less work then the society has progressed, and all you need to do next is set the idle people to work creating a fish farm and growing crops to supplement their diets and to reduce their impact on nature. Or put them to work repairing nets and oaey

Well, I think maybe it doesn't break down. It was a question after all.

I'd argue you wouldn't "set idle people to work" but rather allow them to trade with the person who has the netted fish things he may like to have. OR catch your own fish. No one forces you to eat his fish. BUT, if you do want his fish, then you have to trade for them.

Of course, this is where we get to the next chapter in the story. For, you see, people didn't think it was fair that this man had 5 fish and was making them trade things for these fish. I mean, what a jerk. Gee, if I had all those fish I'd give them away. Yup I would. Smelling political advantage the "representative" amended their Constitution and used Income "Tax" to force the man to part with at least 3 of his fish IF he used the efficient nets. These he handed out to the islanders so each could take one day off a week. The man on the other hand was forced to work double time to keep up with Government largess. The 'representative' set about forming a Central Fish Reserve where he'd hold on to those fish, you know, for The People.

Inflation is not necessarily bad, and certainly is not as bad as other economic ills. Even something as intangible as uncertainty can be more harmful.

Inflation isn't bad I agree as it's a natural limit on consumption of limited resources. Using the Federal Reserve to print away people's savings - that's actually down right stealing. That kind of inflation is of course immoral.

For the same reason, debt is generally good. Without debt there would be no exchange of goods except by payment upon delivery. That would be restrictive. It would prohibit the ability to engage in any transaction larger than the amount of liquid assets on hand. People would be pushing around wheelbarrows of money on the street, just trying to get a transaction completed. It would be a nightmare.

Again, debt freely taken on through voluntarism is morally ambivalent - I agree. Selling your children's future labor is stealing. That kind of debt is immoral. Call it a Bond. It's still stealing as the children had no say in their labor being sold.

Debt is also connected to risk. Risk is something to manage, not to eliminate. Without any risk at all, nothing new would be attempted and the future would be one of "this is as good as it gets." The idea behind debt is that you borrow money to accomplish something now rather than burden future generations with the consequences of leaving the problem to fester.

As long as the contract is entered into between consenting adults. I have no problem. Signing your child's labor away - now I have a problem.

[Aqueous Id]

"Germany got to export to Greece and this kept their unemployment low".

You can see how asinine this statement is?

I haven't followed this story so I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe you can take me from where this leaves off:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/bu...al/21rail.html

Similarly to the nets, both Japan AND the USA have idiotic 'regulations' preventing our shipping docks from using the most modern technology as it'll 'put people out of work'. This comes from a person I know who works in both Dubai and Japan directly doing this work for a shipping company.

So you're OK with replacing workers by machines. I thought you were saying the opposite.

I'd argue you wouldn't "set idle people to work" but rather allow them to trade with the person who has the netted fish things he may like to have. OR catch your own fish. No one forces you to eat his fish. BUT, if you do want his fish, then you have to trade for them.

Yeah. Presumably they could fish for their own dinner, or get paid doing other work and go to the fishmarket like all the other non-fishermen.

Of course, this is where we get to the next chapter in the story. For, you see, people didn't think it was fair that this man had 5 fish and was making them trade things for these fish. I mean, what a jerk.

Plus they were outsmarted. Otherwise they could come up with a way to get 10 times as many fish. Is competition good or bad? And when is it immoral to take too much and give too little?

Gee, if I had all those fish I'd give them away. Yup I would.

In some cases some altruism falls into play, and in other cases it's just envy.

Smelling political advantage the "representative" amended their Constitution and used Income "Tax" to force the man to part with at least 3 of his fish IF he used the efficient nets.

Maybe the metaphor is getting a little too deep fro me to keep up with. Are you opposed to the income tax? I think it usually gives credits for preserving jobs, not usually penalties but I'm not sure on this.

These he handed out to the islanders so each could take one day off a week. The man on the other hand was forced to work double time to keep up with Government largess. The 'representative' set about forming a Central Fish Reserve where he'd hold on to those fish, you know, for The People.

I'm getting lost again.

Inflation isn't bad I agree as it's a natural limit on consumption of limited resources. Using the Federal Reserve to print away people's savings - that's actually down right stealing. That kind of inflation is of course immoral.

Here I'm not sure what you mean. As I understand it, there is a running estimate of the total value of all transactions, and the money supply is tied to that. Another thing the Fed does is quantitative easing which is a cure for the reluctance to extend credit, i.e. to go into debt, since that reluctance promotes uncertainty which hurts the economy.

Again, debt freely taken on through voluntarism is morally ambivalent - I agree.

Or just one of many sides of economic life. When debts are easily incurred, the uncertainty goes away and the economy grows. Big projects get funded and a lot of people go back to work.

Selling your children's future labor is stealing. That kind of debt is immoral. Call it a Bond. It's still stealing as the children had no say in their labor being sold.

You mean income tax? Are their rates changing? Once the tax is paid, it's not their money any more. It's public money, to fund public projects.

As long as the contract is entered into between consenting adults. I have no problem. Signing your child's labor away - now I have a problem.

That's an idea I don't follow. Did we inherit any burden from our parents, if so, how would I know if I pay a normal amount of tax anyway? And then how is the situation different for future taxpayers? How are we obligated to predict their economy and what are other obligations we owe them, like protecting the rights of patent, of labor (including minimum wage, accident/injury protection unemployment insureance, medical care etc?), or of environmental impact?

[Michael]

Plus they were outsmarted. Otherwise they could come up with a way to get 10 times as many fish. Is competition good or bad? And when is it immoral to take too much and give too little?

In this example we assume there's more than enough fish. I don't see how the man could ever 'take too much'. If he took too much he'd just end up with a bunch of uneaten fish which he would incur a loss of time against. I mean, he's not taking the fish from anyone. The fish are a natural resource.

As long as he doesn't prevent anyone else from fishing and selling their fish, I'd say he's right to trade as many as the people would like.

You mean income tax? Are their rates changing? Once the tax is paid, it's not their money any more. It's public money, to fund public projects.

It's public money once it's taken. Prior to that it's private money and used to fund private projects. I have no problem with people donating money towards public projects. I do have a problem with one group of people taking from another group of people.

If the problem is 'money' then let's create a system where we are able to have the available money to provide the incentive to build whatever we want in a way that does not require taking another person's property.

That's an idea I don't follow. Did we inherit any burden from our parents, if so, how would I know if I pay a normal amount of tax anyway? And then how is the situation different for future taxpayers? How are we obligated to predict their economy and what are other obligations we owe them, like protecting the rights of patent, of labor (including minimum wage, accident/injury protection unemployment insureance, medical care etc?), or of environmental impact?

Yes, we are paying for money that was borrowed and spent years ago. In England the public is STILL paying the debt from WWI.

How do we know what's a normal amount of tax? Suppose the people wanted a new bridge. They're raise the capital selling, for example, Bonds. Those Bonds would be freely purchased by the people who thought they'd get a return on their investment. The bridge would be tolled until the money was returned plus interest. If there was ongoing maintenance, that money would be paid for through toll as well.

This seems fair to me.

I personally do not like the idea of 'patenting'. I fail to see how this helps society? It's more like a legal monopoly to the patent holder. Just look at Windows. In the 1970s there were no software patents. Now that there are, look how stagnant OS have become. Win7 is barely different from WinXP.
IMO

Minimum wage should be set by the free market along with insurance and medical treatment. I'd argue right now people would be making much more money, have lower insurance and better cheaper medical treatment if we had remained in a free-market. Just like computers shrinking into iPhones and nearly free video phone calls made anywhere in the world - THAT is the free market

[parmalee]

Minimum wage should be set by the free market along with insurance and medical treatment. I'd argue right now people would be making much more money, have lower insurance and better cheaper medical treatment if we had remained in a free-market. Just like computers shrinking into iPhones and nearly free video phone calls made anywhere in the world - THAT is the free market

Any historic precedent where this actually, you know, worked? And Ayn Rand novels do not count (obviously).

IOW what exactly are you basing your "argument" upon?

[Carcano]

Not only is government debt profoundly immoral but there should be a constitutional amendment requiring the treasury to SAVE one percent of its revenue in GOLD....until the savings reach ten percent of total revenues, where it is to be maintained year after year.

Money that can be spent only in the case of a *defensive war* on domestic territory.

[quadraphonics]

Not only is government debt profoundly immoral but there should be a constitutional amendment requiring the treasury to SAVE one percent of its revenue in GOLD....until the savings reach ten percent of total revenues, where it is to be maintained year after year.

But, what if the price of GOLD plummets?

Money that can be spent only in the case of a *defensive war* on domestic territory.

Ten percent of one year's tax revenues is not even close to the level of spending that repelling a foreign invasion would require.

[Aqueous Id]

@michael
@carcano
@anyone else worried about taxes, bonds & debt, etc.

In a word: how is this affecting you? Have you taxes gone up? I don't think so. Maybe you can explain to me why this bothers you....

[Carcano]

But, what if the price of GOLD plummets?

Then the government simply goes back into saving mode at a rate of one percent of revenue per year...until the ten percent minimum is regained.

When the price of gold soars the government is required by law to sell it at an appropriate rate to maintain the ten percent reserve.

[Carcano]

In a word: how is this affecting you?

I'm gonna love it...the current trajectory that is.

Not so good for my relatives in England and the US.

[Carcano]

Ten percent of one year's tax revenues is not even close to the level of spending that repelling a foreign invasion would require.

That depends on the invasion...but it will certainly help.

[quadraphonics]

Then the government simply goes back into saving mode at a rate of one percent of revenue per year...until the ten percent minimum is regained.

When the price of gold soars the government is required by law to sell it at an appropriate rate to maintain the ten percent reserve.

So your idea is to mandate that the government must speculate in the gold market, to the tune of 1% of tax revenues. You want to raise my taxes by 1%, and use the money to bet on the value of gold.

If you can't see why that's a wasteful, silly idea, well... rest assured that most others have no such difficulty.

[Carcano]

So your idea is to mandate that the government must speculate in the gold market, to the tune of 1% of tax revenues. You want to raise my taxes by 1%, and use the money to bet on the value of gold.

It could just as easily be a 1% cut in spending than a 1$ raise in taxes.

And no, a buffer of savings is no more wasteful on a national level than it is on a personal level. The treasury already holds over 4000 metric tons of gold at Fort Knox.

As far as price volatility is concerned, this can be diminished by a requirement for all gold futures contracts to take physical delivery...instead of speculating.