[Truth To Power]

Exactly what policy do you think I rationalize? Private ownership of land?

And IP monopolies. And probably the debt money system.

So do 190 of 195 countries in the world.

I think you might be surprised at what the laws in many of those countries actually say.

I voted for Bernie Sanders. I subscribe to the policies of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

I.e., anything but justice.

[Truth To Power]

@Hakeer

Actually i found it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ernal_debt

Luxembourg at 4279%

Palau technically is a bit more but info is outdated.

Which is around 5,790,000 per citizen.

That's TOTAL external debt, public and private, which includes corporate debt, and does not net out debt owed TO the country. So if a Luxembourg bank borrowed $100G to buy a foreign bank that had $100G in net loan assets, that would add $100G to Luxembourg's external debt despite actually being a wash in reality.

[Hakeer]

Your looking at the wrong thing. You are looking at public debt which is only 1 subset of debt. External debt(total debt to foreigners) is public + private debt that is owned to individuals and other institutions outside the country by residents or institutions of a given country.

The reason why this is important, is because I am trying to show you an extreme scenario. Where external debt is so colossally high that it would be unsustainable by any of your logics. But its not, because debt is about risk/reward/managing interest, so even a redicilous number like 4000% is okay and makes Luxembourg one the richest countries in the world because they are managing it all well.

Okay, I missed that.

Luxembourgh has an atypical economy. Banking is their largest industry. They have tons of money flowing into their banks from wealthy foreigners looking for a tax haven. This offsets the external debt.

External debt in Palau was 79.4% of GDP in 2022, compared to 30.4% of GDP ten years earlier. Over the last decade, external debt averaged 44.3% of GDP.

https://www.focus-economics.com/country ... rnal-debt/

[Hakeer]

And IP monopolies. And probably the debt money system.

I think you might be surprised at what the laws in many of those countries actually say.

I.e., anything but justice.

One thing those 190 countries' laws do not say is that the governmnt owns all the land.

If there were justice in this country, there would be a hell of a lot less inequality of income/wealth. Ask Bernie. He'd like to do something about it, but is blocked by Republicans.

[JohnRawls]

That's TOTAL external debt, public and private, which includes corporate debt, and does not net out debt owed TO the country. So if a Luxembourg bank borrowed $100G to buy a foreign bank that had $100G in net loan assets, that would add $100G to Luxembourg's external debt despite actually being a wash in reality.

Yes exactly but it is such a huge number by comparison and owned to even external sources which invalidates most of your arguments. The size of the debt doesn't matter as long as interest is manageable and the debt can be returned considering the investment. That is it.

Hence why covering your spending with debt while having low taxes is a form of investment and why the system works in the way it does. So the main 3 parts to have debt are as follows for the government:

1) The size of your current economy in comparison to your population
2) How fast you are growing
3) How trustable are you to return the debt (Aka interest on the debt)

Most of the countries in Europe and North America will qualify very high on all 3 parts compared to the rest of the world, hence why we can run this debt. We have proven track record of growing over time without doing stupid shit while we always return our debts while having very stable systems. The size of our economies in comparison to the population is also huge by rest of the world standards.

[QatzelOk]

...The size of the debt doesn't matter as long as...

Funny how Economics often involves making really stupid claims that don't work in any other domain.

Debt matters a lot to ordinary people, because this year, ordinary people gave thousands and thousands of their hard-earned dollars in interest to banksters who collect money for doing nothing. Banksters just have to scam to rip everyone off.

The annual "deficit" is one of their scams aimed at making us all debt slaves. You must be a benificiary of this scam as you are defending it while simultaneously having nothing to say.

[SpecialOlympian]

I'm familiar with the financial "industry" and investing, and have taught economics at the post-secondary level, so, thanks anyway.

Could have fooled me!

Stop shouting at me like we're having the post DSA meeting struggle session in the college library basement. I don't even think we would actually disagree on all that much if you'd stop shouting slogans.

Under capitalism, you are guaranteed to be a victim; but you can also arrange to be a perpetrator by investing in privilege. That said, it still beats the hell out of socialism.

I literally said my understanding of the bond market is not an endorsement of it. When I think a client is chill I tell them, "Yeah, it's kind of messed up that you worked hard enough to have excess money and now you have a second job of managing it for retirement." I've used a similar line in interviews to demonstrate my understanding of my profession. Whatever fervor you have doesn't change the fact that, until things change, people have to engage with capitalism, rich or poor. Even someone who plans to rent until they die needs to know how to keep a decent credit score (again, NOT an endorsement of the credit system).

You are fucking exhausting and remind me of an anarchist I knew online as a teen who said if the world was ending because a meteorite was about to hit the earth, he'd spend his last day smashing corporate logos. Like, the one time you can't blame corporations and everyone is equally fucked and that's what you do? That's how exhausting you are.

[QatzelOk]

The world is full of well-paid people who will defend the wealthy by claiming that "we are not going bankrupt because of their scams."

It's like saying that "AIPAC doesn't control US politics," in that it will buy you favors if you say this.

Spesh is nothing special in this regard. Defending billionaires is one of the world's oldest professions, and like whoring, often involves lying.

[SpecialOlympian]

Riff man, riff.

It's like saying that "AIPAC doesn't control US politics," in that it will buy you favors if you say this.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddd obvious pivot to the Jews the second finance comes up. Predictable as always, Qatz. You're getting older, don't get set in your ways. Try new conspiracies.

[Rancid]

Funny how Economics often involves making really stupid claims that don't work in any other domain.

Debt matters a lot to ordinary people, because this year, ordinary people gave thousands and thousands of their hard-earned dollars in interest to banksters who collect money for doing nothing. Banksters just have to scam to rip everyone off.

The annual "deficit" is one of their scams aimed at making us all debt slaves. You must be a benificiary of this scam as you are defending it while simultaneously having nothing to say.

There is a difference, and it's not a stupid claim. There is a fundamental misunderstanding you have. This is been discussed over the years, and you still seem to miss the basic fundamental points.

The key feature as to why a national debt is different from a personal debt is that the government will "live forever". Now, obviously that is not true, but if a government were to be destroyed/terminated in some way, then its debt will get terminated too, so it kind of doesn't matter. Or rather, the debt holders will get screwed, and that's just kind of it. That is the risk those debt holders took on by becoming debt holders (it's a free market bro). I own US bonds, which means the US government owes me money. If the US government disappeared, yes I would lose that money, however, if the US government disappeared, I'm pretty sure I'd have bigger things to worry about than my money anyway. In any case, that is the risk I've assumed by buying that kind of debt instrument. I would buy US debt, or UK/France debt any day over say... Russian debt. If the reasons why are not obvious to you, then you're a lost cause.

When you decide to buy any government debt, you are making a bet on "this government will exist long enough to pay me back". That's basically it. For the last several decades, the US government has been one of the more reliable governments to pay back its debts, so people keep putting money in (including me). Even the shithole nations you love, also buy US debt. Think about that shit.... One of the big advantages that buying US debt has over the debt of other nations, is that the US government doesn't fuck around with the currency as much as other nations. You people talk about the deep state and Fed manipulating everything. However, the reality is, other nations manipulate their currency and system far more and far worse than the US does, and with far weaker backing economies (arguably, their economies are weaker because they fuck around with their systems so much). A key and fundamental point that escapes people like you.

In short, the banksters of other nations; the nations you seem to love (China, North Korea, Russia, etc.) are a million times more manipulative than the banksters in the west and US. It's just that those other economies kind of suck, so they don't move the global markets as much. You mistake that for them being 100% innocent and victims. However, their economies suck, precisely because they fuck around with their systems so much. They manipulate like crazy, and their corruption is of a form that is less sustainable than the corruption seen in the west. That is, western corruption is, of course, parasitic, but it doesn't destroy the host economy they leech from. The corruption in the nations you support, is also parasitic, but it is parasitic to the point where it is destructive to the host economies they leech from. This is why those economies just suck to start with, and simply cannot compete with the west. This is why BRICS is bullshit, for example. The corruption in those nations is just too wild to produce a stable currency, and debt instruments people would care to hold on to in large quantities.

The US dollar isn't strong because of manipulation, it is strong because the US economy is relatively stronger, bigger, and more reliable than other economies. Despite it's fundamental issues, and the parasitic corruption in the system. Those issues are still FAR FAR FAR less than what you see in the shit hole nations you love and defend.

Anyway, because of this extra long time horizon, all you really need to "control the debt" is balance the budget, and continue GDP growth (but really, just GDP growth). That's kind of it. Also, so long as those other shithole nations continue to suck at managing their economies to growth. The US gets an added advantage. It is not of the USes doing, but that of the failures of other nations.

Of course, there is colonialism, and wars and shit that have certainly hamstrung many other nations around the world. However, a lot of that is predicated on them being unable to manage their own corruption (i.e. you can't put a soldier on every corner in Iraq, you need locals that are willing to sell everyone out for personal gain). This is not an excuse of the west/US. That empire shit is fucked up, but many nations and many people do have agency to stop that. Especially in this age where the citizens of western nations are less willing to allow their militaries to go off on more adventures (The US never went into Syria en masses... remember that, the US could have easily Iraqified Syria. The citizenry didn't want that, so it didn't happen. Instead, Russia is there doing its thing, which is an empire you support). These other nations probably have the best chances to success now than ever before, and it will probably improve as more of the world becomes anti-colonial (especially as anti-colonialism sentiments increase within traditional colonial powers).

But hey, you can continue to support shit hole empires and pretend it's "right".

You can continue your oversimplified cowboys and indians view of the world. "Shot my pa" and all that really fucking stupid basic shit.

[Deutschmania]

There is a difference, and it's not a stupid claim. There is a fundamental misunderstanding you have. This is been discussed over the years, and you still seem to miss the basic fundamental points.

The key feature as to why a national debt is different a personal debt is that the government will "live forever". Now, obviously that is not true, but if a government were to be destroyed/terminated in some way, then its debt will get terminated too, so it kind of doesn't matter. Or rather, the debt holders will get screwed, and that's just kind of it, that is the risk those debt holders took on by becoming debt holders (it's a free market bro). I own US bonds, which means the US government owes me money. If the US government disappeared, yes I would lost that money, however, if the US government disappeared, I'm pretty sure I'd have bigger things to worry about than my money anyway. In any case, that is the risk I've assumed by buying that kind of debt instrument. I would buy US debt, or UK/France debt any day over say... Russian debt. If the reasons why are not obvious to you, then you're a lost cause.

When you decide to buy any government debt, you are making a bet on "this government will exist long enough to pay me back". That's basically it. For the last several decades, the US government has been one of the more reliable governments to pay back its debts, so people keep putting money in (including me). Even the shithole nations you love buy US debt. Buying US debt has the added advantage that the US government doesn't fuck around with the currency as much as other nations. You people talk about the deep state and FED manipulating everything, but the reality is, other nations do it all far more and far worse than the US, and with far weaker backing economies (arguably, their economies are weaker because they fuck around with their systems so much).

In short, the banksters of other nations; the nations you seem to love (China, North Korea, Russia, etc.) are a million times more manipulative than the banksters in the west and US. It's just those other economies kind of suck, so they don't move the global markets as much. You mistake that for them being 100% innocent and victims. However, their economies suck, precisely because they fuck around with their systems so much. They manipulate like crazy, and their corruption is of a form that is less sustainable than the corruption in the west. That is, western corruption is, of course, parasitic, but it doesn't destroy the host economy they leech from. Those other nations corruption are parasitic to the point where it is destructive to the host economies they leech. This is why those economies just kind of suck to start with, and simply cannot compete with the west. This is why BRICS is bullshit, for example.

The US dollar isn't strong because of manipulation, it is strong because the US economy is relatively stronger, bigger, and more reliable than other economies. Despite it's fundamental issues, and the parasitic corruption in the system. It is still FAR FAR FAR less than the shit hole nations you love and defend.

Anyway, because of this extra long time horizon, all you really need to "control the debt" is balance the budget, and continue GDP growth (but really, just GDP growth). That's kind of it. Also, so long as those other shithole nations continue to suck at managing their economies to growth. The US gets an added advantage. It is not of the USes doing, but that of the failures of other nations.

Of course, there is colonialism, and wars and shit that have certainly hamstrung many other nations around the world. However, a lot of that is predicated on them being unable manage their own corruption (i.e. you can't put a soldier on every corner in Iraq, you need locals that are willing ot sell everyone out for personal gain). This is not an excuse of the west/US. That empire shit is fucked up, but many nations and many people do have agency to stop that. Especially in this age where the citizens of western nations are less willing to allow their militarizes to go off on more adventures (The US never went into Syria en masses... remember that, the US could have easily Iraqified Syria. The citizenry doesn't want that.. instead, Russia is there doing its thing, which I'm sure you support). These other nations probably have the best chances to success now than ever before, and it will probably improve as more of the world becomes anti-colonial (especially as anti-colonialism increases in traditional colonial power).

But hey, you can continue to support shit hole empires and pretend it's "right".

You can continue you oversimplified cowboys and indians view of the world. "Shot my pa" and all that really fucking stupid basic shit.

This sounds similar to demand notes , during the U.S. Civil War , and especially what had happened with regard to Confederate dollar bills , after the defeat of the secessionist states , in the war's aftermath .
https://theconversation.com/what-happened-to-confederate-money-after-the-civil-war-159117

In other words , with fiat currency , the monetary value is tied to the full faith and credit of the government , rather than to some tangible precious commodity , such as gold and /or silver .

[JohnRawls]

This sounds similar to demand notes , during the U.S. Civil War , and especially what had happened with regard to Confederate dollar bills , after the defeat of the secessionist states , in the war's aftermath .
https://theconversation.com/what-happened-to-confederate-money-after-the-civil-war-159117

In other words , with fiat currency , the monetary value is tied to the full faith and credit of the government , rather than to some tangible precious commodity , such as gold and /or silver .

Well yes, that is what economy is at its core. Risk and Trust if you really wanna go down to the lowest level. Same as laws are representation of the moral values and traditions of a society. These things are hard to measure but they certainly are there.

So to change laws you also have to change morals and traditions of a society on specific very complicated/ingrained question. You also don't get rich or richer by simply working hard, you become rich by assuming calculated risk and building up trust. Working hard can only you get you to a certain point.

And when I say rich, i obviously mean like rich rich in the West and not what rich might mean in Africa or Asia.

[Truth To Power]

One thing those 190 countries' laws do not say is that the governmnt owns all the land.

In many cases, that is exactly what they say.

If there were justice in this country, there would be a hell of a lot less inequality of income/wealth. Ask Bernie. He'd like to do something about it, but is blocked by Republicans.

Bernie does not understand that the problem is privilege, and his solutions -- countervailing privilege -- therefore would not work.

[Hakeer]

In many cases, that is exactly what they say.

Bernie does not understand that the problem is privilege, and his solutions -- countervailing privilege -- therefore would not work.

Name one.

What the hell is “countervailing privilege”? Do you want to raise taxes on billionaires, or not?

[Truth To Power]

Could have fooled me!

Yes, it seems to be pretty easy.

Stop shouting at me like we're having the post DSA meeting struggle session in the college library basement. I don't even think we would actually disagree on all that much if you'd stop shouting slogans.

I rarely use all caps; and if pith and accuracy make my observations seem like "slogans" to you, that's perhaps a sign that you are encountering some facts that are inconvenient to your beliefs.

Whatever fervor you have doesn't change the fact that, until things change, people have to engage with capitalism, rich or poor.

Just as they had to engage with slavery in the antebellum South.

You are fucking exhausting and remind me of an anarchist I knew online as a teen who said if the world was ending because a meteorite was about to hit the earth, he'd spend his last day smashing corporate logos. Like, the one time you can't blame corporations and everyone is equally fucked and that's what you do? That's how exhausting you are.

Tiredness is an indication that you are learning something.

You're welcome.

[JohnRawls]

Yes, it seems to be pretty easy.

I rarely use all caps; and if pith and accuracy make my observations seem like "slogans" to you, that's perhaps a sign that you are encountering some facts that are inconvenient to your beliefs.

Just as they had to engage with slavery in the antebellum South.

Tiredness is an indication that you are learning something.

You're welcome.

The reason capitalism exists is because it literally defeated and replaced all of the other systems that we had before since they were worse for one reason or the other. The latest battle with Communism clearly demonstrated that. People lost faith in communism and replaced it with capitalism, be it not being able to deliver a level of wellbeing or faith or corruption or oppression is secondary question.

Do not mistake this as @SpecialOlympian said as that everything is fine with capitalism. It has plenty of bad moments. But the reality is that Capitalism is just better than all that was tried before to date and why it is so dominant though. Not all support it but it has overall far more supporters than any other system that was tried before.

What alternative do we even have nowadays?

And if you go in to slavery again, people fought for ending slavery. Britain was the biggest opponent of Slavery for CAPITALISTIC reasons at that. Slavery was literally destroyed by Capitalism.

[Truth To Power]

Name one.

Increasing the minimum wage.

What the hell is “countervailing privilege”?

A concept that distinguishes those who are aware from those who are not.

A privilege is a legal entitlement to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation: the most important ones are land titles, IP monopolies, bank licenses, oil and mineral rights, and broadcast spectrum allocations. Countervailing privilege is privilege putatively intended to undo the harmful effects of other privileges: some important ones are minimum wages, rent control, union monopolies, welfare, and publicly funded education, pensions and health care.

Do you want to raise taxes on billionaires, or not?

No. I want to shift the burden of taxation off beneficial economic activity -- production and consumption -- and put it on privilege. That would have the effect of making almost all billionaires pay a lot more tax -- especially indirectly, through reduced value of their privileges -- but it is not directed at billionaires specifically.

See the difference?

[Truth To Power]

Yes exactly but it is such a huge number by comparison and owned to even external sources which invalidates most of your arguments.

Name one.

[JohnRawls]

Name one.

So that's how much we have to pay rich, greedy, privileged parasites purely for being rich. - Believe this to be your words, no? And in general it was your theme that debt is for the rich to stay richer and poor to stay poor or poorer.

Now your idea is that the rich are basically getting paid. Reality is that those with money be it people or large institutions use that money to gain more money or to park it somewhere safe which is basically also giving money to somebody just for a lot riskier things. On the other hand, we see that Luxembourg with its 4000%+ external debt is not dying and is actually a super prosperous society. So the rich are not really parasitic, are they? They take risk and assume reward and then the rest plays out over time. If properly managed on both sides this is actually a win-win.

[Truth To Power]

The reason capitalism exists is because it literally defeated and replaced all of the other systems that we had before since they were worse for one reason or the other.

That is incorrect. Capitalism has demonstrated its superiority to socialism and all the older systems -- feudalism, primitive despotism, tribal communism, etc. -- but has not defeated geoism -- the system pioneered in Hong Kong since the mid-19th century and in use in China for over 40 years -- and probably won't.

The latest battle with Communism clearly demonstrated that. People lost faith in communism and replaced it with capitalism, be it not being able to deliver a level of wellbeing or faith or corruption or oppression is secondary question.

Communism was never a contender. What capitalism defeated in the late 20th century was socialism, however loudly the governing parties of the socialist countries called themselves communist.

But the reality is that Capitalism is just better than all that was tried before to date and why it is so dominant though.

No. Despite a very flawed implementation, endemic corruption, and its legacy of socialism and even quite recent feudalism, China's geoist system has achieved the greatest economic miracle in the history of the world. Geoism is just that much superior to capitalism.

What alternative do we even have nowadays?

Geoism.

And if you go in to slavery again, people fought for ending slavery. Britain was the biggest opponent of Slavery for CAPITALISTIC reasons at that. Slavery was literally destroyed by Capitalism.

Capitalism demonstrated that you don't have to go to all the trouble of actually owning landless working people to treat them like slaves; owning the land is enough:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old negroes, who said to me: "Master George, you say you set us free; but before God, I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father." The planters, on the other hand, are contented with the change. They say: "How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper now than when we owned the slaves." How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have got all the work out of him they can.

-From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis, August 15, 1883, as reprinted in Henry George's Social Problems