Liberals' Erroneous Claim About Reopening the Economy

[Shad]

"Debt" is an idea.

No it isn't.

An idea that can be rejected, or altered, as we choose.

Nope. Go take out a loan or overspend on your credit cards. See how well that works out for you and your fantasy. Stop paying your bills. See what happens.

It's not a god that must be heeded upon pain of death.

Babble.

 

[metis]

"Debt" is an idea. An idea that can be rejected, or altered, as we choose. It's not a god that must be heeded upon pain of death.

To a large extent, that is true. Debts are sometimes forgiven, which shows up in both the Tanakh and NT, for examples.

Basically, money is a form of IOU that people recognize as such, although not always. Therefore, "debt" also falls into that category, thus subject to agreement to pay back, which doesn't always happen.

Thus, if a federal government were to say "We will eliminate all debt accumulated from a specific previous time period", they could do that but there would be some very serious implications, such as a probably drying up of any new investments. But still, in some cases it may be best done because the alternatives could hypothetically be worse.

But now I'm "preaching to the choir" as I was just posting this to support your position.

 

[PureX]

To a large extent, that is true. Debts are sometimes forgiven, which shows up in both the Tanakh and NT, for examples.

Basically, money is a form of IOU that people recognize as such, although not always. Therefore, "debt" also falls into that category, thus subject to agreement to pay back, which doesn't always happen.

Thus, if a federal government were to say "We will eliminate all debt accumulated from a specific previous time period", they could do that but there would be some very serious implications, such as a probably drying up of any new investments. But still, in some cases it may be best done because the alternatives could hypothetically be worse.

But now I'm "preaching to the choir" as I was just posting this to support your position.

People who have more money than they need to live will NEVER stop investing it because in and of itself, "extra" money is useless. So this threat that investment will stop if investing involves risk, is bogus. And "debt" is just a presumption of investment without assuming risk. Which is why most "debt" (loans) should be defined out of existence, and replaced with the label of "investment", including the requisite presumption of risk. Not all, but most.

Rich people want everyone else to believe that when they invest their 'extra' money, that it MUST be returned to them with interest, as if it were a "loan", or the system will totally collapse, and the sky will fall on all humanity. And the rest of us idiots tend to fall for it. But in fact, their 'extra' money SHOULD be presumed an investment, and not a loan, and SHOULD be presumed to be at risk. Because if the investment fails, all they've lost is their 'extra' money. They suffer no real consequence. Whereas the attempt to force repayment of capital in a failed investment causes great harm to everyone else, and if carried too far WILL result in economic collapse.

We need to recognize that there are two economies, here: the production/consumption economy, and the predatory investment economy. If the production/consumption economy collapses, that's very bad for everyone. But if the predatory investment economy 'collapses' due to catastrophically failed investment (like an economy hit by a plague), then all that's been lost is a lot of 'extra' money. Unless we allow the people who lost all that 'extra' money to try and force everyone else to re-generate it and pay it back to them (as if it were a loan).

This is one of the lessons I'd like to see us learn from this event, but I doubt that we'll learn anything from it.

 

[metis]

People who have more money than they need to live will NEVER stop investing it because in and of itself, "extra" money is useless. So this threat that investment will stop if investing involves risk, is bogus.

Yes, they will invest, but the question is "Invest where, and what's the risk that's involved?". If the U.S. market is potentially too low a yield or too risky, they're likely to go elsewhere or invest less here.

The rest of your post I have no problem with.

 

[PureX]

Yes, they will invest, but the question is "Invest where, and what's the risk that's involved?". If the U.S. market is potentially too low a yield or too risky, they're likely to go elsewhere or invest less here.

The rest of your post I have no problem with.

If other nations are OK with allowing more predatory investing, then let them. In the end it will only destabilize their economy, and eventually destroy it just as it's been doing, here. The real problem is capitalism, which gives too much control over commerce to the capital investor, to the point where these investors want us to treat their investments like loans because they don't want to assume any risk. Now, when their investment is failing due to a plaque, they want everyone to treat it like a loan, and pay them back for their losses. But they haven't lost anything but money they didn't need to begin with. Whereas everyone else has lost a lot. So who do you think should be paying the price?

 

[MNoBody]

reading through this I recalled all the news stories I have heard where some country would just totally stiff some financial backing/deal they were involved in, and stated they would not pay it,
France comes to mind as one example.....history provides so many more....yet these same countries would just somehow continue to work new deals regardless of their utter dismissal of this alleged "debt", they contemptuously ignored it and hurled it to the ground, spat upon it a few times and make hostile noises ....and it somehow becomes another footnote in the arcane history of money magiks [ it didn't always work that way though, as sometimes the ones so treated retaliated, and 'got them back' so to speak.]

 

[metis]

The real problem is capitalism, which gives too much control over commerce to the capital investor, to the point where these investors want us to treat their investments like loans because they don't want to assume any risk.

Especially unbridled capitalism is a serious problem for a variety of reasons, but the reality is that we have a "mixed economy" like all other modern nations have. However, with that being said, I generally agree with you on the above but only to a point. And that "point" is that the borrower must assume some responsibility as well.

So who do you think should be paying the price?

Mostly the investor, but see above.