By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Europeon Debt Crisis: There isn't another option EXCEPT austerity.

Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
or... they could just "forget" all the debt.


If I borrowed a few hundred pounds off you, what would you do if I just forgot to pay you back?



Around the Network
SamuelRSmith said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
or... they could just "forget" all the debt.


If I borrowed a few hundred pounds off you, what would you do if I just forgot to pay you back?


Well.... if I earn over 1 trillion euros a year. i wont be too bothered. 



Yay!!!

SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:

That's really the annoying part of the whole debate.  Democrats have shit they want to cut, they just for whatever reason aren't saying "hey lets cut this stuff."  Likely due to purely political motivations.

There are 3 reasons for this:

1) Many Democrats, including the President, simply do not believe/understand the financial crisis. If you're a suscribed Keynesian, which most politicians (on both sides of the isle) are, then, really, there is no argument for cuts.

2) Democrats, like all politicians, have one priority: getting re-elected, this usurps all other responsibilities. While Republicans, for the most part, are elected by those who favour smaller Government (although Republicans don't deliever on this promise, most voters don't look past the rhetoric), Democrats are not. This means that some Republicans will vote for cuts that they do not believe in (as pointed out in number 1), and some Democrats will vote against cuts that they do believe it.

3) Democrats and Republicans need to keep up an image of being different parties. They're not - on 90% of the policies, including all the most important, they are fundamentally the same . So they need to blow up that remaining 10% of difference to almost cartoonish levels. This means that the Republicans are the party of "cuts" (reducing the level of increase in the future...), and the Democrats are the party of "tax" (and with every new dollar collected in tax, a new loophole or subsidy put in...) - and they absolutely, 100%, can not stray from those positions.

I'm aware that you're probably away of these points, this post is more of a PSA, than anything else.

All individuals in congress get elected based on what pork they bring back to their district.  This is true even for Dr. No, Ron Paul, who would earmark everything his distrct wanted.

The reality is that the GOP tends to run more on shrinking the size of the government.  The reality of this shrinking is that people will support smaller government support for everyone else, except themselves, and government controls on everyone they don't like, and less for themselves.  

What you do see, on the Democratic presidential side is periodically commissions being run by the president to see if they can cut waste.  Al Gore headed up one under Clinton.  It is just done, not campaigned on.



HappySqurriel said:
Akvod said:


Yes. Let's go back to the old guild days in the middle ages. You're sound like a classical socialist.

I don't understand your point ... Skilled trades are (probably) the most entrepreneurial and purely capitalist field within our economy and are becoming far more important as fewer people learn how to do the work themselves.

Here is a good video for you to watch:

I didn't watch the full video, because my Internet went out yesterday, and I would support the comments above about more training for bricklayers needed, and less of YOU MUST GO TO COLLEGE.

There is a problem WE (Americans) collectively share.  The problem is that there is a mentality of individualism, to an extreme, which gets in the way.  You have the liberal side that believes the state should support every single wish and whim people have, and fund it.  You have individuals on the conservative side, as demonstrated during OWS buzz talk time, that if individuals can't find jobs, and borrow money, it is all their fault, and they shouldn't of borrowed the money.  Person then washes their hands of everything and moves on.  Both ignore the reality of a social contract, and interconnectedness of things.  The system is now set up so businesses use college degrees to screen people for higher paying jobs.  They also have offloaded their training costs on individuals, through the use of colleges, and required them to end up going into debt to get anywhere.  But is this seen anywhere in the rambling comments on forums like this?  No it isn't.  It is that "you are an idiot for getting a degree in woman's studies" then the person wil end up of degrees that would seem to have work, but still face issues with employment, not showing a connect with reality.  Technical side, for example, has seen programming going into decline in the West, and engineering goes in cycles to and is tied to manufacturing.

Until people see that there are cultural values a society has, and bad ones will cause harm, and can get some agreement as to what these values are and how they are best to be supported, it is just sides yelling at each other and things getting nowhere.  



SamuelRSmith said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
or... they could just "forget" all the debt.


If I borrowed a few hundred pounds off you, what would you do if I just forgot to pay you back?

If you have the power of the state to levy taxes, and get money, even if you won't lend again, someone else is likely to do such.  



Around the Network
HappySqurriel said:
makingmusic476 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Why is it austerity when the Government stops spending your money? I mean, this is how badly the "establishment" has engrained the need for big government in our lives... keeping more of your wealth is now a bad thing.


We truly do have fundamentally different views of the role of currency in society.

You're more of the mindset that money ultimately comes from the people, and is taken by the government to be used for various goods.  A view I once held.

I now view currency as a tool created by government to allow economic activity.  Without the government first printing money, we would have none to pay back in taxes.  

As a country's population and economy grow, we obviously need more currency available to represent this commerce and prevent deflation, thus a government with a fiat currency usually deficit spends to accomplish this goal.  You can say that government shouldn't be deciding how we spend our money.  I'm of the view that the government doesn't need any of our money to actually spend money.

In a fiat currency, taxation and spending aren't directly linked.  A government spends to provide a certain level of services, to encourage economic activity, and to add more currency to the economy.  A government taxes to control income inequality and to have more immediate control over economic activity.  In times of decreasing activity, they can then cut taxes to spur growth.  If things start growing too quickly, and inflation becomes a risk, they can then raise taxes to curb growth.  This has no bearing on how they're spending money.

Government could theoretically spend without taking in any taxes at all.  It would just lead to hyperinflation, assuming the influx of currency outpaces the growth of our economy in terms of real wealth.  Thus, a balance between the two must be struck.  But by balance, I don't mean a truly balanced budget.  There is nothing inherently wrong with a deficit.

Of course, none of this holds true for governments tied to some sort of standard (gold) or governments that do not print their own currency (the Eurozone), for whom debt is a very real concern.

If you're interested, I would recommend reading Warren Mosler's Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy.


You do realize that, in the United States, the government doesn't print money a private organization (the Federal Reserve) does; and people have organized their own currencies in the past, and even do today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17680904) without the involvement of government.

Anyone can create a new currency and, as long as people believe in its value, it can be viable. The only reason we don't see a worldwide privately controlled currency is that governments wouldn't allow it because it would cripple their ability to rob you through taxation and inflation.

Are you serious, thinking that a privately run organization controlling the global currency is a good thing? Look I may not be an American, but even I can see that the Federal Reserved is robbing Americans of there money.



 

Bet with gooch_destroyer, he wins if FFX and FFX-2 will be at $40 each for the vita. I win if it dont

Sign up if you want to see God Eater 2 get localized!! https://www.change.org/petitions/shift-inc-bring-god-eater-2-to-north-america-2#share

Ok, the Federal Reserve isn't really a private company.

It's essentially a government run organization that's funded by via private stock.

It's leaders are picked by the government, and outside a very specific stipulated by law dividend,(6%) all the extra money goes straight to the US Department of Treasury and to the Congressional Budget.

Outside of questionable monetary policy moves, most of what the Federal Reserve does works, and it makes the government a profit through it's own merits instead of needing taxation. (+77 Billion last year that went towards briding our budget deficit.)

It's leaders are picked by the president and congress and it's open to congressional oversite.


It's as much a private company as Social Security would be if it became optional.



Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
or... they could just "forget" all the debt.


If I borrowed a few hundred pounds off you, what would you do if I just forgot to pay you back?


Well.... if I earn over 1 trillion euros a year. i wont be too bothered. 



I don't know who you think buys bonds... it's mainly banks, pensions/savers, and other countries. If the banks don't get the money, their stockholders are the ones who feel the brunt - which, again, include pension schemes and savers (if the bank then fails as a result, everybody feels the bite, and there may even be further bailouts). If you default on the money from other countries, you're effectively stealing from their tax payers.



richardhutnik said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
or... they could just "forget" all the debt.


If I borrowed a few hundred pounds off you, what would you do if I just forgot to pay you back?

If you have the power of the state to levy taxes, and get money, even if you won't lend again, someone else is likely to do such.  


And, without me buying, the demand falls, and yields increase. The only reason as to why yields are as low as they are is because of the central banks are buying up such a large chunk of the bonds - and printing money to do so. There's also the Chinese, so that they can fix the yuan... but they're not gonna be doing that forever.



richardhutnik said:

All individuals in congress get elected based on what pork they bring back to their district.  This is true even for Dr. No, Ron Paul, who would earmark everything his distrct wanted.

The reality is that the GOP tends to run more on shrinking the size of the government.  The reality of this shrinking is that people will support smaller government support for everyone else, except themselves, and government controls on everyone they don't like, and less for themselves.  

What you do see, on the Democratic presidential side is periodically commissions being run by the president to see if they can cut waste.  Al Gore headed up one under Clinton.  It is just done, not campaigned on.

I'm going to guess that this is more of a continuation of my post, rather than a post against it?