American Government Debt is Immoral

  • Thread starter Thread starter CPA2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Get real. Government has no intention of paying back the national debt, ever. It is impossible to pay back the national debt with today’s dollars.
Nor, should the government necessarily pay off the national debt, anymore than IBM should necessarily eliminate all of its debt on its balance sheet. There are some things for which it is prudent to fund by borrowing money.
Governments do what governments always do. Government will inflate away the debt by robbing you of the purchasing power of your government money.
But here is the rub, my purchasing power has increased massively over the past 25 years at the same time the government debt increased dramatically. Prices might have gone up on average, but as any economist knows, if price changes are anticipated, then they have no adverse effects on the economy or purchasing power. Unless you fall prey to the cardinal economic sin of money illusion.
This cycle always ends in the total collapse of the currency and the death of the American dream. Government is a thief and a liar.
Always? People are theives and liars, so are corporations. The government is no different.
 
The interest on our debt is around $200 billion annually & by 2019 it is projected to be around $700 billion. It is immoral for our federal government to keep up with this out of control spending, which adds to the ever increasing debt along with the interest payments to service the debt. But it all comes back to our entitlement society. Many Americans want the federal governmnent to take care of them. Nothing is for free, someone has to pay the bill.

washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Interest-payments-on-national-debt-set-to-explode-8577764-71953337.html
 
The interest on our debt is around $200 billion annually & by 2019 it is projected to be around $700 billion. It is immoral for our federal government to keep up with this out of control spending, which adds to the ever increasing debt along with the interest payments to service the debt. But it all comes back to our entitlement society. Many Americans want the federal governmnent to take care of them. Nothing is for free, someone has to pay the bill.

washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Interest-payments-on-national-debt-set-to-explode-8577764-71953337.html
Of course, it depends on what the government spends the money on. Some government spending increases our productive capacity that therefore is neither immoral or imprudent. For example, when the government subsidizes student loans it allows people who are liquidity constrained to go to school. This is a perfect example of a program made to borrow money for, because the students get the benefit now and they pay the bill later when their incomes are higher. On the other hand, it would be imprudent to borrow money for defense spending which does not benefit future generations.
 
Nor, should the government necessarily pay off the national debt, anymore than IBM should necessarily eliminate all of its debt on its balance sheet. There are some things for which it is prudent to fund by borrowing money.

But here is the rub, my purchasing power has increased massively over the past 25 years at the same time the government debt increased dramatically. Prices might have gone up on average, but as any economist knows, if price changes are anticipated, then they have no adverse effects on the economy or purchasing power. Unless you fall prey to the cardinal economic sin of money illusion.

Always? People are theives and liars, so are corporations. The government is no different.
These are some of my favorite quotes from Ludwig von Mises. He is known as the head of the “Austrian school” of economics. He was a Professor of Economics at the University of Vienna from 1934 to 1940

“The notion that it is possible to pursue a credit expansion without making stock prices rise and fixed investment expand is absurd.”

“Credit expansion is the governments’ foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous.”

“Firmly committed to the principles of interventionism, governments try to check the undesired result of their interference by reporting to those measures which are nowadays called full-employment: unemployment doles, arbitration of labor disputes, public works by means of lavish public spending, inflation, and credit expansion. All these remedies are worse than the evil they are designed to remove.”

“It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend. **Government is the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. **Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.”

There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”

“If one wants to avoid the recurrence of periods of economic depression, one must start by preventing the emergence of artificial booms. **One must prevent the governments from embarking upon a policy of cheap interest rates, deficit spending, and borrowing from the commercial banks. **This is, of course, a very difficult task. Governments are in this regard very obstinate. They long for the popularity that booming business conditions seldom fail to win for the party in power. The unavoidable crash, they think, will appear only later; then the other party will be in power and will have to account to the voters for the evils which their predecessors have sown.”
 
These are some of my favorite quotes from Ludwig von Mises. He is known as the head of the “Austrian school” of economics. He was a Professor of Economics at the University of Vienna from 1934 to 1940
Yes, I knew you were making the Austrian argument. Of course, the Austrian school is pretty much ignored in 99% of all economics Ph.D programs.

The question of whether government borrowing must result in an economic collapse is an empirical one. If we look at history, we find that governments have borrowed money, such as we did during world war 2 and increased our indebtedness significantly. Has the result from that borrowing been a crash? Absolutely not.

Of course, it is possible for government to take things too far, but the idea that a disaster is inevitable is one of the reasons why the Austrian school gets so little respect.
 
The questions is, are we willing to pay more in taxes to reduce the debt, or which programs should we cut? No matter what program gets cut someone will yell. Our congressmen and woman are worried about getting re-elected so I would not count on them doing the hard work. If we had a group of brave people in congress and they really took a knife to the budget, they would probably all be voted out.
 
The questions is, are we willing to pay more in taxes to reduce the debt, or which programs should we cut? No matter what program gets cut someone will yell. Our congressmen and woman are worried about getting re-elected so I would not count on them doing the hard work. If we had a group of brave people in congress and they really took a knife to the budget, they would probably all be voted out.
Paying off the national debt is impossible. Every man, woman and child now owes $40,000 and the national debt is growing exponentially by the minute. Our enemies do not have to invade and conquer us. All they have to do is destroy the American dollar.

Abe Lincoln was right. The only way to destroy the United States is for the U.S. to commit suicide. That is what Obama and the Democrats are doing to us today.

If we increase taxes, the government would only spend more money. The only way to stop the debt increases is to cut out all of the social unwelfare programs, such as social insecurity, and the government agencies that run them. That is not going to happen.

My best advice is to try to do what you can to save yourself and your family. If you are going to financially survive, you must understand the mechanism by which the government is destroying the value of your government money.
 
Paying off the national debt is impossible. Every man, woman and child now owes $40,000 and the national debt is growing exponentially by the minute. Our enemies do not have to invade and conquer us. All they have to do is destroy the American dollar.
It is perfectly possible to pay off the national debt. After all, you seem to think that the government debt is like a weekend junket where someone goes off to Europe and blows $10,000 on their credit card and comes back with the debt and nothing to show for it. The government has debt, the government has assets. What are the value of the government’s assets?
Abe Lincoln was right. The only way to destroy the United States is for the U.S. to commit suicide. That is what Obama and the Democrats are doing to us today.
Of course, he is doing pretty much the same thing that the republicans did when they were in power. Taxing and spending. Neither party can escape the blame.
If we increase taxes, the government would only spend more money. The only way to stop the debt increases is to cut out all of the social unwelfare programs, such as social insecurity, and the government agencies that run them. That is not going to happen.
It is possible to raise taxes and have fiscal discipline. Clinton did a better job at that than any other president, probably because he knew that he had to deal with a republican congress.
My best advice is to try to do what you can to save yourself and your family. If you are going to financially survive, you must understand the mechanism by which the government is destroying the value of your government money.
I would start by avoiding what the goldsellers are saying, because they have a vested interest in scaring people.
 
The Secret Debt Solution by Larry Edelson

If you think the G-20 meetings in Washington are only about designing short-term fixes to the financial system and regulatory reforms for banks, hedge funds, brokers, mortgage companies and investment banks … think again.

Behind the scenes, a far more fundamental fix is being discussed — the possible revaluation of gold and the birth of an entirely new monetary system.

The G-20’s motive for a new monetary system: It’s driven by and based upon this very simple proposition …

“If we can’t print money fast enough to fend off another deflationary Great Depression, then let’s change the value of the money.”

It would be a strategy designed to ease the burden of ALL debts — by simultaneously devaluing ALL currencies … and re-inflating ALL asset prices.

That’s what central banks and governments around the world are going to start talking — a new financial order that includes new monetary units that helps to wipe clean the world’s debt ledgers.

It won’t be an easy deal to broker, since the U.S. is the world’s largest debtor. But remember: Debts are now going bad all over the world. So everyone would benefit.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke … Treasury Secretary Paulson … President Bush … President-elect Obama … former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker … Warren Buffett … and central bankers and politicians all over the world agree a new monetary system is needed.

So they’ll start hashing out the details to get the new financial architecture deployed as quickly as possible.

If you think I’m crazy or propagating some kind of conspiracy theory, then consider the historical precedent …

To end the Great Depression in 1933 Franklin Roosevelt devalued the dollar via Executive Order #6102, confiscating gold and raising its price 69.3%, effectively kick starting asset reflation.

Only this time, it won’t be just the U.S. that devalues its currency. The world is too interconnected. Instead, the world’s leading countries will propose a simultaneous and universal currency devaluation.

This time, they will NOT confiscate gold. There would be riots all over the globe if they even mentioned the “C” word.

But they don’t have to confiscate gold. Here’s one scenario …

They cease all gold sales and instead, raise the current official central bank price of gold from its booked value of $42.22 an ounce — to a price that monetizes a large portion of the world’s outstanding debts
 
Behind the scenes, a far more fundamental fix is being discussed — the possible revaluation of gold and the birth of an entirely new monetary system.
You want to give us a citation on this one? Who exactly is talking about this?
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke … Treasury Secretary Paulson … President Bush … President-elect Obama … former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker … Warren Buffett … and central bankers and politicians all over the world agree a new monetary system is needed.
Once again, some citations of where these people actually say this?

I also notice that when I google your quotes, I usually end up on the site of some gold dealer. Is this your idea of unbiased economic research?
 
First of all, your buddies Larry and Marty are not some virtuous monks warning civilization of impending doom. They were sanctioned and fined by the SEC for their behavior. And the fines were no small potatoes. In the case of Marty, it was $100,000 and in the case of Larry it was $75,000. Clearly these are people who we should approach with caution.

Second, Larry says that people are talking about a new monetary system, but he gives us no detail. Does he quote comments at FOMC meetings, does he provide internal White house memos? No, all we have is the allegations of an untrustworthy guy.

sec.gov/litigation/admin/2006/ia-2525.pdf
 
First of all, your buddies Larry and Marty are not some virtuous monks warning civilization of impending doom. They were sanctioned and fined by the SEC for their behavior. And the fines were no small potatoes. In the case of Marty, it was $100,000 and in the case of Larry it was $75,000. Clearly these are people who we should approach with caution.

Second, Larry says that people are talking about a new monetary system, but he gives us no detail. Does he quote comments at FOMC meetings, does he provide internal White house memos? No, all we have is the allegations of an untrustworthy guy.

sec.gov/litigation/admin/2006/ia-2525.pdf
I subscribed to “Safe Money” by Martin Weiss over 20 years ago and I have made a good deal of money on his correct calls. When he makes an incorrect call he admits his mistake. I like that.

I was shorting the NASDAQ 100 in 2000 on the advice of Martin Weiss when all of those around me lost 50% - 75% of their money in the market. I never lost a penny. I made money on that disaster. That is just one example; there are many other examples.

This is my last response to your rants. Good luck on finding your own way.
 
I subscribed to “Safe Money” by Martin Weiss over 20 years ago and I have made a good deal of money on his correct calls. When he makes an incorrect call he admits his mistake. I like that.
We have your opinion and we have the findings by the SEC. I am sure the readers of this forum deserve to have all of the facts when judging the character of an advice giver.
I was shorting the NASDAQ 100 in 2000 on the advice of Martin Weiss when all of those around me lost 50% - 75% of their money in the market. I never lost a penny. I made money on that disaster. That is just one example; there are many other examples.
As an economist, we cannot rely on someone’s word, but objective facts when making a decision about a prognosticator’s ability. The SEC had problems with what Marty and Larry were saying. That is the only objective data that we have.
This is my last response to your rants. Good luck on finding your own way.
I am the one making rants? You seem to be the one ranting, because you cannot respond to my very reasonable questions. You just keep quoting more articles from larry the goldseller.
 
Unfortunately, the debt clock only tells us part of the picture. It tells us the amount of the government debt, but it ignores the value of the government’s assets.
The Gov. assets for the most part not very liquid, some Automobiles, Office furniture, computers, etc. With the Federal Gov. shifting so much money from the private sector to the public sector for salaries, benefits, etc. it may appear on paper the assets have value but who will make those assets liquid? Will China by US Gov. Property, Germany, Greece?

Socialism always fails, all the time. Then when you run out of other peoples money and their unit of work output, you have a Gov that has to enslave people to work inorder to pay the Gov bills.
 
The Gov. assets for the most part not very liquid, some Automobiles, Office furniture, computers, etc. With the Federal Gov. shifting so much money from the private sector to the public sector for salaries, benefits, etc. it may appear on paper the assets have value but who will make those assets liquid? Will China by US Gov. Property, Germany, Greece?
It is true that the government’s assets are for the most part, not very liquid. But of course, that doesn’t mean that they are not valuable. For example, how much are our military bases worth? There are other things that can be done with these properties than house soldiers. So if are going to talk about the debt, nobody who has any common sense can talk about the debt without talking about the corresponding assets the government has. Even that by itself is not a good picture of the financial position of the government because some government assets, such as roads only have value to the extent to which they facilitate private transactions.
Socialism always fails, all the time. Then when you run out of other peoples money and their unit of work output, you have a Gov that has to enslave people to work inorder to pay the Gov bills.
Who is supporting socialism here. Nobody is talking about socialism. Just trying to have a rational discussion of economic issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top