I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

The only way to remove intergovernmental debt is via tax increases or program spending cuts. The only difference between the two debt types is that you are paying interest on the non-intergovernmental debt via intragovermental loans or public treasury bond offerings. They both count as debt to the public, and the "zeroing out process" is Gbaji speak for cuts to programs because he is politically motivated to not speak about these processes like an adult and purposefully obfuscate our options in a structural manner.

I'd say he is maliciously lying, but honestly, he's not really smart enough to do that, rather it's much more likely that he's acting as a courier for someone else's agenda.

Edited, Nov 17th 2011 11:14am by Timelordwho

Not sure what to make of that, other than it'll be an interesting day around these parts.

That's a hell of a leap to make based on someone simply pointing out the difference between public debt and intergovernmental debt. Nice job jumping to the ad hominum though!

It's not ad hominum if it's at the core of the discussion at hand and true. You ultimately value a free market way more than you do universal well being. Is that not true? I mean, you DO think that things like health care, food, housing and utilities are privileges, rather than rights--no?

Gbaji lost me at Jboots

It is when it's an attack on my character and in this case has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. What the hell does profit motive have to do with an assessment of the relative importance of public versus intergovernmental debt? All I'm doing here is correcting someone's misuse of the debt values in question. But instead of looking at the facts, you're ascribing motive to me and attacking me for that assumed motive.

Why not simply look at whether what I'm saying is correct?





Nope. I don't believe that those things are contradictory. You do. I disagree with your preferred methodology for improving universal well being. But that's a whole different issue, isn't it?

I believe that the free market is the best route for improving the human condition. And historical patterns would seem to bear that out.



False dilemma (again). Most of the things in this world are neither rights *nor* privileges. Your world apparently has no room for anyone actually earning anything.

Because that discussion is only one small part of a much bigger construct in which the motive for debt and options to eliminate it are being discussed. And acting like distinctions you are drawing are meaningful isn't fooling anyone into forgetting what we are actually talking about.

Edited, Nov 17th 2011 8:03pm by idiggory

Wanting everything is the only way to go. Anything less is not worth even trying.

Sigh. No. But disease, homelessness and starvation are the natural results if no one works to avoid them. This is true whether there's money involved or not, and has been true for the entire length of human history. The idea that part of society must work so the rest of society can sit around and claim those things as a "right" is completely absurd.


But since you mentioned it, yes, if no one actually produces food, or builds shelter, or makes medicines, the society will collapse. Again though, this has *nothing* to do with money. It has everything to do with the society having to produce enough of those things to provide for the whole. And the best way to ensure that this happens is to require that each member of society contribute to that whole. In the past, this might be some group of tribal elders passing judgment on someone who isn't pulling his weight. Today, we judge the value of contribution via money. You get paid for your labors based on how much others value those labors (is there a better way to do this?). You then use that payment to purchase the food, shelter, and medicine that others in the society produce as part of their labor.


Why is it fair for you to take someone else's labor without giving an equal value in return? It's funny because us free market guys are often labeled as greedy, but the real greed comes from those who want a system where such taking of others efforts is not just common, but enforced by law. Forgive me if I think that this is an absolutely moronic way to run a society *and* a terrible violation of the basic principles of liberty.

Weren't you the one telling me to stop with the "all or nothing BS"?

Shockingly, you can have a capitalist system with socialist programmes. They do stack up, you know.

I don't think you really understand how other systems work, at all, do you?


For arguments sake, let's say that 10% of the US population is unemployed right now. That's, 30 million people? Give or take. In your mind, is it fair that they should be homeless because they can not work, as a direct result of the free market? Do you think it is fair they should have to go without food or medical care, because they simply can not work because there are no jobs for them to work at?

I'm not talking about potential abusers or whatever else. I am asking you if you think this scenario is fair, do not (I really mean it) go off on a tangent. Be concise and direct.

Double post lolwut?

Edited, Nov 17th 2011 9:11pm by idiggory

Oh good, ThiefX is here now. That always makes conversation more intelligent.