Why do governments get into debt?

Funny, I don't remember choosing to give my money to rich, greedy banksters.

That they have no right not to make that choice proves the absence of such justification.

By pocketing publicly created value? That's not a contribution.

Extorting wealth from the productive through legal privilege is not a contribution.

I object to paying another's way when they already have far more than I do.

I can't speak for him, but no, that's not where we differ. Where we differ is in the assumption that owning is proof of earning. You have to believe that as an article of faith. I do not believe it, because I have seen too many proofs of its falsehood.

 

By "ANY" logic, money being spent contributes to the economy, Roy. That would include money stolen by an individual, groups of individuals, or governments.

You appear to refuse to recognize the fact that money earned directly by the person(s) spending it is much more beneficial to the economy than redistributing the earnings of those who HAVE earned it to others who HAVE NOT, simply for them to spend it.

Jobs is the more rational solution, not increased welfare assistance.

 

What IS preferable is that the money we each spend has been acquired as a result of our own efforts, not the efforts of others, unless they have willingly provided it to another or others.

 

No one forces you to put money in a bank.

Proofs being? More likely you simply find it unsettling that some people are able to demand and be paid wages that YOU feel are more than they are worth, and probably feel that you are worth much more than employers are willing to pay you. Tough isn't it?

 

Capital gains are not earned income. Your other point is harder to demonstrate. I see very few business models where laborers are not leveraging off the work of someone who created or manages a process.

The latter is demonstrably more valuable in that we have a surplus of unemployed folks willing to labor but a lack of people offering new solutions that would employ them.


​

 

The answer to "Why" is really simple as politicians deficit spend for political agendas and to retain power. The more important question is how do they manage to do this and, at least for the United States, the answer is quite simple.

They ignore the law!!!

We have two forms of "legal tender" in the United States with one being the "lawful legal tender money" of the United States (i.e. American Eagle Coins produced by the US Mint) and the other being "legal tender currency" that are promissory notes (i.e. Federal Reserve Notes) that promise redemption on demand under the law in "lawful legal tender money" but the law is not enforced. We also have a law that requires that equal purchasing power of the "legal tender currency" and "lawful legal tender money" must be maintained.

If those statutory laws were enforced it would dramatically limit the amount of borrowing that the government could do as all promissory notes would have to be backed by "lawful" money (i.e. gold, silver, and platinum American Eagle coins or reserves in the gold, silver, and platinum required to produce those coins).

Remember that the US Constitution does not allow the government to "create money" (that it can't actually do) but instead it only authorizes it to "coin money" which is a manufacturing process of making an official token out of the actual "money" which is the gold, silver, and platinum used in our official coinage. Gold, silver, and copper, were the traditional "money" used in the United States and Platinum was added in the 1990's (as I recall) and the government only has the authority to make "coins" out of the "money" to create "lawful money" under the US Constitution or to issue promissory notes that are redeemable in the "lawful money" of the United States.

But the statutory laws are not being complied with nor do the Democrats or Republicans controlling the US government want to enforce these statutory laws.

 

If he's not investing, then he's living off of his own wealth. Otherwise, he's contributing capital to a business that needs it to grow.

A man with a cow may choose to slaughter it and live off of that meat without working for as long as the meat lasts. Or he may choose to contribute that cow to a dairy business and live off of the fruits of his investment. Either way, if the man isn't asking me for charity I don't see that I have a right to judge his choice.

In contrast, the man who approaches me on the street and asks me for bread is attempting to put the weight of his needs on my shoulders. Whether I choose to offer him charity or not, I have a right to ask myself — and ask him — if there isn't another way he can earn what he's asking me to provide.


​

 

Now you are trying to move the goalposts. Your claim was not that spending money contributes to the economy, but that THE PERSON WHO SPENDS IT contributes to the economy. That is false.

But it is the spending that contributes to economic activity, not the spender. When a thief takes $1K from me and spends it, he is not contributing to the economy any more than a rich parasite who takes $1K from me and spends it, because if they hadn't taken the money from me, I would have spent it, or invested it, which would contribute even more to the economy.

CAPISCI??

Huh?? That's MY point to YOU. The rich parasite taking money from producers through rent collection privileges is not earning it, and his spending does not contribute to the economy because it merely displaces the producer's spending.

Too bad you don't think rich, greedy takers would also benefit from having jobs.

 

I was referring to the taxpayer-funded bank bailouts, but you're wrong in any case. The debt-money system DOES force me to use banksters' interest-bearing debt money if I want to participate in the economy. That is part of its genius.

Rich, greedy takers I know personally who got loads of money without earning it.

Wrong. Inevitably. Nothing to do with wages.

One of the rich, greedy takers I know personally is a philosophy professor who explains to his classes how he became a millionaire in a few years, and a multimillionaire a few years later, by buying up land by the acre in front of the path of development, and then selling it by the foot when it was developed. Pure parasitism, which he freely acknowledged, and used as a factual demonstration of how capitalism rewards greedy, idle parasites. True story.

- - - Updated - - -

People "willingly" pay economic rent, yet it is not earned by the recipient. That is very much the point.

 

Not at all, Roy. What I am claiming is that while spending, regardless of how the money is come by, contributes to the economy, AND that the person(s) who ACTUALLY had a part in the creation of the products money is spent on,through their labors, or investments making jobs available past present and/or future are contributing in a more beneficial way. Anyone can spend money, ill gotten or not, but not everyone contributes to the production of what money is being spent on.

Are you claiming we need more thiefs to boost our economy? How is that 'rich parasite' taking $1K from you?

 

Simply because you disagree does not make another person wrong.
You can thank Wilson for the debt-money system we now have. How might you change it?

I guess you have your own definition of what 'earning' means.

Then what has it to do with?

Sounds like a lot of work, but if it pays off...

Again, you employ your own definition of 'earning'. As what we use and call money has no real value of its' own, and diminishes over time, the more intelligent among us put it to use, employing any extra money to earn more money. Even the poor person who puts some of his/her money in a savings account is doing that.

Roy, don't allow yourself to become obsessed by what others have, allowing yourself to become distressed and consumed by such envy.

 

Because that "saved money" is money taken out of the economy. There are times when it should be done (thwarting inflation and so on) but right now is the time when we should be spending more.


BTW the last time we had no federal debt was in the 1830's under President Jackson. You know what happened right afterwards? Take a guess.

 

How many are living on millions? What difference does it make for the issue?

 

How is it more beneficial for the economy?

Of course. How do you get more jobs?

 

That contributes no more to the economy than a person living off unemployment benefits spending it.

Or he can inherit a trust fund from daddy, live off the income at special low tax privileged rates, and contribute nothing.

With 11 million unemploymed and 3 million jobs available -- unlikely.​

 

You claim wealthy people don't spend...??

 

Not in proportion to the income. Give a billion dollars to a typical billionaire and some will get spent but a big chunk of it will likely not get spent. Give a billion to middle class families and some will be saved but most will get spent.

The richest spend proportionately less of their income. That's why they have trillions of dollars in their offshore accounts, because they don't spend it. When you are talking about $1.3 trillion a year more going to the 1% than the middle classes, it makes a difference in overall spending in the economy.

 

Think about it, and read your own first sentence below.

The simple answer, and a starting point would be to remove any and all UNNECESSARY government impediments and costs related to creating jobs.

 

Non sequitur

What impediments? How is that going to create jobs when there is no demand for more products and service in the first place.

 

Money can be acquired through your own efforts, a job or investment for example, or the efforts of someone else, welfare assistance for example.
You appeared to agree that jobs are a better solution than welfare assistance, have you changed your mind?

Ask anyone who has tried to start a small business. There is always a demand for 'some' products, and more competition in the areas where demand exists can also create many jobs, not to mention better products and lower prices. Look at all the imports that are a part of our market, and are in demand. Perhaps we've priced ourselves out of being competitive in a world market?

 

Or your daddy's trust fund.

That isn't the issue. The issue is why spending money received from daddy's trust fund is better for the economy that spending money received from Govt assistance.

I don't see the difference from and economics point of view. You seemed to have asserted, with supporting analysis, that the former is "much more beneficial for the economy". When I asked you to explain your position your response was simply think about it, and directing me to my sentence "How do you get more jobs?" which of course isn't an explanation at all but a question.

Non sequitur. You have failed to explain your assertoin.

By far the major question of anyone starting a new business I've talked to is whether they will have customers and demand for their goods or services.

There is not always sufficient demand. That is a fallacy. In the 2008 recession, when they housing and then stock markets collapsed, for example, people cut back on spending, and the lack of demand prompted businesses to fire millions of workers.

Since then demand has picked up, but not like it has in previous recoveries. A gutted middle class wiped out by redistribution of their incomes to the 1% and their housing values decimated and a Govt practicing austerity as seen to that.

No demand, no jobs. Simple as that. It doesn't matter whether there's no regulation.

If there is demands and people in the business are working hard and can't keep up, they will hire, regulations or not. They always have before.

What we need is more spending. We need to stop electing politicians who pamper the 1% and elect representatives who will fight to restore the middle classes' share of the pie.

 

If Daddy earned the money and invested it, so what? Better for Daddy to provide welfare relief to his offspring than for government.

Because Daddy earned the money through his labor or investment, and Baby, like most people who are given money to spend that they did not earn themself, spend it less wisely than Daddy. But most of all, spending Daddys money doesn't take from the earnings of others.

Strictly looking at the economics, spending money from any source at all benefits the economy. But economic growth can be the result of higher prices applied to the existing production, or greater production of existing and/or new products. Decreasing the value of our currency, inflating prices and wages, results in more money spent on consuming the same or even less. More people working, creating more products, and products that can be exported, reducing the trade imbalance results in economic growth which reduces the amount of government debt and taxation needed to provide the support of those unable to provide for their own needs, allowing wage earners to retain more of their earnings providing for both their current and future needs with less dependency on government to provide for them.

What pie are you talking about?

 

Correct: I disagree with them because they are wrong.

Wilson didn't know what he was doing, and the system was already over 200 years old at the time.

Dictionary definition.

Rents.

It wasn't a lot of work, and it wasn't productive. It was legalized stealing.

No.

But debt money INHERENTLY comes with an interest liability. SOMEONE has to pay interest in order that we can all have money to use in exchange. Don't you understand how that makes the whole system thievery?

Only a matter of time before the "envy" card had to come out, wasn't it?

Tell me: in your opinion, is it even possible for anyone to oppose injustice without being envious of its beneficiaries? Do you claim Jesus was just envious of the moneychangers in the temple because they had more than him?

What despicable, evil filth.

 

Then provide the undeniable proof.

Agreed, Wilson didn't know what he was doing, but what are you defining as the system which was over 200 years old at the time.

Earn - Obtain in return for labor or services?

Renting makes available things which are beyond anothers ability to purchase outright.

That may be your opinion, but 'stealing'?

It obviously doesn't represent my, or many others, definition of earning.

Theft is the taking of another persons property without their consent or permission.

It simply describes the emotional feelings you continue to present.

What injustice are you referring to? You would have to ask that question of Jesus, I don't make use of moneychangers in the temple. I presume you equate them to todays bankers?

What despicable, evil filth are you talking about?