Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who is responsible for America's debt?

Gaming_Debater
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 3:31:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This may be a dubious assertion, but neither Obama nor Bush is responsible for America's debt. American CITIZENS are responsible. Citizens' debt affects the government's debt and in the early 20th century, everyone got into a "buy now pay later" mentality. Everyone got brainwashed into thinking credit cards were a tool with advertising. And what happened? They swiped those cards like they were swing swords in combat. Their debt piled up more and more and more, giving the government a TON of debt. A lot of Americans are still doing that today, overusing our credit cards. 70% percent of us to be specific. Americans ARE brainwashed. Our government used to do that and now we do it to ourselves.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 10:42:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 3:31:51 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
This may be a dubious assertion, but neither Obama nor Bush is responsible for America's debt. American CITIZENS are responsible. Citizens' debt affects the government's debt and in the early 20th century, everyone got into a "buy now pay later" mentality. Everyone got brainwashed into thinking credit cards were a tool with advertising. And what happened? They swiped those cards like they were swing swords in combat. Their debt piled up more and more and more, giving the government a TON of debt. A lot of Americans are still doing that today, overusing our credit cards. 70% percent of us to be specific. Americans ARE brainwashed. Our government used to do that and now we do it to ourselves.

That would be Congress, as it is responsible for all money appropriated for spending.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 11:01:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Err.....government debt and personal debt are two different things. They're also very uncorrelated with one another.

Ex: In Japan, the citizens are huge savers but the government is in massive debt w/ it making 212% of its GDP.

However, the Japanese government actually responded to Japanese's huge desire to save by going into debt. Because one person's savings is another man's debt.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Porkloin
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 1:37:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Agreed that we can't really lay it all at the feet of Presidents - it indeed is Congress where most of the gov't spending originates. Presidents can do some things on their own that incurs costs to the gov't, though, and they obviously influence many things that go on in Congress.

The federal gov't spending more money than what it takes in is where the debt comes from. I give Reagan credit for his first two years - he really did try and cut or at least slow the growth in gov't and gov't spending. But then re-election was coming over the horizon and he not only threw in the towel on spending, he went to Walmart, bought 1500 bathroom sets, and heaved them in as well.

I do agree that in a sense we are all responsible, after all - Congress is just doing what some or many people want.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 3:38:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 3:31:51 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
This may be a dubious assertion, but neither Obama nor Bush is responsible for America's debt. American CITIZENS are responsible. Citizens' debt affects the government's debt and in the early 20th century, everyone got into a "buy now pay later" mentality. Everyone got brainwashed into thinking credit cards were a tool with advertising. And what happened? They swiped those cards like they were swing swords in combat. Their debt piled up more and more and more, giving the government a TON of debt. A lot of Americans are still doing that today, overusing our credit cards. 70% percent of us to be specific. Americans ARE brainwashed. Our government used to do that and now we do it to ourselves.

I'd like to make several related points.

1. You're essentially leaning toward the fundamental attribution error, as it's known in the field of psychology. In laymen's terms we can call it the tendency to blame the victim for his own misfortune because one doesn't take into account the bigger picture. The big pathologically accumulation-oriented and corrupt picture of a capitalist economy; the inhuman forces & factors, the sociopathic dynamics and powers that comprise it, in fact determines the hapless lot of the working-class individual, drives him/her to resort to using credit and into insurmountable debt, but your natural inclination, for psychological and philosophical reasons, is to simply gloss over all of this and assign responsibility to those at the bottom of the capitalist food chain, giving the system's predators and parasites a free pass.

2. Understanding the economic big picture can involve some time and brain strain, it's easier to simply think in unsophisticated and judgmental terms of the family next door that couldn't pay its mortgage and wound up in a shelter being at fault for its own fate.

3. One can readily relate to, favorably compare oneself to, and feel morally superior to other individuals, hence the appeal of assigning blame to them for the state of the economy. Finding an impersonal system to be responsible for its own downturns doesn't really afford one the same opportunity to feel better-than-thou, the same ego boost that comes from judging one's neighbor to be a failure.

4. But in fact it's fundamentally the system, and its elite players, who own the lion's share of the blame for the current crisis of capitalism. In point of fact it was excessively deregulated and excessively driven-to-accumulate elite Wall Street institutions (wall-streetski krvopijci - translation: bloodsucking bankers with no social conscience) and their malfeasant behavior that caused a global financial crisis that has affected both individuals and governments, creating or exacerbating their debt problems. But conservatives, with their attribution bias, prefer to point fingers at debt-ridden members of the working poor; not to mention their ideological penchant to malign the welfare state which causes them to prefer to blame the U.S.' debt crisis on the badness of big government, and the debt crisis of European countries on their social spending!

5. We live in an era of stagnating wages, of well-paying industrial sector jobs being exported to overseas sweatshops, of the top 1% controlling 40% of the nation's wealth and enjoying 95% of any economic gains in our so-called recovery, so of course workingpeople are resorting to using credit and ending up in debt. They're coerced to do so by economic realities beyond their control. Their overreliance on credit is an effect, not a cause. In short, your take pretty much has things as*backwards.

6. And the capitalist system has of course adapted to the above reality, the adverse reality of working-class folks by and large not having the income to consume enough to keep the economy healthily chugging along. That is, the system has evolved into one geared for consumers to continue consuming and subsisting on credit, to enter into a debt trap that traps them in working multiple low-paying jobs. It's a racket and a vicious circle. Capitalists extend credit to financially-challenged working folks drawing them into debt bondage which drives them to slave away for capitalists. A crisis of underconsumption is staved off by this racket, and the capitalist system stays afloat while a great many individuals drown in debt. And then, adding insult to injury, folks like you participate in brainwashing our system's victims into internalizing blame. This is how you lamely rationalize viewing capitalism as a wonderfully successful system when in reality it's obviously in decline. In short, your ideological need to play apologist for the capitalist system, and to make yourself feel superior by viewing its victims as losers profoundly biases your view of reality, you really have no reality-based concept at all of our current economic situation.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Porkloin
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 6:33:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 3:31:51 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
Citizens' debt affects the government's debt and in the early 20th century, everyone got into a "buy now pay later" mentality. Everyone got brainwashed into thinking credit cards were a tool with advertising. And what happened? They swiped those cards like they were swing swords in combat. Their debt piled up more and more and more, giving the government a TON of debt.

As Darkkermit said, a country's debt and the personal debts of its people are two different things.

"Early in the 20th century..." I really don't feel everyone embraced debt as much as you think. Yes, things were changing with regards to society's views on debt, but into the 1900s you could still be imprisoned for it. Then came the Depression of the 1930s and that rendered debt as anathema in many people's eyes. My grandparents, born in 1903 and 1911, remembered it thusly: "Nobody had any money." Debts built up before then had to be paid back with Dollars that were then much more valuable. That generation is pretty much all gone now.

It was in the 1980s and later that personal debt really took off:

http://i1377.photobucket.com...

And again, that is not "America's debt."
Porkloin
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 7:41:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
@ Charleslb: On personal debt and trying to feel superior to others - heck, who hasn't made dumb moves with money? I agree with much of what you say about the 'big picture,' but that doesn't mean that we as individuals are somehow blameless for taking on unsound debt.

Sad to say, I think we are relatively far along in the US's economic game, and now - regardless of how much those not in the group blame the group's members - we have a huge class of people who are dependent on the gov't and 'society' as a whole for their income, and who will never do anything but attempt to vote themselves the benefit of the public treasury.

We also have a gov't that is big and powerful, and rather then really being "of, by, and for the people," it's now mostly intent on maintaining its own control and position.

You are right that there are massive imbalances. We all technically have "one vote" but the super-rich have unparalleled access to politicians and the workings of gov't. The deck is certainly and massively stacked in their favor. The big bankers have been overly-friendly with the White House for over 100 years.

The 'crisis' of 2007-2008: I don't see it as all that big a deal in the long run, but it showed the weakness of the current US economy. If we are that dependent on short-term credit, just for things to "work normally," then something is badly wrong.

We had banks, insurance companies, and other entities acting as trading houses, running their own version of Las Vegas, and in the end, if they made a profit, then okay, and if not, then the US taxpayers bail them out. As we speak, the Federal Reserve Board and member banks are buying those "bad derivatives" back from some of the holders, and on a Dollar-for-Dollar basis when on a real basis they may be essentially worthless.

Quoting: "But conservatives, with their attribution bias, prefer to point fingers at debt-ridden members of the working poor; not to mention their ideological penchant to malign the welfare state which causes them to prefer to blame the U.S.' debt crisis on the badness of big government, and the debt crisis of European countries on their social spending!"

No question that pointing fingers at the working poor is silly. However, "the welfare state" does have some flaws. As with the other so-called 'entitlement' programs, we just cannot go on with the way things are. The demographics and numbers are overwhelming.

"Conservatives" - heh - we have many Republicans, but how many of those are actually, truly economically conservative? On a national scale, look back over the past 40+ years and who was President, too - every single time a Republican followed a Democrat in the White House, it's not like the yearly deficits went down. Heck, they didn't even stay the same. Every single time they skyrocketed. And of course it's not just the President - there's Congress to deal with, and it will have varying amounts of Dems and Reps in it. In the end, though, saying, "The gov't is spending too much - we need to elect a Republican President" is silly.

In general, "conservatives" and "liberals" might divert some portions of gov't spending into different areas, but in the end there has been a continuous over-spending from our federal gov't, to a heinous extent.

Our version of Capitalism has had big changes over the years. Early on it was pretty much unbridled, and, as it does, capital accumulated in the hands of the few, not the many. We had a relatively few super-rich, with the majority being little more than serfs. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, this began to change; the rise of the unions, etc. This went to a relative other extreme, with the unions pricing themselves out of business, American labor being unable to compete with foreign, etc., the unions losing membership - this is still going on.

I would not say that "Capitalism is in decline." I would say that the United States is. I doubt that humans can come up with any economic system that pleases all, and that is sustainable. While Capitalism is not perfect, I think it's still the best thing for the most people, in the long run, since the total amount of wealth produced will be higher than under other systems. I realize that there could be a lot of argument about that, but it makes sense to me - people need to have an incentive to produce.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 12:30:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 7:41:34 PM, Porkloin wrote:
@ Charleslb: On personal debt and trying to feel superior to others - heck, who hasn't made dumb moves with money? I agree with much of what you say about the 'big picture,' but that doesn't mean that we as individuals are somehow blameless for taking on unsound debt.

Our system inculcates materialism & consumerism, i.e. conditions people to be insatiable consumers, it also stagnates wages and precarizes workingpeople, setting up a scenario in which individuals can only sustain their consumerism and maintain a semblance of a middle-class lifestyle by using credit and incurring debt, and yet some think that it's quite important that we not forget to still hold individuals accountable!

Sad to say, I think we are relatively far along in the US's economic game, and now - regardless of how much those not in the group blame the group's members - we have a huge class of people who are dependent on the gov't and 'society' as a whole for their income, and who will never do anything but attempt to vote themselves the benefit of the public treasury.

Rather than evoking the image of a huge class of people feeding at the public trough, which can produce the kind of generalized (and conservatively biased) disgruntlement that unfairly encompasses groups such as unions representing government workers and welfare recipients, we should refine our focus and train it upon big business, and on the way big government has evolved to serve the interests of the economic elite.

We also have a gov't that is big and powerful, and rather then really being "of, by, and for the people," it's now mostly intent on maintaining its own control and position.

Again, the problem is not simply big government, it's the big business-big government complex, so to speak, that evolves in a capitalist society. Instead of focusing so much on the superstructure of government and public institutions we should be focusing critical thought on the pathological capitalist substructure of our ailing body politic.

You are right that there are massive imbalances. We all technically have "one vote" but the super-rich have unparalleled access to politicians and the workings of gov't. The deck is certainly and massively stacked in their favor. The big bankers have been overly-friendly with the White House for over 100 years.

Which is all quite inevitable under capitalism.

The 'crisis' of 2007-2008: I don't see it as all that big a deal in the long run, but it showed the weakness of the current US economy.

No, it's not merely a manifestation of the weakness of an American economy gone astray from the basic principles of a free market, rather it's a crisis of capitalism manifesting the profoundly flawed nature of capitalism and its inherent tendency to degenerate into a system like the one we currently have in this country, a.k.a. late capitalism.

If we are that dependent on short-term credit, just for things to "work normally," then something is badly wrong.

Yep.


We had banks, insurance companies, and other entities acting as trading houses, running their own version of Las Vegas, ...

Take note free-marketarians, this is what too much deregulation can lead to.

No question that pointing fingers at the working poor is silly. However, "the welfare state" does have some flaws.

Yes, but the point is that the welfare state isn't the root cause of any of our socioeconomic ills, the capitalist system that mass produces people who need a welfare system is.

As with the other so-called 'entitlement' programs,

The word "entitlement" seems to imply that the recipients of public aid have an entitled attitude, some kind of a free rider mentality that makes them think that they have the right to be bums at the taxpayer's expense. Let's not promote such a view of needy folks on public assistance.

we just cannot go on with the way things are. The demographics and numbers are overwhelming.

Well, the capitalist system produces quite a few casualties who end up on public assistance. And this is the fact that we need to begin addressing if we're really serious about addressing the fiscal and social problems associated in the conservative mind with the welfare state as we know it. But of course the typical conservative and Tea Party type is merely interested in grousing & griping about government and welfare moms.

"Conservatives" - heh - we have many Republicans, but how many of those are actually, truly economically conservative? On a national scale, look back over the past 40+ years and who was President, too - every single time a Republican followed a Democrat in the White House, it's not like the yearly deficits went down. Heck, they didn't even stay the same. Every single time they skyrocketed. And of course it's not just the President - there's Congress to deal with, and it will have varying amounts of Dems and Reps in it. In the end, though, saying, "The gov't is spending too much - we need to elect a Republican President" is silly.

The fault, dear porkloin, lies not just with RINOs who aren't good Reaganites and who don't remain true to the Republican platform, but in fact with the fundamental ideas and attitudes of conservatism.

In general, "conservatives" and "liberals" might divert some portions of gov't spending into different areas, but in the end there has been a continuous over-spending from our federal gov't, to a heinous extent.

You do rather like to keep your focus on the government. Again, I would assert that the true root causes of our society's financial and economic woes trace all the way down to its capitalist base.

Our version of Capitalism has had big changes over the years. Early on it was pretty much unbridled, and, as it does, capital accumulated in the hands of the few, not the many. We had a relatively few super-rich, with the majority being little more than serfs. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, this began to change; the rise of the unions, etc. This went to a relative other extreme, with the unions pricing themselves out of business, American labor being unable to compete with foreign, etc., the unions losing membership - this is still going on.

No, my friend, labor unions were never really a power or problem. It's merely free-marketarian ideology to assign blame to them for America's economic woes. It's in fact the inbuilt dynamics and contradictions of capitalism that inexorably lead to the crises of capitalism and the decline of capitalist economies.

I would not say that "Capitalism is in decline." I would say that the United States is.

Perhaps you have an ideological loyalty, so to speak, to capitalism which is such that despite your American patriotism you'd rather lay blame at America's doorstep than find fundamental fault with the capitalist system.

I doubt that humans can come up with any economic system that pleases all, and that is sustainable. While Capitalism is not perfect, I think it's still the best thing for the most people, in the long run,

I certainly agree that capitalism falls short of being a perfect system! However I profoundly and passionately disagree that it's the best we can do.

since the total amount of wealth produced will be higher than under other systems.

But alas concentrated in the hands of the one percent.

I realize that there could be a lot of argument about that, but it makes sense to me - people need to have an incentive to produce.

But then it's of course the case under capitalism that workingpeople don't receive a fair share of the wealth that they toil to produce. (Also, do you know what would really incentivize people to engage in productive work, not being alienated from their work by capitalists expropriating most of the value that their work creates!)

At any rate, thank you for a reasonable and constructive response.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Porkloin
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 1:47:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 12:30:27 AM, charleslb wrote:

Our system inculcates materialism & consumerism, i.e. conditions people to be insatiable consumers, it also stagnates wages and precarizes workingpeople, setting up a scenario in which individuals can only sustain their consumerism and maintain a semblance of a middle-class lifestyle by using credit and incurring debt, and yet some think that it's quite important that we not forget to still hold individuals accountable!

That is overly general. There are plenty of middle-class people (I am one of them) who don't feel the need for "more" material goods and insatiable consumption, certainly and absolutely not beyond my means. Heck, on a net basis I've been getting rid of stuff.

I think we are indeed accountable - it's to our detriment if not only do we not see that in many ways, debt is bad, but also that the gov't has been and is working against the best interest of a very large portion of Americans, by taking on so much debt of its own.

Rather than evoking the image of a huge class of people feeding at the public trough, which can produce the kind of generalized (and conservatively biased) disgruntlement that unfairly encompasses groups such as unions representing government workers and welfare recipients, we should refine our focus and train it upon big business, and on the way big government has evolved to serve the interests of the economic elite.

Well, there is a vast number of Americans who get all or most of their income from the gov't. Of this group, many have contributed little or nothing into the system. This weakens the system, and is a bad thing - and that would be true regardless of the economic system at hand, i.e. capitalism, communism, socialism, etc.

The word "entitlement" seems to imply that the recipients of public aid have an entitled attitude, some kind of a free rider mentality that makes them think that they have the right to be bums at the taxpayer's expense. Let's not promote such a view of needy folks on public assistance.

That is a fair point, and of course not everybody on public assistance feels that way, but many do, even while having a standard of living quite a bit above the average of many other countries. I believe it's now around 47 million people that are getting food stamps.

Hey, being poor is supposed to really suck, to suck so bad that people are very highly motivated to try and alter their situation. I am not saying dump all widows and orphans into the street, but we are to the point where draconian fiscal measures are necessary.

You do rather like to keep your focus on the government. Again, I would assert that the true root causes of our society's financial and economic woes trace all the way down to its capitalist base.

I see nothing remotely comparable to the federal gov't spending too much money - more than it takes in.

No, my friend, labor unions were never really a power or problem. It's merely free-marketarian ideology to assign blame to them for America's economic woes. It's in fact the inbuilt dynamics and contradictions of capitalism that inexorably lead to the crises of capitalism and the decline of capitalist economies.

Regardless of whether it was under capitalism or not, our unions are why autoworkers' compensation got to around $40 per hour, with another $30 in costs to the employers for health care, pensions, and other retiree benefits. It should be no surprise that jobs are going overseas when it's like that.

I realize that there could be a lot of argument about that, but it makes sense to me - people need to have an incentive to produce.

But then it's of course the case under capitalism that working people don't receive a fair share of the wealth that they toil to produce. (Also, do you know what would really incentivize people to engage in productive work, not being alienated from their work by capitalists expropriating

I'm not saying that "capitalism is perfect," but looking around the world at socialist and communist countries, dictatorships, fascists, etc., it looks to me like the average American has it pretty good, even with all our problems.

And, we are so far down the bad road of debt that talking about the woes of capitalism really doesn't address the problem. Were we under a different system, that much debt is still a killer.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 10:37:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:01:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Err.....government debt and personal debt are two different things. They're also very uncorrelated with one another.

Ex: In Japan, the citizens are huge savers but the government is in massive debt w/ it making 212% of its GDP.

However, the Japanese government actually responded to Japanese's huge desire to save by going into debt. Because one person's savings is another man's debt.

And they are essentially borrowed from their own citizen... actually, I think his idea is kind of right, just not by the way he thinks it is working.

The more we save, the more our government has available money supply to borrow from. So.. yeah, our action affect our national debt, just in the opposite way - the more we save, the more likely our government are going to borrow (as in Japan).

Funny that on the other hands, if we don't have any saving at all - we're probably going to live in a debt free nation, that's to say free from civilization as well (as in N.Korea)
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 11:51:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
charleslb,

It sounds like people have already mentioned this to you but your writing is extremely verbose. It makes it hard to read. You sound like a high school student who took an SAT class and is now trying to use all these big words to sound smarter.

I apologize for the off-topic remark.

At 9/27/2014 3:38:02 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/20/2014 3:31:51 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
This may be a dubious assertion, but neither Obama nor Bush is responsible for America's debt. American CITIZENS are responsible. Citizens' debt affects the government's debt and in the early 20th century, everyone got into a "buy now pay later" mentality. Everyone got brainwashed into thinking credit cards were a tool with advertising. And what happened? They swiped those cards like they were swing swords in combat. Their debt piled up more and more and more, giving the government a TON of debt. A lot of Americans are still doing that today, overusing our credit cards. 70% percent of us to be specific. Americans ARE brainwashed. Our government used to do that and now we do it to ourselves.

I'd like to make several related points.

1. You're essentially leaning toward the fundamental attribution error, as it's known in the field of psychology. In laymen's terms we can call it the tendency to blame the victim for his own misfortune because one doesn't take into account the bigger picture. The big pathologically accumulation-oriented and corrupt picture of a capitalist economy; the inhuman forces & factors, the sociopathic dynamics and powers that comprise it, in fact determines the hapless lot of the working-class individual, drives him/her to resort to using credit and into insurmountable debt, but your natural inclination, for psychological and philosophical reasons, is to simply gloss over all of this and assign responsibility to those at the bottom of the capitalist food chain, giving the system's predators and parasites a free pass.

2. Understanding the economic big picture can involve some time and brain strain, it's easier to simply think in unsophisticated and judgmental terms of the family next door that couldn't pay its mortgage and wound up in a shelter being at fault for its own fate.

3. One can readily relate to, favorably compare oneself to, and feel morally superior to other individuals, hence the appeal of assigning blame to them for the state of the economy. Finding an impersonal system to be responsible for its own downturns doesn't really afford one the same opportunity to feel better-than-thou, the same ego boost that comes from judging one's neighbor to be a failure.

4. But in fact it's fundamentally the system, and its elite players, who own the lion's share of the blame for the current crisis of capitalism. In point of fact it was excessively deregulated and excessively driven-to-accumulate elite Wall Street institutions (wall-streetski krvopijci - translation: bloodsucking bankers with no social conscience) and their malfeasant behavior that caused a global financial crisis that has affected both individuals and governments, creating or exacerbating their debt problems. But conservatives, with their attribution bias, prefer to point fingers at debt-ridden members of the working poor; not to mention their ideological penchant to malign the welfare state which causes them to prefer to blame the U.S.' debt crisis on the badness of big government, and the debt crisis of European countries on their social spending!

5. We live in an era of stagnating wages, of well-paying industrial sector jobs being exported to overseas sweatshops, of the top 1% controlling 40% of the nation's wealth and enjoying 95% of any economic gains in our so-called recovery, so of course workingpeople are resorting to using credit and ending up in debt. They're coerced to do so by economic realities beyond their control. Their overreliance on credit is an effect, not a cause. In short, your take pretty much has things as*backwards.

6. And the capitalist system has of course adapted to the above reality, the adverse reality of working-class folks by and large not having the income to consume enough to keep the economy healthily chugging along. That is, the system has evolved into one geared for consumers to continue consuming and subsisting on credit, to enter into a debt trap that traps them in working multiple low-paying jobs. It's a racket and a vicious circle. Capitalists extend credit to financially-challenged working folks drawing them into debt bondage which drives them to slave away for capitalists. A crisis of underconsumption is staved off by this racket, and the capitalist system stays afloat while a great many individuals drown in debt. And then, adding insult to injury, folks like you participate in brainwashing our system's victims into internalizing blame. This is how you lamely rationalize viewing capitalism as a wonderfully successful system when in reality it's obviously in decline. In short, your ideological need to play apologist for the capitalist system, and to make yourself feel superior by viewing its victims as losers profoundly biases your view of reality, you really have no reality-based concept at all of our current economic situation.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 4:35:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 11:51:53 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:

It sounds like people have already mentioned this to you but your writing is extremely verbose. It makes it hard to read. You sound like a high school student who took an SAT class and is now trying to use all these big words to sound smarter.

I apologize for the off-topic remark.

So, perhaps it would be more your speed if I wrote like a dumb-sounding high school dropout who hasn't learned any "big words"? Sorry, but I don't care to cater to your level of reading comprehension. But of course I apologize for these off-topic remarks. (Btw, I would also refer you to my standing response to critics of my "verbose" style in my signature below.)

At 9/27/2014 3:38:02 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/20/2014 3:31:51 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
This may be a dubious assertion, but neither Obama nor Bush is responsible for America's debt. American CITIZENS are responsible. Citizens' debt affects the government's debt and in the early 20th century, everyone got into a "buy now pay later" mentality. Everyone got brainwashed into thinking credit cards were a tool with advertising. And what happened? They swiped those cards like they were swing swords in combat. Their debt piled up more and more and more, giving the government a TON of debt. A lot of Americans are still doing that today, overusing our credit cards. 70% percent of us to be specific. Americans ARE brainwashed. Our government used to do that and now we do it to ourselves.

I'd like to make several related points.

1. You're essentially leaning toward the fundamental attribution error, as it's known in the field of psychology. In laymen's terms we can call it the tendency to blame the victim for his own misfortune because one doesn't take into account the bigger picture. The big pathologically accumulation-oriented and corrupt picture of a capitalist economy; the inhuman forces & factors, the sociopathic dynamics and powers that comprise it, in fact determines the hapless lot of the working-class individual, drives him/her to resort to using credit and into insurmountable debt, but your natural inclination, for psychological and philosophical reasons, is to simply gloss over all of this and assign responsibility to those at the bottom of the capitalist food chain, giving the system's predators and parasites a free pass.

2. Understanding the economic big picture can involve some time and brain strain, it's easier to simply think in unsophisticated and judgmental terms of the family next door that couldn't pay its mortgage and wound up in a shelter being at fault for its own fate.

3. One can readily relate to, favorably compare oneself to, and feel morally superior to other individuals, hence the appeal of assigning blame to them for the state of the economy. Finding an impersonal system to be responsible for its own downturns doesn't really afford one the same opportunity to feel better-than-thou, the same ego boost that comes from judging one's neighbor to be a failure.

4. But in fact it's fundamentally the system, and its elite players, who own the lion's share of the blame for the current crisis of capitalism. In point of fact it was excessively deregulated and excessively driven-to-accumulate elite Wall Street institutions (wall-streetski krvopijci - translation: bloodsucking bankers with no social conscience) and their malfeasant behavior that caused a global financial crisis that has affected both individuals and governments, creating or exacerbating their debt problems. But conservatives, with their attribution bias, prefer to point fingers at debt-ridden members of the working poor; not to mention their ideological penchant to malign the welfare state which causes them to prefer to blame the U.S.' debt crisis on the badness of big government, and the debt crisis of European countries on their social spending!

5. We live in an era of stagnating wages, of well-paying industrial sector jobs being exported to overseas sweatshops, of the top 1% controlling 40% of the nation's wealth and enjoying 95% of any economic gains in our so-called recovery, so of course workingpeople are resorting to using credit and ending up in debt. They're coerced to do so by economic realities beyond their control. Their overreliance on credit is an effect, not a cause. In short, your take pretty much has things as*backwards.

6. And the capitalist system has of course adapted to the above reality, the adverse reality of working-class folks by and large not having the income to consume enough to keep the economy healthily chugging along. That is, the system has evolved into one geared for consumers to continue consuming and subsisting on credit, to enter into a debt trap that traps them in working multiple low-paying jobs. It's a racket and a vicious circle. Capitalists extend credit to financially-challenged working folks drawing them into debt bondage which drives them to slave away for capitalists. A crisis of underconsumption is staved off by this racket, and the capitalist system stays afloat while a great many individuals drown in debt. And then, adding insult to injury, folks like you participate in brainwashing our system's victims into internalizing blame. This is how you lamely rationalize viewing capitalism as a wonderfully successful system when in reality it's obviously in decline. In short, your ideological need to play apologist for the capitalist system, and to make yourself feel superior by viewing its victims as losers profoundly biases your view of reality, you really have no reality-based concept at all of our current economic situation.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 6:06:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 1:47:32 AM, Porkloin wrote:
At 9/28/2014 12:30:27 AM, charleslb wrote:

That is overly general. There are plenty of middle-class people (I am one of them) who don't feel the need for "more" material goods and insatiable consumption, certainly and absolutely not beyond my means. Heck, on a net basis I've been getting rid of stuff.

Well, do you acknowledge that our capitalist economy couldn't long withstand a drastic drop in consumerism, that whatever viability it has depends on a great many of us being committed consumers, so to speak. If Americans suddenly en masse adopted more of the anti-materialism and wholesomeness of, say, the Amish, capitalism as we know it would no longer be possible. Which is all to say that although you get kudos for being an exception it must be the case that all too many of us have been thoroughly inculcated with consumerism.

In any event, it's not just the elective & excessive consumerism of those who've been infected with affluenza that drives people to resort to credit, many frugal folks of with stagnating or declining incomes find that they need to do so simply to meet quite legitimate expenses and to maintain the middle-class standard of living that they've been taught to aspire to as Americans.

I think we are indeed accountable - it's to our detriment if not only do we not see that in many ways, debt is bad, but also that the gov't has been and is working against the best interest of a very large portion of Americans, by taking on so much debt of its own.

And the government is working against the little guy's interests at who's behest? Could the answer perhaps and perchance be corporate America and the Wall Street elite. Yes, this is certainly a rhetorical question.


Well, there is a vast number of Americans who get all or most of their income from the gov't. Of this group, many have contributed little or nothing into the system. This weakens the system, and is a bad thing - and that would be true regardless of the economic system at hand, i.e. capitalism, communism, socialism, etc.

So, do you prefer to focus on the harm to our society's economic health allegedly caused by sociopolitically low-power groups such as welfare recipients and low-level government workers, somewhat glossing over or giving less attention to the substantially greater damage done by the economic power elite?


The word "entitlement" seems to imply that the recipients of public aid have an entitled attitude, some kind of a free rider mentality that makes them think that they have the right to be bums at the taxpayer's expense. Let's not promote such a view of needy folks on public assistance.

That is a fair point, and of course not everybody on public assistance feels that way, but many do, even while having a standard of living quite a bit above the average of many other countries. I believe it's now around 47 million people that are getting food stamps.

Well, when the economy of a capitalist society immiserates a large portion of the population they end up falling into and getting ensnared in its social safety net. Don't blame the existence of the net, blame the factor, i.e. the capitalist system, that drives them into it.

Hey, being poor is supposed to really suck, to suck so bad that people are very highly motivated to try and alter their situation.

So, although it's in reality the system that's ultimately responsibility for the recession, for income inequality, and millions of individuals and families existing below the poverty line, you still advocate putting the burden on individual victims to get motivated and pull themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps. Again, I point out that this does rather imply that one is assigning blame to victims and tacitly letting the system and its corporate-financial elite have somewhat of a free pass.

I am not saying dump all widows and orphans into the street, but we are to the point where draconian fiscal measures are necessary.

Ah, so the remedy for our economic ills is "austerity" for the poor and the working class? How conservative, and what utter horsesh*t.


You do rather like to keep your focus on the government. Again, I would assert that the true root causes of our society's financial and economic woes trace all the way down to its capitalist base.

I see nothing remotely comparable to the federal gov't spending too much money - more than it takes in.

Hmm, so you don't wish to spend much time talking about the gross undertaxation of the economic elite, about corporate welfare, about the impact of a $3 trillion bill for an invasion/occupation of Iraq perpetrated to benefit certain corporate interests, about the DDO-corporate complex that's essentially a wealth transfer racket that puts billions in the corporate coffers of military contractors every year; no, you apparently think that it's more critical that we concentrate on portraying social spending as the culprit destroying the fiscal health of the federal government.


Regardless of whether it was under capitalism or not, our unions are why autoworkers' compensation ...

You're right back to blaming workingpeople. Well, I beg to differ. In my view it's the behavior of corporations and their CEOs, driven as they are under capitalism by the drive for profit maximization and accumulation, that produces our society's economic troubles and crises. For instance, executives who provide themselves with $30 million dollar golden parachutes but who prefer to export jobs to overseas sweatshops rather than pay American workers a decent wage. Or Wall Street financial institutions whose malfeasant shenanigans drove the global economy into the ole commode. In short, the fault for a waning American economy lies with the MO of capitalists & capitalist firms, and with the dynamics of the capitalist system that actuates and drives their socially-irresponsible conduct.

I realize that there could be a lot of argument about that, but it makes sense to me - people need to have an incentive to produce.

But then it's of course the case under capitalism that working people don't receive a fair share of the wealth that they toil to produce. (Also, do you know what would really incentivize people to engage in productive work, not being alienated from their work by capitalists expropriating


I'm not saying that "capitalism is perfect," but looking around the world at socialist and communist countries, dictatorships, fascists, etc.,

You set the bar rather low, methinks.

it looks to me like the average American has it pretty good, even with all our problems.

At the expense of others in the Third World who involuntarily support what affluence some of us still enjoy, and not as good as s/he would have it if we had a society that was more keen on income and social equality.


And, we are so far down the bad road of debt that talking about the woes of capitalism really doesn't address the problem. Were we under a different system, that much debt is still a killer.

Hmm, you don't think that the fundamental nature of an economic system, its inherent dynamics, and inescapable business cycle of boom and bust is relevant to addressing its troubles?! It seems that like most anti-government and pro-capitalist conservatives your pet peeve and scapegoat is the federal government's debt; it's quite transparent, however, that the point of making Washington's fiscal irresponsibility the fall guy for a failing economy is of course to allow yourselves to avoid facing the recurrently sick elephant in the room and the more underlying causal factor, our capitalist system itself. This is called being lamely in bad faith.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 2:32:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sloppy typo correction. "... many frugal folks of with stagnating or declining incomes ..." should of course read: "... many frugal folks with stagnating or declining incomes ..."
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 2:36:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Another appallingly sloppy typo error. "And the government is working against the little guy's interests at who's behest?" should of course read: "And the government is working against the little guy's interests at whose behest?"
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 3:16:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 10:37:14 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:01:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Err.....government debt and personal debt are two different things. They're also very uncorrelated with one another.

Ex: In Japan, the citizens are huge savers but the government is in massive debt w/ it making 212% of its GDP.

However, the Japanese government actually responded to Japanese's huge desire to save by going into debt. Because one person's savings is another man's debt.

And they are essentially borrowed from their own citizen... actually, I think his idea is kind of right, just not by the way he thinks it is working.

The more we save, the more our government has available money supply to borrow from. So.. yeah, our action affect our national debt, just in the opposite way - the more we save, the more likely our government are going to borrow (as in Japan).

Funny that on the other hands, if we don't have any saving at all - we're probably going to live in a debt free nation, that's to say free from civilization as well (as in N.Korea)

Unless you count foreign owners of debt and central bank ownership of debt, but that's pretty much printing money anways (debt monetization).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 3:28:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 3:16:39 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/28/2014 10:37:14 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:01:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Err.....government debt and personal debt are two different things. They're also very uncorrelated with one another.

Ex: In Japan, the citizens are huge savers but the government is in massive debt w/ it making 212% of its GDP.

However, the Japanese government actually responded to Japanese's huge desire to save by going into debt. Because one person's savings is another man's debt.

And they are essentially borrowed from their own citizen... actually, I think his idea is kind of right, just not by the way he thinks it is working.

The more we save, the more our government has available money supply to borrow from. So.. yeah, our action affect our national debt, just in the opposite way - the more we save, the more likely our government are going to borrow (as in Japan).

Funny that on the other hands, if we don't have any saving at all - we're probably going to live in a debt free nation, that's to say free from civilization as well (as in N.Korea)

Unless you count foreign owners of debt and central bank ownership of debt, but that's pretty much printing money anways (debt monetization).

Care to address the ultimate underlying causal factor, i.e., the fundamental dynamics of the capitalist system that drive the economic and political establishment's debt and financial crises-generating behaviors? Care to address any of the points in my above posts?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 6:32:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 11:01:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Err.....government debt and personal debt are two different things. They're also very uncorrelated with one another.

Ex: In Japan, the citizens are huge savers but the government is in massive debt w/ it making 212% of its GDP.

However, the Japanese government actually responded to Japanese's huge desire to save by going into debt. Because one person's savings is another man's debt.

I don't think the underlined is a truism. Yes, FRB requires savings in order to create more money via debt, but even under such a system not ALL of a bank's deposits are loaned out, i.e. some savings do not create debt.

It's also possible to save without others incurring debt at a very basic level, i.e. storing solar power in a battery or growing food for yourself and storing it over time.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 7:18:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 3:31:51 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
This may be a dubious assertion, but neither Obama nor Bush is responsible for America's debt. American CITIZENS are responsible. Citizens' debt affects the government's debt and in the early 20th century, everyone got into a "buy now pay later" mentality. Everyone got brainwashed into thinking credit cards were a tool with advertising. And what happened? They swiped those cards like they were swing swords in combat. Their debt piled up more and more and more, giving the government a TON of debt. A lot of Americans are still doing that today, overusing our credit cards. 70% percent of us to be specific. Americans ARE brainwashed. Our government used to do that and now we do it to ourselves.

You have said yourself that "everyone got brainwashed" and thus it is a big ilogical that you claim it's citizens fault. Don't you agree?
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 8:27:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
My level of reading comprehension? Let me tell you that I've gotten perfect scores on the GMAT and the SATs which means I got perfect scores on the reading comprehension sections. And, I have difficulty wading through all your unnecessary language.

Take my criticism positively. Any freshman English class will fail you if you write like this.

So, perhaps it would be more your speed if I wrote like a dumb-sounding high school dropout who hasn't learned any "big words"? Sorry, but I don't care to cater to your level of reading comprehension. But of course I apologize for these off-topic remarks. (Btw, I would also refer you to my standing response to critics of my "verbose" style in my signature below.)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 9:20:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 6:32:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:01:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Err.....government debt and personal debt are two different things. They're also very uncorrelated with one another.

Ex: In Japan, the citizens are huge savers but the government is in massive debt w/ it making 212% of its GDP.

However, the Japanese government actually responded to Japanese's huge desire to save by going into debt. Because one person's savings is another man's debt.

I don't think the underlined is a truism. Yes, FRB requires savings in order to create more money via debt, but even under such a system not ALL of a bank's deposits are loaned out, i.e. some savings do not create debt.

It's also possible to save without others incurring debt at a very basic level, i.e. storing solar power in a battery or growing food for yourself and storing it over time.

Savings might not be equal to debt, but the amount saved is the amount invested according to the savings identity:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 9:24:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
For a closed economy, Income = consumption + savings and Expenditures = consumption + investment

Storing energy in a battery or storing food for yourself would be considered both a personal savings and investing, with no transfer between parties.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 9:37:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 3:28:33 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/29/2014 3:16:39 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/28/2014 10:37:14 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:01:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Err.....government debt and personal debt are two different things. They're also very uncorrelated with one another.

Ex: In Japan, the citizens are huge savers but the government is in massive debt w/ it making 212% of its GDP.

However, the Japanese government actually responded to Japanese's huge desire to save by going into debt. Because one person's savings is another man's debt.

And they are essentially borrowed from their own citizen... actually, I think his idea is kind of right, just not by the way he thinks it is working.

The more we save, the more our government has available money supply to borrow from. So.. yeah, our action affect our national debt, just in the opposite way - the more we save, the more likely our government are going to borrow (as in Japan).

Funny that on the other hands, if we don't have any saving at all - we're probably going to live in a debt free nation, that's to say free from civilization as well (as in N.Korea)

Unless you count foreign owners of debt and central bank ownership of debt, but that's pretty much printing money anways (debt monetization).

Care to address the ultimate underlying causal factor, i.e., the fundamental dynamics of the capitalist system that drive the economic and political establishment's debt and financial crises-generating behaviors? Care to address any of the points in my above posts?

Not really.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 10:49:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't understand why people are arguing over this. Government debt and personal debt are unrelated as the mechanisms on how this debt is incurred are completely unrelated. Government debt is determined by the President and Congress. Personal debt is determined by each citizen. The original question was idiotic.

But, I'd like to raise an interesting point. Darkkermit says that the two are not correlated. But, I suspect that there is indeed a significant correlation. Why do I say this?

Let's look at the financial analysis of insurance companies. In order for an insurance company to be successful, managers must write responsible policies. How does Warren Buffett predict this? He evaluates the personal investments of these same managers. If the managers are responsible with their personal investments, it's likely they will be responsible handling their companies underwriting policies. Buffett made money by finding a correlation between personal and corporate debt.

Similarly, if the general population has become more irresponsible with personal debt over the past 50 years, I wouldn't be surprised that Congressmen have also become more irresponsible with government debt as well as their own personal debt. This is just an unsubstantiated theory...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 11:45:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 10:49:01 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
I don't understand why people are arguing over this. Government debt and personal debt are unrelated as the mechanisms on how this debt is incurred are completely unrelated. Government debt is determined by the President and Congress. Personal debt is determined by each citizen. The original question was idiotic.

But, I'd like to raise an interesting point. Darkkermit says that the two are not correlated. But, I suspect that there is indeed a significant correlation. Why do I say this?

Let's look at the financial analysis of insurance companies. In order for an insurance company to be successful, managers must write responsible policies. How does Warren Buffett predict this? He evaluates the personal investments of these same managers. If the managers are responsible with their personal investments, it's likely they will be responsible handling their companies underwriting policies. Buffett made money by finding a correlation between personal and corporate debt.

Similarly, if the general population has become more irresponsible with personal debt over the past 50 years, I wouldn't be surprised that Congressmen have also become more irresponsible with government debt as well as their own personal debt. This is just an unsubstantiated theory...

It is indeed unsubstantiated.. but may be worth a study though, perhaps there should be a law that bar people failed in their own personal finance from entering politics (as in bankrupt history, debt default etc). This is not discrimination, if by entering politic mean they will have control over my tax - then they should have some qualification.

I will sure as hell not have an operation with doctors without medical license.

or you may end up like this..
https://www.youtube.com...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 11:56:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 9:20:56 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/29/2014 6:32:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:01:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Err.....government debt and personal debt are two different things. They're also very uncorrelated with one another.

Ex: In Japan, the citizens are huge savers but the government is in massive debt w/ it making 212% of its GDP.

However, the Japanese government actually responded to Japanese's huge desire to save by going into debt. Because one person's savings is another man's debt.

I don't think the underlined is a truism. Yes, FRB requires savings in order to create more money via debt, but even under such a system not ALL of a bank's deposits are loaned out, i.e. some savings do not create debt.

It's also possible to save without others incurring debt at a very basic level, i.e. storing solar power in a battery or growing food for yourself and storing it over time.

Savings might not be equal to debt, but the amount saved is the amount invested according to the savings identity:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Agree with the underlined, but it's important to point out that investment =/= debt. I don't know if you've recanted that connection of savings to debt completely, just making that clear.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:06:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 11:56:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 9:20:56 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/29/2014 6:32:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:01:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Err.....government debt and personal debt are two different things. They're also very uncorrelated with one another.

Ex: In Japan, the citizens are huge savers but the government is in massive debt w/ it making 212% of its GDP.

However, the Japanese government actually responded to Japanese's huge desire to save by going into debt. Because one person's savings is another man's debt.

I don't think the underlined is a truism. Yes, FRB requires savings in order to create more money via debt, but even under such a system not ALL of a bank's deposits are loaned out, i.e. some savings do not create debt.

It's also possible to save without others incurring debt at a very basic level, i.e. storing solar power in a battery or growing food for yourself and storing it over time.

Savings might not be equal to debt, but the amount saved is the amount invested according to the savings identity:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Agree with the underlined, but it's important to point out that investment =/= debt. I don't know if you've recanted that connection of savings to debt completely, just making that clear.

Yes, although also Modiglain Miller Theorem:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:12:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:06:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/30/2014 11:56:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 9:20:56 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/29/2014 6:32:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:01:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Err.....government debt and personal debt are two different things. They're also very uncorrelated with one another.

Ex: In Japan, the citizens are huge savers but the government is in massive debt w/ it making 212% of its GDP.

However, the Japanese government actually responded to Japanese's huge desire to save by going into debt. Because one person's savings is another man's debt.

I don't think the underlined is a truism. Yes, FRB requires savings in order to create more money via debt, but even under such a system not ALL of a bank's deposits are loaned out, i.e. some savings do not create debt.

It's also possible to save without others incurring debt at a very basic level, i.e. storing solar power in a battery or growing food for yourself and storing it over time.

Savings might not be equal to debt, but the amount saved is the amount invested according to the savings identity:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Agree with the underlined, but it's important to point out that investment =/= debt. I don't know if you've recanted that connection of savings to debt completely, just making that clear.

Yes, although also Modiglain Miller Theorem:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Interesting but irrelevant to the discussion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 1:54:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:06:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/30/2014 11:56:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 9:20:56 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/29/2014 6:32:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/21/2014 11:01:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Err.....government debt and personal debt are two different things. They're also very uncorrelated with one another.

Ex: In Japan, the citizens are huge savers but the government is in massive debt w/ it making 212% of its GDP.

However, the Japanese government actually responded to Japanese's huge desire to save by going into debt. Because one person's savings is another man's debt.

I don't think the underlined is a truism. Yes, FRB requires savings in order to create more money via debt, but even under such a system not ALL of a bank's deposits are loaned out, i.e. some savings do not create debt.

It's also possible to save without others incurring debt at a very basic level, i.e. storing solar power in a battery or growing food for yourself and storing it over time.

Savings might not be equal to debt, but the amount saved is the amount invested according to the savings identity:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Agree with the underlined, but it's important to point out that investment =/= debt. I don't know if you've recanted that connection of savings to debt completely, just making that clear.

Yes, although also Modiglain Miller Theorem:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just as a sidenote: I think almost everyone in the finance world knows that the Modiglian Miller Theorem is invalid. Just like the perfectly efficient market hypothesis. Or, like CAPM. All theories that don't apply in real life but they still teach it in business school.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 2:43:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 8:27:10 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
My level of reading comprehension? Let me tell you that I've gotten perfect scores on the GMAT and the SATs which means I got perfect scores on the reading comprehension sections. And, I have difficulty wading through all your unnecessary language.

Take my criticism positively. Any freshman English class will fail you if you write like this.


So, perhaps it would be more your speed if I wrote like a dumb-sounding high school dropout who hasn't learned any "big words"? Sorry, but I don't care to cater to your level of reading comprehension. But of course I apologize for these off-topic remarks. (Btw, I would also refer you to my standing response to critics of my "verbose" style in my signature below.)

So you're merely going to continue playing critic, reproaching my style and ignoring the substance of my post?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.