Reply to: The so called UK economic recovery

[SpontaneousOrder]

Slaves do not have the ability to free themselves from slavery by legal means (except in certain systems by buying their freedom). Future generations will have the ability to make the debt disappear by legislating for it to go away.

I gave you the example of the 10 men and 1 woman on the island. Is she no longer a slave? Don't dodge the question - there's no need for us have a longer debate in that respect, unless you think that my reduction of your position is ill formed.

You say you haven't implied that debt is slavery but, if passing debt onto a future generation is selling them into slavery, what is the nature of this slavery if not the debt? What is rejecting the validity of the debt if not emancipation?

"passing debt onto a future generation" is just wishful thinking. Then using violent force (or threats of) to make them honour that debt is slavery/extortion/whatever you like to call it. The nature of this slavery is the initiation of violent coercion, not debt; putting one's self into debt voluntarily is simply an exchange, and an exchange that may well be in your own rational self-interest.
Rejecting the validity of an unearned debt is simply the recognition of reality, while the apparent validity of the debt that we pass onto our children is a wilful ignorance of reality, made to feel real with fanciful tales of things like the social contract - which contradict the very definition of a contract insofar as a contract is a voluntary agreement.

The difference is that slavery pays imaginary debts, rather than real debts. The debt that we pass onto the unborn is imaginary insofar as it is unearned (unearned sounds wrong, but I can't think of a better word right now). Free men aren't compelled to pay off imaginary debts. Slaves are.

Have a read about the historic and present nature of slavery and then have a think. You might find that you have half a decent point underneath your ridiculous hyperbole.

The condition of slavery boils down to simple set of premises which are constant regardless of particular flavour, whether it be historical, modern, or otherwise. If you prefer to restrict your definition of slavery, in a no-true-scotsman kind of way, then fine - but a man's freedom is only real insofar as he is free from other men in order to act on it, and that alternative word that you might choose to describe a slave ,when it comes to categorising him, is just a euphemism as far as he is concerned when faced with practical reality.

And I do have a decent point. I've put time and effort into the subject over the course of years, and wouldn't pass comment unless I had reason to believe that I was, objectively speaking, correct.

[Old Greg]

That's more of a wet fart than a blowing-out-of-the-water event. Your straw-man implies some kind of an a priori knowledge that the right to vote is necessarily contradictory to the condition of being a slave, when infact the right to vote, or not, has nothing to do with the condition of being a slave. The syllogism is that the world's historical empires all used slaves at some point, and that all of those slaves couldn't vote, thus slaves can't vote, thus anyone who can vote can't be a slave. That's no different than suggesting that the slaves of those empires never ate a Big-Mac, therefore anyone who eats a big-mac cannot possibly be a slave.


Reductio ad absurdum:

Lets suppose that 10 men live on an island with 1 other woman. The woman is a slave to the men.
Now lets suppose that one day the men grant the woman the right to vote because some UN-like organisation tells them that they cannot enslave people anymore. Now the woman, assuming she could gain a majority vote despite being outnumbered ten to one, could free herself from being forced to labour/serve against her will.

Would she suddenly no longer be a slave due to the very slim possibility that the men of the island might have a change of heart?





It certainly is NOT stealing. It's no different from me promising your next door neighbour that I'll force you to pay into their pension fund if they match it, and then you manage to overpower me one day and stop paying. Your neighbour is counting on that pension contribution, but that's hardly your fault is it?
Making those threats & promises as a mob, rather than an individual, doesn't change anything - despite popular opinion.



Strawman number 2: I don't recall anyone stating, or implying, that debt == slavery.

Debt in one form or another is essential to a functioning, productive capitalist society.

What i did imply to be bad, from a moral perspective, is passing your own debts onto other people without their consent.
That also happens to be bad, economically speaking, as prices in a truly free market encourage scarce resources with alternative uses to be allocated optimally. When you pass the cost onto other people you lose the 'invisible hand' which guides everything roughly where it should be.


I don't see much that even makes any sense, let alone blows the argument out of the water

Dear oh dear, and you've tried so hard.

Slaves do not have the ability to free themselves from slavery by legal means (except in certain systems by buying their freedom). Future generations will have the ability to make the debt disappear by legislating for it to go away. You say you haven't implied that debt is slavery but, if passing debt onto a future generation is selling them into slavery, what is the nature of this slavery if not the debt? What is rejecting the validity of the debt if not emancipation? What kind of slaves can vote in an election not to be slaves any more?

Have a read about the historic and present nature of slavery and then have a think. You might find that you have half a decent point underneath your ridiculous hyperbole.

[Zero Liability]

Indeed, the ability to vote for one's masters, with no alternative to having masters in the first place, doesn't really mean the system is free of slavery. Forcing others to bear your costs for you, debt or otherwise, is sociopathic behaviour, so I am afraid I, in turn, can feel very little sympathy for those who finance their retirement (or anything else) thus.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Let's accept that you're an incoherent idiot and move onto what appears to be the nub of your position: that the national debt inherited by future generations is the same as slavery. Obviously, there are many sound arguments to blow this one out of the water but here is one:

Slaves do not have the right to vote for legislators. This was the case in ancient Athens, Republican Rome, in the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese empires and the USA etc. Future generations will have the right to vote for legislators.

That's more of a wet fart than a blowing-out-of-the-water event. Your straw-man implies some kind of an a priori knowledge that the right to vote is necessarily contradictory to the condition of being a slave, when infact the right to vote, or not, has nothing to do with the condition of being a slave. The syllogism is that the world's historical empires all used slaves at some point, and that all of those slaves couldn't vote, thus slaves can't vote, thus anyone who can vote can't be a slave. That's no different than suggesting that the slaves of those empires never ate a Big-Mac, therefore anyone who eats a big-mac cannot possibly be a slave.


Reductio ad absurdum:

Lets suppose that 10 men live on an island with 1 other woman. The woman is a slave to the men.
Now lets suppose that one day the men grant the woman the right to vote because some UN-like organisation tells them that they cannot enslave people anymore. Now the woman, assuming she could gain a majority vote despite being outnumbered ten to one, could free herself from being forced to labour/serve against her will.

Would she suddenly no longer be a slave due to the very slim possibility that the men of the island might have a change of heart?

1. Moral: it is stealing from those owed the debts including pension funds and national savings investors. However, if future generations are slaves (and never ran up these debts in the first place), then these people are slave owners, and therefore party to the crime of enslavement, so we should not worry about the morality.

It certainly is NOT stealing. It's no different from me promising your next door neighbour that I'll force you to pay into their pension fund if they match it, and then you manage to overpower me one day and stop paying. Your neighbour is counting on that pension contribution, but that's hardly your fault is it?
Making those threats & promises as a mob, rather than an individual, doesn't change anything - despite popular opinion.

3. Economic: the country's credit rating will be ruined so the country will never be able to borrow again. But debt is slavery so that's good, isn't it?

Strawman number 2: I don't recall anyone stating, or implying, that debt == slavery.

Debt in one form or another is essential to a functioning, productive capitalist society.

What i did imply to be bad, from a moral perspective, is passing your own debts onto other people without their consent.
That also happens to be bad, economically speaking, as prices in a truly free market encourage scarce resources with alternative uses to be allocated optimally. When you pass the cost onto other people you lose the 'invisible hand' which guides everything roughly where it should be.


I don't see much that even makes any sense, let alone blows the argument out of the water

[Zero Liability]

I doubt anyone is going to take much solace from the fact that their - largely meaningless - vote is there to rid themselves of the debt that prior generations shackled them to, particularly if the system implodes on itself (which may have the same effect, anyway.)

The UK is already implicitly defaulting, by inflating away its debts. I don't doubt, if it had to, it would wipe them away through a default and let the chips fall where they may. Perhaps that would wean the country off its debt addiction, provided its creditors have memories that span longer than a few seconds.

UK manufacturing 'strongest growth for three years'

"The PMI stood at 58.4 in November, its highest since February 2011. A reading over 50 indicates growth. October's figure was revised up to 56.5, adding to the brighter picture for the sector.

The Markit/CIPS Manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) also showed employment in the sector grew. The employment sub-index for the manufacturing sector rose to 54.5 in November, up from 51.9 in October. Markit economist Rob Dobson said UK manufacturing companies were creating about 5,000 jobs a month. "

I'm sure my learned colleagues here will shortly explain why this is a bad thing.

No need. This sort of thing isn't mutually exclusive with QE - in fact, it is the intended result. The key question is, Are these new activities contributing to long-lasting growth in sectors where they are going to provide value to consumers, or are they just being financed by the on-going expansion of the money supply (which has yet to leak out of the bank's coffers, mind you), leading to yet more malinvestment? Of course, it bears further analysis than that, but you'd have to ask what fundamentals in the UK economy have changed to warrant optimism, other than increased optimism itself. There was shed loads of optimism during the previous boom, and it still burst. An anaemic recovery isn't going to fare much better. Optimism means bugger all without the foundations to warrant it, and what you referenced is ultimately a confidence measure.

[hyperD]

Maybe, but I reckon it mostly arises through incompetence at economics - balancing the books. For example, Brown's new paradigm of no boom and bust. He managed to bust during a boom.

In actual fact, that c u n t Brown successfully managed to abolish the boom and bust cycle and just leave us with a perpetual bust, whilst being paid for by you and I since 2010 an MP's "salary" despite being in the the HoC a handful of times. But good news, the monocular twatclustercf u c k mongtasticcuntface has being usefully filling his coffers on the "speaking" tour, despite his paid for "parliamentary" duties.

Nice work if you can rub the noses of the uncomplaining public into it.

[Doggy Styles]

The debt left to them by legislators they didn't vote for?

I still maintain that passing on debt to children is deeply immoral and an affront to the whole concept of democracy.

Maybe, but I reckon it mostly arises through incompetence at economics - balancing the books. For example, Brown's new paradigm of no boom and bust. He managed to bust during a boom.

[Mich the Tester]

It may be immoral and an affront but it is not slavery for the reasons I outlined above.

Agreed.

[Old Greg]

The debt left to them by legislators they didn't vote for?

I still maintain that passing on debt to children is deeply immoral and an affront to the whole concept of democracy.

It may be immoral and an affront but it is not slavery for the reasons I outlined above.

And remember, no Parliament can legislatively bind a future Parliament.

Parliamentary sovereignty - UK Parliament

Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

[Mich the Tester]

If future generations choose to, they can legislate to wipe out the debt - default if you like - through an Act of Parliament. There are three potential objections to this:

The debt left to them by legislators they didn't vote for?

I still maintain that passing on debt to children is deeply immoral and an affront to the whole concept of democracy.

[Old Greg]

No it doesn't. Whether something is a 'terrible crime' or not is a subjective value judgement, and as such my description of it being reported as if it were has no bearing on whether I consider it, in fact, to be a terrible crime, or not (or perhaps more charitably, it means that you're lacking a grasp of basic logic).

My personal feelings on the matter can be implicitly inferred from the context of the post in whole, by anyone less obtuse than yourself.





Excellent point - your amazing logic and reasoning have clearly shown me the error of my ways, and I've been converted.

(this is meant to be sarcastic - incase you were unable to infer that much from the context)

Let's accept that you're an incoherent idiot and move onto what appears to be the nub of your position: that the national debt inherited by future generations is the same as slavery. Obviously, there are many sound arguments to blow this one out of the water but here is one:

Slaves do not have the right to vote for legislators. This was the case in ancient Athens, Republican Rome, in the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese empires and the USA etc. Future generations will have the right to vote for legislators.

If future generations choose to, they can legislate to wipe out the debt - default if you like - through an Act of Parliament. There are three potential objections to this:

1. Moral: it is stealing from those owed the debts including pension funds and national savings investors. However, if future generations are slaves (and never ran up these debts in the first place), then these people are slave owners, and therefore party to the crime of enslavement, so we should not worry about the morality.
2. Legal: there is no legal objection. Parliament is sovereign.
3. Economic: the country's credit rating will be ruined so the country will never be able to borrow again. But debt is slavery so that's good, isn't it?

So, the det is only repaid if future generations

[hyperD]

No, get yourself a damned good woman, you know the type; intelligent, attractive, cultured, educated, well dressed, emancipated, independently wealthy, big tits nymphomaniac and you won't need either of those.

(characteristics not necessarily shown in order of priority)

And another important characteristic: someone that is not au fait with matrimonial lawyers!

[original PM]

Oh tulip, that's were I've been going wrong all these years :-) Not even hookers and cocaine?

[Mich the Tester]

Oh tulip, that's were I've been going wrong all these years :-) Not even hookers and cocaine?

No, get yourself a damned good woman, you know the type; intelligent, attractive, cultured, educated, well dressed, emancipated, independently wealthy, big tits nymphomaniac and you won't need either of those.

(characteristics not necessarily shown in order of priority)

[darmstadt]

Oh, and you don't necessarily make your life better by buying stuff.

Oh tulip, that's were I've been going wrong all these years :-) Not even hookers and cocaine?