Isn't defaulting (then balancing the budget) the most moral (besides abolishing gov)?

[Anarchist420]

Link: http://mises.org/daily/5000

I agree with the author of the article--it IS amoral for creditors to defer payments to people who didn't take anything.

Even if there isn't a default, creditors should only be paid back like 20-30% of it, because creditors don't have the right to take from people who didn't take anything from them.

 

[feralkid]

Argle-bargle.

 

[HAL9000]

Abolishing the government would be the least moral thing to do.

 

[Zebo]

There is no moral argument. The bankers and their employees in govt taught us that you don't have to pay for your mistakes. I look to my leaders for guidance.

 

[her209]

Bankruptcy. Its the American way.

 

[Pulsar]

Link: http://mises.org/daily/5000

I agree with the author of the article--it IS amoral for creditors to defer payments to people who didn't take anything.

Even if there isn't a default, creditors should only be paid back like 20-30% of it, because creditors don't have the right to take from people who didn't take anything from them.

You're like a trainwreck in slow motion. Did you even read the article?

Morality has nothing to do with a government default. A default would destroy the value of the dollar, shatter our economy, and make it physically impossible for us to borrow money from other countries.

No amount of the drugs you take, nor flowery language from a guy who clearly doesn't understand economy will change that.

But carry on. You're at least entertaining.

 

[piasabird]

I would not be buying any government or municipal bonds.

Just start firing employees and cutting programs. No problem.

Recall all the troops unless the country they are in wants to pay us.

Cut off all foreign aid.

Cut back on the big programs like medicare and medicaid.

It is tough, but too bad.

There are hundreds of federal programs we could cut back on or just stop altogether.

Quit giving our research funds for wacky idiot quacks.

Quit invading countries.

 

[ShawnD1]

Even if there isn't a default, creditors should only be paid back like 20-30% of it, because creditors don't have the right to take from people who didn't take anything from them.

Yeah, fuck those people for putting bonds in their retirement funds. Fucking old people. If you were dumb enough to buy US bonds then you deserve to get fucked.

wait, what?

 

[DaveSimmons]

The "moral" basis the OP refers to:

Treasury securities represent a stream of future tax revenues, and investors have no more just claim to those returns than to any investment in a criminal enterprise.

Ohhh-kay, so defaulting is moral _if_ you're a nutbar libertarian who thinks all government is criminal and therefore immoral. Gotcha.

because creditors don't have the right to take from people who didn't take anything from them.

Except that you do take from them indirectly, with all of the debt-financed government services that you've consumed.

Roads, schools, building codes, planes that rarely fall apart in mid-air, safe(r) food and drugs, clean(er) water and air, teh interwebs. You've benefited even if your philosophy claims "the market" or "gun toting loonies" would take care of all of these functions just as ably and magically at zero cost.

 

[MovingTarget]

So, we discharge all of our financial obligations wrecking what we still have and revert to a Hobbesian State of Nature?

FAIL.

I cannot see how that is preferable, let alone moral, in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Infohawk]

Arguably, there's a moral argument towards future generations. Why should unborn people and minors have to pay for the debts of present generations? But really morality doesn't have a big role here.