Is national debt immoral as it forces consecutive generations

youre acting like its a choice

>>670311
Why isn't it?

>>670318
how is it not?

>>670322
What do you mean? Going into debt isn't a choice? How is that? I can reduce spending, sell of assets etc.
And on a personal level, yeah, it's not a choice. No person can directly choose to increase national debt, so it's immoral to force them to participate in a context that puts them in debt without them doign anything for it.

File: mousefeels.jpg (267KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1024x768px

If I borrow money before my son is born, and then he inherits my debt, that sounds more like bad luck than immorality, it's not a direct relation

>>670331
i mean it dosent matter how much you reduce or how much you spend, theres always going to be debt to be paid. thats just how the modern economy works.

>>670345
That's not a great argument though, is it? When people were trading with sea-shells and exchanging goats this is how the contemporary economy worked, it's not set in stone. Also, I am asking IN THEORY.
Would you agree that, in theory, it is immoral?

>>670309
Yes. One generation should not be held responsible for the mistakes of previous generations.

>>670309
>Is [x] immoral as it produces [thing I declare to be immoral]

No, because your morality is contingent not absolute.

>>670349
no i mean like you literally cant not have debt with the federal reserve.

Yup
Although I guess it's a trade off. Take on debt in order to try and increase conditions for the future or don't take on debt and know that your children will live in shit conditions.

File: [SEVERE CONTEMPT].gif (2MB, 265x257px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 265x257px

>>670345
>No choice but to run a state budget at a deficit
wew lad

Depends how it is structured.

So long as we understand it's money that the government owes you, the citizen, not money you owe anyone, it's just a number.

So long as it's owed to anyone but one share per citizen, it's bad for everyone involved.

Except for those people who prefer having relative wealth over having actual wealth.

>>670359
So you're going on the assumption that people in 2-3 generations will be ecstatic that their state is in massive debt? Quite a proposition
I'm not interested in an abstract argument that leads to muh epic moral relativism anyways

>>670369
Well, most debt in modern countries by far goes through banks one way or another, just like Money Creation

>>670379

Then unless it's just being sorted through banks on behalf of the citizens, every citizen is being screwed.

And money creation should be the same deal as well; when you create a dollar, you divide it equally between every citizen, and give them their share directly.

File: andrew jackson.jpg (29KB, 640x635px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x635px

>>670361
>We need a Federal Reserve
Funny we did so well without it.

>>670362
>Living Standards are risen by government spending more so than if the people invested in themselves and their own interests.

No.

For example

You can wait 20 years to save up enough money to build a hospital.
You can get a loan, build the hospital now, and pay it off over 25 years.

You get to use a hospital for 25 years while being in debt, but the use of the hospital outweights the debt.

Debt for Governments isn't an issue unless lenders lose confidence and you can no longer borrow, this is why to always try keep a low level of debt, but a Government in surplus is a Government that is not spending its money.

>>670309
A national debt isn't anything like a consumer debt. Don't be an idiot.

>>670371
>So you're going on the assumption that people in 2-3 generations will be ecstatic that their state is in massive debt? Quite a proposition
>I'm not interested in an abstract argument that leads to muh epic moral relativism anyways
THEN FUCK OFF TO >>>/pol/ YOU ARE ASKING NORMATIVE QUESTIONS WHICH ARE NOT THE DOMAIN OF HISTORY, THE HUMANITIES, OR ONE OF THE HUMANITIES, POLITICAL ECONOMY.

YOU ARE A CROSS BOARD SHITPOSTER WHO HAS FAILED TO READ AND ADHERE TO THE STICKY

GO UNDER A FREIGHT TRAIN

>>670700
Not even that guy, but this is a philosophy board.
>Normative Questions aren't in the domain of Philosophy
>Ethics is no longer philosophy
>Anyone who doesn't think massive government spending is moral is from /pol/
>Anyone against moral relativism is from /pol/

Wew lad

>>670793
Ethics is not the study of the content of normative claims, or in fact of normativity. It is the study of whether universal claims may be made regarding conduct.

And it isn't about whether you hold with moral relativism or not, it is whether you make claims that are only comprehensible as a normative intervention in how people should act or not, ie: a political claim.

Form, not content you horrible fuckstain from an anal abortion.

>>670821
Dude... You're a fucking retard.
Ethics has always dealt with what "should" be done and the normative, both on an individual and political level since Aristotle you massive fucking pleb.

Saying that a normative discussion is outside ethics or philosophy is fucking asinine.

And no, ethics is not solely the study of whether or not people can even make universal claims, that's meta shit. Most ethics assumes that you can.

>>670857
Aristotle wrote before the differentiation of political science and philosophy occurred in the 19th century.

Why don't you screw your fucking failed first year up your dick slit?

>>670309
>it forces consecutive generations into an unfair situation
I'm not sure I'd phrase it like that.

All that a financial system reliant on national debt really does is put an expiration date on a particular regime.

>>670394

derp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837

>>670362
This.
You can not be in debt as a developiny nation but you'll progress so slowly that it will seem like you are going backwards instead.

File: 1436049647290.jpg (86KB, 1520x935px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1520x935px

>>670607
>You get to use a hospital for 25 years while being in debt, but the use of the hospital outweights the debt.
And you also get interests to pay.

Picture related. French budget in 2013, 18.8% is going toward repayment of the interests of an ever increasing debt.

Debt-based socialism is a scam.

Debt is a great way to turn future earnings into present prosperity, increasing future earnings while raising the standard of living. You just gotta make sure you don't burden your accounts with interest payments to much.

It helps when you can get half the world to use your currency.

>>672170
national debt is not investment. you are stupid and you should feel bad.

>>670309
money isn't as real for a government as you think it is.

what are they gonna do, sue it?

>>670309

>immoral

That's spooky, man