Debt - good or bad ?

>>133479914
Any debt that you can pay back is fine.
Debt you can't, like the rapidly ballooning debt the west is suffering from is bad

File: the_real_fed.jpg (83KB, 400x523px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 400x523px

>>133479914
Money used to be backed by REAL assets. This naturally limited the amount of money to the amount of REAL assets backing it. Starting about 500 years ago (((someone))) realized that they could print more money than assets, which eventually caused inflation and then hyper-inflation. EVERY fiat money system has eventually inflated to worthlessness.

TODAY, our money is backed by DEBT. Our money is literally "anti-value". Our money is nothing more than a promise to pay with something REAL in the future (which never comes). (((Banks))) get to make loans with money THEY DON'T HAVE, and then charge INTEREST on the money that doesn't really exist. The problem with this system is that it must ALWAYS GROW or eventually collapse (by hyperinflation) like the ponzi scheme it really is.

Of course when it collapses (((those who know))) will have REAL assets like gold, land, or factories. Slubs like us will see our pensions become worthless.

It's okay.

>>133482255
>He doesn't have a defined benefits pension

xD

File: dudemoney.png (395KB, 829x817px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 829x817px

>>133479914
Canada red?

and that was before Weedman

>>133479914
Depends.

>go 10 bn into debt, but invest it in such a way that it pays itself off very quickly and then produces pure profit

Good.

>go 10 bn into debt, waste it on gibs for useless leeches and get another 10 bn next year

Bad.

>>133479914
National debt is just writing a check the next generation cant cash.
Luckily the next generation of Europe things loaning with interest is haram.

File: 1491226227487.jpg (70KB, 535x535px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 535x535px

>If you owe someone a thousand dollars, you have a problem.
>If you owe someone a billion dollars, THEY have a problem.

t.Art of the Deal

Less whites is good. BBC vernacular like based and nigga is better. Use BBC vernacular to show support

>>133482704
>thinking you will get any pension if you are currently under 65.
>not realising that governments are going to collapse
t.summer pol

File: 1488.jpg (78KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1024x576px

Debt is Usury, a practice forbidden throughout the centuries by Christians and Muslims alike. The jews, however, care not and practice it to this very day. Almost every bank in America gives loans at interest, including the "Federal Reserve" which is just a private super-bank with exclusive rights to deal with the government.

Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP abolished Usury when they took control of the Reichsbank and nationalized it. He began loaning money without interest to the German people, and even offering amnesty on loans if people met certain paramaters. This is partially what contributed to the massive economic recovery that the Germans experienced under the Nazis, going from the most desolate democracy in Europe to the most boisterous Autocracy poised to conquer Europe, if it wasn't for a few mistakes along the way.

>>133483273
>financial adviser keeps drafting all these different pension schemes for me
>always upset when I tell him no

Not like I don't have any savings, I do. In the stock market, too.
But I don't see any reason to give someone money based solely on the promise that they'll totally pay me back 40 years in the future. The only reason why you would ever have to do that is if you have no impulse control and immediately waste all money you can get your hands on. Otherwise just throw it into ETFs or something else that's reasonably secure.

Or even better, if it's enough, into property, preferably some that is relatively autonomous (solar cells on the roof and so on).

>>133479914
>Debt - good or bad ?
depnds on what's the money spent on

>>133482924
What did you mean by this?

>>133483448
But assuming loan is granted without interest, who would be willing to risk doing it?
The state would cover all money-lending necessary? Can it even cover such a task?

>>133484644
>Can it even cover such a task?
The Nazis did it. The U.S did it until they had the Federal Reserve. Monarchies of old would do such a thing (in limited cases.)

Lending the money isn't a risk, because the relationship between citizen and government in terms of loans is different than between citizen and bank. The government loans money to the people, the people spend the money which stimulates the economy which then fuels the government. Without the added burden of debt, this process is bolstered even stronger.

The Weimar republic is a good example of interest gone out of hand.

>>133484644
>The state would cover all money-lending necessary?
Basically.

>Can it even cover such a task?
Why shouldn't it? The state enforces the law, so it doesn't have that much problems with getting the money back eventually - if all else goes wrong, it can seize the property. So the risk involved is minimal.

>>133479914
This is a biased map to make it seem that burgers aren't in that much of shit, comparing to fucking ghana gdp:debt ratio lol.

>>133484926
>>133485028
My concern is that there is such a ridiculous amount to be loaned that I don't see how modern states would have it amassed. You loan to both construction companies and purchasers alike.
How would the state amass such an amount to loan to people and companies without at the same time issuing a ton of currency, devaluing it further?
In the present, I understand that people are willing to at least put their money in the bank because it yields interest, but under a state sponsored loan system, I don't see the incentive for people to loan their money.

>>133479914
These graphs are retarded, the people who make them like to go to work with 10 inch dildos up their asses

File: What in fucks name niggah.jpg (60KB, 334x250px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 334x250px

>>133479914
>is debt good
No it means you're being a good goy helping somebody else earn shekels (through repayment of interest or promised return etc etc.)

In a macro context it may be that events around the world make it unavoidable but in a micro/personal context you're one dumb fuck if you're borrowing for any other purpose than investing.

>>133482737
>give the people a bread circus
Its like the Romans never tried stupid shit like that before.

File: JUST.jpg (51KB, 500x737px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x737px

t. wanking bankers

>>133485343
You think that the state couldn't perform a task that can be performed by much less wealthy banks already?

>In the present, I understand that people are willing to at least put their money in the bank because it yields interest, but under a state sponsored loan system, I don't see the incentive for people to loan their money.

People would still use bank accounts, simply due to the ease of use. Allows regular, direct transactions for ongoing services and you aren't at risk of getting all your shit stolen.
I mean, you don't even get any interests on your money anymore in Germany, and yet you Germans still have a massive amount of money in your bank accounts.

On top of that, the banking sector is already nationalizing losses from speculation while letting the profits remain private. If the state is capable of handling the shit aspect of it without having the advantage of the positive aspect, it should be capable of handling the proposed system, too.

>>133485343
>How would the state amass such an amount to loan to people and companies without at the same time issuing a ton of currency, devaluing it further?

This is where the Nazis shown their genius when it came to fiscal policy; every Reichsmark was loaned with its value backed by Labor, not Gold or Silver. Labor, being something infinite as long as people work, is an entirely renewable commodity, and therefore, makes it hard for the currency backed by it to lose value. You can't bet against Labor. You can't own hordes of Labor. Therefore the value will almost always be the same.

>>133485660
I work in science and all these "fancy" graphs they constantly show piss me off. Literally just taking mundane information and plotting it in a different way, pretending you could pull more information from it just because it looks more complex.

>>133485865
I suppose, does make sense. My only concern is the states' own inefficiencies eventually seeping into this system.

>>133485933
Not sure I understand how currency can be backed by Labor, without it losing value. If you issue a shitton of currency, won't you require a payment of a larger sum for the same labor?

>>133479914
Fucking hell I can't even take this thread seriously because that picture reminds me of the two scoops meme and I keep laughing.

>>133484169
The more money they you borrow from someone the more they will capitulate to you to get it back. IE China The US will never pay back the 1 trillion we owe them and we use it as sort of a leverage against them.

>>133482255
Why are fiat currency systems not technically illegal in all countries where Ponzi schemes are outlawed?

>>133484169
When you owe some guy a billion dollars it would bankrupt him if you declare yourself incapable of paying him back.
So he has to make all kinds of concessions to you because he literally cannot afford it to let you suffer the consequences.

>>133482737
Why not just take less in taxes in the first place?
Oh right, because a bunch of fuckin assholes just don't want to work at all

>>133487708
Conversely if you were owed a billion dollars you'd hire somebody to rough the fucker up, take him to court and seize all his shit before he can abscond.

In fact if you had half a brain you would be securing all his real estate and make him provide a lot of security for the loan. That way even the slightest whiff of default would automatically trigger the rights to fire sale and realise that debt immediately.

>>133488084
That's assuming that you have enough easily seizable assets to bring in enough cash to save his ass.

If he could only get back a fraction of what he lent to you through that way, he'd be much more inclined to extend deadlines, lower interest rates and so on to allow you to pay back as much as possible.

>>133488657
If it was a personal loan and that fucker didn't stump out the security, then he wouldn't be getting a loan at all.

>>133479914
National Debt is the amount of money that the government, and thus the people, owe to the central bank.

Saying higher debt is better quality of life... sure, just like you can live like a king while maxing out your credit cards. The next few months are going to suck ass though.

>>133488798
How is that relevant to the discussion at all? The initial statement was about the fact that a exposure of critical mass towards you means a bigger problem for the other side than for you.

Going
>well, but in my situation that exposure would have never existed to begin with!
adds nothing to the discussion.

>>133489097
It means the debt should be by and large secured.

Secondly the Chinese don't have to call on it all they have to do is pass it on to some other silly goy who wants to hold it (which they have been doing).

>>133484926

3 reich was one big and ugly ponzi scheme

>>133480324
The reason china keeps selling shit to the west is because they know that the economy here is good enough to pay it back.
It's like doing real estate. You own like 10 houses and owe mortgages, but the bank keeps giving you money to buy more. They know you can pay it back since a) you make enough money and b)you have many times the value of debt in assets you can liquidate and pay back, so they keep loaning you shit