CrowEpistemologist

CWilliams -- Suffice it to say that there are two distinct stances on taxation among Objectivists, as per the old thread you linked to above, and many others. I suggest you read through the whole thing if you have the time. The tl;dr for me is that Ayn Rand said that there is freewill, which is self-evident, and that cannot be logically squared with people imagining that in a "future world", everybody will do the right thing and finance the government, or even a meaningful majority of them will. The argument against taxation, for me, is an argument against any realistically plausible government and thus an argument for anarchy, which we all agree is completely irrational. Others think volunteer financing would work just fine, and therefore taxation is immoral. Clearly we're both making educated guesses on future human behavior. I spend a lot of time admonishing Objectivists to think about the real world rather than stories and castles in the sky. How exactly would some future you have in mind work? Don't evade the topic by thinking, "when education is no longer controlled by Socialists everybody will think better and everybody will do the right thing and it will all be okay somehow". No, think through how it would all really work, in the real world, right now. Do the math and figure out how much it would cost before you dismiss the entire problem as insignificant and not to be worried about. It's hard, and takes some time (took me a couple of decades) but it's the only way to fully understand what you are talking about vs. just staying in line with a mindless narrative and spending all of your time tearing down negatives instead of building up a positives.

Obama's fecklessness has cost as far, far less than W's nation building. There is no out-of-context "principle" of our foreign policy outside of acting in our own interests--which can be implemented, even among perfectly rational actors, in many different ways.

There would be no "gold standard" as there would be no standard at all which is controlled by the US government. In a fully free system, the US government would not be involved in the business of currency at all. I've mused here about an "amalgam currency" in which private financial institutions would create currencies that would be competing mixes of different financial instruments. You would see a car for sale for "5000 Apple Dollars, 9600 Microsoft Credits, 1200 Bitcoins, ...". This sort of practice is already in place all over the world where lots of different country currencies are in common. It's important to think of the US dollar as "just another investment" and not "money". Money is just stored value, nothing more. It can be stored in an infinite number of ways. The US government itself would need to standardize on a currency to extract its necessary fees, but it could change that standard just as well as any private company could. Ayn Rand's guest writers spoke a lot of gold etc. but this was primitive thinking. Gold is just another investment instrument like any other, not some mythological "standard". Ayn Rand and her followers of the 60s were freaking about the then-novel parlor trick of a government inflating its currency. Now any serious investor prices a currency's inflation expectations in. Investing in the US dollar is no different than investing in USD.

I agree with.... whom? Also, "raising alarms" is different than, "predicting doom". Certainly deficits and debt are not desirable, and can't go on to infinity, but imagining a) there's a threshold where we're all going to die; and that we cannot simply stop the process on a dime when/if it becomes a problem--is scare-mongering and not rooted in reality. As for your points: 1. I don't understand that point. 2. Amazon has been running deficits since it was started. A business (or government) is either solvent or it isn't, and the determination is a complicated business decision based on the full context. Investors in both Amazon and the USA are not at all phased right now. Faith could be lost in either, but so far it hasn't. 3. Borrowing at low interest rates is cheaper than higher. As for interest rates being "artificially low" there's no evidence of that. Right now companies are stockpiling $trillions (literally) and the world is awash in cash with nowhere to go. There's nothing "artificial" about this. 4. I'm not in the business of predicting GDP growth, but I doubt you are either so your guess is as good as mine. We've discussed inflation at length in these forums, and suffice it to say that after 30 years of very low US inflation and a world-wide investment community who is convinced that there's no significant inflation on the horizon for the USA, there's no evidence of an "explosion" on the horizon. However, it is definitely the case that inflation we do have--1-2% per year?--absolutely does diminish your investment in T-bills. Investors know this yet they continue to invest as that is part of the investment equation. 5. Sorry, I still don't get how our current borrowing will necessarily lead to more borrowing. Our borrowing will lead to more debt, and marginally more debt service expenses. Yes, that might lead to more borrowing, but if the USA, for instance, runs a surplus, then there won't be any borrowing that year. It might get better or it might get worse, depending on what the US does. Nobody expects Amazon or the USA to stay on the same road forever, and again, nobody believes it can go on for infinity, but the key here is to look at the situation rationally and make proper predictions, not scare-mongering. 6. Like I said, any major investor buying a T-bill knows exactly what they are doing. There's no fraud. Sure, with any investment there can be any number of interpretations of the facts, and different predictions of the future, but in this case there's no fraud to t-bill investors. Like it or not, US Treasury bills are extremely safe--arguably the safest investment on the planet. Sure, the premise of those investments might be wrong, and you can say that it's immoral that the US is putting its citizens in debt and so forth, but qua investment that's immaterial.

You can trade out of US dollars anytime you like. See Nicky's comment above: when he has savings someday, he's going to buy a gold coin. You can too. Nevertheless, is doesn't pad one's credibility when you use terms you don't actually understand. Regardless of what one thinks of the national debt, it's no more a "Ponzi Scheme" than it is a pyramid scheme, embezzlement, or measles.

No, some of the revenue is earmarked for debt service, and it thus far has always paid its debt service, shows no sign of failing to do so. Certainly the US government cannot continue to run up its debt (and/or deficits) to "infinity". Nobody--including boogieman Paul Krugman or any of the Keynesians--would tell you otherwise. Companies often borrow to stay in business in lean times and pay back debt--or at least stop going into further debt--and then pay it back during better years. The US ran surpluses, for instance, from 1998-2001. It's worth noting at this time that the US government borrows money at near zero interest rates, so service on our debt is actually quite small compared to the principle. While "infinity" is not an option, we can actually run our debt up quite a bit before its a serious problem. Paying down our debt would be a matter of raising taxes and/or cutting social security and/or the economy growing and revenues naturally rising. On that last note, you will pay more taxes if you start making more money, so the government will take in more revenues because of that. The end game? The short answer to (the first part of) your question is: who knows. Based on past experience, it's likely we're going to close the deficit fairly soon (sooner than expected based on today's numbers). As for the second part, I'm very sorry you were fooled by this moronic argument. You should have considered the source. :-) Charles Ponzi's scheme involved a scheme in which he lied about his assets. The US government is about as transparent as it gets about its assets and its ability to pay off its debts. It might be immoral in a number of ways, but it's not a Ponzi scheme (if you are in doubt, Google it...).

Yes, that's the way it... works... How did you think it worked? The US government currently runs a deficit as it has from time to time since its inception. And yes, when you borrow money, you are counting on future revenue.

Excellent. When you start having savings, post some pictures.

The government surely earns (gets) money. They make money the old-fashioned way, they take it by force. :-) Also, the government has money. Lots of it. They pay back their bonds on a regular basis. A government that doesn't do this is called insolvent and nobody buys their bonds anymore. As for the other details, there's a difference between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. It's a long story. Google it...

Wow, this really isn't that hard. The US government issues debt that people buy in the same way a corporation or an individual does. In either case you give them funds and in exchange you get a piece of paper saying you get your funds back whenever you present it. Your bank, with your savings, buys government debt. Thus some or all of your savings may be part of the national debt. Now, as for the implications, there are many, and they are complicated. Saying that our national debt can go to 100% or 200% or 300% and we won't all die is not the same thing as justifying the forced taxation of citizens to pay for stuff deadbeats don't want to pay for themselves. If you use this (ridiculous) argument against forced taxation, you will end up proven wrong by the facts, and you will reinforce your opponent's position. Sorta like those nutjobs that tell everybody that the Apocalypse is absolutely going to be in exactly 4 1/2 weeks from now, and that we should all prepare, and this will once and for all prove the existence of God. Then it doesn't happen and the Atheists of have their day and people (correctly) dismiss these nutjobs as nutjobs. The OP is positioning himself as one of those nutjobs. This isn't good news if you are an advocate of Liberty...

Magic gnomes watch over it.

No, you get your money. That's how savings accounts work. (???)

Yes, this is what I was looking for. So the tl;dr is that NN in its most vague sense is an attempt to regulate what ISPs can do with their equipment. Which is to say that NN is anti-free market. Amazing, since you hear so many "Internet libertarians" coming out in favor of NN based on the name alone. That said, the proponents are correct in saying that a fully-free system would allow Comcast, for instance, to block access to this website, for instance. While that in particular is far-fetched, certainly favorable deals with the politicians who favor them is within the realm of probable. Of course what Google doesn't like to talk about is that they can do this way easier and far more effectively if they wanted to. They could diddle with search results or even block your email (viz. an email fundraising campaign) if they wanted to. Yet for some reason Google et. al.'s political campaign is working better than Comcast's...

Yes, I agree. I meant the above in the sense that people often leave their unpaid mortgage to their children to pay. It's not a big deal in the wider sense, but that was the point.

Yeah, see, your explanation here is the problem I'm talking about. That's just a platitude and in practice it could mean almost anything. One interpretation of your description would not, for instance, help Google or Netflix (two big proponents of NN) and you could even argue it would be devastating to the their business--so I'm skeptical that your explanation is complete. Those big Internet companies pay $billions to get super-extra-fast access to homes that "normal" companies do not. I can't imagine they are lobbying to kill that, so what's the full story? I'm still trying to figure it out. I found this article (particularly the diagram) very enlightening (although it still doesn't tell the whole story imho): http://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/

When I searched for this topic, I arrived at a thread that was seven years old. What are people's opinion about this topic? My own opinion is that most people with opinions about this topic don't know what it actually is. They hear the words "net" and "neutrality" and assume that means unfettered access to their porn now and forever. Or free speech. Or being charged the same thing no matter what they download. Or everything downloading at the same speed. Or some other thing they are in favor of. But I can't verify that it means any of these things, and it's hard to even figure out what it actually is beyond a bunch of platitudes. Does anybody have any details, in terms of actual concrete, technical facts?

Just like your mortgage (or any other loan).... Dramatic though, I'll give you that... Populism, anybody?

No (and neither did PK). I'm saying that our government's debt doesn't mean what many people think it means, and equating it to your personal credit card debt (again, like Obama did, and many others continue to do) is moronic and false. When you understand that US government debt consists mostly of the savings accounts of US citizens, then the notion of, for instance, a threshold percentage of GDP of the debt being "unsustainable" is simply made up out of thin air. Yes, there are implications of government debt at various levels, but it's not like a giant game of SimCity, no. Also, it's important to make a distinction between government debt levels and average household debt levels. These are two different things with two different sets of implications.

Folks, you can argue all day about what's inside my head and what my "levels of outrage" might be, but the fact remains that this is a teachable moment in the classroom of capitalism and a heavy allegiance to a particular party will spoil it.

Wow, arbitrary. Even for you.

Most of the debt carried by the US government is held by US citizens. If we default on it, "they" don't come and repossess our country, etc. *** Also, it's important to make a distinction between public and private debt (see SN's link). Private debt has a completely different dynamic than sovereign debt. Myself and the OP were talking about sovereign debt...

[Folks, I've read every word Ayn Rand has ever written and I am a former Objectivist campus activist. I've argued for the Objectivist cause longer than some of you have probably been alive. You can try all you want to paint me in some corner of communist if it makes you feel better but its not actually "true"--if you still care about such things. For the smarter among you, I'm your future...]

Charming as ever, Nicky. Like I said, I should have titled my post, "Democrats kick Tesla out of MI" and then Objectapublicans like Nicky here wouldn't try to whitewash an obviously terrible, corrupt, socialist law because they don't pay attention to facts that they can learn by spending 90 seconds on Google: http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2014/10/see_which_states_allow_direct.html But yeah, the Republican MI governor did the right thing by adding his state to the corrupt, socialist "dishonor roll" because when Republicans sign laws like this it means they are still marching us toward liberty, but are taking the scenic route.

But it was signed into law by a Republican governor, so witness the whitewashing above ^^^^^. The law isn't so bad. It's just a one word change. Tesla is evil too. GM is evil. Saddam Hussein was evil. It rained yesterday in northern Idaho. Nothing to see here. Ignore the Republican behind the green curtain. Can you imagine the outrage among the Objectapublicans here if the same law was signed by a Democrat? The outrage would leap off the screen. Maybe I should have posted as much since they don't pay much much attention to facts anyhow...

When I read "mathematically impossible" I stopped reading. This is just moronic. Morons will not carry us forward to a glorious future of a "cultural change on a historical scale", smart people will. National debt, just to remind people who are ignorant of economics (like this blogger no doubt), is mostly money we loan to ourselves. We aren't borrowing the money from Mars or Jupiter--and no, on a net basis, we're not borrowing a significant part of it from China. The analogy of an individual running up their credit card too high (which Obama recently used) is both false and misleading. We certainly do have a problem of demographics which at this rate will cause a global Armageddon dip the active workforce leading to marginally higher taxes for the working part of the population insofar as we don't raise the retirement age. Japan has gone / is going through this. They are still there, last I checked. Imagine scare-mongers like this writing about your drive home from work: "CAR HEADING DIRECTLY INTO WALL, SURE TO KILL ALL OCCUPANTS". They leave out the fact that when you pull into your garage, you typically apply the brakes before you run down the house. There's no cause for alarm and there never was. Scaring people into a cultural revolution won't work in any case, but scaring them with things that aren't true is even more pointless..