Immoral to buy government bonds?

[thenelli01]

Is it immoral to buy government bonds - to make a profit off tax payers and to help fund government's immoral actions?

[Nicky]

It's the same question as before: Is it moral to deal with a government, or should we boycott it to our own detriment?

The answer is the same too: no, we should not. As long as we don't have the option to opt out of taxes too, we should not opt out of the benefits either.

Buying bonds can be one of those benefits (although it's not clear that it is, at this point).

[ruveyn1]

This is a tricky question. Purchase of a bond is a loan to the government. Unfortunately the government repays its loans with funds extracted by law or at gunpoint (the same thing really). So anyone who purchases government bonds is in effect counting on repayment by ethically dubious means. If the government were completely honest and raised revenue purely through its function as protector of life/property and manager of the law courts then lending to such an entity would have a lot less ethical doubt attached to it.

ruveyn1

[Dormin111]

On the flip side, would it be immoral to for the federal government to repudiate its debt? What if it was doing so to become a legitimate government funded by voluntary means?

[ruveyn1]

On the flip side, would it be immoral to for the federal government to repudiate its debt? What if it was doing so to become a legitimate government funded by voluntary means?

Repudiation may be the only way out. It is either that or the government "printing press" running overtime.

As it is, our economy is funded almost exclusively by I.O.U. s .

ruveyn1

[softwareNerd]

On the flip side, would it be immoral to for the federal government to repudiate its debt?

People as the same question about social-security: since the obligation is funded by taxes, would it be immoral to stop paying it. I think it would be unfair and immoral to stop paying grandma's social-security check altogether.

[ruveyn1]

People as the same question about social-security: since the obligation is funded by taxes, would it be immoral to stop paying it. I think it would be unfair and immoral to stop paying grandma's social-security check altogether.

Support your grandma out of your own pocket if you can.

ruveyn1

[softwareNerd]

Support your grandma out of your own pocket if you can.

I'm talking about your granny

Seriously though, your comment does not address the question, completely ignoring the issue.

[thenelli01]

On the flip side, would it be immoral to for the federal government to repudiate its debt? What if it was doing so to become a legitimate government funded by voluntary means?

I don't think it would be immoral. People take risks when they buy bonds and one of the risks is that the government might declare taxes immoral or that a new government might spring up.

[thenelli01]

People as the same question about social-security: since the obligation is funded by taxes, would it be immoral to stop paying it. I think it would be unfair and immoral to stop paying grandma's social-security check altogether.

It's a hard question. Then I could answer back to you that it's also unfair and immoral to make me pay for it. - at what age would it be appropriate to cut off SS all together?

[moralist]

On the flip side, would it be immoral to for the federal government to repudiate its debt?

In my opinion, an insolvent government is already immoral enough. Whatever consequences unfold from that fact are inevitable. My own response is to avoid becoming collatoral damage. I always keep well away from the stormy ocean of debt by safely standing on the dry land of "Galt's Gulch" solvency.

Edited January 20, 2013 by moralist

[softwareNerd]

It's a hard question. Then I could answer back to you that it's also unfair and immoral to make me pay for it. - at what age would it be appropriate to cut off SS all together?

I agree that it is a hard question. Also, there is no way to say that some one exact number is perfectly objective, but plus 1 or minus 1 is not. In recent political debates, 55 years has been bandied about as an age of zero-change. The principle is that those who are nearest retirement have less time to adjust to any removal of the promise that has been made by voters. I think that general ballpark is fine, but overly generous. In principle, all voters were in this together, so everyone should have to bear some burden. Even if granny is 80, I would not pay her as much as was promised. As for people just below the cut-off, say 45-55, it probably makes sense to give them some type of option where they can stay with a system that will pay out drastically-reduced amounts (say 50% of what is promised).

The truth is that the real difficulty is getting overall agreement to do away with SS. There is no evidence that voters are ready for that. The most likely "fixes" we will see to SS would simply make it solvent for another 3 or 4 decades. Simpson-Bowles lays down the pattern of what we will most likely end up with. So, any time we discuss phase-out, we should realize that it is mostly an academic discussion. Even Paul Ryan's plan, which wants private accounts, has a government guarantee: often more dangerous than outright government-funding.

Also see: "How much Social Security will you Receive?"

[Nicky]

On the flip side, would it be immoral to for the federal government to repudiate its debt? What if it was doing so to become a legitimate government funded by voluntary means?

You mean right now? Yes, of course. Deliberately bankrupting the federal government would be deliberately destroying large chunks of the US economy (and by that I mean hard working Americans' livelihoods) for no gain whatsoever.

And I say "no gain" because refusing to pay its debts would not magically turn the government into a voluntarily funded, sustainable entity.

[thenelli01]

It's the same question as before: Is it moral to deal with a government, or should we boycott it to our own detriment?

The answer is the same too: no, we should not. As long as we don't have the option to opt out of taxes too, we should not opt out of the benefits either.

Buying bonds can be one of those benefits (although it's not clear that it is, at this point).

It can be argued that it isn't a benefit: one it feeds the beast so to speak and second it devalues the currency. I think this is different than collecting for a program like Medicare or using one of the benefits like unemployment benefits because your taxes went into those programs. In this case, you are volunteering your money and aiding their immoral actions by providing funds.

[thenelli01]

You mean right now? Yes, of course. Deliberately bankrupting the federal government would be deliberately destroying large chunks of the US economy (and by that I mean hard working Americans' livelihoods) for no gain whatsoever.

And I say "no gain" because refusing to pay its debts would not magically turn the government into a voluntarily funded, sustainable entity.

I can agree with that - but do you think it would be immoral to the people who bought the securities? That was the stand point I was answering from.

[thenelli01]

I agree that it is a hard question. Also, there is no way to say that some one exact number is perfectly objective, but plus 1 or minus 1 is not. In recent political debates, 55 years has been bandied about as an age of zero-change. The principle is that those who are nearest retirement have less time to adjust to any removal of the promise that has been made by voters. I think that general ballpark is fine, but overly generous. In principle, all voters were in this together, so everyone should have to bear some burden. Even if granny is 80, I would not pay her as much as was promised. As for people just below the cut-off, say 45-55, it probably makes sense to give them some type of option where they can stay with a system that will pay out drastically-reduced amounts (say 50% of what is promised).

The truth is that the real difficulty is getting overall agreement to do away with SS. There is no evidence that voters are ready for that. The most likely "fixes" we will see to SS would simply make it solvent for another 3 or 4 decades. Simpson-Bowles lays down the pattern of what we will most likely end up with. So, any time we discuss phase-out, we should realize that it is mostly an academic discussion. Even Paul Ryan's plan, which wants private accounts, has a government guarantee: often more dangerous than outright government-funding.

Also see: "How much Social Security will you Receive?"

I believe this will be a generational fight. People receiving SS right now believe that they aren't getting enough benefits and those nearing retirement are nervous about what their benefits will be. There is no way that the majority of those people are going to compromise, and I think that is why we are having such an issue right now (putting aside that it is a complex issue). Rick Perry called it a Ponzi Scheme and he lost popularity almost over night. Those people won't budge and unfortunately they are the ones that come out to vote in the most numbers.

Personally, I don't plan to receive any SS and am planning accordingly.

[moralist]

You mean right now? Yes, of course. Deliberately bankrupting the federal government would be deliberately destroying large chunks of the US economy (and by that I mean hard working Americans' livelihoods) for no gain whatsoever.

(pssst... don't tell anyone.... the government is already bankrupt.)

You've just made an excellent case for avoiding contact with the financially toxic debt based economy so that you don't fall victim to its contagion.

Earthquakes are not dangerous. It's buildings which are dangerous during earthquakes. So stay outside where it's safe.

[moralist]

I believe this will be a generational fight. People receiving SS right now believe that they aren't getting enough benefits and those nearing retirement are nervous about what their benefits will be. There is no way that the majority of those people are going to compromise, and I think that is why we are having such an issue right now...

Just think Greece. For there is where America's future lies: Austerity measures, protesting, strikes, rioting, and property destruction.

Rick Perry called it a Ponzi Scheme and he lost popularity almost over night.

Wasn't that ironic? It is a Ponzi scheme. For one brief shining moment, Rick pulled back the curtain for everyone to see the true nature of this society... people who all expect someone else to pay their bills.

edit: speaking of Ponzi schemes...

This is an all-time record: 1 out of every 13 full time workers is getting monthly government disability checks.

(CNSNews.com) - During President Barack Obama’s first term, the number of Americans collecting federal disability insurance increased by 1,385,418 to a record 8,827,795.

As a result, there is now one person collecting disability in this county for every 13 people working full-time. Forty-two years ago, in December 1968, there were 51 people working full-time in this country for each person collecting disability.

Edited January 21, 2013 by moralist

[Severely Maladjusted]

not immoral, just stupid

[softwareNerd]

I believe this will be a generational fight. People receiving SS right now believe that they aren't getting enough benefits and those nearing retirement are nervous about what their benefits will be. There is no way that the majority of those people are going to compromise, and I think that is why we are having such an issue right now (putting aside that it is a complex issue). Rick Perry called it a Ponzi Scheme and he lost popularity almost over night. Those people won't budge and unfortunately they are the ones that come out to vote in the most numbers.

This is true, and yet I see these attitudes as "internally contradictory". I've had people tell me "I doubt I'll get my SS" and then barely 5 minutes later "I want it all". This is fear and hope. There's a fear that they will lose big in any "solution", but hope (and negotiating bluster) that they won't. The resolution -- e.g. Simpson-Bowles -- will look far more like a fight between rich-poor than between generations.

Personally, I don't plan to receive any SS and am planning accordingly.

It's a good idea if one is young, particularly until something gets resolved one way or the other.

not immoral, just stupid

Perhaps, except that it has been one of the best places for money in the last few years, and a very decent place for the last 3 decades. Today even very conventional money managers have started to turn slightly negative on the three decade bull market in U.S. bonds, but these things are tough to time. With a government that stifles investment, U.S. bonds probably have a bit more to run.

Anyhow... back on topic of morality, the close substitute to holding a U.S. government bond is holding U.S. dollars in cash or in a ban account or in a CD. Our fiat currency is really a credit instrument -- a claim on on future value from tax-payers -- just like a U.S. government bond.

Edited January 22, 2013 by softwareNerd

[Nicky]

I can agree with that - but do you think it would be immoral to the people who bought the securities? That was the stand point I was answering from.

Yes, it would be a contract violation.

[thenelli01]

Yes, it would be a contract violation.

No. It was an illegitimate contract. The government doesn't have the right to promise to pay you back with someone else's money. Furthermore, I think that people that buy bonds have taken a risk and one of the risks is that the government may default.

[ruveyn1]

No. It was an illegitimate contract. The government doesn't have the right to promise to pay you back with someone else's money. Furthermore, I think that people that buy bonds have taken a risk and one of the risks is that the government may default.

That is true with any loan. Buying a bond is the same as loaning money to government. With any loan there is always a chance the borrower will default and the lender will be stiffed.

ruveyn

[moralist]

That is true with any loan. Buying a bond is the same as loaning money to government. With any loan there is always a chance the borrower will default and the lender will be stiffed.

ruveyn

...or also by paying the lender back in inflated devalued dollars. This is why I avoid the Creditist system by operating within the Capitalist system.

[thenelli01]

It can be argued that it isn't a benefit: one it feeds the beast so to speak and second it devalues the currency. I think this is different than collecting for a program like Medicare or using one of the benefits like unemployment benefits because your taxes went into those programs. In this case, you are volunteering your money and aiding their immoral actions by providing funds.

This is what the point of the thread is - am I wrong and why am I wrong?