Debt: The first five thousand years

[Simulist]

The biggest "problem" with Social Security is that it represents a fresh trough from which the pigs in the ruling class want to feed.

That's why a veritable army of their paid apologists has currently descended on all manner of media and the internet, pointing out all "the problems with Social Security," in order to secure a fresh source of slop for them.

Fuck them all.

[JackRiddler]

.

And one more post, to put my problem with Elihu's comments in a nutshell. Elihu, you don't say simply that on principle you oppose the state setting up and mandating a social pension plan for the people (as opposed to individual and voluntary plans, which are still available). You don't simply say you're against being forced to pay for it yourself, or that you would rather run the risk of not having it. These are positions of principle and consistency, even where I disagree. We might even eventually find a synthesis, (although I doubt it). However, you don't stop there. In addition, (1) you characterize Social Security falsely and outrageously as "charity," and (2) you also call it a scam and an unbearable national liability, a "Ponzi scheme" doomed eventually to fail. These are factual lies. They happen to be the big lies of the Petersons and the Kochs and the Wall Street commandos, of the never-ending, elite, right-wing and neoliberal, top-down faux-"libertarian" campaign to destroy this successful, popular program on which literally tens of millions of retired people rely for their incomes, and ultimately to destroy the idea of society altogether.

.

[Elihu]

However, you don't stop there. In addition, (1) you characterize Social Security falsely and outrageously as "charity," and (2) you also call it a scam and an unbearable national liability, a "Ponzi scheme" doomed eventually to fail.

you are correct in that i did mischaracterize the program as state "charity" which it is not. it is a state-mandated pension (i use that word very very loosely) program. i think the confusion entered in when posters began to appeal to it as, paraphrasing, "saving people from a doomed existence of poverty and starvation, long-term success, so on so on so on". these are moral imperatives clearly. so where should the state's morality begin and end? they don't grow our food (nominally, see ga-gillions in subsidies for corporations to produce toxic-mind-altering food for millions but that's a different story) or knit our clothes or decide our monthly budgets for us (nominally, another story). why should they be in the pension and retirement business? if the program can be justified on these grounds, then anything the gov wants to do can be justified. so where is the line? i simply tried to state where i thought it was, namely any social assistance that is not voluntary is a contradiction in terms. and yes, ss falls in this category because pension planning transcends gov protection of private property and enforcement of contracts into the social dimension of all our lives. i know that's red meat vis-a-vi free market, libertards, etc, but please don't confuse me with the predators that fly under that banner. i'm talking ideas, not policy at this point.

back to the prog itself. the theory says it cannot work morally when run by the state and facts bear this out. yes, it has sent out checks faithfully but the gov has utterly, completely and irrevocably failed in its duty to shepard the resources entrusted to it as far as a pension plan goes. the cynical (read: me) say that was never the plan anyway. instead it has put the citizens in thrall to the depredations. it is part and parcel of the grander monetary enslavement of the population. what they really wanted was access to the the taxes at the paycheck level. how is this done? why protected federal reserve currency of course. they mandate the taxes and mandate the currency you have to pay them in! and their banking network w/ the irs monitors, polices and shepards the whole thing along. perfect! and the cheeky bastards exempted the rich people from even paying the tax! perfect.

now off the sidetrack and back to the larger question of debt and what this thread was originally about. can this debt-based currency monopoly continue indefinitely? my common sense or intuition or whatever tells me no it cannot. based on what? a little education, whatever is possible on the internet and inference, i couldn't prove it. but why would someone buy a 3-ton suv one year after buying a 2-1/2 ton suv for no other reason than vanity? production and consumption patterns are skewed toward illogical ends (or maybe not so illogical) due to the incentives present in this societal monopoly monetary system. i've strayed pretty far at this point i know but just do the extrapolation: overconsumption, waste, vanity, war, authoritarianism etc. i just don't think people would engage in these things to the extent they do if their money put a different set of priorities on them. i don't want to say that money is THE or only answer. we do vote in this country and we do have a civil constitution so politics is part of it. maybe the biggest part. we all feel we've got our own little contribution to make. there was mine. you read it! you can't un-read it!

These are positions of principle and consistency, even where I disagree. We might even eventually find a synthesis, (although I doubt it).

don't be so cynical jack! j/k. i know most people on here are good people fighting the good fight so lets take it to em. e

[barracuda]

where should the state's morality begin and end?

The very purpose of the state is ostensibly to lend the authority of the citizens as a group to the moral requisites of the society. The agreed upon parameters of the morality of the United States is well defined within the preamble to the law of the land, that is, to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". It would seem that the levying of taxes to furnish a universal pension guaranteeing a certain standard of living for the elderly or infirm fall rather easily into that purview.

any social assistance that is not voluntary is a contradiction in terms

Yes, paying taxes is involuntary, but is considered as a requirement for enjoying the benefits of living within the borders of the state. No one is required, though, to receive social assistance. You may refuse to receive Social Security simply by neglecting to file the appropriate applications, and live in the quiet, unassuming satisfaction that you have contributed to the betterment of your society. In a similar fashion, you may choose to homeschool your children, or to have no children at all, nevertheless you cannot refuse on these grounds to pay the taxes which fund the state-run educational facilities.

If SS has problems, these are the result of corruption and malinvestment rather than the lack of righteousness or unconstitutionality. These problems can be more directly addressed through election reform than SS reform.

[vanlose kid]

hi folks, just catching up. thought i'd move this. from here. it's that good. who knows? might even save the thread.

you know, i'd like to think somewhere out in the cosmos, Mr. Graeber is reading this particular thread to see what we at Rigorous Intuition think of his outlook on money and debt.

so, here is a summation of where we stand at this point in the discussion:

elihu seems to be taking a "Don't Tread On Me" approach:


and perhaps laying most of the troubles we face at the feet of a few "Damn Yankees"



while most other folks here at RI seem to be moved by a more non violent approach:


we don't mind stealing bread from the mouths of decadence, while at the same time we see no point in attempting to feed on the powerless as our cups are over filled already.


wait, this is the wrong thread isn't it? sigh, nevermind...

IanEye, thanks bro. made me smile.

*

[Elihu]

The agreed upon parameters of the morality of the United States is well defined within the preamble to the law of the land, that is, to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". It would seem that the levying of taxes to furnish a universal pension guaranteeing a certain standard of living for the elderly or infirm fall rather easily into that purview.

i don't disagree. let's see if we can bridge this gap. that same law of the land, the Constitution, goes on to say "all powers not expressly granted are reserved to the states or the people." i do not think it is un-constitutional for a state to sponsor a universal pension. or anything else its people may want to do in the social arena. in fact, if the fifty were to choose and fund their own programs i think the variety and the results would allow for comparison, discussion, refinement and perfection. or abandonment if the results are unsatisfactory.

this description sounds like flexibility, adaptability, freedom. these things are ruled out when the national government subjects all citizens and all fifty states to one national program. so yes, i believe it is un-constitutional for the national government to run an obligatory pension program.

it wouldn't even be so bad if the national program had not fallen prey to corruption (or was possibly corrupt from the very beginning as i aluded to). it's sad to tell the truth of what has happened to a program that the majority of the people willingly support for good, if erroneous reasons. from the viewpoint of the crooks, it hardly matters. this is why it is important to adhere to the constitution as closely as possible. those precepts are there for a reason. that comparison, discussion, refinement, perfection also wouldn't be possible unless the states each had confidence that they had equal standing before the national government in case of disputes. hence the beauty of the nation as a whole under the Constitution.

so what happens when we violate these principles? imo, in a nutshell, the people's money is stolen by mercantilist millionaires with no loyalty to america, we lose our civil liberties, and we become agressive and war-like abroad. and before anybody crows, violation of the broad principles, ss itself is not the primary cause, but the record seems clear to me. question is, what are we going to do about it? doing nothing is an option...

[JackRiddler]

it wouldn't even be so bad if the national program had not fallen prey to corruption (or was possibly corrupt from the very beginning as i aluded to). it's sad to tell the truth of what has happened to a program that the majority of the people willingly support for good, if erroneous reasons. from the viewpoint of the crooks, it hardly matters.

Elihu, can't debate constitutions and philosophies of federalism with you long as you're still putting out falsehoods. I note you don't specify the "corruption" in Social Security, which may be tough to find in a program that runs administrative costs of only 2% (can anything compare to that?) and does nothing other than sending checks out according to a set, transparent formula. If you're talking about the use of the trust fund, that of course has nothing to do with the program proper. As with the lies about "charity" and "ponzi schemes," I think you're just throwing out inapplicable stinkbombs and seeing if it sticks. This is not intellectual fair play, it's sophistry and vandalism.

.

[Elihu]

If you're talking about the use of the trust fund, that of course has nothing to do with the program proper.

that's exactly what i'm talking about. i don't have a problem with the program at this point. the program isn't the problem. i guess i did make it sound that way. the people getting checks and the people paying the taxes aren't the problem. the fiduciaries, the trustees are the problem. one, are those t-bills a solid investment? seems we're going to find out. and two isn't there a vague rule on fiduciaries not to invest in risky or immoral activities? hate to say it but the proceeds of those t-bills are going into war and global domination among other things.

[barracuda]

i don't disagree. let's see if we can bridge this gap. that same law of the land, the Constitution, goes on to say "all powers not expressly granted are reserved to the states or the people." i do not think it is un-constitutional for a state to sponsor a universal pension. or anything else its people may want to do in the social arena. in fact, if the fifty were to choose and fund their own programs i think the variety and the results would allow for comparison, discussion, refinement and perfection. or abandonment if the results are unsatisfactory.

What is the means by which this florid variety might spring forth? By the invisible hand of the free market?

this description sounds like flexibility, adaptability, freedom. these things are ruled out when the national government subjects all citizens and all fifty states to one national program. so yes, i believe it is un-constitutional for the national government to run an obligatory pension program.

The enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 do not expressly authorize the federal government to run an obligatory pension program.

But, as you note, powers not expressly authorized in Article 1, Section 8 are reserved to the states or the people. Social Security is administered at the state level. To the people. As far as I know, no state has ever argued that its rights were violated or its powers diminished by that arrangement, which the overwhelming majority of the people in all fifty states have both approved and supported for decades.

But by itself, this support and approval does not confer the stamp of constitutionality upon the program. Fortunately, the framers provided a handy mechanism for the states and the people to protect their Constitution and their constitutional rights against potential infringement by any popular but unconstitutional federal programs that might be created by congress: review by the politically independent judicial body of the Supreme Court of the United States. And SCOTUS ruled that Social Security was constitutional in 1937, in three extensive cases. As Justice Stone wrote:

"Together the two statutes now before us embody a cooperative legislative effort by state and national governments, for carrying out a public purpose common to both, which neither could fully achieve without the cooperation of the other. The Constitution does not prohibit such cooperation."

So this is a program which has been effectively serving the needs of the people for eighty years now without causing known or significant harm to those people or the states they live in, as evaluated by the judiciary to whom the Constitution assigned that responsibility. What aspects of these rulings would you argue against?

hate to say it but the proceeds of those t-bills are going into war and global domination among other things.

No, the proceeds from the redemption of the special U.S. government securities which are deposited into the trust funds are used only to pay benefits. They can be redeemed by the Social Security Administration for no other purpose.

[JackRiddler]

i don't disagree. let's see if we can bridge this gap. that same law of the land, the Constitution, goes on to say "all powers not expressly granted are reserved to the states or the people." i do not think it is un-constitutional for a state to sponsor a universal pension. or anything else its people may want to do in the social arena. in fact, if the fifty were to choose and fund their own programs i think the variety and the results would allow for comparison, discussion, refinement and perfection. or abandonment if the results are unsatisfactory.

What is the means by which this florid variety might spring forth? By the invisible hand of the free market?

Of course. The Hand of Goddess Money (gold based, surely) will push capital into the states that provide no social security and thus the lowest labor costs (and on the revenue side maybe a poll tax to pay for corporate subsidies and bigger SWAT teams). The states who do provide social security for being uncompetitive locations, she will starve! The outcome is predetermined, and can be seen in the way they disciplined the rust-belt unions by moving industry south, and then out, to take but one of many examples. When the infidels are vanquished, her priest-ideologues will crow: Victory, Victory!



But with the abolition of the federal government (which the 1787 Constitution banned, right?) the Constitution's awesome powers will help keep each state in a galactic vacuum -- it's not like anyone works in New York and pays taxes in Jersey, is it? -- so that there is a fair controlled experiment, with no out-of-state influences allowed!

.

Oh, and come on barracuda. You know elihu didn't mean the actual Constitution, so what are you quoting this precedent about lawmaking and courts and stuff? This isn't a democracy, and there is only one law, god-given and Framed by the dead men whose intent behind the inconvenient words (known only to present-day "originalists") is the only Absolute earthly power!

.

[eyeno]

Elihu,

For what it is worth, you know the answer to this parable, which is not a parable at all.

Arguing with people that support a debt based money system, owned by private hands, is like wrestling with a greased pig in the mud, ...and....the pig likes it...it goes in endless circles, which goes no place. As long as a money system that is supposed to serve the many, is owned by the few, it serves the few, and screws the many.

Never been any different through history. The money system that serves the whole would have to be owned and controlled by the whole and the many.

Elihu I admire your spunk, but you will have to get to brass tacks if you want to get any place in this discussion. Otherwise, they will run you in endless circles...and circles...and circles...black magic dog, black magic...

[Elihu]

is like wrestling with a greased pig in the mud, ...and....the pig likes it...it goes in endless circles, which goes no place.

help!

[Elihu]

What is the means by which this florid variety might spring forth? ..?

barracuda you are a poet...

[Elihu]

The Hand of Goddess Money (gold based, surely) will push capital into the states that provide no social security and thus the lowest labor costs (and on the revenue side maybe a poll tax to pay for corporate subsidies and bigger SWAT teams).

and pause................ ---

[Elihu]

but you will have to get to brass tacks if you want to get any place in this discussion.

unbox that a little ?

Otherwise, they will run you in endless circles...and circles...and circles...black magic dog, black magic...

taken under advisement..