I do not get it. Can anyone explain me the following?

I do not get it. Can anyone explain me the following?

So governments are making debt, because they want to have more money than they would get just from taxes. The creditors are private persons, banks and companies within the country, as well as from other countries.

Why can the government not just decide to set its own debt to zero? What would be the consequences? Why would a country go bankrupt because of this? I mean debt just means a transfer of money from A to B, so the money would still exist.

The debt is now so high it can never be paid back. So why are there still people who lend the government money?

The Government could and that is called a default.

But the Big Question is, "Who Doesn't Get Paid?"

> Why can the government not just decide to set its own debt to zero?

Because the creditors will go bankrupt overnight and if they do everything collapses Like a couple American banks went to shit in 2008 and it cost them billions to save it or else the entire financial system would get fucked, here it's banks, pension funds, bondholders are all fucked

>Because the creditors will go bankrupt overnight
But it is their own fault and risk to lend someone money without any securities. They gamble and lose.

>if they do everything collapses
But why? The money is still in the system and exists.

And why are there still people who lend the government money when the debt is already so high it cannot be paid back ever?

>The money is still in the system and exists.
And here you just answered yourself. No the money doesn't exist.

If it does not exist, then nothing can get lost?

No, quite the oposite. If one country, one whose economy matters that is, pulls out of this mony lending loop, entire system colapses, and with it the western world. That is one of the main reasons why US and UK didn't want to sing a peace treaty with Hitler. He managed to pull Germany out of the loop, and with that he could have caused utter colapse of the us and uk without even firing a shot.

The more interesting situation is when the central bank owns pretty much all of the fiat debt of a nation and sets the interest rate target for government debt to zero or negative. Or in other words, Japan.

With a zero or negative interest rate target by the central bank, the outstanding debt has no effect on the ability of a government to borrow (it doesn't matter how much they borrow, the central bank will buy and they have infinite money).

As for the consequences, when disciplined whites or asians do it with a positive trade balance ... nothing much, life goes on. It's far better than the alternative, internal devaluation Greek style (Greeks however have no choice, they have no discipline and no positive trade balance).

The biggest problem is that jews really hate it when you do this and will try to destroy you.

So the money does not exist, but it can get lost and if this is the case then the economy crashes without survivors?

I do not get it, could you please explain this in simple words for such a dumb person like me?

>I do not get it, could you please explain this in simple words for such a dumb person like me?

And that is the ultimate truth of the economy. if you understand it, it means it failed. It needs to be stupidly complex so the ordinary people couln't understand it, because if they did they would run to the woods, hide in a cave and never come out.

Countries can set their debt to zero, the debt cannot be paid back, but people continue borrowing money to for example America because there are systems that borrow money. Money is not based on gold or anything real it is a mental construction like monopoly money. As long as governments don't create money so fast that people believe its worthless then it's fine

Yes, but I want to attempt to understand it. If I invest enough time and effort I eventually will. So I hope for a concise and comprehensible explanation.

sorry buddy, i have no desire to understand it any more than i already do. but if you are determend enough just pick up any college economy book or watch some yewtube vids about it.

>but people continue borrowing money to for example America because there are systems that borrow money.
This sentence does not make sense to me?

>Money is not based on gold or anything real it is a mental construction like monopoly money.
Yes, that is absolutely true.

>As long as governments don't create money so fast that people believe its worthless then it's fine
Well, now we have interest rates which are zero or negative, as well as a substantial inflation. Should be noticable to people.

> Why can the government not just decide to set its own debt to zero?
They can, it's called defaulting on the debt and the consequence is that nobody lends them money anymore.
> Why would a country go bankrupt because of this?
That would indeed be bankrupcy. It would lead to civil unrest when the public sector wages stop flowing.
> so the money would still exist.
It still exists but it doesn't come back in case of the debt. After all, you've lent the govment money to get it back with interest. Money works a lot like water in a steam engine. Useless when cold, highly energetic when hot. If you open the saftey valve on the boiler the water still exists, but it's worthless now that it's outside the boiler. Same with the debt, you've poured all the money into the government and then someone openend the safety valve.
> So why are there still people who lend the government money?
Because right now people still trust they will get the money back. There is a delay, it's not all going down simulaneously.

But we already have such an interest rate which is zero or negative.

>when disciplined whites or asians do it with a positive trade balance ... nothing much, life goes on.
So slavery of productive people?

>consequence is that nobody lends them money anymore.
Why should the government care about it? It can get money through taxes and it saves a lot of money if it does not need to pay back debt.

>It would lead to civil unrest when the public sector wages stop flowing.
Why would they? As just stated, the government has other means to raise money.

>but it's worthless now that it's outside the boiler.
But debt just means the transfer of money from A to B, while the latter has the obligation to pay back. The money would never get lost, it remains in the economic system and is used (so it stays hot).

>Because right now people still trust they will get the money back.
How? This does not make any sense. The debt grows exponentially as seen on the picture (debt of Germany). It is obvious that it can never be paid back. So new creditors should not have any trust of getting the money back.

> Why can the government not just decide to set its own debt to zero?
Default is always an option, but consequences are another matter
> What would be the consequences?
Banks going bankrupt meaning everyone who has savings in the said banks wouldn't own a single damn thing anymore.
> Why would a country go bankrupt because of this?
Governments would have to immediately seize all the pay outs for public workers and social securities (including pensions too)because they can't lend money anymore (no sane external creditor would consider loaning a said country if they even fucked their own internal creditors), and transform public salary payment to be dependent on how much of money is saved in the year before (= no guaranteed salaries). This will create 90's Russia with black markets and mafia running the country.
> So why are there still people who lend the government money?
it gives the said lenders power over politics and they are the people exercising the real power. They aren't actively exercising with it, as it would torpedo their influence when their name would become public.
Soviet model was no different in the end, who ever was sitting on a chairman's seat responsible of military/energy sector, were running the show behind the scenes.

>So why are there still people who lend the government money?
Because the government hasn't done waht you suggest. If they did, then nobody would lend them anymore and whatever they are doing now would become unsustainable, which would maybe lead to shit happening, like, for real

> It can get money through taxes and it saves a lot of money if it does not need to pay back debt.
Usually they default on the debt when the taxes have dried up. Technically, you could default and start plundering the citizens, Hitler for example famously wrecked the budget, then confiscated gold across Europe and sold it to us troughout ww2. It worked very well, plundering defenseless civilians in occupied countries is very easy and the yield was sufficient as well. It would have worked even better if the national banks didn't evacuate the gold from continent before the war
> it saves a lot of money
Nobody in government ever cares about that unless they can be held accountable.
> other means to raise money.
Money needs to be exchanged for something. You can't eat coins and bonds. If you print money, over time, it will loose it's value because there is nothing to back it up. Sure, in the short run you might get what you need, but after a month of printing you get inflation.
> But debt just means the transfer of money from A to B,
Debt is an investment. You expect the money to come back - this differentiates it from a donation.
> it remains in the economic system and is use
Yes, but if A lends B money and B spends it on drinks at the bar C, A won't get his money back. Which is what government spending is in 90% of the cases.
> This does not make any sense
If you hold a 10 Euro bill, you expect to exchange it for two packs of cigarettes. However, if you have a Greek government bond worth 10 Euro, the cashier will laugh at you. Why? Because even he knows that the Greeks will never pay back their debts. If you did this in 07 he'd take it and kiss you, because back then those were very sought after (they had a high return). The time between people realizing it and acting on it can be very long. Maybe you will find optimists who will give you two packs of cigs for that bond in the hope that the Greeks will sober up.

>Banks going bankrupt meaning everyone who has savings in the said banks wouldn't own a single damn thing anymore.
This is why I bought gold (and consider bitcoins).

>Governments would have to immediately seize all the pay outs for public workers and social securities (including pensions too)because they can't lend money anymore (no sane external creditor would consider loaning a said country if they even fucked their own internal creditors), and transform public salary payment to be dependent on how much of money is saved in the year before (= no guaranteed salaries). This will create 90's Russia with black markets and mafia running the country.
The govnerment does not need any external creditors, because it can make all payments with the tax income and not needing to pay back any debt and interest.

>it gives the said lenders power over politics and they are the people exercising the real power.
How? If A lends money to B and B cannot be forced to be paid back how does A get political power? Who would force the US to pay back?

Government debt is a crime against humanity. It always leads to wars.

"[I]t is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied ... [T]he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large"

>Why should the government care about it? It can get money through taxes and it saves a lot of money if it does not need to pay back debt.

Because they havent gotten enough money through taxes since the 50s - look at social security for an example. + Without borrowing governments have to raise taxes which is very unpopular politically

-

But since the government debt grows exponentially it is a fact that it can never possibly paid back. So, those who lend money must know that independent of the will of the government it cannot be paid back.

Also, the government does not need lended money, because it can get all the money it needs from taxes.

Money lending would still happen between private individuals or banks, because you would be required to provide a security (for example property).

>Why should the government care about it? It can get money through taxes and it saves a lot of money if it does not need to pay back debt.
You cannot increase taxes undefinedly. For example, a social revolution would start if the government pretended us to pay 90% taxes.

Then you need to cut expenditures and default if you have debt

Because otherwise expenditures will be cut by people with weapon.

All of it imaginary. It's designed not to be understood because it isn't real and never was.
No one in control of it has any real idea what the hell they're doing. The whole system spiraled out of control and fixing it would break more than just allowing it to continue breaking.

But it will fall apart at some point. It doesn't have to be a nightmare when it does either. Not a single thing actually has to change when it breaks apart, because the whole thing was an illusion in the first place.
Too many people believe in this illusion for that though.

>Usually they default on the debt when the taxes have dried up. Technically, you could default and start plundering the citizens, Hitler for example famously wrecked the budget, then confiscated gold across Europe and sold it to us troughout ww2. It worked very well, plundering defenseless civilians in occupied countries is very easy and the yield was sufficient as well. It would have worked even better if the national banks didn't evacuate the gold from continent before the war
I do not get what you mean with that. I talked about taxes and that the government could pay all its expenses with those taxes. The government does not need any debt, everything can be paid with taxes.

>Money needs to be exchanged for something. You can't eat coins and bonds. If you print money, over time, it will loose it's value because there is nothing to back it up. Sure, in the short run you might get what you need, but after a month of printing you get inflation
With other means to raise money I meant taxes and taxes are based on the economic activities of the citizens.

>Debt is an investment. You expect the money to come back - this differentiates it from a donation.
Yes, true. You have to pay back interest rate in addition. So the money is supposed to multiply itself? But this is impossible?

>Yes, but if A lends B money and B spends it on drinks at the bar C, A won't get his money back. Which is what government spending is in 90% of the cases.
Then C would have the money and buy some products or services with it from A and B.

>Why? Because even he knows that the Greeks will never pay back their debts.
But right now Germany has such a high amount of debt that it cannot possibly paid back. It must struggle to meet its obligations, you have seen my chart.

> The govnerment does not need any external creditors, because it can make all payments with the tax income and not needing to pay back any debt and interest.
That's assuming the tax income is stable and can cover the expenses (which it doesn't in most of the Western countries even today), hence why governments loan money from local banks (also in order not to give an external power over a country).
Assuming states would still keep the modern model while simultaneously just default every loan, states' cannot assume payments for workers/ funding for governmental organisations are secured to fixed payments/funding they are these days, then an adaptation must happen. And as there is no secured funding for fixed prices (adding to that are more bankruptcies of private companies as banks have gone bankrupt), you'll cause an African tier collapse of a society.

> If A lends money to B and B cannot be forced to be paid back how does A get political power?
If there's no authority securing A to get his money back in case if B decides not to pay because he wouldn't bother, why would A ever again lend money to another person? Since there's no security to recover unpaid loans, there's no reason to even consider loaning. This sends an internal signal to other people too, and causes a grand hoarding of money.
> Who would force the US to pay back?
Nobody but your internal banks can tbqh senpai, they have to only start to reducing the given money and a federal government would have to fill the budget holes with public spending cuts (military is our of question always, so less money for social programs).

So you say that the expenses of the government cannot possibly paid back by taxes alone, so it needs to make debt?

But since we have (((compound interest))) and the debt is growing exponentially, we will reach a point when the obligations will be so large that it cannot be paid back? And when it cannot be paid back, then there should not be anyone who keeps lending the government money. Collapse is then inevitable.

>the government debt grows exponentially
So does the economy, or at least it used to.
If the government didn't need to borrow money they would not do it.
Even if they really didn't need it and stopped borrowing, there would be no guarantee that they would never have to borrow again in the future so just cancelling debt would be shortsighted IMHO

You need to cut expenditures to balance the budget, everything can work with minimal debt (0-10%)

what is better?
1)some people dont receive gibs, live less and dont vote for kikes
2)millions of people die in war (like ww1 or ww2) because of trade disbalance and debt

choose wisely

>So you say that the expenses of the
government cannot possibly paid back by taxes alone, so it needs to make debt?

I do, its worth remembering also that government expenses also include future costs like pension payouts and interest.

>But since we have (((compound interest))) and the debt is growing exponentially, we will reach a point when the obligations will be so large that it cannot be paid back? And when it cannot be paid back, then there should not be anyone who keeps lending the government money. Collapse is then inevitable.

Yes, which is there is a big push in a lot of conservative groups to cut deficit spending so that governments can work at chipping away at existing debts.

You could do that, but your currency's value is entirely dependent upon these baks you are looking to default on.

So, you would have 0 debt, but your US$ would become toilet paper. Libertarians argue that this isn't a bad thing, as it's bound to happen anaway.

>"Who Doesn't Get Paid?"

the banks

>is a fact that it can never possibly paid back.

no true
germany, for example, is currently paying back their debts.

I agree with you.
I was just explaining OP why modern states don't want to do that. And it's more of people being used to a societal safety net and have accepted it to be "the minimum base" of a modern society.
Changing this mentality would also change the need of loan money for over expended budgets. How to change people's mentality towards what we agree on is a huge challenge.

>Government debt is a crime against humanity. It always leads to wars.

If that statement is true (which I doubt), then we are in for some interesting ride, considering the amount of governments running on debt today

>a social revolution would start if the government pretended us to pay 90% taxes.

In Germany you pay
>up to 45% direct income tax
>19% sales tax
>estimated 5-10% inflation tax
>€17.50 per month for state TV for every household
>7-30% inheritence tax
>I assume many small taxes which are hidden (for example for certain products, oil etc.)
>x% debt which is included in everyday products you buy (up to 50% of your rent is taxes)

See this chart
It can never be paid back. It will continue to grow exponentially.

>everything can be paid with taxes
Not if you want to import goods you can't. Also, if you tax people too much, they will resisit it. If you need money up front, you cannot wait 10 years until the taxes trickle in. Imagine investing into an industry venture and you expect a return on it, even the government needs to take on debt.
> the economic activities of the citizens.
If you tax them, it decreases. Hence you cannot raise all the money trough taxation.
> So the money is supposed to multiply itself?
If you invest into a machine that produces a highly sought after product, you'll make money out of the investment. This is usually what taking on debt is for in the private sector, however with governments it's a different thing - they rarely do anything productive.
> Then C would have the money and buy some products or services with it from A and B.
If there were only three participants in the market, that would be true. In our case however A would be poor, B would be drunk, and C would be "the jew".
> But right now Germany has such a high amount of debt that it cannot possibly paid back.
Yes - you will experience the selling off of governemnt assets, a reduction of public programs, cutting of public services, eventually the mafia will take over police functions and then total degradation into civil war. Debitors and people with assets will flee the country and take whatever is taxeable with them, accelerating the decline. It's why people say that socialism doesn't work - the majority of the debt has been taken on to finance all the gibs for the voters.
Btw - small factoid: The refugees they import are there to grow the taxpayer pool and get the money they print into circulation.

>See this chart
not adjusted to inflation / gdp

People lend money to governments because they know they can always print more money to pay them back with. So it is almost guaranteed they wont default, unless there is some serious problem the underlying economy in which case people would be more reluctant to lend but could still do so simplu by demanding a greater return.
America is technically insolvent. Most countries are. It is just a matter of time until something happens. The entire world is made from fiat currency. It is all worthless.

no trust, no future loans

>The debt is now so high it can never be paid back. So why are there still people who lend the government money?
Simple. Not all of us are equal and when SHTF certain people with political connections will get their money back with interest and others will be told to go fuck themselves.
Sauce: Entire recorded history of human race

because as long as everyone pretends the money exists, everything works. But if debts are called in at a magnitude big enough for us to realize that most money doesn't really exist, then everything's fucked

It is still valid if you compare it with the developement of the BIP.

statement is true, it is a quote of man that describe reasons of french revolution and napoleonic wars

we are in ride to world depression and war

even common people are getting rid of currency and change it to real estate to collect rent.
it is not mentality, as for me.

government boosts consumption with government spendings. they want to DELAY world depression. but problem is not depression itself but rotten elite that cant rule anymore.

then people spend this money on shit that they buy from big companies and jews
also government buys useless shit to help companies to increase their profit . this shit will never pay back.

>implying (((they))) want to do that

More debt, means more interest rate, which means this is how bankers get paid.

>The debt is now so high it can never be paid back.
if a government emits a 10 year bond, the bondholder will get paid in 10 years. between that time it can emit another 10 year bond and the bondholders can be other people.

True, I forgot the imports completely.
> get the money they print into circulation.
Why thou? This would reduce worth of these politicians pensions too. Other than that I agree on your vision

HAHAHAHA

Fed (((buys))) gubberment bonds, the interest from that munny is then paid onto the Treasury department.

That's the entry level stuff, check out quantitative easing for some real sheeet

everyone below this post owes me 20 trillion babillin dolars

This.

To be more precise, they will be getting a giant chunk of your country instead.

The Danes again!
lol.
Yes I know you are a norge, and irony is lost on you. You make a good point though.

governments*

typo (all countries under influence of jews act same way)

> as for me
ay, but for a boot strapping commoner it is.
> they want to DELAY world depression
want to evaluate a bit?
> rotten elite that cant rule anymore
what makes you think this?

If they are half as clever as they pretend to be stupid they have hard assets stored somewhere safe, probably below my seat.

>So why are there still people who lend the government money?
Because that gives them power over governments and that was the whole purpose of money to begin with.

What kind of hard assests thou?
Apartments can be destroyed by a societal collapse in a region as wide as multiple countries and lands could be confiscated by governments.
Or do you imply of assets somewhere but in a hot bed of collapsing area (Eastern Asia/South America for example)?

No one ever said the financier jews are stupid. But there is a way out of this mess.

Nationalsocialism would solve all these issues without causing any problems for society. The financial institutions in other countries would crash until they implemented the NS doctrine.

You have to think outside the box. The financial system is like the matrix, it can not be beaten from within.

Think of monopoly money. They exist but are not real. And have no value besides the consent given to them.

maybe you are correct about mentality, but many people will refuse to follow your advices because many people are simply weaklings, transition will take more than 10 years

nobody canceled crisis of overproduction. it just how life works. in that past it led to world wars.

elite makes more children than "goys" can sustain. there cant be 3 kings per 1 town or 10 dukes per village.

How? The government can just say to you it will not pay back. You have not gained power, but just transferred money without the safety of getting it back.

One government can say that. Then you get all the other governments to fuck them up.

If they don't comply you don't print money for them anymore.

Money is a drug and is used to control you.

Gold, land, art etc. Something that doesn't loose value over long spans of time. You could also have assets in stable and long time economically stable nations- lichtenstein, monaco,(back in the days) Hong Kong, Bahamas.
Indeed, the longer an institution has maintained it's financial balance, the more people try to invest their earned money because they trust it's safe, which brings us back to the question of why governements must not default at all costs.

taxes is slavery for most people who are not benefiting from the taxes

> many people are simply weaklings, transition will take more than 10 years
indeed
> nobody canceled crisis of overproduction. it just how life works
agreed, but such events will reoccur regardless how many WWs we'll have. Whether that is an inescapable cycle of human's creed is another matter.
> elite makes more children than "goys" can sustain. there cant be 3 kings per 1 town or 10 dukes per village.
well not only that but also the rising new elites who challenge that state.
But that's what European history has been filled with, it's only a matter of time before such power game resurfaces.

Couldn't a technologically advanced and highly specialized country barter finished products for the imports it needs though? Isn't it what Nazi Germany did?

So what happens during a severe sovereign default?

The government tries to grab everything it can
>Confiscate all your gold and other precious metals
>Ban bitcoins
>Put a mortgage on your property
>Freeze your bank account
>Print money

Is it basically a reset to zero where you take all assets away from the citizens. Expropriation.

Is this the major purpose of all of this? Not letting your citizens become so rich that they can reduce or stop working, keeping them always in the hamster wheel?

But who gets all the assets stated above? If some people lose everything, some other people gain everything.

This is my hypothesis. What do you think of it?

It basically all comes down to gibs me dat. Governments have no hope of ever getting into power unless they offer free stuff to the gibs. Also, too many people work for the government that need to be paid. If we defaulted on our debt then thats a lot of unemployed people over night, which leads to riots etc.

(((They))) have exploited this scenario masterfully by creating plutocracies of most of the worlds most powerful countries. The money doesnt exist, but as long as everyone believes in it and is getting their gibs me dat, then (((they))) reamain in control.

(((They))) also know full well that this system cannot continue forever, so are heavily investing in actual things with real value, like precious metals, manufacturing etc, so that when the funny money goes bad they will still be richer and more powerful than anyone else.

>One government can say that. Then you get all the other governments to fuck them up.
If the USA says it does not pay back, who would for it? The USA would be to powerful to be forced.

Yes you could, but the others would catch up eventually.
Nazi Germany did not do that, they printed money and sold confiscated assets.

>This is my hypothesis. What do you think of it?
The government needs a power base of followers to do that. It can't just go around mugging every citizen, they need allies, they need supporters. They need to pull out something like a Commie revolution

Do you think there will be a point of time in future where such trust would erode in Europe?
Other than that, that's what I'm planning to when I get my company to running, grow and to be sold to a bigger player.
Just lower prices for certain customers in exchange of shares in the said companies and separate the ownership of shares to different holding entity which I would own after sale of my business.

>So governments are making debt, because they want to have more money than they would get just from taxes. The creditors are private persons, banks and companies within the country, as well as from other countries.
Having more money, for having more money, is not the point.
Governments needs to provide a balanced sheet every year.
When incomes aren't enough, they usually resort to more debts. It's politically easier.
More taxes, more debts, and/or less expenses are just political cursors.

>Why can the government not just decide to set its own debt to zero?
It's defaulting.

>What would be the consequences?
Some say lack of trust, consequently no more loans.
That's partially true. Lenders have so much money, they need to invest somewhere; moreover, a previously defaulted country is an opportunity to make even more profit by higher interest rates (due to lack of confidence)
The biggest drawback to defaulting such amount of debts is contagion. For instance, Greece default (for instance) would severely impact global banking system.

>I mean debt just means a transfer of money from A to B, so the money would still exist.
Money as you imply it is doesn't exist anymore.
Money is debt, from the beginning to the end.
If one default, the whole chain default.
Actually, debts are principal+interests. Money to pay the interests doesn't exist in the chain. You can't create it from thin air, but from more debts.

>The debt is now so high it can never be paid back.
No importance, as soon as you can *roll* it.
State/governements debts aren't household debts.

>So why are there still people who lend the government money?
Precisely because it's not household/private debts.
It will be paid, from more taxes, more debts, on the extreme from confiscation, but it will be paid.
The default risk is less than household or private businesses debts.

I like this post.

forgot
exponencial debt give false picture of size of economy and its productivity.

so people get to top by unproductive jewish shit that has no demand (except government spendings and silly indebted inbreds with -9000 wealth)

then same people demand goods and services from big corporations in real sector were productive goys and productive elite works.
old debts are often covered with blood of "goys".

for example i dont cant to fight in war and i dont want my flats or houses to be destroyed

i think game resurfaced. refugees and civil wars are signs of it.

better this time elite kills each other LOL.

American Spring coming to free you from the evil dictator Trump.

They have ways to subvert countries. If you can only think of war you lack imagination.

USA already belongs to them.

Check out how many countries didn't had a central bank a couple of years ago and then check out who doesn't now. The list got shorter.

The money doesn't exist in physical sense, it isn't backed by anything. The time when money was backed by gold or some other precious materials has long passed, now money only exists theoretically, and that theoretical existence of money depends on the good will (read, greed) of banks. So, there's no money in the system.

It is already eroding - the only reason we're not zimbabwe yet is because the rest of the world is literally zimbabwe. It's going to be an interesting next 30 years when lots of people will have to haul their assets around the world to save them from being confiscated and mismanaged by state actors.
If you have a company you'll have to compete with other companies, so you'll automatically have to come up with something to sell at a lower price. That is the beauty of the market economy - a self balancing system.

>Why can the government not just decide to set its own debt to zero? What would be the consequences? Why would a country go bankrupt because of this? I mean debt just means a transfer of money from A to B, so the money would still exist.
The quintessential currency in all transactions is trust. That's what you'd lose if you defaulted on your debts, i.e., nobody would trade with you against anything else than goods. Your money and your promises would lose all their value. That would be quite bad for your economy indeed.

The debt can easily be paid back, just print more money.

Inflation works out great if you have a large debt, because the debt becomes a whole lot cheaper. And who is the biggest debtor? Your government.

Just print more money!

>The debt can easily be paid back, just print more money.
But if you do it too much then people will not have their money on the bank account as it becomes valueless but buy real assets like gold.

>others would catch up eventually
You'd have to reinvest massively in R&D to stay on top. That's where good genetics (high IQ, high social cohesion, good work ethics, etc) would be your key to success.

I think that's why every rich person anywhere in the world "saves" their money by investing them in the West: it might be far from perfect, but the rest of the world is all shit tier, with a tiny handful of exceptions. Best genetics make the most stable societies. That's why I'm unironically 14/88: our greatest asset truly is our own people (read DNA).

>unproductive jewish shit that has no demand
smells like green technology
>I think game resurfaced. refugees and civil wars are signs of it.
>better this time elite kills each other LOL.
Could be, but elites have been killing each other through European history, that's what I meant.

> being confiscated and mismanaged by state actors
that's why I can't decide what assets should one buy. The ones you suggested surely do minimise the possible loss (as the confiscator loses most of trust), but how could one reacquire those lost assets later on?
> you'll automatically have to come up with something to sell at a lower price
Ironically I'm just copying a tactic an Indian immigrant told me: don't charge on hourly bases but with fixed monthly rate and trade for assets.

>Precisely because it's not household/private debts.
>It will be paid, from more taxes, more debts, on the extreme from confiscation, but it will be paid.
>The default risk is less than household or private businesses debts.
But what will you confiscate if everything is confiscated? Also, more taxes and confiscations destroy the economy.

not only green, list includes over 9000 positions
many gibs are also in the list.

i agree with 2nd statement

This mountain Jew knows what he's talking about.

>But what will you confiscate if everything is confiscated?
Greece has been suggested to sell its touristic islands...

>Also, more taxes and confiscations destroy the economy.
Less than defaults.

At some point, debts should be defaulted, we agree. As EU said, only after the latest EU citizen/touristic island would be zeroed.

First line: No, it can't. You can print some paper but it only works when banks agree for it. You have to go to a Jew and say "Please my jewish lord, gib moni" and the Jew just might say "nope" and you're fucked. If the Jew says "okay goy, here, have some pennies" and slaps his finger, then you have money. The only way to change it would be going back to gold standard and there's no going back to gold standard without WW3, because there's too many people and too much productin of goods of all sorts for us to be able to cover the cost of all those goods with the money we can back with all the gold that exists on our beautiful planet Earth.

Second line: If a currency is a cone, and its value is 10 acorns (which is not even the case in modern world, because cones are not backed by acorns, but by the quiet squeaking of jewish rats), then if a squirrel has 10 cones of debt, it has 100 acorns of value in debt. But if the value of a cone inflates tenfold, the squirrel will have a 1000 acorns in debt. So no, inflation works THE FUCKING WORST for people with debt. Your debt will never get smaller unless you pay it back.

Not for long. Muhammed is here to fuck your daughters and, if you complain, you'll be sent to the re-education camp...

indeed.
have you got an opinion on my question regards to assets in ?

IQ and the rest is worthless if there is no incentive. Sadly, as I have discovered in my life, money is the only incentive humans respond to reliably - unless you sell them sex, that works too.
In conclusion, the market economy works best in the year of the courant.

If I were you I would study the matter much more deeply than is possible to convey on a guatemalan guacamole distilling board. It's your hard earned money we're talking about after all, you don't want to loose it.

tbf, wasn't expecting to get an answer to that on Singaporean bingo draw forum.
Any books to recommend on that topic?

>that fucking bitch on pic
still would fuck tho

Study up on the bond market. A liability to a loaner (government in this case) is an asset to someone else, stored capital. If the government defaults then the asset goes to zero, the capital is lost. Why are the bonds still worth something when eveyone knows they can't pay it back... My friend you now know why this whole thing will collapse. The final msrket bubble is a governmwnt bond bubble, when it pops it'll be insane.