Summer digressions on public debt

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Summer digressions on public debt




by Ahmed » 06/08/16, 16:15

I am creating this topic for discussions on public debt in general.

Remundo for moderation


Suppose we assume that the debt of the states is a major problem and that we decide to reset the counter, what will happen to you?
Well, slowly, the debt will begin to form again, which is normal since we have removed the consequence without remedying the causes; however, debt is not a problem but a solution (provisional, of course). However, at this level of analysis, it is strictly impossible to reach this conclusion. It is therefore necessary to proceed differently.
Everyone has a grid of analysis to understand the universe around him (and to interact with him), but with varying degrees of relevance. There are also currents of thought that influence individual perceptions and, while contradictory, they also express this attempt. Beyond the divergences, some of these currents, while preserving their originality, converge in an interesting way, this is the case for example theories on the thermodynamics of F. Roddier (which you will find discussed on a thread of this forum), that of H. Laborit on neurobiology or just the sociopolitical criticism of K. Marx, of which I use certain aspects ** of the work to understand the present.
No representation of the world can fully account for its complexity, which is probably not useful, which is to highlight, it is the logical elements to put in relation to provide a coherent and operational diagram; of course, several approaches, like those mentioned, must be explored and confronted with the observed phenomena to test the explanatory capacity.

* With less sincerity, since (one suspects it!) It serves the interests of some to orient in a sense that is favorable to them the public opinion.
** In his prolific work, certain errors and contradictions are observed, which does not call into question his contribution to the study of economic-political determinism, any more than the fact that the use that has been made from abusive interpretations of his ideas.
1 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by eclectron » 06/08/16, 20:03

Good Obamot ... nothing I write is correctly understood.
Possible ... there are people who do not understand each other, ... sometimes it's me, sometimes it's the others, it's life ...

I'm just going to take one point but all are asking to be treated, so yes, it discourages me:
But what relationship with Jancovici?

None ... just that the debt is a handicap for the energy transition, so I proposed a solution to Ahmed, for opinion as he was feeling more stable than me in economics.

Yes there are injustices, but I do not see the relationship with all the mixture above.


It is you who tell me before my solution creates injustices, I answered you, that's all ... I was aware before but hey we can not write everything either ...

If it was about your dough as a banker, you would not say so quickly: "and hop a subject of evacuee" must be coherent.

If you had read and understood my solution you would have seen that the banker e lost nothing, since we reset the counters for everyone. the banker is credited with the balance of the loans, plus the interest if you wish., no discontent.
The only loser is one who has not borrowed before this measure.
In fact he loses nothing, just that he does not win anything, so compared to others who gage there, he loses. If you are not lost? : Cheesy:
This is why there is injustice. One more but the debt is down, a problem less.

The least we can say is that you do not go with the back of the spoon.
sometimes, it takes. I think the situation requires it.

"Refining" you say, but it is precisely the purpose of considering the value of raw materials - not at the market price - but at the real cost of geological time that it took to build energy reserves. And that, if we accept the hypothesis as valid and there is no reason that it is not - it is a debt that we have made to future generations.

The fact is that currently the exhaustible resources are not counted anywhere, it is a refinement of the problem, that is.
I do not see any problem. I do not know if it would be useful during the transition, not thinking about the problem.

And cases like Jancovici are the archangels of the removal of this "debt" (saying that it would be mother nature who would pay the bill: gratos). And that's exactly what you would like: cancel any debt ....! Too easy !

There is currently no relationship between debt and natural resources, which are not accounted for.
So canceling the debt only gives air to make the energy transition.
No need to make the transition with balls on your feet (the debt has to pay more).
I do not see how easy it is. why want to be complicated? the transition will be already enough.
otherwise I see that you have a tooth against jancovici but again I think it is due to the misunderstanding of his speech.
I think rather that he and I think that all means are good for making the transition.
you spoke about solar thermal, it advocates the solar thermal in France, not the PV, because of the intermitence and the carbon balance of the cells made in China.
It is probably not irreproachable but overall it's a good guy. the fight he leads is priceless.

In addition to Ahmed, I propose this measure to settle the debt, just for study / opinion.
Of course it does not change the bottom of the problem, it will start again as nothing changes on the merits.
It's just to show that the debt can be settled in 5 min if we decide it, that's all.
No one wronged, except the virtuous who will not have borrowed before.
I know it's unfair but hey ... We can decide to give him a little money so he did not have anything in the case.
We do what we want with computers.

No more debt, no doubt a little inflation as a result of all this money available in circulation and we are quiet for a few years with the debt, the time to think an intelligent economic system (which I have no idea, I can not have any ideas either! : Wink: ) and do this p ... ain! energy transition.
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by Ahmed » 06/08/16, 20:24

Debt cancellation would surely make more sense in the impoverished countries that finance the developed states year after year because of illegitimate debts, often contracted during the time of colonization and never cleared; that would not solve everything, but would be a good start and a stop signal to the generalization of the process to countries closer to us and who are victims of unequal competition within Europe: I obviously think particularly of Greece.
Technically speaking I am not sure that the cancellation of the debts of the European states is reflected in inflation since almost the same amount of money would be in circulation (which would no longer be paid to the tax for the reimbursement of the debt would be used otherwise); difficult to pronounce categorically on this point which remains completely anecdotal in my eyes ...
The energy transition is meaningless (as far as it is real) if it only translates an effort of change so that everything stays the same: the RC is the tree that hides the forest and keeps it in the illusion .

After reviewing your message, I realize that you talk about personal debts; here too, and the subprime crisis (do a research, I have spoken extensively) has shown, it is often the decrease in purchasing power that leads to a cumulative debt that quickly becomes insoluble (by definition since when you have to borrow to live on a daily basis, it will be even harder when the repayments will reduce household income) and go back to the general considerations already mentioned above.
1 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by Obamot » 06/08/16, 21:03

"Debt" is "time" and you cannot cancel time.

I agree with Ahmed's opinion. Setting the counters to zero does not solve anything as long as the system continues to operate as before (impossible to change societies like that, so quickly, it is not even a textbook case as long as it is infeasible / unthinkable ). Because it is not enough to say "we would do a computer write to cancel the debt and the problem would be overcome".

As much agreement as Ahmed on the debt relief of emerging countries. Because we stole time.

It is not possible to cancel a debt whose monetary creation has already been produced and which the State is waiting for it to be repaid before liquidating it with the depositary bank for the recognition of debt. It does not work like that. Money was created precisely to offer the least bad equitable solution of exchange in societies ... If you want to do something, it is fictitious money that must be eliminated, to cut short the great merry-go-round of abstract values. But for that, and to do it correctly, it is not the debt that must be eliminated but the introduction of something resembling the universal dividend which it would be well worth introducing, then when people are psychologically ready, to introduce unconditional basic income. And then only see how to solve the debt problem while acting on the lever of money creation. Might as well do it gradually over a century .... Like that, those who have been in debt will simply no longer be able to contract new debts, and the heirs will have had time either to repay or to be ruined. The counter will be reset to zero, thanks to the "physiological"which awaits us all. And too bad for the transmission of a heritage from generation to generation. Equality would be that everyone starts from zero, that would be the case.

In the meantime your equation would not be solved yet. Because the biggest piece of debt is private property! So to settle the case, we should remove the private property ... You think you can do it? : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:

And for another central reason that would not work: the USA, of which we do not know exactly the real debt since they have used and abused money printing extensively, have an already colossal "estimated" debt (private / guaranteed by the 'State and state) if we combine them together, this would represent half of world GDP. That would mean that the work of half of the inhabitants would go by the wayside (impossible, because I do not believe that we would manage to get everyone to agree on this, people have to eat, which is not even guaranteed in the current debt situation ...).

And so if there is something that I would absolutely refuse to participate, it would be to mop the slate Yankee voluntarily ...
And I do not think that neither the Russians nor the Chinese, nor the Arabs, nor the rest of the world would agree. So you would be the only one to apply and to mop it, it would take you several thousand years to get there ... : Cheesy: :D : Cheesy:

If you want to reason with the absurd, you can too.

As for Janco, honestly I do not care. No, I have nothing special against him, but there are enormities that do not pass. If you had really read the whole thread, you would know what I was referring to when talking about his sham. It is flagrant, but the guy himself, indifferent to me. It's an epiphenomenon like Patrick Moore in GMOs, it's just happening. If he had been honest, he would have campaigned for Desertec. But that slab, not a word ...

I end up with a positive note that goes in your direction to not be a morale breaker. We must calculate the enormous debt we owe to the countries of the South, only after having surrendered to them what we owe them that eventually we could see how the debt between rich countries is accommodated. For a rather simple reason; the money they owe them is not a debt, it's theft, so it's a debt, not a debt. And there are many cases like that of pseudo-debts that are due. I follow on another plaster, another solution which would be to tax the financial transactions, but here it is necessary to stop immediately, because while doing that one makes the therapeutic relentlessness, of a scary system which is in a perpetual state of failure.

And fear does not avoid danger.
As the end of the debt would not avoid the reforms to be undertaken (before tackling this problem.)

.... but maybe you have an idea about the previous steps to take to cancel the debt, yes it could be interesting ....
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by Ahmed » 06/08/16, 22:34

While this does not invalidate my previous statements, we must recognize that the debt of Greece, some time ago, has been reduced by half of its amount (though it does not change much, by the way), which is huge. From a theoretical point of view, it would have been possible to cancel it in full ... except that it would have contravened the role played by the debt which is to maintain a state under the control of the creditors (see the measures of structural adjustment).
More generally, and here I join you to a certain extent, Eclectroncurrent state debts will in any case never be repaid, when due they will only be through new borrowing, until the process is exhausted or the economic system itself goes bankrupt.

PS: I think it's unproductive to require our friend Eclectron an innovative "solution" to these complex questions, if we could already define their scope more precisely, this would already be a big step forward ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by Obamot » 07/08/16, 01:40

Indeed, there is never any extinction of debt, not even for Greece, it is always rescheduled (above all, we should not create a precedent that could make people believe that we can get out of it by erasing of this one.) For the South, on the other hand, it is not the same, the debt is fictitious. Finally, I also very partially agree with Eclectron on one point. What should be deleted is the "overrated" yield on the state debt (if we accept the principle: this yield which was very low in the sixties, has become a sinkhole which is a pure scam) to erase this kind of blackmail on the return on debt, but not the debt itself. This is perhaps where the confusion is greatest between debt as "cause" or debt as "effect": the debt can be either one or the other depending on the omission or the degree of autism chosen. ^^
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by Ahmed » 07/08/16, 09:48

You are right to stress that the debt issue has several aspects that are often confused or omitted. There is the problem of European states who borrow from private institutions thus ensure a good pension, the states of the third world * which amounts to collusion between the local bourgeoisie and the IMF WB +, the backs of people, that of the United States is a global scam (and now their only possibility to maintain their hegemony) ...
I understand the distinction you operate between fictional and real debt debt, but its relevance is limited because it does not do justice to the most important aspect: the inability of the system to function without resorting to the expedient of debt; at this point, we must go further and understand the need to invoke the future profits (which assumes all borrowing, by definition) the fact of their present inability, while concealing the evidence is that the second term of the proposal completely invalidates the first ...
Clearly, it is because the conditions for making profits are constantly diminishing (because the astronomical amounts of accumulated capital no longer find sufficient opportunities to invest, because human labor is constantly reduced, because the number of real innovations stagnates, because the equipment rate of solvent households reaches saturation ...) that the reasons to hope for a later "improvement" ** is illogical.

* The case of Greece is similar to the financial extractivism vis-à-vis the Third World.
** I put quotation marks to signify that I only put myself from the system point of view, which is very different than sharing it!
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Summer digressions on public debt




by Remundo » 07/08/16, 14:08

You can continue here :D
0 x
Image
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264

Re: Re: Is Jean-Marc Jancovici a con?




by chatelot16 » 07/08/16, 14:28

to make a subject about debt why not, but why not put the right title instead of this absurd re jancovici?

edit: remundo you put the right title on your message but it does not make the title of the discussion
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by Obamot » 07/08/16, 14:41

About the title: I do not think we should separate the public debt from the private debt, in the sense that the public concerns the private sector of the banks, and that the monetary creation which is a state process, depends well private debt. And finally because in both cases we are in illusionism. ( : Lol: )

Ahmed wrote:You are right to stress that the debt issue has several aspects that are often confused or omitted. There is the problem of European states who borrow from private institutions thus ensure a good pension, the states of the third world * which amounts to collusion between the local bourgeoisie and the IMF WB +, the backs of people, that of the United States is a global scam (and now their only possibility to maintain their hegemony) ...
I understand the distinction you operate between fictional and real debt debt, but its relevance is limited because it does not do justice to the most important aspect: the inability of the system to function without resorting to the expedient of debt; at this point, we must go further and understand the need to invoke the future profits (which assumes all borrowing, by definition) the fact of their present inability, while concealing the evidence is that the second term of the proposal completely invalidates the first ...
Clearly, it is because the conditions for making profits are constantly diminishing (because the astronomical amounts of accumulated capital no longer find sufficient opportunities to invest, because human labor is constantly reduced, because the number of real innovations stagnates, because the equipment rate of solvent households reaches saturation ...) that the reasons to hope for a later "improvement" ** is illogical.

* The case of Greece is similar to the financial extractivism vis-à-vis the Third World.
** I put quotation marks to signify that I only put myself from the system point of view, which is very different than sharing it!

[cancels and replaces my previous post in the other thread, I developed a little because the subject became dedicated to the debt.]

That's about where I was going. Debt as it is practiced today (with perpetual rescheduling) makes me think of a private tax rather than a debt. It interacts on the economy as an additional constraint that has made it lose its initial function (direct means, motivation to action and therefore inflection to repay its investments and secondarily the role it should have just assumed , namely: supply of means out of balance to reach a goal: the realization of projects useful to the community) ... For the public debt, that of a kind of financial aid granted to the State, in exchange of stability assurance and repayment (which is suspicious from the outset, one would rather imagine a region having had better management or better opportunities, coming to the rescue of another less well-off and vice versa thereafter) .

Deep down with the debt, is unveiled one of the cogwheels among the most hypocritical and pernicious it is the system (finally upstream there are the policies that have the palm, and at the top the large laundry votes that does not allow choosing the right candidates, the icing on the cake being the confiscation of democracy), since any state could have put an end to the spiral through monetary creation (that's what it does with private banking and paperwork, with respect to private debt, it seems to me) so in fact it's the state that self-sustain the debt, at least in three ways 1) while continuing to live above its means 2) by refusing for obscure reasons to mop it up. 3) by basing the volume of money creation relative to volume of debt at time "T" that it uses as an index (whereas it could do so from other indices of “consumption.” And of course no more debt would mean an equitable sharing of dividends from a country's product, but that would be wrong on the ground, the principle of privatization of profits and of "mutualisation" of losses / bad debts (Bad risks).

This is why Eclectron's proposed debt erasure measure, which lacks the necessary analytical sophistication (and at least for the complexity of the reasons above, even though it would be essential to study the causes further) is more problematic. that it does not solve it, since in fact it is already the case (the debt is permanently mopped up but at the same time rescheduled, so that we do not see the end and the we can no longer at a given moment be able to repay - even if only interest: and I have no doubt that the ratio between repayment ability VS perpetual debt is calculated savagely - since it is exactly the purpose of the state stress game as you have so well described) but it only had the effect of increasing even more the profits of those who distribute the boarding pass of the plane game ....).

and therefore the desired effect by Eclectron. End of HS?

PS: That said, it is the words of peremptory Jancovici, suggesting free of mineral resources, which resulted in contrast to assume that this was a debt! And is étrernelle!
0 x

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 247 guests