posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 06:20 AM
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
This would suggest being the lender of the debt, not the lendee, would be the better of the 2 options. Now in a modern society of any type, there will
be debt. All governments will borrow when they need it, it has nothing to do with capitalism really. "Non capitalist" China loans money to make
Being the lender is logical the optimal position on a debt system, if you incur in debt you lose independence (aka freedom). Yes due to the nature of
capital any modern society will exist with debt at some form (note that Islamic nations have a very distinct form of lending as their faith prevents
them from collecting interests, even if it works mostly there is some benefits for the lendee and I would say to society).
Now you say that even governments will borrow as that should be seen as natural and optimal, I don't see it in that way since governments tend to
only represent the more powerful interest on their society not all the citizens as most of them claim (whatever system is said to be implemented) and
that arises for the pursuit of capital gains and so capitalistic objectives. That is why China is anything but a Communist nation (as the USSR was
also not a Communist nation), yes there were core points of the ideology of government that pretended to be communist but more as a justification for
their local economical and social structure and pursue of geopolitical interests than the initial claim of better distribution of wealth and power,
somethings worked but more didn't expecially because they needed to compete in what was a capitalistic global economy. That is why the US created the
UN, the IMF and the WTO (to defend first defend their interests and then defend their core political divergence, in that things like democracy and
freedom are simply propaganda tools).
Having a government be in debt is NOT necessary in a capitalist government, nor is it limited to capitalist societies. It's a sign of a BAD
government, of any type.
I agree and disagree, the ideology of the government is not directly linked with debt unless it prevents them for incur in it (and I don't know any
even with Theological governments).
Now debt clearly defines a society as adopting capitalistic ideals, debt is strictly linked with consumerism (you incur debt for needs and wants) most
non capitalistic societies are obliged to provide the needs (take for instance Cuba, or the USSR in its first stage basic needs even under duress are
provided) but since this societies exist in a larger economic ecosystem that is capitalistic in nature there is no way to survive in the long run
outside of the capitalistic system and so debt (consider why many people wished to escape the Soviet block or Cuba, more than political repression it
was because their wants were not satisfied). This is why Europe is being slowly invaded from Africa, the grass is always greened on the other side of
the fence (this is an oversimplification of the issues but necessary to understand at least the social pressures that economic competition generates
in states and why it is important to be successful in the competition at a social scale).
Having that in mind that is were I disagree, debt in itself in not a sign of BAD governance. What is a sign of bad governance is bad utilization of
capital acquired by inuring in debt (when it risks the independence of the state, when it erodes the standard of living or degrades it from what was
predicted affecting future generations, when it is not utilized to generate and improve the states economy or competitiveness), that is Bad governance
even risking being criminal and treacherous activities depending on how it was planned and why it failed to meet economical reproductive objectives.