Hi ACF,
The pure sophistry of the ""Why Zero Debt is Undesirable" argument is palpable, risible and derisible*. It's finagling double-speak and half-think at full throttle. It's venality is masked by its feigned sincerity. Its disingenuousness is sadly, de rigeur for the apologists for atavistic and amoral en banque elite.
It serves the purposes of obfuscation and confoundment*.
Propounding such a premise puts you proudly in the pathetic pack of pusillanimous purveyors of polity putrification.
Now, on to the particulars.
Re: that paying down the debt does not create additional money for the private sector.
Balderdash, pure and simple. Eliminate the national debt and you eliminate the 14% drag on the national budgets designed for debt service, otherwise known as unclamping the vampire from the neck of the werkin' stiff.
Re: It merely transfers dollars from taxpayers to bond owners,
A lie so bold, so diametrically oppposed to the truth that some damn fool is going to believe this. There is no transfer from the taxpayer to the bondsman, there is a return of the bondsman's capital so thay he takes his god-damn teeth out of the neck of the public.
Re: dissolves assets that are widely held as a savings vehicle.
What a friggin' scary thought. We might actually have to hold money market funds or matratzen money. This is truly scary as an alternative. Sheeesh. Who's this putz trying to kid?
Re: Treasury securities play a central role in the banking system and other financial institutions.
Nonsense, they play a compelling kabuki dance of illusion, but as John Law proved in 1720, national debt is a dangerous bit of folderol for a nation to involve itself in.
Re: Their abundance insures market liquidity
So does cash. And the author's point is?
Re: T-bills are traded daily in enormous volume among banks and other financial institutions around the world.
And this scumbucket is saying under his breath that "I make a cut on a ton of these transactions, and I can game this system, so why let it end?"
Re: If all debt were actually retired, future budget surpluses would then force the Treasury to invest the surplus in the private sector.
Utterly ridiculous. Delusional, if you pay attention. This is completely contemptible and false logic. This publican money-changer (who would have been obvious in the days of Christ) has set up a false straw-man argument. He completely abnegates all the other myriad of possibilities. Like the notion that maybe we could use some of that 14% of the national budget paid to vampires that could actually be put into infrastructure developments or education. Like we used to do, before we figured out how to so crucify striving students with debts that they are slaves to the system. You know what I mean. In 1960, a medical school graduate faced a bright future, due to societal subsidization of his education. Today, that same student pops out of school with an instant quarter million dolllar debt. What went wrong? Nothing. According to a dissembler like you. Debt is good. It enslaves people. That's a good thing.
Yeah, right.
You don't surprise me with your nonsense. You merely disappoint me.
Cordially, Ray
*If only English were competent, it would indeed have an adjectival form complementing derision. Confounding, ditto. |
