3 ms·
> Even taking all the assets of the richest people in the world (meaning nationalizing most companies) would only temporarily make a noticeable dent in governme
by Rury 2y ago
> Even taking all the assets of the richest people in the world (meaning nationalizing most companies) would only temporarily make a noticeable dent in government spending. Taxing them will make no difference
This is where you are wrong. Hypothetically speaking, any one person can pay off all the debt.
For example, if I was hypothetically $2 in debt to you, but I had $0, I can do you a favor in exchange for $1, and immediately pay you it back for 50% of the debt. I can repeat this a second time with a second favor, and there is now 0 debt.
The point: you don't need enough money to cover all of the debt to pay off the debt. You just need to tax people...
- bagels 2y agoForeign nations own a lot of that debt. How does the analogy extend there?
- EA-3167 2y agoThe vast majority of the US debt is domestically owned.
- Rury 2y agoWhen it comes to resolving debts, it's always the same anywhere. Debt after all, is just a measure of how much someone owes a favor, and money the opposite; a measure how much someone is owed a favor. In other words, debt/money is nothing but a measure of exchanging favors (ie trade). So when it comes to resolving debts between nations, it is resolved in the very same manner: via trade. However, forcing a foreign nation to uphold their trade agreements (debt obligations), or even domestically speaking, is a separate matter entirely (ie the matter of taxing). As far as foreign nations go when they don't uphold theirs, you can engage in war and confiscate things, and/or you can change trade agreements. These are actually the very same options you have domestically speaking (repos / taxes).