Government debt, do you understand it?

[mojo pixy]

That is what the economists would like to make it, and indeed have been somewhat successful in. But in what way is it useful to accept, build, this definition? We, or at least I, want to tear down economics - I want to assist in the creation of a society without economic exploitation (well preferably without any exploitation at all). Using the language and religion of those that seek to increase exploitation does not seem a useful path.

I don't accept that at all.
In Rome the exploitation was (barring possibly a limited amount) extra-economic, it was based on force as under feudalism.
The defining feature of capitalism is that the exploitation is economic. Ellen Meiksins Wood again - The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View

Yes but capitalism was founded and built on chattel slavery. It might not be continuing now, but it would be if capitalists could get away with it. So I'm not sure I'd make such a clear distinction.

 

[redsquirrel]

Chattel slavery was clearly importing in building and expanding capitalism - but it was not required. Nor was it the foundation, that was the developments occurring in agricultural England, where labour's were required to sell their labour.

The distinction between extra-economic and economic exploitation is crucial - it is the break that capitalism required to start it off and allowed it to grow.- the creation of a new, separate economic sphere.

 

[brogdale]

I really dont. Ive tried repeatedly, read books , articles, podcasts.... other than a vague "its not like household debt" and "its kind of okay for government to print money" i just cant get any deeper than that

We are about to have more austerity thanks to Labour who believe UK debt is too high - and it is sort of at a postwar high
View attachment 424923

then in the news this week the USA is on a massive (Keynesian?) "borrow and spend" splurge, plus a dose of protectionism, leading to this pretty amazing headline

Faisal Islam: Could the US economy be doing too well?

The US economic boom has consequences for the global balance of power - and for the UK.

www.bbc.co.uk

Obama did the same in 2008 whilst the UK government went full on austerity

I cant really get the conversation going more than that, but if someone feels like they can explain it to me in simple terms that would be great. Here's a question, what would be the consequences if Labour went on a similar borrow and spend splurge - what would be the consequences. How much borrowing is too high?

The graph shows us that, over the last 30 years, UK state debt has risen as neoliberal, financialised capital has simultaneously preferred not to pay tax, but instead fund the infrastructure its accumulation depends on by loaning money to the state. That way it gets to keep its wealth and charge interest effecting accelerated wealth transfer from taxes on labour to unearned wealth.

Basically, it’s fine all the time capital gets what it wants from it.

 

[gosub]

The bit I don't get....

take: https://archive.ph/91qa7 ' Bloomberg Economics believes, on the contrary, in a recent study, that the Congressional Budget Office is being over-optimistic and has concluded that the US debt is on an unsustainable trajectory to exceed GDP by 123% in 2034' ....
....'However, a sovereign default by the US is unlikely at this stage. US debts are denominated in dollars, which remain the world's reserve currency. But the rise of China and the declining share of foreign investors in US Treasuries show that logic may one day find its limits, even if no one can say when.'


so say US defaults in 2034....Gilts & Bonds come in 1yr, 2yr, 5 yr, 10yr, 20yr, 30yr.. so what would be defaulted on would be/include the 10yr + being issued now....

They got through 2008 by inflating away the debt.... some of that specific debt has still to come to frution...but isn't worth holding especially given its yield vs inflation. Heaven help them should they need to try and do the same thing again.


when the music stops its a double whammy...you get stiffed not just by reluctance to help underwrite new debt, you're going to get stiffed on the stuff already held.