Which Sovereign Nation is Next to Default?

A resource forum for those interested in buying, selling, or developing a business; for questions about retirement plans; investing and basically any aspect of acquiring, keeping and increasing one's personal stash of filthy lucre.

Moderator: Charlie Phillips

Which sovereign nation will default on their bonds next?

1. Japan
0
No votes
2. Greece (again)
5
42%
3. Spain
5
42%
4. Ireland
0
No votes
5. Portugal
1
8%
6. other
1
8%
 
Total votes : 12

Re: Which Sovereign Nation is Next to Default?

Postby cfimages » 26 Apr 2012, 10:02

GuyInTaiwan wrote:
cfimages wrote:
GuyInTaiwan wrote:
Of course you're talking about socialism. You're making a false distinction about people speculating based upon whether they speculated on one house or many. You're saying that someone who speculated with one house should be treated differently than someone who speculated with many precisely because in the former case, they only had one house (i.e. were comparatively poorer). You're distinguishing justice based upon wealth. That is socialism.


No one is suggesting centralized ownership. No one is suggesting everything be run by the state. No one is suggesting that private business is not allowed. Having some minimum safeguards - in this case a roof over your head - is not socialism.


Of course it is. You're redistributing the economic consequences of one person onto others.


That's not socialism, that's the modern tax system. Completely different.

cfimages wrote:It's nothing to do with punishing the rich.


A bold-faced lie. Five posts before writing that, you wrote this:

cfimages wrote:Tax the profits of the greedy who cheated the system and won. Whatever is necessary.


We all know that you have a massive problem with people who are wealthy, as I have already pointed out above. Let's have a final answer from you on this question, with no wriggling. Is it possible for someone to become wealthy in a legitimate way? Should such people have to bail out anyone else (from any socio-economic group) if they are, indeed, in no way culpable for any wrongdoings?


Taxing the profits is not punishing the rich. If someone clears $10 million this year and then with an increased tax clears $9 million next year, they haven't been punished. They're still rich.

I have no problem with wealthy people, I don't know where you get that idea from. Plenty of people get rich legitimately. All power to them. They still need to make the requisite contributions to society though.


You didn't answer the question, and yes, if the rich have to pay increased tax so someone can avoid the consequences of their actions (losing their house), then they are being punished.


Saying I have no problem with rich people answers the first part (your wrong assumption) and saying that there's a need to make requisite contributions answers the second. :idunno:

Punishment is defined as

Merriam Webster wrote:1: the act of punishing
2a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
2b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment


Leaving aside 1, 2a doesn't apply because there's no suffering, pain or loss serving as retribution. 2b doesn't apply as there's no offender, and 3 doesn't apply as severe, rough or disastrous treatment is not evident.

So I repeat, the rich are not being punished if they need to pay extra tax.
Forumosan avatar
cfimages
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8865
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 15:39
Location: Across from the other side of the road
221 Recommends(s)
216 Recognized(s)



Re: Which Sovereign Nation is Next to Default?

Postby GuyInTaiwan » 26 Apr 2012, 10:15

The modern tax system is socialistic. You would like to make it even more socialistic. If it weren't socialistic, the nation's budget would be divided by the population, and that's how you'd arrive at how much tax every single person would pay. Even better, you'd just have people pay for the services they used at a standard rate for everyone. Anything else is socialism because it is redistributive economics backed up by the threat of force from the government. If anyone else came around and tried to do this to you, you'd call them the mob and cry extortion, with the threat of theft and/or kidnapping. When the government does it, it's somehow "legitimate". The government is a massive "protection" racket.

If they're paying extra tax and other people get bailed out, of course they're being punished. You always go on about people contributing to society. They're already contributing to society. Now you're saying they should pick up the tab for some other knuckleheads. That is punishment and suffering. It doesn't matter who has what amount to begin with. Justice should be applied evenly to everyone. Surely you wouldn't advocate taking a dollar from a poor person to give it to another poor person if the person you took the money from hadn't done anything wrong to begin with. Thus, you're engaging in a war on the rich. You wouldn't make everyone in society serve a day in prison for a criminal just so they could pay their "fair share". Grief, man. Once again, you have completely avoided actually answering the question.
And you coming in to scold us all like some kind of sour-puss kindie assistant who favors olive cardigans and lemon drinks without sugar. -- Muzha Man

One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England. -- George Orwell
GuyInTaiwan
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
 
Posts: 7231
Joined: 10 Jun 2008, 23:01
341 Recommends(s)
273 Recognized(s)



Re: Which Sovereign Nation is Next to Default?

Postby SillyWilly » 26 Apr 2012, 10:30

Guy and CFi:

If we replace housing in your argument with stocks/bonds or any other speculative investment vehicle, CFi, your arguments aren't credible at all. Housing (roof over your head), if NOT used as a speculative vehicle, but as shelter should be viewed as a basic human right. However, as soon as housing takes on the characteristics of a speculative investment with profit as its main objective, that basic human right is forfeited by greed. :2cents:

If I get a margin call on my stock portfolio or futures account from my brokerage house, my stocks or futures positions are liquidated and the margin debt covered by the proceeds at a loss (usually a large loss) to me. There was potential for large profits, but also for large losses. It's a bet YOU took, not someone else.
Therefore, if you "gambled" with your family's shelter to make a profit and the trade goes bad, the market crashes, and your house(s) loose substantial value, you should be liable to cover the debt (in a timely fashion and at no further risk to the lender), just like the person who had to cover his stock/futures margin account debt. :2cents:

This post was recommended by GuyInTaiwan (26 Apr 2012, 11:03)
Rating: 4%
Forumosan avatar
SillyWilly
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 272
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 12 Jan 2012, 12:29
1 Recommends(s)
5 Recognized(s)



Re: Which Sovereign Nation is Next to Default?

Postby cfimages » 26 Apr 2012, 10:40

SillyWilly wrote:Guy and CFi:

If we replace housing in your argument with stocks/bonds or any other speculative investment vehicle, CFi, your arguments aren't credible at all. Housing (roof over your head), if NOT used as a speculative vehicle, but as shelter should be viewed as a basic human right. However, as soon as housing takes on the characteristics of a speculative investment with profit as its main objective, that basic human right is forfeited by greed. :2cents:

If I get a margin call on my stock portfolio or futures account from my brokerage house, my stocks or futures positions are liquidated and the margin debt covered by the proceeds at a loss (usually a large loss) to me. There was potential for large profits, but also for large losses. It's a bet YOU took, not someone else.
Therefore, if you "gambled" with your family's shelter to make a profit and the trade goes bad, the market crashes, and your house(s) loose substantial value, you should be liable to cover the debt, just like the person who had to cover his stock/futures margin account debt. :2cents:


Housing - the roof over your head kind that I'm talking about - is a necessity for everybody.

Stocks and bonds are not necessary at all, and in fact, the majority of the worlds population don't have them.

The two don't compare.
Forumosan avatar
cfimages
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8865
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 15:39
Location: Across from the other side of the road
221 Recommends(s)
216 Recognized(s)



Re: Which Sovereign Nation is Next to Default?

Postby cfimages » 26 Apr 2012, 10:42

GuyInTaiwan wrote:The modern tax system is socialistic. You would like to make it even more socialistic. If it weren't socialistic, the nation's budget would be divided by the population, and that's how you'd arrive at how much tax every single person would pay. Even better, you'd just have people pay for the services they used at a standard rate for everyone. Anything else is socialism because it is redistributive economics backed up by the threat of force from the government. If anyone else came around and tried to do this to you, you'd call them the mob and cry extortion, with the threat of theft and/or kidnapping. When the government does it, it's somehow "legitimate". The government is a massive "protection" racket.

If they're paying extra tax and other people get bailed out, of course they're being punished. You always go on about people contributing to society. They're already contributing to society. Now you're saying they should pick up the tab for some other knuckleheads. That is punishment and suffering. It doesn't matter who has what amount to begin with. Justice should be applied evenly to everyone. Surely you wouldn't advocate taking a dollar from a poor person to give it to another poor person if the person you took the money from hadn't done anything wrong to begin with. Thus, you're engaging in a war on the rich. You wouldn't make everyone in society serve a day in prison for a criminal just so they could pay their "fair share". Grief, man. Once again, you have completely avoided actually answering the question.


When people start trotting out the "tax is socialism" line, you know they've got nothing substantial to contribute to the debate.
Forumosan avatar
cfimages
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8865
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 15:39
Location: Across from the other side of the road
221 Recommends(s)
216 Recognized(s)



Re: Which Sovereign Nation is Next to Default?

Postby SillyWilly » 26 Apr 2012, 10:57

cfimages wrote:
Housing - the roof over your head kind that I'm talking about - is a necessity for everybody.

Stocks and bonds are not necessary at all, and in fact, the majority of the worlds population don't have them.

The two don't compare.


Why would someone who didn't speculate in housing loose their house? If they paid their mortgage every month and the equity in their homes was left untouched, and no refinancing at higher values occurred, they would have been just fine. They would have lost nothing.
The only people who have a legitimate complaint are those who bought at the peak of the bubble and were fooled by the the "common wisdom" of "houses never loose value and always go up." If those are the ones you're talking about, they are what is commonly referred to as the "greater fools." They should have done a better due diligence and risk assessment instead of listening to their obviously biased real estate agents and the popular press. Hopefully they learned their lesson.

This post was recommended by GuyInTaiwan (26 Apr 2012, 11:02)
Rating: 4%
Forumosan avatar
SillyWilly
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 272
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 12 Jan 2012, 12:29
1 Recommends(s)
5 Recognized(s)



Re: Which Sovereign Nation is Next to Default?

Postby GuyInTaiwan » 26 Apr 2012, 11:05

cfimages wrote:
GuyInTaiwan wrote:The modern tax system is socialistic. You would like to make it even more socialistic. If it weren't socialistic, the nation's budget would be divided by the population, and that's how you'd arrive at how much tax every single person would pay. Even better, you'd just have people pay for the services they used at a standard rate for everyone. Anything else is socialism because it is redistributive economics backed up by the threat of force from the government. If anyone else came around and tried to do this to you, you'd call them the mob and cry extortion, with the threat of theft and/or kidnapping. When the government does it, it's somehow "legitimate". The government is a massive "protection" racket.

If they're paying extra tax and other people get bailed out, of course they're being punished. You always go on about people contributing to society. They're already contributing to society. Now you're saying they should pick up the tab for some other knuckleheads. That is punishment and suffering. It doesn't matter who has what amount to begin with. Justice should be applied evenly to everyone. Surely you wouldn't advocate taking a dollar from a poor person to give it to another poor person if the person you took the money from hadn't done anything wrong to begin with. Thus, you're engaging in a war on the rich. You wouldn't make everyone in society serve a day in prison for a criminal just so they could pay their "fair share". Grief, man. Once again, you have completely avoided actually answering the question.


When people start trotting out the "tax is socialism" line, you know they've got nothing substantial to contribute to the debate.


You haven't contributed anything to the debate from the beginning with your blind refusal to admit that people were speculating with their houses. You also still haven't actually answered any of my questions. You also haven't addressed SillyWilly's comments. I'm getting a massive sense of deja vu. I could have sworn I've seen this tactic used very frequently before.
And you coming in to scold us all like some kind of sour-puss kindie assistant who favors olive cardigans and lemon drinks without sugar. -- Muzha Man

One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England. -- George Orwell
GuyInTaiwan
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
 
Posts: 7231
Joined: 10 Jun 2008, 23:01
341 Recommends(s)
273 Recognized(s)



Re: Which Sovereign Nation is Next to Default?

Postby cfimages » 26 Apr 2012, 11:15

SillyWilly wrote:
cfimages wrote:
Housing - the roof over your head kind that I'm talking about - is a necessity for everybody.

Stocks and bonds are not necessary at all, and in fact, the majority of the worlds population don't have them.

The two don't compare.


Why would someone who didn't speculate in housing loose their house? If they paid their mortgage every month and the equity in their homes was left untouched, and no refinancing at higher values occurred, they would have been just fine. They would have lost nothing.
The only people who have a legitimate complaint are those who bought at the peak of the bubble and were fooled by the the "common wisdom" of "houses never loose value and always go up." If those are the ones you're talking about, they are what is commonly referred to as the "greater fools." They should have done a better due diligence and risk assessment instead of listening to their obviously biased real estate agents and the popular press. Hopefully they learned their lesson.


In that case, they wouldn't lose their home and there's no problem. But plenty of people who follow the advice of their banks or financial advisers and were told they were doing the right thing may stand to lose their home through something that is essentially no fault of their own.
Forumosan avatar
cfimages
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8865
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 15:39
Location: Across from the other side of the road
221 Recommends(s)
216 Recognized(s)



Re: Which Sovereign Nation is Next to Default?

Postby cfimages » 26 Apr 2012, 11:19

GuyInTaiwan wrote:
cfimages wrote:
GuyInTaiwan wrote:The modern tax system is socialistic. You would like to make it even more socialistic. If it weren't socialistic, the nation's budget would be divided by the population, and that's how you'd arrive at how much tax every single person would pay. Even better, you'd just have people pay for the services they used at a standard rate for everyone. Anything else is socialism because it is redistributive economics backed up by the threat of force from the government. If anyone else came around and tried to do this to you, you'd call them the mob and cry extortion, with the threat of theft and/or kidnapping. When the government does it, it's somehow "legitimate". The government is a massive "protection" racket.

If they're paying extra tax and other people get bailed out, of course they're being punished. You always go on about people contributing to society. They're already contributing to society. Now you're saying they should pick up the tab for some other knuckleheads. That is punishment and suffering. It doesn't matter who has what amount to begin with. Justice should be applied evenly to everyone. Surely you wouldn't advocate taking a dollar from a poor person to give it to another poor person if the person you took the money from hadn't done anything wrong to begin with. Thus, you're engaging in a war on the rich. You wouldn't make everyone in society serve a day in prison for a criminal just so they could pay their "fair share". Grief, man. Once again, you have completely avoided actually answering the question.


When people start trotting out the "tax is socialism" line, you know they've got nothing substantial to contribute to the debate.


You haven't contributed anything to the debate from the beginning with your blind refusal to admit that people were speculating with their houses. You also still haven't actually answered any of my questions. You also haven't addressed SillyWilly's comments. I'm getting a massive sense of deja vu. I could have sworn I've seen this tactic used very frequently before.


A. I answered your question. Twice.
B. I distinctly mentioned speculators. Here's the quote.

If it's an investor or speculator trying to make a quick profit, then yes. They gambled and lost. Take them away.

But if it's the family home and it's all they've got then a solution must be found. Stretch the 20 year loan out over 30 if need be (with interest calculated based on 20). Tax the profits of the greedy who cheated the system and won. Whatever is necessary.
Forumosan avatar
cfimages
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8865
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 15:39
Location: Across from the other side of the road
221 Recommends(s)
216 Recognized(s)



Re: Which Sovereign Nation is Next to Default?

Postby GuyInTaiwan » 26 Apr 2012, 11:35

No, you didn't answer it. You dodged around it, as you just did yet again in your part B. You're engaging in the logical fallacy that simply because a person lives in their house they can't also be speculating with that house. They can be either one or both.

Best of seven?
And you coming in to scold us all like some kind of sour-puss kindie assistant who favors olive cardigans and lemon drinks without sugar. -- Muzha Man

One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England. -- George Orwell
GuyInTaiwan
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
 
Posts: 7231
Joined: 10 Jun 2008, 23:01
341 Recommends(s)
273 Recognized(s)



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
PreviousNext




Proceed to Money



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 4 visitors

Be happy while you're living, for you're a long time dead -- SCOTTISH PROVERB