Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Politics/World Q & A

Posted Nov 13, '12 at 4:49pm

hojoko

hojoko

556 posts

I agree with all the above statements made by yourself, however I really don't think the UN would allow "irate debtors" to occupy 50 separate American nations.

Of course, the question really comes down to whether or not the UN has enough influence to prevent occupation. America certainly didn't think so. As such, if China or the EU, or even Mexico (who's still pretty pissed about the whole Texas thing) wanted to occupy the new American nations, there might not be a lot the UN could do about it.

 

Posted Nov 13, '12 at 7:24pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

Unfortunately, that's not how national debts work. Nations are kind of like Corporations in that sense. Their debt is limited to the government itself. So while the United States Government might be deeply in debt, it's citizens aren't. The government can increase taxation in an attempt to combat debt, but the citizens don't actually owe any money to foreign powers.

it was just a idea how it could be devided evenly.
ofcourse it has to be done in a a political agreement. but i thought that was obvious.
btw, the citizens also have a debt of 15.8 trillion. of wich a large amount is from foreign holders.

I really don't think the UN would allow "irate debtors" to occupy 50 separate American nations.

by the time these nations are acknowledged by the UN nations and have joined the UN themself.  i guess some could be occupied by others.

 

Posted Nov 13, '12 at 9:17pm

PanzerTank

PanzerTank

443 posts

by the time these nations are acknowledged by the UN nations and have joined the UN themself.  i guess some could be occupied by others.

I doubt the American states would allow themselves to be conquered         (se permettent de se faire conquérir). I would think that all the independent nations would coalesce temporarily to disuade any and all "irate debtors" into leaving America.

 

Posted Nov 13, '12 at 10:48pm

hojoko

hojoko

556 posts

btw, the citizens also have a debt of 15.8 trillion. of wich a large amount is from foreign holders.

That's the combined public and intra-national debt. It's all very confusing, but it works something like this:

National governments take out loans in whatever form (most often Treasury securities) to provide funding for the welfare of their citizens. The nation in question then taxes its citizens to gain the funds necessary to pay back the loans. This is their sole income. Governments are not businesses, they do not sell services. So a national debt functions as a taxable citizens debt. It's not the debt of any individual citizen, and should a government default, it cannot be collected from any individual or group of citizens. Instead, the nation's currency drops in value. The public debt is the debt owed by the national government to parties not part of the national government (both native and foreign), while intra-national debt is money owed by one sector of the government to another sector of the government.

However, any individual citizen or corporation indebted to a specific creditor is held accountable by that specific creditor for their individual debts. As such, this type of debt cannot be divided per capita.

Furthermore, when a corporate creditor which also owes debts to another creditor defaults, that corporations creditors cannot be held accountable for their creditor's default and their debt does not necessarily transfer.

So while that $15.8 trillion (actually, more like $16.2 trillion) debt is owed by the citizens of the United States in theory, it's not actually owed by any individual United States citizen and cannot be collected from any individual or group of citizens.

I hope that made sense.

Note: I've always been more interested in the economics of scarcity and microeconomics than financial economics, so while I'm trying to be as accurate as possible, if I'm wrong feel free to correct me.

 

Posted Nov 14, '12 at 8:17am

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

That's the combined public and intra-national debt. It's all very confusing, but it works something like this:

we are talking about 2 different debts here.
you are talking about the US national debt of 16.2 trillion
i mend the US personal debt of 15.8 trillion.

i know how it works and what you mean but that is not the debt i mend.

 

Posted Nov 14, '12 at 8:28am

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

the US personal debt exists of mortgage debts and consumers debts.
what includes car loans, study loans, credit card debts and more.
it is actually the debt the citizens own to companies and banks. a large amount of it is from foreign companies and banks. ;)

 

Posted Nov 14, '12 at 6:19pm

hojoko

hojoko

556 posts

Again, I'm not sure you're quite getting it. That's the public debt as owed by the U.S. government. The debt you're thinking of is the personal and public debt owed by citizens, businesses and corporations, which is more like $50 trillion, and is an entirely different thing.

Like I previously said any individual or corporation indebted to a specific creditor is held accountable by that specific creditor for their individual debts, so regardless of the national status of each state, that debt would still be owed by the individual, and could not be divided up per capita.

I would think that all the independent nations would coalesce temporarily to disuade any and all "irate debtors" into leaving America.

If they were to unite, wouldn't that kind of defeat the point of the whole secession thing? I understand part of the reason for secession has to do with the national debt, but any new country will have massive amounts of national debt (for reference, check out the founding of the Philippines or the United States), and the aforementioned personal and public debt owed by citizens, businesses and corporations wouldn't change for any of the citizens, businesses or corporations in any new American nation (at least initially).

 

Posted Nov 14, '12 at 7:48pm

PanzerTank

PanzerTank

443 posts

If they were to unite, wouldn't that kind of defeat the point of the whole secession thing?

It would be a temporary coalition to get the "irate debtors" out of N. America.

 

Posted Nov 14, '12 at 9:04pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

Again, I'm not sure you're quite getting it. That's the public debt as owed by the U.S. government. The debt you're thinking of is the personal and public debt owed by citizens, businesses and corporations, which is more like $50 trillion, and is an entirely different thing.

hmm.... no it isn't.
the 50+ trillion debt is all the debt combined.
national debt + personal debt + some others i can't recall right away.
national debt is 16.2 trillion
personal debt is 15,8 trillion
i can't help it those 2 are so close that it can be confusing for you. but it are 2 entirely different debts.

or do we call credit card debts part of the national debt now? so the government has to pay directly for that oversize tv that some dude could not buy yet but still did anyway?

check your facts again. i'm not wrong here. ;)

 

Posted Nov 14, '12 at 9:15pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

Like I previously said any individual or corporation indebted to a specific creditor is held accountable by that specific creditor for their individual debts, so regardless of the national status of each state, that debt would still be owed by the individual, and could not be divided up per capita.

this is completely irrelevant to the point i made that the citizens are also in debt.

these people are in debt. ofcours that isn't part of the national debt and ofcourse we do not count it as national debt.
the point that they are together in debt for 15.8 trillion however still stands. (until the gov. go's on a bailout streak again)

 
Reply to Politics/World Q & A

You must be logged in to post a reply!