Is our debt what we want to leave to our children as their i

Sure, but they will have to work a lot harder because this generation does not want to do the work of cleaning up the mess we are passing up to them.

Regards
DL

With nearly the whole wealth of the world being owned by just a few people, I would say we are all slaves in a sense.

Some of us are just better kept slaves.

nydailynews.com/news/world/r … -1.2500284

Regards
DL

This is true but if we disrupt the flow too much, we might shoot ourselves in the employment foot.

I think we should stay the course in most products other than the meat industry that is really screwing up the environment. If you have a chance, google the movie Cowspiracy. It is an eye opener.

I think we should continue to consume other non-neat products but bump up the price so that we can reduce our pollution.

Regards
DL

Or the savior, if we can focus on duty and honor.

We mostly never work those into our ego, especially men, who seem to have forgotten their duty to family and the future and the honor of thinking of others that will follow us.

Regards
DL

To DL,

Nowadays I’m linking debt and money with blood, “blood-debt”. It’s not just money. It’s many other factors and choices, consequences and responsibilities, that parents and ancestors pass-off or dump upon further generations. Kicking the can down the road. A woman sluts around and has different children from different dead beat men. Those children grow, suffer, and want somebody to blame in their lives, but remain unfulfilled. The pollution flows downstream. Eventually it will be recycled, but by who and when? Who will pay the final price? Who will bear the final suffering and death, for other people’s irresponsibility?

Blood is the ultimately currency of life. All debts can be reduced to it. All mistakes accounted for, by anybody, anytime, for a lifetime. People do pass on their debts to their unborn.

The ignorance and weakness of every parent, becomes the burden of every child.

Speaking pragmatically, leaving an inheritance for children is the goal, to allow “Privileges” to your children that you-yourself never had but always hoped for.

Ideals, hopes, and dreams are passed on too.

Absolutely, but we should also pass up the sense of duty and honor that most of us do not seem to have much of.

Take the duty of men to their wives and children. We presently have half of all households manned by single women who mostly end in having to chase deadbeat dads. That is not exactly giving the young men a high bar to reach.

Regards
DL

No.

In the USA, 26% of children are living with a single parent.
pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/ … ily-today/

72.9% of children, who are supposed to get child support payments from fathers, are getting it.
brandongaille.com/23-deadbeat-dads-statistics/

I prefer to listen to known experts to get the real picture.

youtube.com/watch?feature=p … gAu1i6aChs

Regards
DL

Debt isn’t all bad. If I own a million dollar house on which I still owe $200k, leaving that house and that debt to my children is a net gain for them. If I own a business that produces millions in profits but also has millions in debt, that’s still a net positive inheritance for my children.

Similarly if a nation or society borrows to pay for infrastructure, research, defense, they may produce a net surplus inheritance for the next generation.

Plenty of very wealthy people carry debt. Plenty of very wealthy people take on debt to buy stock and other investment assets. It’s often a financially sound decision, and leaves them (and their descendants) better off.

The attitude of the poor towards debt is understandable, given that they often don’t have access to the kind of borrowing that will yield positive returns. They also often borrow not to invest, but to make ends meet, which is virtually guaranteed to leave you less well off. But that’s just misusing debt, it’s not a problem inherent to debt.

If you can see something good in leaving a debt, in terms of a dying ecosystem to your children then good for you.

A half paid house debt is good, but not when the house is build on quicksand.

Regards
DL

You would agree that leaving more value to your descendants is better, right? My point is that there are situations where the way to maximize the value you will leave to your children is to also leave them debt. If that’s so, if there are cases where you must take on debt and leave that debt to your children in order to do the right thing by your children, then debt can’t be inherently bad.

Sure, if we aren’t getting anything for it then debt is bad, but that’s an implausible scenario. Most debt is produced in exchange for valuable goods or services. Most houses aren’t on quicksand.

You seem to be missing the point. The fact that gain might require the acceptance of necessary evil does not mean that it alone isn’t evil. The total is acceptable because the good outweighs the evil. But the evil portion is still the evil portion. One would have been better off if the evil was not there and yet the good still was. And in this example, “debt” versus gain, is the “evil”.

Let me put it another way, to more directly address what seems to be the claim of this thread: inherited debt is not prima facie evidence of a wrong to subsequent generations. In many cases the best way to generate value is to take on debt, so the existence of debt can also be evidence of value creation. Indeed, the absence of debt will often be a sign of bad management and under-performance.

The suggestion in this thread is that e.g. the existence of the national debt is evidence that one generation is leaving less to subsequent generations than it might have. But that ignores the fact that debt is generated in exchange for something else, and that something else will often be worth more and generate more value than the debt generates in liabilities.

It all depends upon the goal or purpose. If your purpose is to enslave the entire populations, especially the upcoming youth, then certainly, debt is a wonderful, “god-given” blessing to enrichment and glory.

He is talking about usury and its enslaving residue. Usury is teasing with the notion of personal temporary progress while, with the unseen hand, robbing the future of any hope. It is largely the foundation of modern day Judaism and the old Christian “Devil” - teasing nations into eventual poverty, enslavement, and destitution.

If you owe 200k on a 1mil house mortgage then you don’t own the house, the bank does.

James, caricature is a weak form of argument, and even if it succeeds rhetorically, it does not help to discover truth.

That depends on the state, but even where the bank is held to own it, they can only force a sale for market price and have to give you what’s left over after they take what they’re owed. In any jurisdiction, you’re $800k in the black.

Not nearly as much as the fear of accepting the truth.

Each generation has a choice:

  1. They can avoid passing debt on to the next generation, but that will mean having less cash to invest.
  2. They can pass debt to the next generation, and invest the cash.

If the interest on the debt is less than the expected return on the investment, choosing option 1 will mean choosing to give the next generation less. True?

I understand what you are saying.

It does not apply to the hardship we are passing up to our children.

The house with a mortgage you are giving your children has so much damage that needs repair that they will have the debt you give them plus they will have to get another mortgage for the repairs to bring it to a livable or marketable condition. That places the house out of the market and they will have just a debt without a house when they sell it.

Regards
DL

They have control of the sale, but if they sell it, you get 800k and they get 200k, so it can be said that the bank only owns 1/5 while the other party owns 4/5. Right?

Regards
DL