Colonel Blimp...now there's a financial arguement. I best concede to your superior knowledge.

BTW
I have to say that superciliously suggesting that I should learn "about finance"and telling me I'm completely wrong (but of course no indications as to why), doesn't inspire me with great faith that you actually know what you are talking about.

Hmmm, change loaned to borrowed.

"getting money for nothing"
"national debt isn't a problem for the taxpayer"

So many errors in that Mark, you really need to study how bonds and general finance works.

We've already established that investors in index- linked bonds are prepared to lend their money to the government for a negative return - you say this is because they expect high inflation. Yet the same investors are investing in instruments that would leave them with a massive loss if there were any significant inflation. The fact that the price of these bonds is increasing suggests that the market views them as incredibly low risk.
OK. I'll explain how this really works. The government decides the interest rates and investors are happy to take whatever is offered, because they have a need for zero risk saving - getting money for nothing, especially when there is a shortage of other investment opportunities. It is entirely possible for the government to lower the rate to any level they desire using quantative easing.
The national debt isn't a problem for the taxpayer, though it might be a problem for people buying bonds.

I don't, thats how markets work, they should have understood that when they invested, plus, they can always sell even at a loss. Thats why there is a risk premium in investments. However it's extremely unlikely they will "lose the lot"

I think you need to study how bond investments "work".

The austerity in Greece was neccesary becuase they were a society without their own currency.

a)It isn't. I don't have anything against people's personal choices for consumption. I don't oppose people working towards their aims. I oppose the idea that workers should only be able to exist at the sufferance of those with money - that a condition for decent existence in our society must be work when 1) increasingly we do not desperately require the work, 2) those with money have not neccesarily contributed to society and are not neccesarily wiser than those without, 3) the kind of work that we do need people to do - the kind of behaviour we need from our neighbours probably isn't best motivated by the threat of destitution and 4) by giving the poor more choice about the work they do, we might actually build a better society (fewer chuggers?).

b) I don't think you should. If it were neccesary to force you at gunpoint to make food for me, to build me a house, or to otherwise serve me, what I am suggesting would be evil. That would be a slave society.
But I don't think it is neccesary to force anyone to do these things. People can instead be encouraged to do them for rewards - nicer houses, more and nicer food etc etc.
If the government wants to reduce the consumption of certain resources or limit certain behaviour it will impose a tax. But this really has very little to do with feeding everybody (because we don't have any shortage of food) or housing everybody (because the limits on housing are made by us).
Using the capital and knowledge passed down to us, it is possible for one person to produce a lot for himself as well as enough for many others, with scarcely any extra work.
And yes, there is a degree of force in society. There will always be a degree of force in society. That is unavoidable. A society based on property rights where you are justified in killing those who take your things, strikes me as both forceful and evil.
And if you won't do this, if you aren't prepared to kill those who need things, then essentially you agree with me. We must support the lives of every member of society. You do so grudgingly, I happily.
So, who is proposing a slave society here? Me? I suggest we acknowledge the fact that we are not prepared to kill those who need food, that we will not imprison them and leave them to starve, that all decent people agree that we must provide a decent minimum for every member of society and that we gain not very much from forcing those at the bottom to work for their daily bread. I believe that the market should be largely free to operate - within a sensible legal framework.

You argue that the poor should be cajoled and forced into unneccesary labour. Why?
Isn't that the real slave society?

Index-linked does not mean they are 0%, in fact investors are looking to benefit from future inflation (a pretty good bet I would say-but time will tell).

And austerity in Greece was necessary because of what?

Government debt is measured in GB trillions of Pounds not interest rates. But assuming you mean that people might in future lend money to HM Government at 0% to finance their continually increasing deficits (and accumulated debt) you have to ask why they would risk repayment of their loan for no reward. So yes it is a problem because it won't happen.

Greece have conducted a very interesting experiment in paying a lot of people very well to do very little (much as Chris and you are proposing), it has not worked out well has it?

If the government debt was zero interest, would it still be a problem?

Beveridge (whom many consider the father of the welfare state) considered idleness as one of the five great evils to be tackled by the government's welfare reforms of 1949, unfortunately subsequent governments have not been keen to enact anything to combat idleness, while showing great zeal to roll-out all kinds of new benefits which cannot be justified by your GDP.

The result can be watched on the debt clock above, which currently reads £1,099,760,000,000++, not so long ago it was below the unthinkable trillion-pound mark. A bond rating downgrade of your debt is imminent which will only accelerate the debt clock.

Chris Dillow may think himself radical but his thinking is not conducive to a comfortable future.

Nature dunnit.
I'm confused. Are you saying that we have no choice in this matter?

Where are the employers?
I allready think that an awful lot of the jobs which exist are " make work" schemes of little benefit to anyone but neccesary because everyone "needs a job". You'd make this worse.
The job I do has absolutely nothing to do with anything I consume and everything to do with fitting into society. I imagine most people are in the same situation.

What means would justify my ends?
I would support using various incentives to get people to behave well, as well as punishments to discourage them from behaving badly.
Essentially the same system as we have now.

To some extent that is true, but it is true of all of us.
You're the one who insists on people doing things before they are allowed to live.
The fact that the things they must do are of no benefit to anyone suggests to me that you aren't particuarly interested in seeing them live.

"So I guess you would say "be someone I know and submit to my will, it is all that my pride will allow""

?

As Tom said, you're the one who wants others to do as they're told.

The world might not owe us a living, but I think you could argue that the society we are part of does owe us an opportunity to live. The question is what are the conditions which apply to being considered a member of society, after which we will try to help someone survive.
A stone age tribesman might answer "be family, (or female and fertile) and willing to contribute to the fight when you can, or we'll all go down."
A 18th century Colonial might say "be white live locally and be willing to contribute labour when you can, because we don't have for the poor not to work (though the rich are a different matter)"
As modern men, what can you say? 3 percent of the population could probably provide for all of our (wasteful) food needs. What percentage of people need to work to maintain the rest of our lifestyle? What work is it that we desperately require of the least motivated and skilled? Will the prospect of deprivation produce people better able to provide us with personal services?
The real objection cannot be on grounds of neccesity, is not made because we need the lazy to work or because forcing them to do so will make them better people.
The real objection is to the universal society. You do not want to recognise strangers as a member of your society at all.
So I guess you would say "be someone I know and submit to my will, it is all that my pride will allow"