Well, not yet, but the plan is in place.

http://www.freep.com/article/20121219/BUSINESS01/121219018/U-S-Treasury-sell-all-remaining-GM-stock-automaker-buying-back-200-million-shares

The govt takes a loss on this one, but at least it will be no longer in that business.

The "government," as I am wont to say, is not some 3rd person in a far off land. "The government" is us. WE the People are losing billions of dollars.

Steve, yours is the key fiction that needs to be overcome. The people don't own the government. They investors (lobbyists and bankers) do. We're the "customers". Of course, it's the only organization that forces its customers to pay for services whether they receive them or not.

Guapo wrote:Steve, yours is the key fiction that needs to be overcome. The people don't own the government. They investors (lobbyists and bankers) do. We're the "customers". Of course, it's the only organization that forces its customers to pay for services whether they receive them or not.

Yeah, I'm just going with the "fiction" that the Constitution is to be taken on face value.

Where does it say that we own the government in the constitution?

If you have a mortgage, who owns your house: you or the bank?

Anything that is in debt is owned by the creditors, is it not?

Guapo wrote:Where does it say that we own the government in the constitution?

If you have a mortgage, who owns your house: you or the bank?

Anything that is in debt is owned by the creditors, is it not?

Oy.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It then sets forth the design of the government. "We the people" did that. We own that. We can change the government.

Steve, I'm quite familiar with the preamble to the constitution. There is nothing about ownership in it. Ownership implies equity. Ownership implies an ability to divest. Again, you're ignoring my point about debt. Even if we did "own" the government (albeit incorrect), we don't own it now.

It's a cultural fiction to say that we own the federal government...plain and simple.

Bad news, Guapo. You do own it. And that means you own its debts.

Because you said so? There's no deed. There are no shares. There is no function of ownership involved in the government. As for debt, we can easily repudiate it, abolish the federal government and start over. Whether that will happen is another issue.

Guapo wrote:Steve, I'm quite familiar with the preamble to the constitution. There is nothing about ownership in it. Ownership implies equity. Ownership implies an ability to divest. Again, you're ignoring my point about debt. Even if we did "own" the government (albeit incorrect), we don't own it now.

It's a cultural fiction to say that we own the federal government...plain and simple.

Well, okay, so establishing the Constitution, which establishes the government, doesn't mean ownership?

I guess I'm not smart enough to follow your logic.

As for the borrowing, as I understand it, much of the insane borrowing has us borrowing from ourselves. Of course, if we refuse to pay ourselves back, the markets will crash. Now, that I really can't figure out.

When did you establish the Constitution? And no, it doesn't mean ownership. Does a founding pastor own his church?

And the markets will crash if we repudiate the debt? Explain this logic to me.

Ownership implies equity and stock. Ownership means that one can divest and take back what he or she invested. Can you divest? I'd sure as hell like to.

And since when can you force ownership of something upon someone? That's about as silly of a concept as I've heard. Nobody, in my 4 years studying Political Science made such a claim. No professor. No serious student. It's a cultural fiction, and that's all.

Guapo wrote:When did you establish the Constitution? And no, it doesn't mean ownership. Does a founding pastor own his church?

I get it. You prefer anarchy.

And the markets will crash if we repudiate the debt? Explain this logic to me.

Because fiat dollars are based on confidence and confidence will wane if we refuse to pay our debts?

Guapo wrote:Because you said so? There's no deed. There are no shares. There is no function of ownership involved in the government. As for debt, we can easily repudiate it, abolish the federal government and start over. Whether that will happen is another issue.

Sure, you could do that. I'm sure not paying your debts will have absolutely no repercussions whatsoever.

In other news, I have this bridge you might be interested in purchasing...

Steve, whatever form of polity I prefer is of no consequence to the legal status of this so-called ownership.

Right, and along with the repudiation of the debt, the federal reserve is abolished, and a new currency is formed based on whatever the new polity is. If there is a new federal government, and its notes are based on fiat, then that is quite possible. Still, other arrangements can be made regarding the debt. Since the federal reserve is the largest debt-holder, and if it is abolished, who gives a crap?

But if a currency is tagged to gold, silver, or another commodity, "confidence" no longer matters as much. Currency can change just as easily.

Still the fact remains, there is no citizen ownership of government, unless explicitly implied. The problem of the fiction is that people have a false idea of what can remedy the situation.