6 ms·
> US still has a significant chunk of WWII debt after one of the greatest sustained economic booms of all time. Let's pretend this is true. (I doubt it.) Let'
by Amezarak 11y ago
> US still has a significant chunk of WWII debt after one of the greatest sustained economic booms of all time.
Let's pretend this is true. (I doubt it.)
Let's keep in mind that US debt is owed in bonds, redeemable in US dollars.
If I get a 30 year mortgage in 1945 and simply rollover the debt whenever it comes due, but my wealth has increased dramatically, my mortgage does not matter. If I take out a 100k mortgage and then go on to found Apple and become a multibillionaire, then yes, growth was the answer. My debt may not have changed, but it is completely and utterly irrelevant when considering my financial situation.
> Inflation sounds great, just default without technically defaulting, until you actually see what it does to the economy.
Which is why the 50s and 60s were known as horrific economic times, right?
Assuming by "inflation" you just mean an increase in the money supply - quintupling the money supply since 2009 doesn't seem to have led to the sky falling.
> The real solution is to simply spend vastly less money accepting that pain now is better than letting the US become a failed state.
No, the real solution is to spend more money now, taking advantage of historically low interest rates that at times have been negative in real terms, to do whatever you can to kickstart economic growth, and let the debt inflate away 'naturally'. Preferably you do this by investing in infrastructure projects, education, and science, and other things that produce real benefit, but if you want to fill mines with hundred dollar bills and fill them in so others can mine them out, that's fine too. In this case there is no pain.
Spending less money now isn't accepting necessary pain, it's causing unnecessary pain.
The US will not become a failed state because of mild inflation. Hyperinflation will never be a problem in the US barring a world war or huge resource or natural catastrophe. People have been preaching the doom-and-gloom inflation story for probably a century now. Every year, it's just around the corner.
Well, it isn't. I can only speculate why the story is so popular. I can only assume that people have been taught to internalize all debt as a moral issue: less debt is Good, more debt is Bad, and there must therefore be dire consequences visited upon the guilty nations that don't treat debt as it must be treated. But the debt of sovereign, money-printing governments bears no resemblance to the debt of individuals, and there really are no consequences to a government being in debt forever. (Actually there's no consequences to individuals being in debt forever either - I am in perpetual debt to my credit card company, and spend the majority of my paycheck on it...but I pay it off every month.) It would in fact be a bad thing if there were no US bonds to purchase; you've suddenly eliminated a huge source of safe investment from the market.
- mooreds 11y agoI think the story is popular because it resonates with how we need to manage our personal finances. See http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2014/04/21/the-economy-is-not-like-a-household/ http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2014/04/21/the-econo... I don't agree with everything Krugman writes, but it's pretty clear to me that treating an economy like a household is short sighted.
- Retric 11y agoYour assuming US was paying all of the interest on debt. They where rolling over principle and interest which causes things to spiral. Also, US had negative inflation in 1955 and overall low rates from 1950-1969. It only spiked after that. 1974 to 1982 where generally bad. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-in...
- RobertoG 11y agoYou can get inflation in two ways. One way: people and firms are expending more money that the economy can digest. If a government wanted to compensate this, could raise taxes or, ironically, retiring money from the system emitting debt. The other way: the money that people is expending is the same but the economy, for some reason, shrink. That would be a supply shock. That is what happened in the 70's with the oil cartel.
- Retric 11y agoThat's not really true. At its core Money has value as a means to pay Taxes and Debt. If the economy shrinks people need to pay less in Taxes which lowers the demand for dollars. At the same time it's harder to pay debt which generally causes deflation not inflation. Similarly, if the Government spends more than it takes in by "Printing Money" that also devalues its currency. For really high rates of inflation the only viable option is for the government to print money. EX: If your inflation rate is 18% the economy would have to be 1/5th the size in 10 years and 2.5% in 20 years which just flat does not happen.