4 ms·
It's kind of silly to spread corporate and government debt across all people. Also, the article makes no mention of what assets are valued at.
by sdinsn 8y ago
It's kind of silly to spread corporate and government debt across all people. Also, the article makes no mention of what assets are valued at.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago>It's kind of silly to spread corporate and government debt across all people. Why? The most indebted (how may have billions the bank) still need to have others work for them in order to repay their debt. Billionaires earned billions because "people" work for them (or buy from them, in the end that's the same thing).
- Eridrus 8y agoThere's a real difference between taking out a loan to buy consumables/non-revenue generating depreciating assets and corporate debt that is taken out on the expectation that there will be a higher return on them. In a sense rising corporate debt is a vote of confidence in the growth of the economy as lenders are expecting to be paid back with interest. Government debt is somewhere in between IMO, since it has stimulative effects and the government captures some of that through taxes.
- sdinsn 8y agoBecause debt is counted multiple times. If Company A loans a dollar to Company B, which loans it to Person C, that's $2 of debt but only $1.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> It's kind of silly to spread corporate and government debt across all people. Well, no more than it is to spread the corporate and have government claims on debt across all people as assets. Oh, wait, no one does that.