4 ms·

But will this gather enough attention to give Schultz a push? I think Perot based his campaign on something similar. I'm not sure how this all plays out in the

But will this gather enough attention to give Schultz a push? I think Perot based his campaign on something similar. I'm not sure how this all plays out in the long run. But I often suspect we are stealing from our future (or children's future) with this much debt becoming an "anchor" on future productivity gains. I think there was older writings about "the work week shrinking" eventually...but it hasn't...is this to make up for the 'stolen' productivity gains needed to pay for increased national debt? Are we in a giant pyramid scheme?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lkrubner 8y ago
The national debt belongs to someone, and for them is an asset. The debt is a source of income for some, and when they spend that income they are spurring the economy. For those unable to print their own money, there is a definite limit on how much debt that one can carry, though the total amount of debt that can be carried varies based on the prevailing interest rates. On December 19, 1980, the prime rate hit 21.50% [source: 1], and in such situations it is difficult to run up large debts. Right now the prime rate is just over 5%, which makes large debts easier to manage than 39 years ago. However, the USA government can print as much money as it wants to, and in that sense it can fund infinite debt. It could issue hundreds of trillions of dollars of debt and then print the money to pay the debt. The result would be inflation. For that reason, economists often point out that the only limit on USA government debt is how much inflation people are willing to tolerate. Since inflation has been in decline for the last 30 years, the presumption is that the USA government could print a lot more money, and cover a lot more debt, than it has so far. [1] http://www.fedprimerate.com/wall_street_journal_prime_rate_history.htm http://www.fedprimerate.com/wall_street_journal_prime_rate_h...
mvid 8y ago
I hope not. Last thing we need is another third party candidate who would steal votes from the Democratic Party that, of the only two parties that have a chance of having their candidate win, is the one that has lowered the national debt at all In the last 40 years.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

lkrubner 8y ago

The national debt belongs to someone, and for them is an asset. The debt is a source of income for some, and when they spend that income they are spurring the economy. For those unable to print their own money, there is a definite limit on how much debt that one can carry, though the total amount of debt that can be carried varies based on the prevailing interest rates. On December 19, 1980, the prime rate hit 21.50% [source: 1], and in such situations it is difficult to run up large debts. Right now the prime rate is just over 5%, which makes large debts easier to manage than 39 years ago. However, the USA government can print as much money as it wants to, and in that sense it can fund infinite debt. It could issue hundreds of trillions of dollars of debt and then print the money to pay the debt. The result would be inflation. For that reason, economists often point out that the only limit on USA government debt is how much inflation people are willing to tolerate. Since inflation has been in decline for the last 30 years, the presumption is that the USA government could print a lot more money, and cover a lot more debt, than it has so far. [1] http://www.fedprimerate.com/wall_street_journal_prime_rate_history.htm http://www.fedprimerate.com/wall_street_journal_prime_rate_h...

mvid 8y ago

I hope not. Last thing we need is another third party candidate who would steal votes from the Democratic Party that, of the only two parties that have a chance of having their candidate win, is the one that has lowered the national debt at all In the last 40 years.