3 ms·

Everyone who says "we're saddling future generations with debt" are almost exclusively rich people that want to cut entitlement spending. Which is why it's abs

Everyone who says "we're saddling future generations with debt" are almost exclusively rich people that want to cut entitlement spending. Which is why it's absolutely great that they're on the way to earning negative yields on their wealth. If they want a positive real yield from risk-free assets like Treasuries they should advocate for Medicare For All and increased infrastructure spending.

ericd 7y ago
It's not absolutely great. All those pension funds that are going to support decidedly unwealthy retirees (teachers, police, other public servants) are going to be in dire straits. And if those blow up, it's going to be a pretty big problem for those unwealthy people, and a political problem for everyone else. And it's not just wealthy people who worry about the national debt, I think that's a pretty big concern for anyone who gives half a shit about social safety nets. And how do real yields correlate at all with Medicare For All and infra spending? If anything, higher real yields make it harder for the government to balance its budget as debt servicing costs rise. I'm really confused.
- Despegar 7y ago
  If Medicare For All were passed it would be a massive increase in fiscal spending and a lot of it would be financed with debt. After that supply and demand will take care of the yield the market expects for risk-free assets. The reason why Germany has negative yielding sovereign debt is because they have a political aversion to any kind of deficit spending, and that's a detriment to growth all across Europe as well as to their own people.
- pytester 7y ago
  >It's not absolutely great. All those pension funds that are going to support decidedly unwealthy retirees (teachers, police, other public servants) are going to be in dire straits. >And it's not just wealthy people who worry about the national debt, I think that's a pretty big concern for anyone who gives half a shit about social safety nets. None of this is a concern to a country that mints its own currency. National debt is simply a fully controlled savings account service run by the government. The reason the wealthy "worry" about the national debt (except when it comes to military spending) is because they want to see public sector spending on people restricted (to keep wages down) and things (to keep inflation down).
  - ericd 7y ago
    Most (all?) of the pension funds I described aren’t run by the national government in the US, they’re typically run at the state level - CalPERS, for example, in California. Teachers, police, firemen are employed at the local level. Given that Medicare for All is a proposed US policy, I think it’s reasonable to scope this discussion to US concerns. Yes, the wealthy have some reasons to worry about it, but it’s silly to say that they’re the only ones with some reason to be concerned about it. Normal retirees on a fixed income and others trying to save for retirement, a house, whatever don’t want their savings completely debased either. And citizens in general probably won’t like the effects if the USD loses its reserve currency status due to lax monetary policy.

ericd 7y ago

It's not absolutely great. All those pension funds that are going to support decidedly unwealthy retirees (teachers, police, other public servants) are going to be in dire straits. And if those blow up, it's going to be a pretty big problem for those unwealthy people, and a political problem for everyone else. And it's not just wealthy people who worry about the national debt, I think that's a pretty big concern for anyone who gives half a shit about social safety nets. And how do real yields correlate at all with Medicare For All and infra spending? If anything, higher real yields make it harder for the government to balance its budget as debt servicing costs rise. I'm really confused.

Despegar 7y ago
If Medicare For All were passed it would be a massive increase in fiscal spending and a lot of it would be financed with debt. After that supply and demand will take care of the yield the market expects for risk-free assets. The reason why Germany has negative yielding sovereign debt is because they have a political aversion to any kind of deficit spending, and that's a detriment to growth all across Europe as well as to their own people.
pytester 7y ago
>It's not absolutely great. All those pension funds that are going to support decidedly unwealthy retirees (teachers, police, other public servants) are going to be in dire straits. >And it's not just wealthy people who worry about the national debt, I think that's a pretty big concern for anyone who gives half a shit about social safety nets. None of this is a concern to a country that mints its own currency. National debt is simply a fully controlled savings account service run by the government. The reason the wealthy "worry" about the national debt (except when it comes to military spending) is because they want to see public sector spending on people restricted (to keep wages down) and things (to keep inflation down).
- ericd 7y ago
  Most (all?) of the pension funds I described aren’t run by the national government in the US, they’re typically run at the state level - CalPERS, for example, in California. Teachers, police, firemen are employed at the local level. Given that Medicare for All is a proposed US policy, I think it’s reasonable to scope this discussion to US concerns. Yes, the wealthy have some reasons to worry about it, but it’s silly to say that they’re the only ones with some reason to be concerned about it. Normal retirees on a fixed income and others trying to save for retirement, a house, whatever don’t want their savings completely debased either. And citizens in general probably won’t like the effects if the USD loses its reserve currency status due to lax monetary policy.