4 ms·
> When we needed millions of N95 masks debt can’t simply conjure them from thin air, the same is true of oil or other critical resources. I understand that, bu
by kbenson 6y ago
> When we needed millions of N95 masks debt can’t simply conjure them from thin air, the same is true of oil or other critical resources.
I understand that, but that's not the context I understood we were discussing, which is "stop funding the military so we can start fixing these other problems like covid or opiates or whatever". In that context, my point was to say that funding for those initiatives is not the limiting factor.
> All debt can do is force the next administration to pay for your spending.
Which is perfectly acceptable and expected in an emergency. I doubt any future administration is going to say "if only Trump didn't spend so much on covid, we're really hurting from that." Going into debt over emergency needs for the country is pretty analogous to floating your house payment or rent on credit for a couple months while you get a new job. You pay for it later, but ultimately it's probably a much better investment than not doing it, as being out on the street has far greater negative consequences (and a negative feedback loop) than the debt usually has. In the same manner, reducing a recession or preventing a depression is generally money well spent.
> A surplus is by far the more economically efficient option.
Sure, but then the whole "reduce this so we can pay for that" doesn't really make sense. I don't think we're really in disagreement, I think we're just slightly contextually misaligned.
- Retric 6y agoNo we have fundamental disagreement about government debt. For clarity: There was absolutely zero need to go deeper into debt over COVID. Further, government waste is not a question of debt without consequences. Paying people to fill out redundant forms or build pointless military hardware means those same highly skilled and capable people can’t being doing something of actual value. Money is fundamentally an abstraction, and debt is simply another form of taxation. Debt as the least obvious form of taxation has illusionary benefit and real costs.
- kbenson 6y ago> No we have fundamental disagreement about government debt. Since I don't disagree with what you're saying, but also think it doesn't really apply to the specific point I was trying to express, I don't think we do. Apparently I'm just unable to adequately communicate my point. The only thing additional I can think to say is that you seem to making an argument about how government should be run, which is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing what's required for our legislators to pass legislation on this today. Freeing up money from other sources is not one of those things, as they could borrow whatever extra they needed if they deemed it necessary.
- Retric 6y agoThat assumes two things, the legislature is absolutely willing to go into unlimited debt and they feel the change is critical not simply important/better etc. I don’t think those assumptions hold up in practice. Everything is a complex series of tradeoffs, not just in what’s useful but also in public perception.