> ... if you try to cut the money printer (without taking some.huge debt), you have to squash the deficit ... Right. Governments would have to do sound budgeti

> ... if you try to cut the money printer (without taking some.huge debt), you have to squash the deficit ... Right. Governments would have to do sound budgeting. But people who advocate for a balanced budget typically get laughed out of the room. The way I see it, the real reason why governments most often need ever increasing debt-based budgets is: a growing proportion of the circulating money gets continuously redirected into (and by) the financial sector which puts most of the money in the hands of say the richest 10 %. Because these rich people know best how to avoid/minimize taxation this leads to a lack of tax revenue for the government. Which in turn compels governments to seek other ways to remain capable of acting (deciding how much money for what is one of the key ways of acting out political decisions for every government). So in order to still be able to act, there's only two possibilities left: A) taking on more debt. B) raising taxes. The latter is spectacularly unpopular with most voters (even though additional taxation ought to hit the most wealthy anyway) so it's hardly surprising that most governments prefer taking on more debt. Usually it works "well" because with today's mainstream opinion it's seen as almost natural to take on more debt, whenever big expenses need to be taken care of. Hardly anyone questions the principle, except for Austrian economics proponents, who aren't really taken seriously.