4 ms·
The author is surprisingly confused about how the national debt works. Who, exactly, does the author think the debt is owed to? Directly and indirectly the peop
by atq2119 3y ago
The author is surprisingly confused about how the national debt works. Who, exactly, does the author think the debt is owed to? Directly and indirectly the people, that's who.
This is blindingly obvious when he mentions social security obligations. Most people both pay into the social security system and they receive money out of it -- just at different times of their lives.
In other words, there isn't really a net debt at the societal level (you can quibble about foreign effects, but the relevant numbers there look very different). It is primarily a system of (re-)distribution.
The fact that the author doesn't seem to understand this fairly basic fact makes the entire argument suspect.
- brvsft 3y agoI think you have this reversed unless I am misunderstanding you. We do not owe the debt to ourselves. We are liable for the debt ourselves, directly and indirectly. We owe our debt to creditors, which can (and does) include other countries. And obligations like social security are not debt. They may be funded by debt, but the obligation itself, being paid out to some US citizen, does not represent debt being paid off. Its payment is funded by debt, and in order to fund $100 of SS, we had to take $100 from someone's paycheck, or by issuing new debt, etc.
- atq2119 3y agoYou're largely restating what I wrote, and in any case none of this understanding is visible in TFA. In particular, TFA very explicitly suggests that some measure of social security promises should be counted as if it were debt.