5 ms·

Congress-people have few incentives to restrain or reduce the national debt. There is plenty of talk, but little action. The event horizon may be distant, bu

Congress-people have few incentives to restrain or reduce the national debt. There is plenty of talk, but little action. The event horizon may be distant, but the pull is inexorable. What could possibly solve this? Could we give representatives and senators bonuses for spending less and taxing more?

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Not sure about that solution, but we could elect representation that does the right thing(s), and not just the thing(s) that get them reelected.
- jcims 3y ago
  That’s not how selection works unfortunately.
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  I don’t know the answer to this question, but would removing the ability to be reelected cause a change in the equilibrium?
  - Retric 3y ago
    No, if anything it would likely make things worse as people try to maximize their out of office job the same way SEC officials end up at big banks. The advantage of “professional” politicians is they can be held accountable. Unfortunately, the general public rarely actually does so.
- jbm 3y ago
  We could choose, for instance, to restrict people to single terms. I don't think long term exposure to power is actually that helpful, and it creates brand names and political careers, none of which really seems to be that helpful. I think restricting the presidency to 2 terms is actually quite positive, and I wish we had a similar system in Canada (although generally it works out to be more or less the same)
  - mech422 3y ago
    Single terms might be too short - but I'd be happy with anything <= a 20 year limit...2 terms (same as president), 3 terms, or even 4 terms.. I also think term limits are the first step towards getting anything else fixed. Without term limits, pols are always going to vote to get re-elected/more lobbying money instead of improving things.
- blitzar 3y ago
  > we elect representation that does the right thing(s), and not just the thing(s) that get them reelected Every candidate who has stood up and said they will do the right thing (tm) was not elected. The problem is the "we", the elected representation give people exactly what they want, and in a democracy what they (collectively) deserve.
panarky 3y ago
The clue that this guy is a right-wing crank is that he blames the problem on "Congress extending the debt limit". The root cause of the problem happens long before the meaningless semiannual debt limit ritual. The root cause is that Congress approved more spending, while also approving tax cuts, so that the spending isn't funded by tax revenue. The whole debt limit fiasco doesn't fix this fundamental problem. The debt limit nonsense is just coming along later, after all the spending and tax cut legislation has been signed into law, and threatening to default on the nation's obligations. It's like trying to solve the problem of leaving the barn doors open and letting the horses escape by coming along after the horses are gone and threatening to burn down the barn.
- not_really 3y ago
  > The clue that this guy is a right-wing crank Stopped reading after seeing a clue that this guy is a far-left extremist.
  - Remnant44 3y ago
    Who's right in this case...
Kon-Peki 3y ago
> There is plenty of talk, but little action Because that's how you win elections. The voters want to spend less on the things they don't like and more on the things they do. When people say things like "reduce the deficit", "balance the budget", or something like that they don't actually mean it. All they want is to take money away from the other side. If they really wanted to reduce the national debt, they'd vote differently. And Washington knows it.
jalapenos 3y ago
It's a solved problem - the gold standard. The only thing that makes the current situation tenable is being able to print money. Put simply, the government doesn't actually view it as a problem. If you have an unlimited credit card you never have to repay, that's not a problem for you but for everyone else. Bit of an unfortunate omission from the US constitution really. That's the only way they'd have kept it - otherwise the moment you get any "economic crisis" they'd just "suspend" it again.
- owlstuffing 3y ago
  Right. . . however the problems with fiat currency are unavoidable and end in collapse. Considering the petrodollar, its time is near. Oil is quickly becoming a negotiable commodity between nations. Following the current trajectory, the USD will lose its global hegemony in 5-10 years. War will expedite that pace.
- LargeTomato 3y ago
  Which gold standard? There are many. Is everything backed by gold? So no loans, debt, or bonds? This is deflationary because the total value of stuff grows but the monetary base stays the same. Is there a fiat currency backed by gold? How will you avoid the monetary base growing larger than the total quantity of gold in the world? How is this functionally different from today?
  - jalapenos 3y ago
    The following one: simply remove the fiat, and let the market take over again. I.e. the same way commerce was carried out everywhere for approximately forever. It's presumed a gold standard would return in that scenario, but could be something else. I assume this is how it'll end up naturally though. No one will end up willing to take the other country's currency in cross border trade, so that's where hard currency will return.
    - LargeTomato 3y ago
      >I.e. the same way commerce was carried out everywhere for approximately forever. No! That's not true :) as long as there has been debt there has been fiat. There has been debt since the beginning of commerce. So your system is going to have the same issues. You're "assuming" quite a lot for someone who really shouldn't be assuming anything.
cvalka 3y ago
A balanced budget amendment.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

Not sure about that solution, but we could elect representation that does the right thing(s), and not just the thing(s) that get them reelected.

jcims 3y ago
That’s not how selection works unfortunately.
jjtheblunt 3y ago
I don’t know the answer to this question, but would removing the ability to be reelected cause a change in the equilibrium?
- Retric 3y ago
  No, if anything it would likely make things worse as people try to maximize their out of office job the same way SEC officials end up at big banks. The advantage of “professional” politicians is they can be held accountable. Unfortunately, the general public rarely actually does so.
jbm 3y ago
We could choose, for instance, to restrict people to single terms. I don't think long term exposure to power is actually that helpful, and it creates brand names and political careers, none of which really seems to be that helpful. I think restricting the presidency to 2 terms is actually quite positive, and I wish we had a similar system in Canada (although generally it works out to be more or less the same)
- mech422 3y ago
  Single terms might be too short - but I'd be happy with anything <= a 20 year limit...2 terms (same as president), 3 terms, or even 4 terms.. I also think term limits are the first step towards getting anything else fixed. Without term limits, pols are always going to vote to get re-elected/more lobbying money instead of improving things.
blitzar 3y ago
> we elect representation that does the right thing(s), and not just the thing(s) that get them reelected Every candidate who has stood up and said they will do the right thing (tm) was not elected. The problem is the "we", the elected representation give people exactly what they want, and in a democracy what they (collectively) deserve.

panarky 3y ago

The clue that this guy is a right-wing crank is that he blames the problem on "Congress extending the debt limit". The root cause of the problem happens long before the meaningless semiannual debt limit ritual. The root cause is that Congress approved more spending, while also approving tax cuts, so that the spending isn't funded by tax revenue. The whole debt limit fiasco doesn't fix this fundamental problem. The debt limit nonsense is just coming along later, after all the spending and tax cut legislation has been signed into law, and threatening to default on the nation's obligations. It's like trying to solve the problem of leaving the barn doors open and letting the horses escape by coming along after the horses are gone and threatening to burn down the barn.

not_really 3y ago
> The clue that this guy is a right-wing crank Stopped reading after seeing a clue that this guy is a far-left extremist.
- Remnant44 3y ago
  Who's right in this case...

Kon-Peki 3y ago

> There is plenty of talk, but little action Because that's how you win elections. The voters want to spend less on the things they don't like and more on the things they do. When people say things like "reduce the deficit", "balance the budget", or something like that they don't actually mean it. All they want is to take money away from the other side. If they really wanted to reduce the national debt, they'd vote differently. And Washington knows it.

jalapenos 3y ago

It's a solved problem - the gold standard. The only thing that makes the current situation tenable is being able to print money. Put simply, the government doesn't actually view it as a problem. If you have an unlimited credit card you never have to repay, that's not a problem for you but for everyone else. Bit of an unfortunate omission from the US constitution really. That's the only way they'd have kept it - otherwise the moment you get any "economic crisis" they'd just "suspend" it again.

owlstuffing 3y ago
Right. . . however the problems with fiat currency are unavoidable and end in collapse. Considering the petrodollar, its time is near. Oil is quickly becoming a negotiable commodity between nations. Following the current trajectory, the USD will lose its global hegemony in 5-10 years. War will expedite that pace.
LargeTomato 3y ago
Which gold standard? There are many. Is everything backed by gold? So no loans, debt, or bonds? This is deflationary because the total value of stuff grows but the monetary base stays the same. Is there a fiat currency backed by gold? How will you avoid the monetary base growing larger than the total quantity of gold in the world? How is this functionally different from today?
- jalapenos 3y ago
  The following one: simply remove the fiat, and let the market take over again. I.e. the same way commerce was carried out everywhere for approximately forever. It's presumed a gold standard would return in that scenario, but could be something else. I assume this is how it'll end up naturally though. No one will end up willing to take the other country's currency in cross border trade, so that's where hard currency will return.
  - LargeTomato 3y ago
    >I.e. the same way commerce was carried out everywhere for approximately forever. No! That's not true :) as long as there has been debt there has been fiat. There has been debt since the beginning of commerce. So your system is going to have the same issues. You're "assuming" quite a lot for someone who really shouldn't be assuming anything.

cvalka 3y ago

A balanced budget amendment.