> I laid out how national budgets and household budgets are fundamentally the same thing: The flow of cash coming in must meet or exceed the flow of cashing goi

> I laid out how national budgets and household budgets are fundamentally the same thing: The flow of cash coming in must meet or exceed the flow of cashing going out. I'm surprised this detail is completely lost on you. That's absolutely not true. Governments can manipulate the supply of money they have available to themselves in numerous ways. The most obvious counter-example is that governments can simply print physical cash. It is rarely a good idea, but it absolutely a thing that can and has been done. > the world at-large is slowly but certainly shifting from Pax Americana to Pax Sino. > So again, what happens when the gravy train stops? We don't know when that is, we don't know if the train will stop in the first place, but we have to have a plan in hand because debts must be paid. If it goes at the pace it has been going, it'll be a continuous squeeze instead of "stopping". What would happen in that squeeze? Interest rates and taxes will slowly go up and the economy will stagnate. > Where do we consider we are borrowing too much? This line can and should be constantly reevaluated as necessary and appropriate, but first of all do we even have such a line? Not really, because lender confidence is more complicated than a number as simple as debt-to-GDP, but it's a good benchmark value. I think the obvious answer is that lenders will indicate with their buying habits when they disapprove of the debt, and that's really the indicator that ultimately matters. But it's a complicated question that economists don't even agree on.