3 ms·
There are a number of things that are wrong with your argument: 1. Interest payments typically do not replace other government spending. This is simply not how
by nhaehnle 14y ago
There are a number of things that are wrong with your argument:
1. Interest payments typically do not replace other government spending. This is simply not how politics works: Politicians, at least at the highest level of government, typically do not look at the budget in terms of how much is available, but in terms of how much should be spent.
2. From the perspective of the macroeconomy, interest payments are a zero-sum game. The money goes to other actors in the economy who spend it.
3. Government is always able to spend the money on programs in addition to interest payment. After all, the government runs the monetary system (I realize that this is hard to grok because it is so different from our own, private, experience with how money works, but the difference is significant.)
- bubbleRefuge 14y agoExcellent. Up vote. Gotta spread these truths on HN. Because if HN can't grok it, nobody can.
- grannyg00se 14y agoAdmittedly, I know little about all of this but: 1. So when NASAs budget gets cut, it's not because there's not enough money available? 2. Other actors in the economy who spend it on what?? How is that supposed to be equal in economic growth to spending it directly on investment? 3. Similar to #1. If government is always able to spend money on programs in addition to interest payments, then why are programs ever cut? And why then would debt ever be a concern? You make it seem as though debt is completely irrelevant.