4 ms·

Serious question - not trolling. Even if increasing the deficit does not affect GDP (and I'm in no position to even comment on whether or not I think it does) -

Serious question - not trolling. Even if increasing the deficit does not affect GDP (and I'm in no position to even comment on whether or not I think it does) - how is that sustainable? I mean, AFAIK the argument behind increasing government spending is as simple as "it solves problems" - it provides help to those in need, affects the economy, etc. But why won't this at some point collapse? And if it will at some point collapse, why do we think politics will allow the government to behave any differently as we near that time? So again - serious question - I fail to see how we can expect government spending to grow without eventually consuming 100% of everyone's income or collapsing entirely (and I understand that many people may consider the former a good thing). edit: And this may be because I don't know where the money comes from to begin with. If I keep getting bigger and bigger loans and there's no way my income will allow me to pay these loands back in the foreseeable future, then won't everyone just cease doing business with me at some point? Does "debt" in a government context act differently, and if so, why?

derefr 14y ago
> I fail to see how we can expect government spending to grow without eventually consuming 100% of everyone's income or collapsing entirely (and I understand that many people may consider the former a good thing). Both options sound good to me, in that if people manage to keep eating and living in houses and raising their children after this happens, we will have officially entered a post-scarcity economy.
bloaf 14y ago
Some historical notes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png The US national debt during WWII was around 120% of GDP. In the years that followed, that ratio fell to below 40%. However, we didn't appreciably pay off our debts, the real dollar amount stayed a little over $2 trillion. We accomplished this feat, of course, by substantially increasing the GDP. It is easy to realize that it is fine for debt to continuously grow, so long as the GDP grows faster. Also, the only president to entirely pay off the national debt, Andrew Jackson, triggered one of the deepest depressions in US history.

derefr 14y ago

> I fail to see how we can expect government spending to grow without eventually consuming 100% of everyone's income or collapsing entirely (and I understand that many people may consider the former a good thing). Both options sound good to me, in that if people manage to keep eating and living in houses and raising their children after this happens, we will have officially entered a post-scarcity economy.

bloaf 14y ago

Some historical notes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png The US national debt during WWII was around 120% of GDP. In the years that followed, that ratio fell to below 40%. However, we didn't appreciably pay off our debts, the real dollar amount stayed a little over $2 trillion. We accomplished this feat, of course, by substantially increasing the GDP. It is easy to realize that it is fine for debt to continuously grow, so long as the GDP grows faster. Also, the only president to entirely pay off the national debt, Andrew Jackson, triggered one of the deepest depressions in US history.