5 ms·

Or they could, you know, stop spending more than they take in in taxes.

enraged_camel 13y ago
When your understanding of the national economy is reduced down to comparing it to a simple household budget, you know you're hopeless.
- grinnbearit 13y ago
  Instead of a household budget, why not compare it to a company's balance sheet? A company perpetually spending more than it takes in will eventually go bankrupt.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    Because companies cannot print their own money, unlike a nation.
    - grinnbearit 13y ago
      Right but they can issue their own equity which is what a country's currency really is.
    - bsaul 13y ago
      the belief that the current debt situation can be solved by printing money endlessly is being debated among economists right now. germany is a great proponent of keeping your budget balanced, and it worked quite well for them so far. and btw, printing money on the current scale will eventualy cause devaluation, and so is in itself a kind of default.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "A company perpetually spending more than it takes in will eventually go bankrupt." That is not a true statement. If a company's revenues are growing, the amount of debt they are holding can increase over time and they can be perfectly capable of servicing that debt in perpetuity as long as the cost of the debt isn't growing faster than the revenues. Revenues can grow both because of real growth (in the company's market or in the economy, depending on whether we are speaking within or without the analogy) and because of inflation (especially if the inflation rate is greater than the interest rate on the loans, which I believe is the case with some government debt).
    - grinnbearit 13y ago
      > as long as the cost of the debt isn't growing faster than the revenues But that can't hold true forever since the size of their debt is increasing, unless interest rates are 0, eventually the cost of holding onto debt will cross revenues.
- ISL 13y ago
  Or perhaps he's sensible. Experiment is the only true arbiter of truth.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    Yes, let's test this theory on 300 million people.
    - ISL 13y ago
      Not choosing sides here (both sides are being irresponsible and goofy (or not), one perhaps more than the other). To address your rebuttal: To get better statistics, more-local democracy, and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic failure, we could partition those 300 million into roughly 50 subunits and let each partition vote on what ought to happen.
      - beering 13y ago
        Problem is, those partitions are far too leaky as people, goods, and money move across the partition so freely.
    - maratd 13y ago
      What horrific consequences do you imagine will manifest themselves from the government spending only what it takes in?
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        Do you mean as a strategy, to avoid issues like (and unlike) this in the future? Or as a tactic to avoid exceeding the debt ceiling this month? The answers are different, and the former more debatable than the latter.
- recursive 13y ago
  You know he's hopeless. I doubt he does. Also, I do not.
threeseed 13y ago
Or how about an even more intelligent approach. Let's only spend money on people who are paying taxes. Am sure the world would be better with less students, seniors, veterans etc.

When your understanding of the national economy is reduced down to comparing it to a simple household budget, you know you're hopeless.

grinnbearit 13y ago
Instead of a household budget, why not compare it to a company's balance sheet? A company perpetually spending more than it takes in will eventually go bankrupt.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  Because companies cannot print their own money, unlike a nation.
  - grinnbearit 13y ago
    Right but they can issue their own equity which is what a country's currency really is.
  - bsaul 13y ago
    the belief that the current debt situation can be solved by printing money endlessly is being debated among economists right now. germany is a great proponent of keeping your budget balanced, and it worked quite well for them so far. and btw, printing money on the current scale will eventualy cause devaluation, and so is in itself a kind of default.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "A company perpetually spending more than it takes in will eventually go bankrupt." That is not a true statement. If a company's revenues are growing, the amount of debt they are holding can increase over time and they can be perfectly capable of servicing that debt in perpetuity as long as the cost of the debt isn't growing faster than the revenues. Revenues can grow both because of real growth (in the company's market or in the economy, depending on whether we are speaking within or without the analogy) and because of inflation (especially if the inflation rate is greater than the interest rate on the loans, which I believe is the case with some government debt).
  - grinnbearit 13y ago
    > as long as the cost of the debt isn't growing faster than the revenues But that can't hold true forever since the size of their debt is increasing, unless interest rates are 0, eventually the cost of holding onto debt will cross revenues.
ISL 13y ago
Or perhaps he's sensible. Experiment is the only true arbiter of truth.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  Yes, let's test this theory on 300 million people.
  - ISL 13y ago
    Not choosing sides here (both sides are being irresponsible and goofy (or not), one perhaps more than the other). To address your rebuttal: To get better statistics, more-local democracy, and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic failure, we could partition those 300 million into roughly 50 subunits and let each partition vote on what ought to happen.
    - beering 13y ago
      Problem is, those partitions are far too leaky as people, goods, and money move across the partition so freely.
  - maratd 13y ago
    What horrific consequences do you imagine will manifest themselves from the government spending only what it takes in?
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Do you mean as a strategy, to avoid issues like (and unlike) this in the future? Or as a tactic to avoid exceeding the debt ceiling this month? The answers are different, and the former more debatable than the latter.
recursive 13y ago
You know he's hopeless. I doubt he does. Also, I do not.

threeseed 13y ago

Or how about an even more intelligent approach. Let's only spend money on people who are paying taxes. Am sure the world would be better with less students, seniors, veterans etc.