The challenge of economic storytelling is always about which story lines to include, what's a major and relevant. Real economies have other story lines. In thi

The challenge of economic storytelling is always about which story lines to include, what's a major and relevant. Real economies have other story lines. In this made up world, food is the only output and 8 hours per day equals a workers daily food needs. But in our world, investment can lead to technology and an improvement in the labour-output ratio, not just a future claim to output. Squanderville economists might claim that they are investing, not spending. Investment and spending are economically fungible and hard to distinguish. But maybe squanders are are buying food with squanderbuck IOUs so that they can spend their 8 hours genetically engineering a better coconut tree, with twice as many coconuts per hour of labour and acre of land. I'm not trying to contradict the story. In fact, I generally agree with the overall sentiment. I think it is immoral (aside from the economics) for governments to accumulate debts to be paid by future generations. In fact, I think we need to find mechanisms for accumulating national wealth for future generations. I'm just slightly wary of such storytelling. I really disagree with his "tariffs by another name" ICs. This is a crazy plan. It would be enormously distortive and would have so many loopholes that the unintended side effects would be of epic proportions. Trade restrictions are tackling the "problem" from the wrong end. The problem is overspending, deficits. It isn't imports. Imports are a result.