zorg wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 9:51 am
I have to ask, is this some kind of partisan Zoomer YOLO thing that I'm out of the loop on? Because the hubris of thinking that USA is has limitless money sounds like a wildly dangerous fantasy. Corporations fail, Empires fall. Have you ever visited Detroit? But it doesn't need to be a catastrophic failure for this to have a terrible knock-on effect for the quality of life for citizens. The fall of Rome was actually like hundreds of years of slow but steady decline. Sure you can sell assets to pay the bills.
One thing you can be guaranteed is that it will be YOU (or your children) who will be left holding the bag. We're already paying for it right now.
The climate is going to fuck up my daughter's lives far more than numerical abstractions.
Politicians told my Grandpa the same thing about the debt.
Re: Politics
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:55 pm
by brephophagist
zorg wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 9:51 am
I have to ask, is this some kind of partisan Zoomer YOLO thing that I'm out of the loop on? Because the hubris of thinking that USA is has limitless money sounds like a wildly dangerous fantasy.
Limitless money - yes. Limitless assets - no. Confusing the two is the essential trick.
Far from a zoomer thing, also. I am guessing that most of the posters (correctly) identifying the national debt as an invented crisis have read either or both of The Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton and Debt by David Graeber, both born in the 60s.
Re: Politics
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2024 1:03 pm
by zorg
Party on then, nothing to see here!
Re: Politics
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2024 1:23 pm
by brephophagist
It’s not that there isn’t kernel of truth in what you’re saying. The US has extracted and connived resources out of most of the planet, and the threat of violence from its military is keeping anyone from having to answer for it, along with support from those who benefit. Rome slipped here, slowly. So did the UK.
It’s just that the national debt and money are poor ways to reflect that. The holders of the US debt are not the same group whose resources have been plundered. Assuming full agency from every American in the form of “your share of the debt” obscures the oligarchy that makes most citizens unable to meaningfully affect that extraction.
Re: Politics
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2024 6:06 pm
by Curry Pervert
zorg wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 11:36 am
Why doesn't the UK just print up a bunch of money to pay for the faltering NHS? Because there is a REAL UNDERLYING COST that has to come from somewhere.
It's a political decision, not a fiscal one.
The UK was in a shit state financially after WWII but still managed to create the NHS, the welfare state and embark on the biggest social housing project ever undertaken.
zorg wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 11:36 am
Why doesn't the UK just print up a bunch of money to pay for the faltering NHS? Because there is a REAL UNDERLYING COST that has to come from somewhere.
It's a political decision, not a fiscal one.
The UK was in a shit state financially after WWII but still managed to create the NHS, the welfare state and embark on the biggest social housing project ever undertaken.
Yup. The debt to GDP ratio was 270%. It’s currently just over a third of that.
Re: Politics
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:47 am
by Gramsci
RIP David Graeber. A great public intellectual.
Re: Politics
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:34 am
by zorg
The UK won WWII. It was riding high on a combination of public euphoria, German restitution payments, plundered German patents, and various other spoils of war. It wasn't some kind of miraculous economic formula but rather the correct bet paying out as expected. You can keep posting all these things, but they just back up what I said in the first place. Simply put:
when the government takes loans it pays more for things than they cost
the poor pay the costs for government spending through taxation, reduced services, and erosion of public offerings
the rich get paid more money by loaning the government the money
the government realizes it's overspent and it takes out more loans to service it's existing loans or fund IOUs
return to the first step but factor in the compounding costs
This was the case of the Chicago Parking meter example, and there is no deviation from this in any circumstance I can think of except if you win a war or have some kind of boom in industry. Ultimately, I don't see how steps 2 or 3 are good things. Do I care if we can't buy bombs or new cop cars? No. Do I care if I can't afford quality medical care? Yes. I leave it up for you to decide, where the cuts will happen.
zorg wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:34 am
The UK won WWII. It was riding high on a combination of public euphoria, German restitution payments, plundered German patents, and various other spoils of war. It wasn't some kind of miraculous economic formula but rather the correct bet paying out as expected. You can keep posting all these things, but they just back up what I said in the first place. Simply put:
when the government takes loans it pays more for things than they cost
the poor pay the costs for government spending through taxation, reduced services, and erosion of public offerings
the rich get paid more money by loaning the government the money
the government realizes it's overspent and it takes out more loans to service it's existing loans or fund IOUs
return to the first step but factor in the compounding costs
This was the case of the Chicago Parking meter example, and there is no deviation from this in any circumstance I can think of except if you win a war or have some kind of boom in industry. Ultimately, I don't see how steps 2 or 3 are good things. Do I care if we can't buy bombs or new cop cars? No. Do I care if I can't afford quality medical care? Yes. I leave it up for you to decide, where the cuts will happen.
You're concerned with inequities in tax policy and public services as well as astronomical military spending. Me too.
The national debt isn't really the point. The parking meter example is weird and fascinating but I'm not convinced it's emblematic of the more macro picture.