• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

National Debt: Why do Conservatives hate having one?

Given current economic factors, what would the ideal Debt to GDP level be?


  • Total voters
    40
I don't think it's fair to throw Fenton in the same boat as many "Conservative" politicians who support and implement policies that increase the national deficit. I think Fenton, as a fiscal conservative, would be very opposed to this (but he can of course correct me if I'm wrong).

The problem is Fenton (and many fiscally Conservative Americans) vote to put in power the people that tell him one thing and do another. Voting Republican over and over again and expecting fiscally responsible behavior is exactly the opposite of what the reality of their governance has shown us over the decades.

It's fun and interesting to spar over the numbers and point out flaws in the opposing teams ideas, but let's look at the facts. Whenever a so-called Conservative is in office, the deficit goes up. It's been going up whenever they've been in power since Reagan exploded the deficit. The sad part is all Republican and Conservatives continue following the exact same playbook.

Where does it stop?
 
Last edited:
The problem is Fenton (and many fiscally Conservative Americans) vote to put in power the people that tell him one thing and do another. Voting Republican over and over again and expecting fiscally responsible behavior is exactly the opposite of what the reality of their governance has shown us over the decades.

It's fun and interesting to spar over the numbers and point out flaws in the opposing teams ideas, but let's look at the facts. Whenever a so-called Conservative is in office, the deficit goes up. It's been going up whenever they've been in power since Reagan exploded the deficit. The sad part is all Republican and Conservatives continue following the exact same playbook.

Where does it stop?

Well, what is your definition of "fiscally responsible"?

Clinton is often lauded for his efforts in achieving a few surpluses, and Dubya is often maligned for wiping out that surplus and increasing deficit spending. But it is my contention that surpluses generally hurt an economy, while deficits (if they increase aggregate demand) generally help an economy. Plus, the realities of deficits and sovereign debt are terribly misunderstood, and are not the giant problems that most people think.

I agree with you that our politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths, and are self-serving, partisan, etc. But let's not let a good economic debate get caught up in politics, because there isn't a party out there that I fully agree with, and I'd bet that almost everybody feels the same way.
 
Well first off this "average life of a fiat currency" doesn't even mean anything at all, considering that takes into account extremely unstable currencies (and assuming here that your unsubstantiated fact is true).

Second, the US hasn't had to switch between fiat and commodity backed currency in recent history.




Well I'm glad that you recognize the ability of the Fed to control interest rates, first off, though I'm confused about how you can go from saying "future debt...could be more expensive" then two sentences later say that the Fed has control over interest rates. The cost of debt is the interest rate, so really these two statements are contradictory: the cost of US treasury debt is basically set by the Fed.

Now, as for nominal rates, the US Treasury pays out interest based on the nominal, not effective rate, so what you're apparently arguing here is that inflation is going to get out of control. However, inflation is - again - managed by Fed monetary policy. Outside of a massive drop in production (from perhaps a significant portion of the country being bombed by nukes), this isn't really going to happen.

I agree with you that interest rates will rise, but it will be in step with economic recovery and guided by Fed policy. I disagree that there is ever going to be any sort of "spike" in interest rates as you are discussing here. There's simply no basis for that belief.

to point out the flaw in your argument,there have been no real successful models to base fiat as long last that have not periodically switched to some commodity then back to fiat.

even further the us switched from commodities to fiat during vietnam,switched from fiat to the gold standard after ww2,the us also initiated fiat money during the civil war,but ended its use after due to hyper inflation.just the us alone has cycled between fiat gold and silver standards numerous times throughout its existence yet its believed this time it somehow cant fail when other times it did.they generally cycle between the 2 because debt gets too high as does inflation,so debts are paid with high inflation,then commodity standards get reinstituted,then when limitations are reached in growth fiat is reintroduced,allowing deficit spendind,which leads to a circle.
 
Actually, the number one cause of collapse is a big drop in production, which is usually brought about by war, political upheaval, or some other disaster. When there isn't enough food on the shelves to buy, that's when prices go up.




Explain how you think gold would help things. It sure wasn't the answer to all economic problems when we were on the gold standard.

actually fiat money was responsible for quite a few collapses,as its backed by a combination of gdp,demand,and supply.if supply exceeds demand,inflation occurs,if demand exceeds supply deflation occurs.but just research germany after ww1,they are the epitome of hyperinflation.they tried to print money to pay war debts,and their currency hyperinflated,to the point they were printing 1 billion mark bills which were nearly worthless.by 1923 they introduced a new currency,loosely tied to random commodities,it wasnt perfect but it actually restored the currency


second gold helps things quite well,because its a commodity,where as fiat money derives its value from govt regulation.the 2 are polar opposites,yet can serve the same purpose,so when one fails another one succeeds,hence why the us has horded gold for so long,because should the us ever have to default on its debts or face hyperinflation or alians or whatever bs thing can be thought of for currency failing,they have a backup thats traded worldwide and accepted reguardless of gdp or any other factors exclusive to that country.
 
to point out the flaw in your argument,there have been no real successful models to base fiat as long last that have not periodically switched to some commodity then back to fiat.

even further the us switched from commodities to fiat during vietnam,switched from fiat to the gold standard after ww2,the us also initiated fiat money during the civil war,but ended its use after due to hyper inflation.just the us alone has cycled between fiat gold and silver standards numerous times throughout its existence yet its believed this time it somehow cant fail when other times it did.they generally cycle between the 2 because debt gets too high as does inflation,so debts are paid with high inflation,then commodity standards get reinstituted,then when limitations are reached in growth fiat is reintroduced,allowing deficit spendind,which leads to a circle.

I don't know why you think arguments about Civil War era currency are valid in any way
 
actually fiat money was responsible for quite a few collapses,as its backed by a combination of gdp,demand,and supply.if supply exceeds demand,inflation occurs,if demand exceeds supply deflation occurs.

The other way around, but, yeah, sort of. Deflation occurs when there is a shortage of dollars, not a shortage of supply or demand.

but just research germany after ww1,they are the epitome of hyperinflation.they tried to print money to pay war debts,and their currency hyperinflated,to the point they were printing 1 billion mark bills which were nearly worthless.by 1923 they introduced a new currency,loosely tied to random commodities,it wasnt perfect but it actually restored the currency

Yes, the new currency helped to stop the hyperinflation, simply because they limited the amount of currency as if they were on a gold standard (Germany had almost no gold at that point, and the new currency was not convertible). But it wasn't fiat currency itself that brought on hyperinflation. There were a lot of factors, not the least of which was that Germany had just lost a war. Crazy printing of currency has never been the first step in hyperinflation - it has always been a response to something else. Germany had a lot of problems at that point.


second gold helps things quite well,because its a commodity,where as fiat money derives its value from govt regulation.

No, fiat money derives its value primarily from the production of its economy - what it can buy. And why should a single commodity, which itself fluctuates in price, be the standard for anything? There is no magic to a gold standard - it is merely an artificial restraint on how much currency one can create. And that number is not reflective of how productive an economy is, or growth, or anything but the amount of gold a country happens to hold. Countries had plenty of economic problems while on the gold standard - it is no cure-all.

the 2 are polar opposites,yet can serve the same purpose,so when one fails another one succeeds,hence why the us has horded gold for so long,because should the us ever have to default on its debts or face hyperinflation or alians or whatever bs thing can be thought of for currency failing,they have a backup thats traded worldwide and accepted reguardless of gdp or any other factors exclusive to that country.

First, the U.S. can never be forced to default on dollar-denominated debts, because they can always create more fiat currency. That is not true when on a gold standard. Second, as long as your economy can put goods (especially food) on the shelves and has no foreign-denominated debts, there will be no reason to overprint money.
 
The whole Austrian view on interest rates completely disregards the reality of how our system actually works. There is no reason whatsoever that the Fed can't continue to keep interest rates low in perpetuity.

The buyers of our debt understand that fiat currency economies can always pay their obligations. Remember, not so long ago, when our debt was downgraded? Nothing happened. Short term bonds were selling at zero yield! Bond traders aren't stupid people.

Japan's yields are even lower than ours. Nobody is worried about default. And even if they stopped buying bonds, that would not prevent us from issuing currency. Bonds are simply not necessary.

IF a real recovery was ever so hot as to threaten serious inflation (which is doubtful), then it could be cooled off by raising taxes. No need to raise interest rates at all.


LOL !

The system or better yet, the REAL WORLD doesn't subscribe to MMT.

First off, the FED controls the NOMINAL rate, not the EFFECTIVE rate.

And again any real increase in economic activity would be met with a rise in both nominal and effective rates.

The FED can keep Nominal rates at ZERO, but if the market is worried about a debtors ability to pay its creditors then that nominal rate doesn't mean squat.

Thats the REAL WORLD, thats how things work.

You mentioned Japan.

What a great example. In fact Japans head first dive into their Keynesian stupidity is the best counter argument on earth against MMT and Keynesian policies.

Its hard to believe given Japans example that ANYONE would subcribe to MMT or Keynesian economic solutions.

But I have a theory. Bad economies birth radical ideologies. Think Germany 1939.

Japan is in serious trouble BECAUSE of their decision to spend their way out of economic stagnatiom and their decision to devalue their currency.

Their yields are low because Japan buys more of their own debt than any other Country.

Their yields HAVE TO BE LOW because if they tick up just 2 percent, then in the REAL WORLD Japan and all those who hold Japanese bonds are DONE.

Well since its their " sovereign currency " they wouldn't be "bankrupt" but floating your currency and wiping out the savings of your own Japanese citizens is just as bad.

Seriously, do some objective research on Japans policies and how those policies have impacted the people of Japan.
 
Believe me, I can get behind the national debt being to high, but for the life of me, I can not understand why many of the conservatives I have talked to want to be rid of it for good. I hope people could understand by now, the base importance of maintaining at least a 70% Debt:GDP ratio. The money belongs in the pockets of the American people, and that money is the sole reason our economy reached such heights. We have debt for the purpose of improving infrastructure, flowing money through the economy, and providing economic stimuli to people who need it.

I would guess most of the criticism stems from the poor management of the debt flow, which goes to extremely large subsidies and bailouts, to people who frankly, don't need it. I guess that's the same complaint with the federal reserve, although that is more along the lines of low interest rates. Unrelated to say the least, so lets get back to the point. What is exactly the rights beef with maintaining a national debt, and if not opposed entirely to it, what do you think the ideal ceiling would be?

Your next thread
A balanced budget, why do conservatives hate them so much?

The Big Lie of the Day: Republicans Balance Federal Budgets - The National Memo
 
Well first off this "average life of a fiat currency" doesn't even mean anything at all, considering that takes into account extremely unstable currencies (and assuming here that your unsubstantiated fact is true).

Second, the US hasn't had to switch between fiat and commodity backed currency in recent history.



Well I'm glad that you recognize the ability of the Fed to control interest rates, first off, though I'm confused about how you can go from saying "future debt...could be more expensive" then two sentences later say that the Fed has control over interest rates. The cost of debt is the interest rate, so really these two statements are contradictory: the cost of US treasury debt is basically set by the Fed.

Now, as for nominal rates, the US Treasury pays out interest based on the nominal, not effective rate, so what you're apparently arguing here is that inflation is going to get out of control. However, inflation is - again - managed by Fed monetary policy. Outside of a massive drop in production (from perhaps a significant portion of the country being bombed by nukes), this isn't really going to happen.

I agree with you that interest rates will rise, but it will be in step with economic recovery and guided by Fed policy. I disagree that there is ever going to be any sort of "spike" in interest rates as you are discussing here. There's simply no basis for that belief.


Nominal rate or the FED exchange rate does have some impact on Effective rates in that short term rates will tend to mirror the exchange rate.

Right now our FED is propping up our Bond markets and the lack of a real economic recovery means that the FED can continue to build up their massive pile of reserves and keep interest rates low.

But consider the trade off. Perpetual economic stagnation.

So low yields with no real recovery while Americans struggle to live paycheck to paycheck or struggle on unemployment that lasted years, or a REAL recovery with rising rates that targets a highly indebted American consumer ?

Effective yields dont have to increase to a huge number to cause serious economic consequences to your average American. They really only have to rise a few points
 
Ideal debt should be 0%
Acceptable level is another matter.
 
Nominal rate or the FED exchange rate does have some impact on Effective rates in that short term rates will tend to mirror the exchange rate.

Right now our FED is propping up our Bond markets and the lack of a real economic recovery means that the FED can continue to build up their massive pile of reserves and keep interest rates low.

But consider the trade off. Perpetual economic stagnation.

So low yields with no real recovery while Americans struggle to live paycheck to paycheck or struggle on unemployment that lasted years, or a REAL recovery with rising rates that targets a highly indebted American consumer ?

Effective yields dont have to increase to a huge number to cause serious economic consequences to your average American. They really only have to rise a few points

How does Fed monetary policy keeping interest rates low cause "perpetual economic stagnation"?
 
LOL !

The system or better yet, the REAL WORLD doesn't subscribe to MMT.

The real world doesn't have to subscribe to MMT. MMT is a description of how the real world works.

First off, the FED controls the NOMINAL rate, not the EFFECTIVE rate.

Of U.S. bonds? No, they don't just set a "nominal" rate. Bonds don't work like that. The Fed sets a target rate, then they participate in the bond market to achieve that rate. That is the "effective" rate.

And again any real increase in economic activity would be met with a rise in both nominal and effective rates.

According to Austrian legend. But in the real world, that doesn't happen.

The FED can keep Nominal rates at ZERO, but if the market is worried about a debtors ability to pay its creditors then that nominal rate doesn't mean squat.

Luckily, bond traders understand how things work, and they understand that fiat currency regimes can always pay their obligations. Risk of default = zero. That's why
yields are so low.


You mentioned Japan.

What a great example. In fact Japans head first dive into their Keynesian stupidity is the best counter argument on earth against MMT and Keynesian policies.

Its hard to believe given Japans example that ANYONE would subcribe to MMT or Keynesian economic solutions.

Again - you need to brush up on what is Keynesian and what isn't. QE isn't. I already explained that to you. Keynes was a fiscal policy guy, and he advocated leaving monetary policy alone, save for interest rates.

But I have a theory. Bad economies birth radical ideologies. Think Germany 1939.

Is that where Austrian theory was spawned?

Japan is in serious trouble BECAUSE of their decision to spend their way out of economic stagnatiom and their decision to devalue their currency.

Their yields are low because Japan buys more of their own debt than any other Country.

Their yields are low because that's where their central bank targets them.

Their yields HAVE TO BE LOW because if they tick up just 2 percent, then in the REAL WORLD Japan and all those who hold Japanese bonds are DONE.

In the real world, Japan can afford to pay that interest, and more. Those bonds are perfectly safe. The only concern Japanese bondholders might have is holding long-term low-yield bonds while interest rates and/or inflation passes them by and makes their investment look bad. But there is zero risk of any of those bonds being defaulted on.

Lucky for Japan that interest rates won't rise unless and until the BOJ decides to raise them.

Well since its their " sovereign currency " they wouldn't be "bankrupt" but floating your currency and wiping out the savings of your own Japanese citizens is just as bad.

The yen already floats. Do you understand what that term means?

First of all, Japanese efforts to create inflation are neither Keynesian nor MMT ideas. Second, they aren't having much success with it, because monetarism doesn't work.

Seriously, do some objective research on Japans policies and how those policies have impacted the people of Japan.

I invite you to do the same. And while you are at it, read up on Keynes, too.
 
The real world doesn't have to subscribe to MMT. MMT is a description of how the real world works.



Of U.S. bonds? No, they don't just set a "nominal" rate. Bonds don't work like that. The Fed sets a target rate, then they participate in the bond market to achieve that rate. That is the "effective" rate.



According to Austrian legend. But in the real world, that doesn't happen.



Luckily, bond traders understand how things work, and they understand that fiat currency regimes can always pay their obligations. Risk of default = zero. That's why
yields are so low.




Again - you need to brush up on what is Keynesian and what isn't. QE isn't. I already explained that to you. Keynes was a fiscal policy guy, and he advocated leaving monetary policy alone, save for interest rates.



Is that where Austrian theory was spawned?



Their yields are low because that's where their central bank targets them.



In the real world, Japan can afford to pay that interest, and more. Those bonds are perfectly safe. The only concern Japanese bondholders might have is holding long-term low-yield bonds while interest rates and/or inflation passes them by and makes their investment look bad. But there is zero risk of any of those bonds being defaulted on.

Lucky for Japan that interest rates won't rise unless and until the BOJ decides to raise them.



The yen already floats. Do you understand what that term means?

First of all, Japanese efforts to create inflation are neither Keynesian nor MMT ideas. Second, they aren't having much success with it, because monetarism doesn't work.



I invite you to do the same. And while you are at it, read up on Keynes, too.

Jesus H.

MMT is not how the world works, its not even close.

If it were the Treasury would simply pay off the US debt and the European Union would have entered into massive stimulus instead of implementing austerity.

You cant be this uninformed.

Bond rates are NOT low because the Fed set a minimal target rate.

They're are low because the FED is purchasing massive amounts of them there by manipulating over all demand and that affects their value.

Higher value lower yields.

Simple supply and demand stuff here.

The Fed doesn't set the rate on bonds, the markets do.

When Spanish and Italian bonds shot up not too long ago it wasn't because the overall monetary policy changed.

It was because the markets decided that their debt was a greater risk.

And Japan can't afford ANYTHING if its bonds are deemed worthless.

Do you realize who holds most of Japans debt ?

Their Consumers. What good is a FIAT currency if its worth nothing on the International markets ?

I told you to go educate yourself on Japans crisis.

Japan depends on imports plus 80 percent of their energy is imported also.
A devalued Yen buys less imports, a devalued Yen hurts their consumers and forces them to pay more for energy and everything else.

Go read up on how the Japanese Keynesian malfeasance has hit the Japense Consumer the hardest.

MMT is such a one dimensional concept.
 
Jesus H.

MMT is not how the world works, its not even close.

If it were the Treasury would simply pay off the US debt and the European Union would have entered into massive stimulus instead of implementing austerity.

MMT does not suggest that the debt be paid off. Furthermore, I understand that the Euro is a completely different animal than normal fiat currencies.

You cant be this uninformed.

Bond rates are NOT low because the Fed set a minimal target rate.

They're are low because the FED is purchasing massive amounts of them there by manipulating over all demand and that affects their value.

Higher value lower yields.

Yeah - what did you think I meant when I said that they participate in the bond market?

Simple supply and demand stuff here.

The Fed doesn't set the rate on bonds, the markets do.

When the Fed participates in the bond markets, they are basically setting the rate within a narrow target range.

When Spanish and Italian bonds shot up not too long ago it wasn't because the overall monetary policy changed.

It was because the markets decided that their debt was a greater risk.

THOSE ARE EUROS. Do you not understand the difference?????

And Japan can't afford ANYTHING if its bonds are deemed worthless.

Do you realize who holds most of Japans debt ?

Their Consumers. What good is a FIAT currency if its worth nothing on the International markets ?

I told you to go educate yourself on Japans crisis.

Japan depends on imports plus 80 percent of their energy is imported also.
A devalued Yen buys less imports, a devalued Yen hurts their consumers and forces them to pay more for energy and everything else.

Go read up on how the Japanese Keynesian malfeasance has hit the Japense Consumer the hardest.

THAT'S NOT KEYNESIAN!!! Do you even bother to read my posts?

We are going round and round here. You continue to mischaracterize both MMT and Keynes, even after being corrected. You don't understand the difference between the dollar and the euro. You accused me of not knowing how the Fed operates, when it was you that had to be corrected. And you accuse me of being the uninformed one. PLEASE - go somewhere and study this stuff before you bother posting this same junk. And do yourself a favor - if you bother to study, don't do it at cafehayak or any other crazy Austrian sites.
 
MMT does not suggest that the debt be paid off. Furthermore, I understand that the Euro is a completely different animal than normal fiat currencies.



Yeah - what did you think I meant when I said that they participate in the bond market?



When the Fed participates in the bond markets, they are basically setting the rate within a narrow target range.



THOSE ARE EUROS. Do you not understand the difference?????



THAT'S NOT KEYNESIAN!!! Do you even bother to read my posts?

We are going round and round here. You continue to mischaracterize both MMT and Keynes, even after being corrected. You don't understand the difference between the dollar and the euro. You accused me of not knowing how the Fed operates, when it was you that had to be corrected. And you accuse me of being the uninformed one. PLEASE - go somewhere and study this stuff before you bother posting this same junk. And do yourself a favor - if you bother to study, don't do it at cafehayak or any other crazy Austrian sites.

Huh ?

Their " participation " ( dangerous and unprecedented purchase of massive amounts of short term debt ) means they dont control Effective rates.

And you honestly think the FEDis going to continue QE with their bond buying forever ?

The market controls the effective rate and if the markets control the effective rate then massive debt comes with some serious consequence.

Its what you MMTers just cant get.

There is no such thing as debt without risk.

Especially when the Markets start to consider your debt a Hug risk.

And NO, the Euro is not a "different animal". The rate on bonds over their is set by the Market too

Youur MMT ideology stops where the markets ability to set effective rates begins.

Oh and who says Abenomics isn't Keynesian ?

You ? Because your'e all alone in thinking that.
 
Huh ?

Their " participation " ( dangerous and unprecedented purchase of massive amounts of short term debt ) means they dont control Effective rates.

And you honestly think the FEDis going to continue QE with their bond buying forever ?

The market controls the effective rate and if the markets control the effective rate then massive debt comes with some serious consequence.

Its what you MMTers just cant get.

There is no such thing as debt without risk.

It's not debt. Maybe that is the source of all your confusion.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/193664-government-debt-not-debt-w-484-a.html

Please read with an open mind. Skip ahead a few pages, because the beginning is, predictably, conservative outrage. Read post 265 and see if the accounting makes sense to you.
 
It's not debt. Maybe that is the source of all your confusion.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/193664-government-debt-not-debt-w-484-a.html

Please read with an open mind. Skip ahead a few pages, because the beginning is, predictably, conservative outrage. Read post 265 and see if the accounting makes sense to you.

Lol !

Even the CBO disagrees with that assessment.

They called our deficit spending "unsustainable".

Fed Chairman Yellen disagrees too.

Says deficits will rise to Unsustainable levels.

Sorry, but I dont buy it
 
Lol !

Even the CBO disagrees with that assessment.

They called our deficit spending "unsustainable".

Fed Chairman Yellen disagrees too.

Says deficits will rise to Unsustainable levels.

Sorry, but I dont buy it

That's fine. It's a difficult subject to grasp. Thanks for investing up to 21 minutes on it, though.
 
That's fine. It's a difficult subject to grasp. Thanks for investing up to 21 minutes on it, though.

Tell me about it.

We have people running around saying debt doesn't matter.

That are completely disconnected from reality.

It's a definition of debt in a vacuum thats somehow uneffected by the Markets.

The only way debt would not matter is if it was issued by the Treasury and then paid back immediately by the Treasury.

If It never made it out into the economy.

But thats not reality. Our debt has a owner and you cant mitigate it away by saying the FED owns a good portion of it.

Monetizing your National debt comes with consequences too.
 
Tell me about it.

We have people running around saying debt doesn't matter.

That are completely disconnected from reality.

It's a definition of debt in a vacuum thats somehow uneffected by the Markets.

The only way debt would not matter is if it was issued by the Treasury and then paid back immediately by the Treasury.

If It never made it out into the economy.

But thats not reality. Our debt has a owner and you cant mitigate it away by saying the FED owns a good portion of it.

Monetizing your National debt comes with consequences too.

Let's try a hypothetical. Island nation, no trade with the outside. They want to issue currency. Who do they borrow it from to get started?
 
Let's try a hypothetical. Island nation, no trade with the outside. They want to issue currency. Who do they borrow it from to get started?

If Nations and economies were compeltey isolated Keynesian solutions would have a chance to do some good.

But, they're not.

Stimulus, if that money made it into the economy, would be spent on American made products.

American manufacturers would benefit.

But now its spent on Chinese junk.

So we borrow from China, ( or oursleves ) and then turn around and buy Chinese junk.

Its throughput for the US, while China's economy grows.

MMTers need to understand a few things

Interest rates have nothing to do with the cost of currency, interest rates have to do with the cost of credit.

Currency and wealth are two different things.

Debt is owed to actual creditors.

The FED doesn't control interest rates, the Market does.
 
If Nations and economies were compeltey isolated Keynesian solutions would have a chance to do some good.

My question wasn't about Keynes. It was about the concept of debt. I'm asking you why the heck you believe a government has to owe somebody for the right to issue its own currency.
 
My question wasn't about Keynes. It was about the concept of debt. I'm asking you why the heck you believe a government has to owe somebody for the right to issue its own currency.

Governments who issue a sovereign currency are responsible for managing it responsibly.

It's not debt but the effects of debt that concerns most Conservatives.

Context is important.

And deficit spending for the purpose of stimulus is Keynesian.
 
Governments who issue a sovereign currency are responsible for managing it responsibly.

It's not debt but the effects of debt that concerns most Conservatives.

Context is important.

And deficit spending for the purpose of stimulus is Keynesian.

Effects of the debt--- I agree. Its like having a big weight on everybody's shoulders.

People don't want to invest to much in a government related thing becuase of that.

My dad was a bond trader and whenever he traded with the Feds, it just never was the best option.
 
People may not also always realize that if the US gov. goes more conservative, then all we would have to do is pay 20% if the GPD for ten years.
 
Back
Top Bottom