5
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
5 points (56.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7177 readers
1131 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
You're saying it as though tremendous amounts of debt have the possibility of being interpreted as a positive thing
The majority of people who own American debt are Americans who hold bonds. National bonds are a mutually beneficial financial instrument and not at all the same kind of debt that a normal person deals with.
To be 100% clear: even if the U.S. Federal government had a massive surplus of money in their pockets, they would still probably issue bonds because of how good a deal they are. Why wouldn't they take money at a stupid-low interest rate from Americans? Is it really better for the country if that money's just sitting around gathering interest in some wealthy person's bank account?
The vast majority of bonds aren't owned by the average US citizen, though.
Not to mention what the US budget is primarily diverted towards.
What's your point? The bourgeois investor class isn't going to foreclose on the very government which facilitates the status quo, but let's ignore that for the sake of argument. Please enlighten me of a scenario wherein the wealthy elite somehow sabotage the U.S. Federal government by buying more bonds.
You wanted a justification for taking on debt, that's what I gave. I don't know what you expect me to do about a statement that basically boils down to "budget not good". Government budget allocations & spending are inefficient in absolute terms -- big surprise -- but what's your thesis?
Most domestic bond ownership is within the hands of the bourgeoisie, though.
I'm not saying "no country should ever take on any debt." I'm saying the US debt is excessive, and the money is being wasted on furthering the aims of the bourgeoisie, primarily through funneling that money into continuously arming the military and the police.
Surely this money could at least be used to increase funding for necessary services like education and healthcare, but it's not.
And "inefficient" is a mild way to put it, especially when looking at the DoD
I don't disagree with any point you make here, but these are all evils which exist independent of whether or not they are funded by debt, taxes, or some other alchemy, right? The policies wouldn't be worth it even if the government got to paid to implement them.
Is there a way of getting a surplus without having a debt?
This is not a rhetorical question.
Depends on how you define debt, I suppose?
Under a strict definition like "money that you've explicitly agreed to repay to a lender in the future", the answer is simple: "take money without agreeing to repay it" (e.g.: taxes, liquidations, nationalization).