- Joined
- Dec 16, 2011
- Messages
- 74,293
- Reaction score
- 32,534
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Fair enough, but I don't think that really answers the question/objection. If you borrow a trillion dollars in 2017 and that money is sensibly invested in the economy leading to growth which counterbalances any inflationary effect, fair enough; but then if you keep borrowing rather than paying off the debt, it might be many years later before that balance is wholly returned to private creditors. So the initial economic growth is no longer relevant.
Assuming there's always willing creditors, you could keep on taking out new loans indefinitely (which is the problem of points 1 and 2, which are essentially the same objection in hindsight).
Or, to pay off the debt, you've either saddled the country of future decades with a vast burden which they didn't ask for and potentially haven't benefitted from; or else will need to print masses of new money which will cause a lot of inflation. If one or the other is managed so that it's done over a long period of time it might not be a big deal: But obviously the bigger the debt, the harder that will be do to.
You are forgetting that GDP and population growth along with healthy inflation will minimize the bad effects of long term debt. That's why deficits as a % of GDP are far more accurate than the actual numbers. We never paid off the WWII debt and it is not a problem now and even seems minuscule now.