National debt

Well first of all the clothes would not become repossessed, the person would simply be fined more for not paying their bills on time which in turn would decrease their purchasing power even more. Meanwhile the owner of the clothing store would still get his money because the credit card company would send it to him, that's not the point. The point is businesses are expanding, and I hate to repeat myself, in order to accommodate purchasing power that is only temporary. If you want to look no what a nations true wealth is you should look at what it's people are able to save, not what they're able to borrow and consume. Right now the average household has about $200,000 of debt with about $7,000 of savings. What I'm saying is the growth we've seen is phony and only temporary. Your second scenario is a little unrealistic, but I'll do my best to deal with it. The problem with your argument is that you're saying debt equals getting a job. Basically, yeah that person went into debt to buy that suit for his interview, but ultimately that suit got him the job, so what's the big deal? But would it really be the suit that got him the job? Not even close. And everyone know creditors are much less likely to lend money to a person with no job in the first place. And the clothing example is just one specific example, you could apply it to basically every area of the private economy, so I'm going to switch it from a clothing to a grocery store an apply the sitiuation you've created to it in order to show you how little sense your argument makes. It'd be like saying its not a big deal that I went into debt to buy chocolate cake when i had no means to pay it back because soon after I got a job interview. I knew that my interviewer liked chocolate cake and I gave him a piece, so he gave me the job. How often is debt for the sake of consumption, not production actually going to get you a job? Almost never. So your argument self destructs. I'm glad we both agree that the more that is printed the more it's devalued. But the money isn't devalued the second it's printed, it takes time to mature and for its true value to be realized by the general public. For example, the stimulus package was all created through printed money. Non one that who accepted stimulus money realized the money they got was worth less, it takes time. What I'm saying is that we haven't had time to realize the true value of our currency because of factors, such as low interest rates that are keeping the demand for the dollar artificially high, and so we have the government bubble. But like I've stated very clearly, those interest rates can only mask a sick economy for so long. And I don't think I can get to the level of specificity you're asking for because, well, I'm not psychic. I can't give you the specific lender and its specific location that's going to be the first to decide its too risky to lend to the United States government. But when it happens, like every other economic catastrophe, it's going to be a chain reaction and spread. And you really haven't trapped me into the corner like you think you have because once again you've based your argument on complete fallacy. I'm not saying you're suggesting wealth be concentrated in government because politicians are so great and they deserve to be rich. When I said more concentrated i was talking about concentrated power. The power to determine where wealth is to be distributed, which in turn destroys the wealth before it was even ever created. I'm saying the best way to deal with income inequality is to disperse that power throughout the economy.The reason the government spent 3 Percent of GDP at that time wasn't because they were hoarding it, there was just a lot less money being taken in because for example there was no income tax. You want an America where things are determined to be valuable based on the fact that an elite few decided it was in the best interest of society. Well I would say society doesn't have interests, individuals do and therefore the best way to determine worth is determining how it benefits people in their own private capacity without the use of coercion. I really wish you would stop avoiding the inevitable because if the government can just indefinitely print money and borrow it too, why not just give everyone in the United States a million dollars? You've just solved the problem of world hunger. But of course we can't do that because there would be consequences. They inflated the dot com bubble, that burst so try created the real estate bubble. Now that that burst we're in the government bubble, this is the final bubble, there's nowhere to hide after this. I'm disappointed you get the last word because I'm sure you'll bring up another point that I would love to discuss. But this was a fun debate and you were a worthy challenger and you really got me thinking. Thank you :)