If I owe you a hundred dollars, I can say outright that I'm not going to pay you back or I can wait until that $100 is worth so little that it can't even buy a pack of gum at the store. The end result for the lender is pretty much the same -- the only thing that differs is the timeline.
Uh, the lender is collecting interest the entire time. The government is borrowing to invest in and ensure the continuity of it's economy, which is it's source of tax revenue. Recession and/or economic stagnation are much more expensive than debt service.
Nobody would say you're a fool for taking out student loans to get a bachelor's degree. All things being average, the debt service on student loans is cheaper than the cost of not having a bachelor's degree.
> The government is borrowing to invest in and ensure the continuity of it's economy, which is it's source of tax revenue.
Saddling future generations of individuals and businesses with debt inhibits growth, it doesn't promote it. The revenue to pay the interest on that debt has to come from higher taxes down the road, which means higher tax rates for businesses and individuals, which means lower growth.
That's an interesting example about student loans, because that's exactly what's happening right now. For many years people have been blindly borrowing money because they too claimed they were investing in themselves and they too were their own source of revenue. Guess what? Many are now realizing the debt they incurred didn't generate anywhere near the income they needed to pay off said debt. There are threads on HN all the time discussing exactly this about recent graduates.
> Saddling future generations of individuals and businesses with debt inhibits growth, it doesn't promote it. The revenue to pay the interest on that debt has to come from higher taxes down the road, which means higher tax rates for businesses and individuals, which means lower growth.
Do you have anything to back these statements up? One, that deficit spending leads to higher taxes, at least most of the time. Two, that higher taxes directly translate to lower growth, at least most of the time. It would be nice to think of the economy in such black and white terms, but it's often orders of magnitude more complex.
The revenue to pay the interest comes from a stimulated economy, which is what we're trying to do. I am not arguing against paying down debt at all, I am arguing against paying down debt during economic crisis. There are periods in which the government has excess cash and pays down it's debts. It's ignorant to assume that it's more burdening on our children to saddle them with debt than it is to saddle them with a depressed and stagnant economy. Ultimately, this is a gamble, but one history has shown to pay off. Economic stimulus through deficit spending is a long-term solution, not a short-term fix. You are essentially saying it's alright to starve and suffer the deleterious effects of malnutrition, just to save some interest payments.
My example about student loans still holds true. The average person makes more money with a bachelors degree than without, by far. This is indisputable fact. While some may find out that they have to actually learn and work hard and perhaps some fall through the cracks, it does not discount the excellent investment that education is.
