• GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Consumer debt and national debt are entirely different

    • waigl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      National debt is basically where money comes from in the first place. Unless you are willing to change the most fundamental, basic nature of how modern money even works, you cannot run a (major) country without debt. It’s not even just a question of good or bad fiscal policy, it is literally mathematically impossible.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US was on track to becoming debt free by 2030 under Clinton in 1999. Then Bush was elected and dramatically increased spending while simultaneously giving tax cuts.

        • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/andrew-jackson-national-debt-reaches-zero-dollars

          TLDR: the last time someone that didn’t understand economics paid off the national debt, it didn’t end well.

          If there is a finite amount of money you can print before suffering the effects of inflation, deficit spending allows you to increase the amount of money in circulation without just printing more. If I owe you 100 trillion dollars, you owe Japan 100 trillion dollars, and Japan owes me 100 trillion dollars, this is good for the economy. Yes, it probably sounds like voodoo magic. No, I’m not qualified to help with that.

          Now, there is still an upper limit on how much debt is okay, generally tied to interest rates. We’re beginning to scratch that upper limit thanks to deficit spending during covid, but it’s by no means problematic and things would overall probably have been worse without the extra spending.

            • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe…but we did less during the financial crisis of 2008 and had a worse outcome. When we analyzed that data from 2008, we decided that it would probably work better if we spent more next time, which is what we did this time…and the result matched the prediction, which is pretty much how you prove something works scientifically. Make a prediction, test the prediction, and if the test results match your prediction, that is evidence for your hypothesis. So, the evidence we have says it’s probably better to increase deficit spending to avoid economic collapses. This isn’t a lab, so we can’t control for every variable to really prove it, and we probably never could…we can just keep evaluating our results after a problem and see if the changes we made resulted in a better or worse outcome than we predicted.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I meant, the way the debt was repaid was possibly what caused the crisis, it’s possible to repay a country’s debt through better economic policies as a very long term project instead of just selling land…

      • Jumi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can you give a short explanation or give me something where I can read something about it? I’m not sure what to search for to find something useful

        • TheWorstMailman@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). I recommend “The Deficit Myth” by Stephanie Kelton

          It helped me to realize that a federal government that’s in control of their own money doesn’t use or even have money, and basic terms that we take for granted mean something different in that context. A federal government creates money through spending and destroys money through taxes. It is necessary for a federal government to spend money in order for money to exist in the economy. So a national debt just means that the federal government is creating more money that is destroying

        • waigl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not very easily. Concise, easy to understand and correct explanations of how modern money (arguably since 1971) works are not easy to come by, and also the system just is a bit weird and counter intuitive. (Concise, easy to understand, but wrong explanations are, of course, all over the place. Almost everybody thinks they know how money works. Almost nobody actually does.)

          One source that explains some of it would be “Debt: The first 5000 years” by David Graeber, but a) it’s a fairly lengthy book with quite a lot of historical background and b) it has a fairly strong politicial spin to it.

        • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Very short, commercial banks loan money from national banks. That creates money. It has to be paid with interested. Where does the money for that interest comes from? From other loans. So the whole thing becomes an ever increasing pile of loans.

          And government loans from national banks to spend money, so creating and distributing money. If government pays back the loans, money disappears.

          And because the whole thing is loans on loans, if population would decrease (what is starting to happen) and growth stops, loans decrease and the whole thing starts to wobble.

  • Artyom@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    The government doesn’t give you a credit score, 3 for-profit companies give you a credit score. In fact, a government issued credit score would be an improvement, they would report it for free instead of charging you if you check more than once a year. It would force more transparency into the financial sector and would undermine the 3 companies. If it ever comes up on the ballot (it won’t), you should vote for it.

      • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Social Credit is better than credit score. What you’re scared of is whos doing the reporting. Is life more fair when opportunities are giving based on what kind of person you are or how much money you have?

  • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    Ελληνικά
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh, it’s not the country. It’s a small group of corporations aggregating, selling and losing your private data without your consent or opt-in, in order to determine how likely you are to keep your word and pay back a loan.

  • jaschen@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    National debt is completely different than your personal debt.

    Personal debt is when you buy a TV with your credit card. National debt is when a country invests into a highway or opens another school.

    A closer example is when you take on a personal debt to fund a new business restaurant. You’re still in debt but you’re making money and employing people.

    • Numuruzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      And your business is highly successful but never profitable because you’re always in debt and so are most of your employees and customers.

  • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Credit score is based on things which nominally correlate with financial trustworthiness (or something like that).

    This is a very big improvement over a system where loans are denied because a racist bank employee doesn’t like you. It is definitely not a perfect system, and we should definitely strive to make it better, but the concept isn’t (IMHO) a bad one.

    Also, as others pointed out, personal and national debt are…different.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also, your credit score goes up from having debts that you make payments towards.

      The US hasn’t missed a payment since the War of 1812.

    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The party has decreased your social credit score by -37. You can no longer access public transportation. Thank you for understanding.