It's fundamentally impossible for a government to control the economy. It ALWAYS leads to economic failure.
And yet... China is the 2nd most powerful economy and it's not quite on the verge of failure (yet?). Even if China now has a "free market" and too much economic activity to be 100% controlled by the state, the government still have a huge hand over their economy and large business plans.
And we're clearly witnessing that having no control over the economy also leads to economic (and politic, social & ecologic) failure, on a worldwide scale. I'm not saying China is the perfect exemple and everyone should do the same, far from it.
But we need something else, new models, new ways of managing ourselves and the economy. What we DO NOT need, is 2 blond dipshits making empty promesses for stupid people.
Not true, there is nothing to gain from reducing national debt because it means spending money on essentially nothing. What would you rather, spend 10t on reducing debt, or spend 10t on infrastructure, industry, spending, etc.
I don't think that invalids my point that they have nothing to gain from paying the debt back and yet it's one of their main campaign theme ; no one has anything to gain from it but the private entities who lend the money out of thin air in the first place (and the politics who take advantage of their "intermediary position" inbetween the people/consumers/human ressources and the banks).
The only benefit of paying off debt is less interest, and because of USA's credit rating of AAA they pay such a small amount of interest (just over 200b) that it absolutely does not matter. Do you think giving Americans 10t to spend will bring more than 200b in returns? Of course it will...
EDIT : I'm not sure what you mean by "10t" and "200b", these Ts and Bs, english not being my main language. I'd like the entire words so I can have a literal translation ^^
from a "capitalo-capitalist" point of view with quite the lack of hindsight, that's probably the stand to adopt ; You do realize the credit rating is bullshit though ? submit the people and the economy to please some private banks giving some non-sense rating for smaller interests on a debt that's mathematically impossible to pay back. Let us remind the debt of the US is more than 100% of its GDP. It's a nice carrot-stick control situation.
And you think that putting money in to the pockets of citizens is:
A. Contrary to making USA rich?
B. Contrary to getting rid of the bubble?
C. Contrary to reducing debt?
It's A+B+C cap'tain. I think debt creation doesn't work the way you think it works.
Money is created from nothing and lended with interests by private parties. Which means the money you'll put into citizens pocket is money the country owes, plus interests. All the money in circulation literally fuels the economy/activity of the country, but it doesn't multiply itself magically, only private banks can do that for some reason. The only way to reduce it would be if these private parties would re-inject their money in the economy out of good will, which they won't.
There's no reducing the debt, and there's no continuing on the same road expecting it will somehow get better. The only reasonnable thing people can do is refusing to pay the debt and refusing to hand political legitimacy to a couple of goatsucking dipshits... or accepting to have their ass owned by private entities on the long run ; no more sovereign state, no more constitution, no more democratic progress, no more justice... a perfect dystopia ;o
Last edited by deprav; Sep 3, 2016 at 03:16 PM.