Comment 88289

By Kiely (registered) | Posted April 30, 2013 at 18:26:06 in reply to Comment 88276

The era of growth is the issue, not the era of small deficits. Debt is necessary to generate growth doesn't matter who is paying the bill (in the end we're still on the hook for government debt) so whether household or government the economy needs debt to be created. Since our governments have become less inclined to bear the debt but we still need growth they have successfully shifted a good chunk of the debt creation to households through various policy and marketing initiatives, often in cahoots with banks and business. You have pointed this out many times on this forum, it is a tree you obviously love to admire while walking in the forest.

As household or individual debt I can choose to contribute to that increasing debt and subsequent economic growth or not, (i.e., I can choose to live within my means). My beliefs tell me that is a choice I want to make, that is an individual choice and if you want to accumulate large quantities of household debt, fine; but collectively we must be more responsible because we're not just spending our money. In the end what you get for all this debt is uncontrolled and unsustainable economic growth, which when you boil it down basically amounts to the rich getting richer and the environment more polluted in our economy. I do not believe unlimited growth and its ramifications can simply continue. So I do not accept the justification for much of our debt either.

The concept of unlimited economic growth is a contradiction and you can prove anything from a contradiction A Smith, and that's exactly what economists like Krugman do.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds