Phat writes:
Don't play dumb. It means owing more year after year. Money that never gets paid back.
With almost no exceptions, no country ever pays off its national debt. Reducing debt as a percentage of GDP reduces interest costs but increases opportunity costs. It's a tradeoff.
Here's an example in everyday terms. Few people who refuse to incur any debt can purchase a house. Having no debt is good in the sense that no money is paid for interest, but it costs you the opportunity to live in a house, and the opportunity to make money in the form of increasing value of the house which is leveraged because you don't fully own the house whose appreciation in value is benefiting you.
It's the same for a country. Having no debt might seem like a good idea, but nations that put too great an emphasis on debt reduction do not take advantage of certain opportunities, like investing in infrastructure, technology, education and health.
That being said, it's difficult to deny that the national debt of the United States is too high. As a percentage of GDP the US has one of the highest national debts in the world. First world countries that are even worse are Japan, Greece, Venezuela and Italy, not the best company. On the other hand, other first world countries not far behind are Portugal, Spain, France, Canada, Belgium and the United Kingdom. We are not alone in having a high national debt, and that so many countries are doing just fine with a high national debt means that it is not the sign of impending disaster that you keep portraying it as.
There is more than one way to look at the national debt, for example by interest payments. This year the interest on the national debt will be around 2.4% of GDP, which isn't bad. But it is expected to rise to 7.2% by 2053, which seems pretty bad.
Strong and valid arguments can be made that we should be reducing our national debt. Stick to that and toss out the precious metal, gold-standard and CBDC nuttiness.
--Percy