Phat Unplugged

It is safe to say that neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump will win November’s presidential election by pledging fiscal prudence. The deficit and debt are afterthoughts for most Americans these days. And proposals from both candidates for cleaning up the country’s finances are fundamentally unserious. Mr Trump has talked about using cryptocurrency or drilling for oil in order to pay off the national debt—ideas that amount to utter nonsense. Although Ms Harris has vowed to reduce the deficit, she has declined to offer any substantive plan for doing so.Still, there comes a time in an election campaign when the candidates have aired enough policy ideas that budget wonks can start to work out who would preside over a bigger deficit. One such estimate, released on August 26th by the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM), a non-partisan research group, seems to leave little doubt that Ms Harris would be far more fiscally responsible than Mr Trump. According to its calculations, Mr Trump’s economic agenda would increase federal deficits by $5.8trn over the next decade, nearly five times as much as Ms Harris’s platform, which would add $1.2trn to the deficit during the same period.

NosyNed writes:It is safe to say that neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump will win November’s presidential election by pledging fiscal prudence. The deficit and debt are afterthoughts for most Americans these days. And proposals from both candidates for cleaning up the country’s finances are fundamentally unserious. Mr Trump has talked about using cryptocurrency or drilling for oil in order to pay off the national debt—ideas that amount to utter nonsense. Although Ms Harris has vowed to reduce the deficit, she has declined to offer any substantive plan for doing so.

Rather, national debts gradually become smaller and smaller percentages of GPD(sic) by growing the economy. A healthy economy is how a national debt is "paid down," not by running surpluses.

Minnemooseus writes in Message 423:A growing economy seems to require a growing population and especially a growing use of resources.

Percy writes:By and large, the national debts of countries are not typically paid off. Rather, national debts gradually become smaller and smaller percentages of GPD by growing the economy. A healthy economy is how a national debt is "paid down," not by running surpluses.

Minnemooseus writes in Message 423:A growing economy seems to require a growing population and ESPECIALLY a growing use of resources.

Minnemooseus writes in Message 426:You didn't respond to the part that I've now "bolded".

But that is how economies work. I am not sure a moral judgement is helpful in this conversation.

Also, nations and economies are not analogous to human bodies. Your statements about cancer seem to be similar to the use of the term "social darwinisn"

o, thrash the Earth, if it keeps the economy working? I guess that also includes not being concerned about global warming / climate change.

But the functions of humanity does seem to be a disease inflicted upon the Earth's resources and ecology.

Nice strawman. Not worth responding to.

Do you have a proposal to deal with this or just going to bitch?

You're denying that keeping the GDP ever growing does not have a severe adverse affect on the Earth's ecology?

You're denying that keeping the GDP ever growing does not have a severe adverse affect on the Earth's ecology?

I see a problem. I don't see a solution. I think the Earth's ecology is going down the toilet (aka "is fucked").
​
I have no children. My little branch of the human tree is not going to be involved. Thoughts and prayers to your descendants.