Your political perspectives perceive it as a problem (for the time being), economics doesn't consider deficit spending in a recession to be a problem, in fact, economics recommends deficit spending as one of the primary solutions to recession. This is funded by the sale of bonds which are you seem to feel is a good financial tool, and is based on the confidence that the US economy will recover and prosper and future tax receipts will likewise swell and cover these bonds when they mature.
Regardless, at the current cumulative level, no, the annual budget deficit is not a major issue or problem, this isn't saying that annual budget deficits should continue indefinitely, nor that there are not points where such could become an issue of concern and potential problem. It is simply inaccurate, however, to insist that it is, today, a great and worrisome problem.
OH MY GOSH NO, the US Government creating money and handing it out in amounts equal to or in excess of total 1040 tax revenue isn't a problem. Or a great worrisome problem. Because...TRAKAR SAID SO!
$16T in debt is NO PROBLEM Trakar says.
The US economy will swell and cover those debts when it recovers.
Hmm.....
Does that bear any relation to reality? Let's see. With zero interest, and no increase in debt, we could DOUBLE taxes and pay off the 16T in about 16 years.
Well, that's not going to happen.
The CBO forecasts interest rates of 3-5% for the last half of this decade. At 4%, interest alone on the 16T is $640B per year, more than half 1040 revenues.
Looks to me like we need to borrow to pay interest, and cannot reduce the principal balance.
But Trakar says this is (A) No economics (B) No problem!
I'm so happy and content now.
The above quote doesn't refute my point that even Hayek agreed that pollution needed to be regulated by the government. CO2 is effectively pollution.
And yes, I know what you've proposed, but yours have all been ideas on how to solve the energy problem, not how to prevent climate change by reducing CO2. "People who accept the science should invent a profitable form of renewable energy" is not a policy suggestion.
Well, yes, it's a policy suggestion for YOU. Based on the paragraph that you quoted a part of Hayek's thought, and based on his thought.
So you think Hayek would have supported the concept that one country should tax energy in order to regulate emissions, knowing that the effect of this would be to cause industry to move to another country, with the same or higher emissions resulting?
That only increases taxes, without effecting the alleged goal of reduction of emissions, while harming the first country economically by removing industry and jobs, and benefiting the second country by giving it industries and jobs.
This is quite obvious, so there is no way that a reasonable person can argue that a brilliant man like Hayek would have argued for it.
