No. of Recommendations: 1
It is essentially the argument that significant sovereign debt is a good thing, not a bad thing, and that budget balancing efforts on a national scale do much more harm than good.

Seems I recall Greenspan making that sort of argument around 2001-02. This was shortly after the late 90s on-budget surpluses and the outgoing POTUS pointing at a chart that showed, if the US stayed on the course he hat set, the national debt entirely paid off inside of 20 years. Greenspan testified that not having a huge and growing supply of government debt was a bad thing, supposedly because everyone priced all other debt in relation to Treasuries, so without Treasuries, no-one could price any other debt. One wonders how the US ever survived prior to the 1930s. I'm sure it was purely a coincidence that when Greenspan was saying that, the incoming POTUS wanted to enact more unfunded trickle down tax cuts. /sarcasm

Steve
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.