Depends on the circumstances. There could never be a simple agreement even if economics was as hard of science as say chemistry, because debt and savings are done in different amounts, but different people, in different circumstances, for different reasons.
You could address it as follows:
1) Public debt
2) Aggregate private debt and savings.
The problem in the USA is that many economists, and I would argue the Fed as well, advocate demand side living, where it is best if everyone spends there last dime, and hopefully a few past that as well. This is claimed to grow the economy faster, and growth, for many economists is the goal.
You don't have specific agreement, but almost everyone looks for something like 1 or 2%. Maybe the gold bugs look for 0%.
There is quite a bit of difference between 0 and 2%. Listen to Ron Paul. I consider this question one of the most "basic" and I don't see great agreement. It impacts how you look and savings and debt, including Federal deficits and the question of borrowing vs. taxing, and what effect tossing things to the future will have. |
