Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Currencies and the Global Capital Markets -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Berliner who wrote (2854)	1/4/2001 12:13:46 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 3536

Paul, Actually, I agree with you that paying down the debt entirely is a nutty idea. But I don't think it is nutty to pay it down gradually from current levels to something between 1 and 2 trillion dollars. I don't really know what the "right" number should be. Having too large a debt while at the same time running huge trade deficits seems like a dangerous situation, as dangerous as, say, being too dependent on foreign oil for our energy needs. Same idea, different commodity. We will, as a nation, require a very strong balance sheet when baby boomers get into their 70s and 80s. The debt will almost surely mushroom at that time again. Sam

To: Paul Berliner who wrote (2854)	1/4/2001 12:37:23 PM
From: hobo	Respond to of 3536

"A national debt is a national blessing." Provided that the "national blessing" is composed of "productive assets". if however, the debt is formed by a majority of social programs, then it will come a time that that the "producers" (i.e. private industry and individuals), will be demanded to continue to pay for the service of such debt. Which then brings us to ask: who is the best resource allocator, the gov. or private industry. and... what is the "proper" level of debt (or mix between producing items and social welfare items), in this economy ? --i do not know the answer. my point: are we willing to trust politicians with large levels of debt ? seems like they would say, if it is there to spend... then ... we will spend it