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.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (51813)	3/5/2008 10:03:54 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543167

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.