> I don't know why anyone even pretends there is a "fiscally conservative" end of the spectrum. A few writers at the WSJ and a banker or three does not a demographic make.

How does a perspective like that gel with a state like Texas?

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/per-capita-state-s...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per...

> The galaxy brain end of things is the realization that, yes, US government debt is almost literally free money in every sense of the word

How does a perspective like this gel with any of the numerous hyperinflation states that have tried this?

> How does a perspective like this gel with any of the numerous hyperinflation states that have tried this?

None of them were issuing US debt. Have you ever recommended a home purchase as an investment? US bonds are cheaper than mortgage interest.

So because mortgage interest > US bond interest, US gov debt is free money? The debt still needs to be repaid and that repayment has to either come from inflation or from taxes. Neither of those are "free". You can't treat it like it is and any perspective taken that it is free is one that clearly doesn't take into account the realities of other economies. It might be relatively low cost money on the margin, but you're just borrowing from future citizens or planning to default.

Unless you believe the US government has absurd returns on its spending which of course doesn't gel with US GDP growth in relation to US spending growth...

> Unless you believe the US government has absurd returns on its spending which of course doesn't gel with US GDP growth in relation to US spending growth...

Citation needed. In fact US growth relative to revenue has been consistently and considerably higher than the rest of the industrialized world for effectively all of the past century.

But it doesn't really matter, because you're making a tribal point and not an economic one. A year ago, I'm quite certain you were nowhere to be found when the government decided to spend $1T of that same free money and hand it to wealthy taxpayers. But try to do that same thing for recent students and you all lose your fucking minds? Yeah. Tribal.

I said it up thread: no one cares about this stuff. You don't care about this stuff. You just don't want the government spending its free money on the wrong people.

AJ, letting people keep the money they earn can cause the economy to expand. It happened in the 80s, 90s, 00s, and it's happening now. Any engineer worth their salt should know that every choice comes with trade-offs. And finding the optimal mix of taxation, regulation, and free market capitalism is a difficult balancing act. If the economy stops growing, our huge debt becomes a huge problem. The only reason money is cheap is because the U.S. has a track record of growth. If that growth stops due to excessive regulation or taxation...money gets more expensive and long-term tax rolls go down...meanwhile debt stays static and the cost of servicing that debt consumes a higher portion of Federal tax revenues. Millions of people care about this stuff. Your arm chair observation proves nothing, says nothing.

There's no such thing as free money. It's beyond ignorant to say so.

Citation. Needed.

That's just wrong. There's no meaningful economics behind the magic fairy dust notion that tax cuts cause growth. In fact where actual research has been done, the effect more often shows the opposite. Tax cuts go disproportionately into illiquid investment holdings, while spending end up in consumer pockets. Look. It. Up. Or, y'know, keep parroting what you hear on "business news" and FOX.

Your level of discourse is not conducive to your points. You rant to get citations from others without providing any of your own (just telling people to look it up) and then you make unfounded assumptions about the behavior of those you converse with. If you want to get your point across, you’re rhetoric does you no favors.

Your economic arguments have so far been “debt is free and there’s no multiplier effect on tax cuts” which seems dumbfounding to anyone who studied economics. Tax cuts that aren’t associated with federal spending decreases are obviously going to increase spending. Also, if you really believe the US debt is free money, why have any taxes at all? Your arguments are incoherent, unspecified and full of ad hominema.

Your arrogance is incredible. How you can call my arguments “tribal” and then proceed with this diatribe is baffling.

And if you’re referencing the “Trump tax cuts”, no, I was not in favor of that. You seem to think that because I implied I’m somewhere on the fiscally conservative spectrum, that I’m a full blown Republican. Comical coming from someone ranting about tribal arguments.

Also, revenue != spending.

There's no such thing as free money. The economy and the Fed does not run on magic. Financial ruin is a very real possibility for the United States.

Sure, but it does not seem that any conservative voters are troubled by the increasing debt when a Democrat is not in office. Otherwise approval ratings wouldn't be so high

So you haven't heard about the Libertarian party, which got close to 5% of the popular vote last election? There is absolutely a large demographic (which includes libertarians but also goes far beyond) which wants to drastically reduce the size of government spending.

> Everyone

I don’t want the government to spend at all. I don’t want a government at all.

Yes, I’d be happy to pay a toll on every other road and every time I cross a bridge. Yes, I’d be happy to carry a firearm at all times (the SCOTUS ruled that the police don’t really have the duty to protect you anyway).

Most ambulances are private already.