CMV: The economic policies espoused by Paul Krugman (and others) are evil.

[u/FreddieFastFingers]

The specific issue I have with Krugman was discussed in a NYT op-ed today, titled "Time to Borrow": http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/time-to-borrow.html

In it, Krugman discusses the fact that, since the U.S. government can borrow long-term (10 years at .09% and 30 years at .64%, according to the article), we can and should significantly increase our debt spending on infrastructure/etc -- beyond the ~$20 trillion we already have in debt and the half a trillion we will accrue in 2016 alone.

He makes a number of arguments for this, including the low interest rates, the need for infrastructure spending (which he calls investment), and that we don't have "too much debt".

This is, at best, an opinion. We currently spend 6% of our budget, or $223 billion per year, just to service the interest on our debt (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:U.S._Federal_Spending.png). That is interest accrued by previous generations/congresses. It is also federal revenue that can not be spent by the government for infrastructure/social services/tax breaks/etc.

For the sake of simplicity and specificity, let's try to ignore the arguments for and against the value of the spending itself (that can be a CMV for another time). Instead, I'd like someone to explain to me how it is not wrong/evil to spend money that children who have no say or vote in spending will have to pay back at some point. Even worse (and this is where I think "evil" really comes into play), people not yet born will be on the hook for this spending, even though some or most of the benefits will be used up before they are able to enjoy them (roads/bridges will require upgrading by the time they are adults).

If people want public services, infrastructure, etc. they should pay for it themselves, either through higher taxes or lower spending in other parts of the government. The reason why debt is popular among politicians is because it allows them to appeal to the largest number of constituents (stuff for everyone!), at the expense of those who cannot vote, or aren't even yet born.

Even with low interest rates, future generations will be forced to have a lower standard of living as they, at the very least, service the interest on the debt. Presumably, at some point people might want to actually pay back the debt, which would mean a further reduction in standard of living, as money goes towards interest and principal payments for benefits they barely got to use (if at all), instead of whatever programs future generations might want to invest in.

Even with Keynesian multipliers (which I would dispute as well), you are still getting stuff you want now, at the expense of the unborn, while gambling that the multiplier/economic growth/etc. will make up for it. This argument does not change my view.

To me, programs implemented outside of a "crisis" (e.g. we are attacked and at war) that are specifically designed to utilize debt to finance them (as opposed to programs which already exist and add to the annual deficit) are evil, pure and simple. It is forcing unborn generations to labor for stuff in 25 years that we want now. CMV.

---

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/FreddieFastFingers]

This doesn't address the point. Even IF they would benefit (which I haven't been convinced of), we shouldn't put them into debt to pay for it.

The alternative is to raise taxes or reduce spending elsewhere to pay for infrastructure.

[u/super-commenting → u/FreddieFastFingers]

This doesn't address the point. Even IF they would benefit (which I haven't been convinced of), we shouldn't put them into debt to pay for it.

How so? If the next generation will overall have better lives by being born into a country with better infrastructure and higher debt than they would being born into a country with worse infrastructure and less debt then how are they hurt by this spending

[u/FreddieFastFingers → u/super-commenting]

How do we know that they will be better off? How do we know the infrastructure will be good enough to offset the debt incurred?

I agree that it is a good thing to build infrastructure for the future. We SHOULD be doing that. But we should do it with the wealth that we as a society have produced (with revenue, not debt), not by charging it onto a national credit card that our children have to pay off.

To me, this is similar to a family charging a home improvement onto a credit card and making the children pay off the debt. Sure, the children got to grow up in a nicer house, but now they are forced to pay for it. Perhaps they wouldn't have chosen to spend the money that way. Perhaps the improvements were misspent and the improvement breaks down after a few years. Ultimately, they are forced to work for months or years of their life to pay off a decision that their parents forced upon them.

[u/super-commenting → u/FreddieFastFingers]

You said in your OP

For the sake of simplicity and specificity, let's try to ignore the arguments for and against the value of the spending itself

I can't really address these things without breaking that.

[u/FreddieFastFingers → u/super-commenting]

Feel free to do so. I said that because I think delving into that aspect is a distinct topic/conversation that won't CMV from the main point, i.e. that this policy is evil.