You don't have a point, you have an opinion. You don't provide any facts or resources that prove the money spent in a fiscal stimulus returns a greater rate than the interest on it. You don't address the fact that the debt has gone up 300% over the last 20 years while the GDP is up only an average of 2.5% a year.

Printing your way out of debt is not a solution, ask Argentina. Eventually your investors will lose faith in the value of the money they're getting back in return and the currency will collapse.

> You don't provide any facts or resources that prove the money spent in a fiscal stimulus returns a greater rate than the interest on it.

1. I never said fiscal stimulus was guaranteed to return more than the interest to service the debt needed to pay for it. I said if it does that. My point is deficit spending == bad is not always true.

2. You didn't provide any facts or resources to prove that there exists no possible fiscal stimulus that could generate a greater return than the interest on the debt needed to pay for it.

If you want resources, Google it. You'll find plenty of information backing up the claim that it is possible for deficit spending to pay for fiscal stimulus to be a net benefit.

>You don't address the fact that the debt has gone up 300% over the last 20 years while the GDP is up only an average of 2.5% a year.

Why are you quoting a 20 year value for the debt, but a yearly value for GDP?

>Printing your way out of debt is not a solution, ask Argentina.

Instead of looking at Argentina, why don't you look to the US? We've been effectively printing money since 2008 and inflation hasn't come close to going out of control.

The US isn't Argentina, and saying look to Argentina is no better than people saying look to Somalia for an example of why small hands off government doesn't work.

Inflation is not as bad in the US as it is in Argentina because the demand of US dollars is still high. When that changes you can say good bye to a nice, stable inflation rate.

No, learc83 has a point, in the abstract. If you borrow to spend the money, and the rate of return on what you spend it on is higher than the interest rate, then it's a good idea to go ahead and do it. That's true... in the abstract.

In the real world, though, Congress decides where to spend the money - not based on any kind of return on investment calculation, but based on political calculations. So in reality, a positive return, if it happens at all, will only happen by coincidence.

I think Argentina problems come from borrowing in dollars, not from "printing" his own currency.

I'm not talking about the people purchasing dollars, I'm talking about the country borrowing in dollars. That's the real problem with its debt.

Us GDP to debt ratio is not dramatically worse compared to where it was 30-50 years ago if you just look at how other countries were during this period

Boomers are the ones who tell you to be scared of the debt. Same boomers tell me that gold is the best investment

But not well vs stocks. Gold still hasn't recovered to it's all time high from ~10 years ago.

It's done ok, it's at about 45x its 1970 price in nominal terms, something like 5x in real. More importantly, as an uncorrelated asset to help buffer against crises in a portfolio strategy, it's actually done very well. I'm certainly not advocating that anyone go 100% gold, but it gets hated on more than it deserves.