I keep hearing people claim that any debt the US builds/acquires will have to be paid (or defaulted on) by "our children and their children". This oversimplification has always _seemed_ fundamentally wrong to me ... more wrong than just being an oversimplification.
It doesn't seem to me like the economy is a zero-sum game. Money isn't subject to any conservation laws that I"m aware of. Granted, there are economic drivers that are conserved; but money isn't one of them. So, what literature do I need to start reading that will help me a) understand what is and isn't conserved about debt and b) clarify this point to those who insist on making the oversimplified argument? I'm not convinced one way or the other; I just want to find a bit of clarity around this soundbite. In particular, it strikes me that on a personal scale (time and distance), money is mostly conserved. E.g. I pile up credit card debt or buy a house and that debt sticks with me. I either have to pay it off or default (or die). But is that true at all scales? I've spent some time looking at generic books and popular magazine articles on economics. But they lack the clarity I need (or perhaps I'm too thick to understand them). And the sources for Game Theory I've seen are too idealistic to get any real traction for an argument. Thanks. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
