It is silly to compare the investment an idividual with a finite life makes to the investment an economy with an infinite life makes. Assuming that debt goes to investments which yield a positive rate of return, a growing economy can and should carry a larger and larger debt burden. The problem arises when this debt is not taken out for investments which yield positive rates of return in which case we must be concerned about a growing debt burden. However, debt is not inherently evil just as taking out student loans is not inherently stupid. A balanced budget ammendment IS stupid AND impossible as the federal government needs the flexibility. The first recession will send the economy reeling. J. Coronado On Sat, 28 Jan 1995, jtreacy wrote: > Treacy: Robert Eisner's position that the balanced budget amendment > should be melded with a prayer in schools amendment is one that I would > support. We have such whacked out notions of debt floating around. > > All forms of debt in the private sector should be banned as well. > This would force people to realize that debt is something that has to be > considered in light of the future output that will service the debt. > Students take loans for education hoping that this will increase their > future earning capacity. Debt then is investment that has high payoffs. > > It does not make sense to make todays taxpayer pay taxes for an asset > that will yield a stream of future benefits for many years. Look at > interstate highways. Not only are we passing on debts to future > generation we are passing on educated workers, highways, dams, etc. > > The problem is that running up debt to pay for Congressional junkets is > not likely to increase future output. Getting a political system to > operate with some integrity appears to be a difficult task so now we will > put up with this kind of nonsense. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] COPYRIGHTED > > On Fri, 27 Jan 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > I am wondering if there are economist out there that support the > > balanced budget amendment? If so could you please reply and tell > > me why? Also > > if you are against it could you explain why? I > > think this group may want to address this issue from both a > > theoretical and practical view. I hope this generates some > > discussion. > > > > Loren Rice > > The University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma > > email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
