Yes, which is why it is important what the government is doing with the
money it has borrowed. If it provides tax cuts to those same wealthy
bondholders, that is one thing. If it provides schools, highways, etc., for
all, that is quite another.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Lear" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:13 PM
Subject: [Pen-l] Vulnerable logic in Dean Baker's argument?
Dean Baker writes the following, in his "The Bankrupt Debate Over
Bankrupting Our Children" (2009-5-11 from Truthout):
At some point, everyone alive today will be dead. At that point the
government bonds that constitute the debt will be owned by our
children or grandchildren. In other words, our children and
grandchildren will be paying the interest burden to themselves. If
future generations both receive and pay the interest on the debt then
how can it be on net a burden to them?
Isn't it true that "our children and grandchildren" will be paying the
interest burden mostly to wealthy bondholders (the "Wall Street crew"
that Baker decries) since bond ownership is presumably quite unequally
distributed?
Bill
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.33/2120 - Release Date: 05/18/09
06:28:00
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.33/2120 - Release Date: 05/18/09
06:28:00
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
