[Red6]

I disagree.

Like in the Soviet Union or former DDR, these sort of schemes can live on for decades.

The belief is that as things fall apart people move away from big government. What if the government, schools, and the media proselytize that we need the opposite, more government? What if things don't fall apart right away but actually kind of do OK for some time? What if the real consequences are no “bubble” but rather market inefficiencies that are created with every subsidy, mandated loan to the unqualified, or investment is some politically motivated project? What if the real damage isn't short term but rather long term, where like in Europe (They also haven't imploded) the socialized economy simply creates a sort of economic malaise, an economy that is going nowhere fast?

I don't expect an implosion, just a slow death where our economy not unlike those in Europe becomes inefficient, unadaptive, and stagnant punching out a whopping 2% growth in good times. Where people are happy that they have stability and security, but are no longer masters of their own destiny and live with economic stagnation.

[Obadiah]

Yes, that's a scary alternative as well, however, I think the scale of things right now do not portend this. Rather, and right now at least, it looks like the author of this article may be closer to the mark. You simply cannot pump trillions into the economy without some major, rather than passive, consequences.

[helpfulresearcher]

You may be right, but consider the following:

Europe did not have the world’s most used reserve currency, and thus could not count on loans of such magnitude to inflate a big bubble. Britain did have the pound and got a little bubble going before Thatcher, but nothing on the scale of the US dollar today.

If a bubble can’t be inflated then there is muddling through malaise. The results are more extreme if a large bubble can be created.