[Stirner]

The author basically claims that the national debt is owed to the population ef the U.S. and that, therefore, the bigger it is the better because that just means each of us is owed more. This is fallacious because the main premise is wrong: the debt is not owed to the people of the U.S. as a whole, but to whoever lends the money to the government, the bondholders. The lenders need not reside in this country, and many of them do not. Those of us here who do own government debt are a small fraction of everybody who lives here.

[mnehring]

Bigger is not better, nor is that stated. What is stated in the article is the ideal situation would be a state of equilibrium. The point is that the debt is not a burden that is put on the shoulders of the American taxpayer but is an actual component of the US economy.

[undeniable logic]

Exactly, the gov't owes the creditors money, but how does the gov't get the money that it owes to its creditors? Through taxes... In order to payoff creditors it has to collect more money then it spends. A taxpayer may send $5k to the gov't, with $4.5k in services granted and $0.5k going to payoff debt. During debt accumulation, we are getting more services then we pay for. During debt payback, we are getting less services then we pay for.

I would tend to argue that in any case, we are getting less then we pay for, no matter how much deficit spending there is. Gov't inefficiences and all...

[mnehring]

From the article: Does this mean that a bigger debt is better? No, the national debt is a key component of our economy but the most ideal situation would be a state of equilibrium with as little outside influence as possible. The reality of the national economy has, however, created a cycle where much of our investments and capital is hedged by the issuance of treasury bonds.

[Kevin Curry]

The lenders need not reside in this country, and many of them do not.

E.g., the Japanese.