Posted on 03/21/2002 9:17:32 AM PST by vannrox
As long as debt growth doesn't overwhelm economic growth (e.g. higher federal debt in the late 80's was exceeded by even higher economic growth) over the long-term, then it's not a problem since assets are sufficient to cover debt in the aggregate. Japan in the 90's is an example of letting debt grow much faster than the economy.
Debt that finances new skills or businesses or other long-term benefits will generally create more wealth than other short-term benefit debts. Thus, the debt will be covered in the aggregate.
I can't help but smile while reading these particular lines.
(finding that silver lining!)
Current debt level may be OK if current stock and real estate market level can be maintained. What is sustainable now may not be the case if the price level goes down. It all depends if one sees current level as over-valued or close to the real value. Since I think that market is still much over-valued, when there is a correction, the debt may become suddenly difficult to service. Besides, in an attempt to shore up these markets, Fed and others may pump more money into them, incurring more debts. I do not remember the exact figures, but U.S. debt level was about 5 trillion(public), over 1 trillion(consumer). I am not sure about the level of coporate debt. But they are no longer a small fraction of GDP. There may be debt which are not accounted in the figures above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.