Hacker News Reader

Comment by tabtab | Hacker News Reader

There's not enough disincentives (punishment) for politicians who jack up debt and pensions. A typical political career having direct power is roughly 7 years. Thus, if you can "borrow" from 8+ years down the road to improve the here and now, it will benefit your personal political career at the expense of the next generation.

We thus have to find incentives to punish existing politicians for debt and future-unfriendly decisions. Maybe require Congress to wear a chicken suit for 1 week for every 1 trillion in debt every year. Embarrassment is a powerful incentive. (An exception may be made for recessions that need a stimulus.)

View on HN

With all due respect: we heard all that before, except it was from the left, and aimed at the republican excesses of the 1980's. Regan was mortgaging our (I was the teenager then) future and We Were Not Going To Have It.

You know what happend? All those 30 year bonds came to term and we paid the mortgage without breaking a sweat. Hell, we threw in a $2T war on top. Yawn.

US federal debt is almost literally free money. Obsession about spending (oddly always spending, no one obsesses about tax cuts that affect revenue in the same way, though I do note you threw in "pensions" that AFAIK haven't been "jacked up" in Washington in literally decades) hurts, and doesn't help.

Maybe a day will come when US bond rates rise and debt stops becoming free. That's when we need to stop borrowing. Until then this kind of argument is just a political thing that people (mostly republicans these days) trot out to blandly oppose the spending priorities of the other side.

That's an interesting theory, but please test on another country. As a citizen of the USA, I don't personally want to be a debt guinea pig, nor do many others. Theories are nice, but they don't trump empirical testing (no pun intended).

The USA is in the unique position of issuing the world's reserve currency, so we can't really do as you propose.

And how long will US remain the world's reserve currency?

Longer than the term of a 30 year bond, almost certainly. Source: heard all this stuff before, almost verbatim, 35 years ago.

See this graph: https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/us-...

Debt is at heights not seen since the War. Our debt is greater than our GDP. Look at that compared to the bump in the 80s-90s.

This is both sides. Everyone keeps spending more. From one of the few who doesn't: "Imagine you and your spouse are hugely in debt from overspending, so you call a meeting & each agree that each of you will spend more.

That's Congress."

You're graphing the wrong thing. Yes, we owe more "dollars" on the balance sheet, but those dollars were borrowed at much (MUCH) lower interest rates. Here's the correct analysis:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S

In fact federal interest payments on the not-seen-since-the-War debt balance is... about as low as it's ever been in the post war period.

In fact the point where it really did get scary and showed a real bump that took a while to correct was precisely the republican spending spree of the 80's. Which we made it through just fine. All that debt you see in that hump? IT'S PAID.

Seriously, amateur economics need to chill out about this. You are being fed a line by your political masters, you just haven't figured it out.

Interest is part of the issue, but $22 trillion is still $22 trillion. And yeah, there's lower interest. But it's still very, very hard to replay.

In other words, interest comprises a few percent of the debt. The debt itself is a huge issue, too.

I'm not being fed anything by anyone. I'm not particularly loyal to either political party. I think both suck. But I also think that's a ridiculous amount of money to have borrowed, and will be very difficult to pay off. And the politicians won't even stop spending.

> Interest is part of the issue, but $22 trillion is still $22 trillion.

I'm sorry, but how exactly does your point work, numerically? If I take out a 30 year mortgage on a home with a monthly payment of $1000 and am given the choice of a balance of $100k with an interest rate of X and $200k with an interest rate of Y, why exactly is it not in my interest to take out the bigger loan? What breaks?

It sounds like you're making a moral point, not a financial one. And while you claim not to be loyal to either party, you're parroting talking points pushed by only one. I think it's pretty clear who has your ear and counts on your vote, and is probably feeding you stuff to confirm your worldview in other ways.

One simpler way of achieving this is to lower the voting age. Younger voters consistently weight the future higher than older voters, because they'll be around for more of it. There are active efforts now to lower it to 16; I would go further and lower it to 10. Combine that with efforts to improve voting accessibility (eg. make election day a national holiday) and you significantly shift incentives for politicians to weight future consequences over present gains.

Oddly, voters of all ages don't seem to care that much about debt. It rarely ranks near the top of concern category polls. GOP harked on it heavily during the O years, and still it didn't catch much traction outside of GOP's base. (Arguably, O was following proper Keynesian timing: save during crest, spend during slumps.)

Unless someone is willing to take on the responsibilities of a legal adult (i.e. full criminal trial, jury duty, binding contract, ability to rent apartment, drink, get drafted, etc.), he should not acquire the corresponding rights. This is to say nothing of education.

I can think of a number of people in high places (including several recent presidents) who should not have the right to vote, then.

In my experience younger voters are more likely to vote for "give me free everything" which drives up the debt.

16 I kind of understand, but do you know any 10-year-olds? I'm not sure we can trust their judgment.

Can we trust the judgement of everyone else then? Voting should maybe expire at some point, like driving licences.

The head of politics at Cambridge University, who you might think would know better, made a more extreme suggestion: Voting for 6 year olds.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/06/give-six-ye...

When I was 10, I kept track of politics, and my political views haven't changed much since then. I certainly had better judgement at 10 than my grandfather the last time he voted a after living with Alzheimer's for a decade. The learning from voting would be worth a little noise around election results where parents or peers convince kids to vote the way they prefer.

Stop electing Republicans and Democrats would be a start.

A new party would not fix the incentive problem. If a politician's personal career benefits when they do X, they will keep doing X. (Or they observe others getting benefits.) Skinnerbox 101.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com