Why are Conservatives Afraid of Deficits?

Deficits are literally free money and sense we have automatic growth it will pay itself off overtime. Why is Sup Forums afraid of deficits, the thing that will make america great again and built up so much great American stuff.

>pic related built with the power of deficits

Other urls found in this thread:


>What is debt interest on 27 trillion, for 300 points!

My math teacher actually mathamatically proved how if spending was frozen and didn't increase. Within time the debt will be paid off providing interest doesn't go over 2% and the economy grows at as little as 1%. Overtime it will pay off.

Yep! But you have to freeze spending, so do it and they'd be happen to start deficit spending again after all the debt it payed off.

>freeze spending
sorry bud, but you would have to freeze wars for Israel and gibs (which grow every year). Both parties aren't interested in doing either thing.

Why do we spend so much on niggers?

The problem is we've built an economy built off of nothing but goodwill. If printing more money made you richer, Zimbabwe would be a paradise.

By freeze spending I mean freeze the current debt.

If the U.S was literally running a 99% deficit, but from that point on didn't increase spending. The debt WOULD pay off eventually providing interest rate was at 1%. If interest rates were at 2% the U.S could run a 49% budget deficit forever and it would pay itself off as GDP growth shrinks the deficit.

No you wouldn't. By freeze spending i mean just don't increase the budget. We could keep running a 600 billion deficit but just freeze increases to it, eventually growth would overcome it.

Zimbabwe's not a good example. U.S printed money under Lincoln and it got them through the war. FDR printed money and the New Deal got us through the depression. In 2008 money printing happened.

Each time inflation was kept minimum.

>New Deal got us through the Depression
Lol no, the New Deal prolonged the Depression.
WWII and Capitalists opening factories to gear up for war is what got us out of the Great Depression.

So what you're saying is

>lol no, government spending didn't get us out of the depression
>government spending gearing up for more government spending got us out of the depression

Printing more money gives a short term boost of spending because people have a bunch of money all of a sudden so they go out and spend it. The problem is that after the initial effect wears off everyone realizes that there is not actually any more material wealth, so it corrects back down, and now everything costs more and your savings are worth less, which is bad in the long term. Economics is not a question of money, it's a question of goods, it's just that money is the only way to quantify goods, so we use that, but don't let that fool you into thinking economics=money.
Also FDR didn't get us out of the depression by printing money, the war got us out, and his government programs sort of helped because they got people working again.

wew thats some quality boomerposting

> Economics is not a question of money, it's a question of goods, it's just that money is the only way to quantify goods, so we use that, but don't let that fool you into thinking economics=money.
But in a stimulated economy actual production increases because businesses produce more to satisfy demand. So more goods get created

> the war got us out
Yeah, by forcing the government to spend more and print more.

>Investors opening factories, and government reducing regulations is government spending
Really? You fuckin' kidding me meme flag?
It wasn't until FDR had the NLRB relax its regulations so it was easier to gear up for war which pulled us out of the Depression.

Start here

That's not what he's saying at all. The market for war materials created more jobs because private investors saw a profit to be made, opened factories, hired people, and created goods to sell and make a profit. The government didn't have shit to do with it.

You do realize who funded the factories right? They were built by capitalists because the government was spending so much money on war materials. The government spent money on war materials so capitalists opened factories. It would be the same if the government spent on healthcare so more private hospitals opened up.

The market for war materials was directly from the government. It wasn't consumers and corporations buying all these war materials, it was the government for their military.

So you're equivalating government contracts for equipment, to the New Deal which created the following disastrous agencies and polices:
Tennessee Valley Authority
>government run energy, poor production and more expensive to produce
Federal Emergency Relief Administration
>literally giving free fucking money
Social Security
>I don't even have to explain this one
Securities and Exchange Commission
>doesn't do anything
>purpose was to prevent any further economic crash: failed
Agricultural Adjustment Act
>literally giving money to farmers so they'd stop working, thank you SCOTUS for ruling unconstitutional

Here are some. Yes, there is a big difference between the government offering money in turn for a product, than just handing people money, negotiating their wages for them, and artificially stimulating demand in products to raise their price, thus creating a economic bubble in that industry.

Throwing more money at the economy doesn't ramp up production in the long run, it just lets companies spend a bit more of money they don't actually have to make more, which always ends up biting people in the ass. The amount of money is just a way of quantifying how much of a share of physical resources you have access to. If a company were to own 1% of all money in circulation, they would have access to 1% of the material wealth, which if they used it correctly, could be used to make more stuff for people to buy, which would increase their share. Printing more money for the company could mean that instead of $1 billion they now have $1.1 billion, but that would, if the new money is distributed evenly, still be 1%. And if the money was not distributed evenly, then that would be the government artificially propping up a company, which is a waste of resources, because that was money earned, which means that their was not enough demand for the company's goods, meaning that it didn't deserve to have that much money. Stop bringing up the new deal as a way to back up your position, spending more money had little to nothing to do with ending the depression.

I'm just talking about the general idea of the government creating demand, which they did via the new deal and war spending. They did that because in a recession consumer demand is very low and needs artificial boost

That makes sense but then you pointed out that the war ended the economy which is exactly exactly that keynesian argument that i made.

Right but that's the government creating a demand for goods, not the government printing more money. I'm not arguing that a government can't create demand for goods, it can, a government need buildings, that need to have desks and chairs in them, and it needs a military that needs guns and tanks, all of which can be provided by companies, or even the government itself. That has nothing to do with the central argument that printing more money creates more wealth.

You're right about the government needing to spend more, but not print more. The government needed to buy things, which created a demand, which created jobs and production, but printing more money didn't make people richer.

But it didn't work, it prolonged the depression because you need the goods and services to flow through the economy. In a depression, the government artificially stimulating demand has failed literally every time they've tried to do it because both the consumer and business will hoard given money because they know they're in an economic downturn.

The New Deal was an absolute catastrophe, in which its effects we still haven't remedied today. In fact, unemployment increased at a point during the New Deal. The entire thing was a propaganda ploy to make people think FDR actually cared about their success so he could win reelection 4 times.

>Deficits are literally free money

I think OP left

Im not because I dont care if the government goes bankrupt

deficits are good if the economy grow at least as fast as the debt. otherwise you are just like a family that are borrowing more than you can make, and then your kids will have to pay for your stupidity.
it's not free money, it's just leverage