The problem with your proposal is that a sufficiently motivated legal system will just abrogate it. In order to have a scenario where the system is sufficiently motivated, it would have to be something like gay marriage. There will be things that people 50 years in the future will treat like they treat gay marriage now.
Of course your proposal will work for some policy that nobody cares about. The test is how it works on policies that people do care about.
It reflects poorly on someone when they don’t concede points that they’re wrong about. For instance, “It’s not possible for the debt to be anywhere near 1T.” It is wild how overconfident you are. The perpetuity formula is taught in most finance 101 classes.
Your understanding of debt and defaults is equally poor.
As I said, I’m a finance professional, but you don’t have to take my word for whether these assets would create the right incentives. Go to your local university, and ask finance professors about it. Don’t make the judgement yourself, because you lack really basic knowledge of finance. Until you do that, there’s no point to this conversation.
It is not possible for the debt to be anywhere near 1T because the government is going to refuse to get into debts that high, not because the number is not mathematically possible.
It is not possible for the debt to be anywhere near 1T because the government is going to refuse to get into debts that high, not because the number is not mathematically possible.
You’re really not doing yourself any favours by claiming that the U.S. would never take on $1T of debt. It’s currently $33T, and they need to continually roll over expiring debt. (Not to mention the fact that the exact number, $1T, plays no role in my argument whatsoever other than “big number that the government would not want to pay”.)
The problem with your proposal is that a sufficiently motivated legal system will just abrogate it. In order to have a scenario where the system is sufficiently motivated, it would have to be something like gay marriage. There will be things that people 50 years in the future will treat like they treat gay marriage now.
Of course your proposal will work for some policy that nobody cares about. The test is how it works on policies that people do care about.
It reflects poorly on someone when they don’t concede points that they’re wrong about. For instance, “It’s not possible for the debt to be anywhere near 1T.” It is wild how overconfident you are. The perpetuity formula is taught in most finance 101 classes.
Your understanding of debt and defaults is equally poor.
As I said, I’m a finance professional, but you don’t have to take my word for whether these assets would create the right incentives. Go to your local university, and ask finance professors about it. Don’t make the judgement yourself, because you lack really basic knowledge of finance. Until you do that, there’s no point to this conversation.
It is not possible for the debt to be anywhere near 1T because the government is going to refuse to get into debts that high, not because the number is not mathematically possible.
Is this Poe’s law, or the long scale trillion? As of October 2023, the US national debt is about 33 T$.
Let me put it this way, I don’t think it was sarcasm.
You’re really not doing yourself any favours by claiming that the U.S. would never take on $1T of debt. It’s currently $33T, and they need to continually roll over expiring debt. (Not to mention the fact that the exact number, $1T, plays no role in my argument whatsoever other than “big number that the government would not want to pay”.)