Oh sorry, my fault. I was getting at something else but of course in this content you had to misunderstood.
I meant you wrote you don't like making dept. What about making a saving? The opposite of debt? Not related at all to the parks, but generally.
Sure savings are great. Sadly our government is really shitty at it. :)
But without debt there are no savings. That's impossible (except in Crypto and actual coin minting - and that costs more then the worth of the coin if it should also be practical)
Every saving of Entity A is a debt of Entity B. Like both sides of the balance (name!) is always the same number.
No savings without debt.
If you have savings at the bank, the bank has a debt towards you.
So how can you like savings and hate debt? It's the same, one coin, just the side/POV is different.
Savings can come in many forms. It does not have to come in the form of between a bank and you. Yet, what you stated is not true. It is true in the Keyensian driven system we have now. There was a time in the past where banks could not loan out more than they could back. Thus you keeping a bank note was not the same as keeping a debt driven bank note that is effectively a form of I.O.U. towards money that the bank loaned out without having assets to back it.
What you say is true if the monetary system is fiat. If it is not backed by anything then every note you hold is actually debt.
If it is backed by something then that is not true. So because a thing is one way now does not mean it needs to remain that way, or that it has always been that way.
Yet that is besides the point. That DOES directly address what you are talking about.
It does not address what my article is about. If you and I incur debt beyond our means to operate, we have to be responsible, make cuts, balances, etc.
The government is supposed to do this as well. Instead they use fear and emotions to convince people to instead let them raise their credit card limit.
This is irresponsible and regardless of your views on debt vs savings it is a big problem. That is what my article is about.
I cannot see a way to spin how the government does these things as a positive.
I might argue so far as in the current system there really is only ONE thing that constitutes savings.
Making cuts on expenditures. That's it.
Why do I say this?
Fiat inflation of the money supply dilutes the value of the currency.
Thus any "savings" you make in that currency actually lose value over time which isn't really saving anything.
But if you cut expenditures, it reduces income of people. They don't pay taxes anymore and need some form of social security instead of paying it for themselves.
Not always. Not all expenditures cut would impact things as such. We have screws that cost hundreds of dollars that our government pays for. The super expensive toilet seats and hammers... not a myth. It is real.
Those things are not that expensive because they have to be in order to employ people. They are that expensive because they can, because they think it is guaranteed they'll be paid for. They do not have to compete. Many of these screws and such are on military hardware.
So there are places that you can cut that do not have the negative effect you speak of. Plus some of the jobs that we have with people sitting on their ass and watching porn all day working in some bureaucratic position actually cost us more than if they were on welfare. Yes, we really do have that situation.
The problem is raising the debt ceiling makes it so they don't even have to attempt to fix these things. In fact, over time we get just more of them.
Still someone's job it is to build those. Is that one overpaid? Likely. Are Managers and football players overpaid? Sure!
The problems you describe happen when private rewards get doled out because not enough people are involved to make good policy the less costly solution.
"Saving" does not change that, because savings never happen t those private rewards.
A dictator always pays the army first is probably easier to understand ;)