Deutschland
About Sammelbecken für deutsche Kartoffeln und ihre Nachrichten, Geschichten, Diskussionen über Deutschland.
Nicht zu verwechseln mit !dach@feddit.org , das für gesamten Europäischen deutschsprachigen Raum zuständig ist.
Schreibt hier Beiträge, die ganz Deutschland betreffen, nicht nur einen kleinen Teil. Wir haben andere Communities für Bundesländer und Lokalnachrichten:
Städte / Landkreise
-!bonn
-!magdeburg
-!braunschweig
-!bochum
-!duisburg
-!heidelberg
-!chemnitz
-!stuttgart
-!cologne
-!augsburg
-!wuppertal
-!dresden
-!ostwestfalen-Lippe
-!karlsruhe
Bundesländer:
-!bremen
-!niedersachsen
-!nrw
-!sachsen
-!bayern
-!hamburg
-!berlin
-!badenwuerttemberg
-!schleswig_holstein
-!rlp (Rheinland-Pfalz)
Regeln Seid nett zueinander. Sinnlose Provokationen ohne Inhalt werden gelöscht und User gebannt
Zusätzlich: alle Regeln, die ihr auf Feddit.org in der Sidebar lesen könnt.
view the rest of the comments
I agree with most sentiments but I want to say that national debt is not debt in the common meaning of the word: it's creating additional funds, making the already circulating money worth a bit less (if the amount of goods in circulation stays the same) effectively taxing everybody but having arguably more impact on stationary money, so wealth. It does not drive inflation as long as it can cause more productivity instead of increasing competition on finite goods. If invested in infrastructure and coupled with measures to protect workers (e.g. raising minimum wages and whatever you can come up to bolster the underbelly and middle-class in absolute terms (meaning lower incomes profit more relative to their income)) it can actually be a good part of lowering inequality.
Sure, I agree in theory, but spending national debt means issuing more bonds right? That's how it worked in the US to my understanding and I assume that's how debt is paid for in most countries. Bonds are assets and assets are bought by people with money. Increasingly the people with money and the people buying assets are the ultra-wealthy. I have no doubt that when evaluated the majority of governmental debt can be traced to or through massive corporations and the ultra wealthy. But I'd love to be enlightened here, when I hear a government issueing debt I assume that means our government is getting poorer and borrowing money from the rich.
Yes, I completely agree that that "juice is worth the squeeze" when done correctly. A government taking on debt and investing it in good train/tram/bus based public transit pays for itself and the interest in economic productivity and efficiency over time. But a government led by conservatives and centralists, taking out 400 billion in debt before they slash corporate taxes, to fund military contracts do not seem like good stewards of that cash. How inefficiently will that money be spent in terms of creating benefits for the common worker? How many jobs with a thriving wage will be created vs CEO bonuses paid?