I want to call out this particular point in my larger tweetstorm, because it sorta maps onto a dumb talking point from the left: "The government can borrow and spend any amount we want. American *can't* have a Greek-style debt crisis, because we borrow in our own currency!"

My right-wing followers, of course, understand why this won't fly: America borrowing in dollars, and under US law rather than some neutral third country, is not a law of nature. People with money could easily decide it was too risky to make us dollar-denominated loans.
(Or at least, at any price we'd want to pay.)

What would make them decide this? The fastest way would be for America to borrow a metric crap ton of money, and then default or let inflation eat away the value of our loans so we're repaying pennies on the dollar in real terms.
And since the "America can't have Greek-style debt crisis" talking point is genreallly only uttered by people who are urgin gus to do exactly the sort of thing that make it more likely we'll have trouble borrowing money in dollars, this is just deeply, deeply silly.
I mean it would probably work for a while--as Adam Smith said, "There's a lot of ruin in a nation". I am prepared to concede that the natural stopping point of this binge might be quite a few years away. I only say there is some stopping point.
People will not lend us literally any amount of money, to the point where we couldn't possibly pay it back.
And to bring this back to where it started: humoring Trump was similar to saying "America borrows in its own currency!"
American institutions *are* strong, strong enough to contain Trump. His antics were unlikely to lead to the breakdown of American democracy. But that's precisely because the American system won't tolerate much of that sort of thing.
Stability, whether macroeconomic or political, is at best a small inheritance. At the end of the day, every generation has to earn its own way

More from Government

How does a government put a legislation on 'hold'? Is there any constitutional mechanism for the executive to 'pause' a validly passed legislation? Genuine Koshan.


So a committee of 'wise men/women' selected by the SC will stand in judgement over the law passed by


Here is the thing - a law can be stayed based on usual methods, it can be held unconstitutional based on violation of the Constitution. There is no shortcut to this based on the say so of even a large number of people, merely because they are loud.


Tomorrow can all the income tax payers also gather up at whichever maidan and ask for repealing the income tax law? It hurts us and we can protest quite loudly.

How can a law be stayed or over-turned based on the nuisance value of the protestors? It is anarchy to allow that.

You May Also Like

I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.


I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.

In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.

So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.

Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.