tarquin: I was being somewhat hyperbolic before. However, here are some thoughts. If you think it's a 1/10,000 chance that the government is going to start double dipping or taxing/confiscating the middle class into oblivion then you're way more optimistic than I am. By any estimate, the U.S. has unfunded liabilities of at least tens of trillions of dollars. This has never worked out historically. You're assuming that this time will be different. Every time is always going to be different, except that it never is. The party always stops. There aren't many ways to resolve that. They're limited to the following, pretty much:
1. Cut services
2. Increase taxes
3. Inflate the debt away (a kind of tax in a sense)
4. Default (which works out as a variation of 1.)
If tens or hundreds of millions of citizens have virtually no money (or owe money) and they still get to vote, they're going to look around at anyone who has any money and want some of that. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. In the land of the poor/indebted, the man with moderate wealth is rich (and a target). Smart/really rich people either have influence or have their money off shore, so they're untouchable. Who gets left holding the bag? It's inevitably the middle class. Historically, they've always had to bear the burden.
You're presenting it as a dichotomy between everyone being completely screwed or things being okay. How about everyone being mostly screwed, but not quite enough for complete pandemonium? That would still suck. Argentina doesn't sound like a barrel of laughs. The PIIGs don't sound like a barrel of laughs right now. Talk to people whose families left Eastern Europe once the Iron Curtain came down. Muddling through does not sound like a great return on working hard and saving money. There isn't just a small chance of moderate to fairly bad stuff happening, and the effects aren't that insignificant.
I'm not focusing on the negatives. What I am saying is that given any cursory glance at history, many governments have had a poor showing when it has come to respecting property rights, especially when significant levels of debt have been involved, as they are now in many nations (including the U.S.).
Have a look at this. Every year, the politicians make a song and dance about raising the debt ceiling. Every year, they do. (So I'm not really sure why they have one other than for political theatre.) At some point, that party ends. How is any of that going to end well?
I don't wear a seat belt or look both ways before going through an intersection because I intend to have an accident or because I think I will. I do such things because I know that not only am I fallible as a driver, but also because I can't control for drunk guys running red lights. Looking at the above link is like watching a guy down a couple of six packs and a bottle of Scotch, and then get behind the wheel of a car. Your answer to that seems to be, "Well, either he plows into me or he doesn't. C'est la vie."
I'm suggesting there are alternatives: stop people DUI, at the least wear a seat belt, better yet, don't get on the road if you know DUI Man has just left the bar a quarter mile up the road. None of that entails only looking at the negatives. I think it's called self-preservation.
1. Cut services
2. Increase taxes
3. Inflate the debt away (a kind of tax in a sense)
4. Default (which works out as a variation of 1.)
If tens or hundreds of millions of citizens have virtually no money (or owe money) and they still get to vote, they're going to look around at anyone who has any money and want some of that. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. In the land of the poor/indebted, the man with moderate wealth is rich (and a target). Smart/really rich people either have influence or have their money off shore, so they're untouchable. Who gets left holding the bag? It's inevitably the middle class. Historically, they've always had to bear the burden.
You're presenting it as a dichotomy between everyone being completely screwed or things being okay. How about everyone being mostly screwed, but not quite enough for complete pandemonium? That would still suck. Argentina doesn't sound like a barrel of laughs. The PIIGs don't sound like a barrel of laughs right now. Talk to people whose families left Eastern Europe once the Iron Curtain came down. Muddling through does not sound like a great return on working hard and saving money. There isn't just a small chance of moderate to fairly bad stuff happening, and the effects aren't that insignificant.
I'm not focusing on the negatives. What I am saying is that given any cursory glance at history, many governments have had a poor showing when it has come to respecting property rights, especially when significant levels of debt have been involved, as they are now in many nations (including the U.S.).
Have a look at this. Every year, the politicians make a song and dance about raising the debt ceiling. Every year, they do. (So I'm not really sure why they have one other than for political theatre.) At some point, that party ends. How is any of that going to end well?
I don't wear a seat belt or look both ways before going through an intersection because I intend to have an accident or because I think I will. I do such things because I know that not only am I fallible as a driver, but also because I can't control for drunk guys running red lights. Looking at the above link is like watching a guy down a couple of six packs and a bottle of Scotch, and then get behind the wheel of a car. Your answer to that seems to be, "Well, either he plows into me or he doesn't. C'est la vie."
I'm suggesting there are alternatives: stop people DUI, at the least wear a seat belt, better yet, don't get on the road if you know DUI Man has just left the bar a quarter mile up the road. None of that entails only looking at the negatives. I think it's called self-preservation.