Well, I studied economics with emphasis on national economics for five years, so I'm well aware of the difference between deficit and debt.
To point at debt equals pointing at a history of deficits.
Consumer debt is not good - it's not good at all at the macroeconomic level.
For every loaned buck spent by a consumer another consumer spends one buck less - either on consumption or on investment.
I know and understand that it's part of U.S. mythology that consumer spending drives the economy, but that's really not science. The economy grows because of investments larger than deprecations, workforce growth and technological progress.
More consumption can ceteris paribus at most improve production capacity usage (%) - a short-term influence.
The U.S. does not need a return to wild consumption; it needs a return to the times when it saved enough to at least sustain its industrial output without a trade balance deficit. Consumption could easily drop by a fourth at the very same time of industrial recovery.
Guess how the Germans developed their industry out of the late 40's bottom - I can tell you that story is not about wild consumption. It's about reckless austereness, savings and investments till the national capital stock closed in with the right capital stock for the nation's potential (population, skills, technology).
Bookmarks