Tea Partiers are death on debt, which is why I never pay any attention to them. Life is way too short to listen to ignorant fools.
Economic history, regrettably, is not part of any American school curriculum, and while it is easy -- though time-consuming -- to learn about it on your own, hardly anybody does. So I was pleased to read Paul Krugman's column called "Debt is good" -- with links. Even Krugman, who is a mathematical economist not an economic historian, seems a bit surprised. Nut graf:
In other words, the great debt panic that warped the U.S. political scene from 2010 to 2012, and still dominates economic discussion in Britain and the eurozone, was even more wrongheaded than those of us in the anti-austerity camp realized.And you know what? Trade deficits are good, too. Can be anyway.
It is largely a function of what you do with the imports. Again, Britain is our teacher. Even centuries before the creation of the Bank of England, Britain ran a big trade deficit with the eastern Baltic.
It exported woolen cloth, ironmongery etc. and imported hemp, flex, timber and resin. These were used to build its merchant navy and warships. This deficit was out of balance in one direction -- in favor of the Baltic provinces -- for 500 years.
And after all those deficits, which side was rich and which was poor?
Caveat: For this to work well, you need a popular government that recognizes social responsibilities.
Once again, something the TP gets all wrong.