[roenxi]

> We're just getting out of a world pandemic.

The US couldn't pay its debts before COVID either. The pandemic hasn't changed the US's long term prospects for servicing its debt even slightly. The future was default in 2019 and it remains default now in 2022. The only interesting questions are when and what form the default will take.

I mean, are you trying to be serious here? How do you think those debts will be payed down? Who do you think will be involved? What timeline?

What evidence?

> No, I'm making the agreed-upon payments

Oh ok, I thought you meant you weren't making them. Well, assuming you intend to keep that approach up there is no place for you in the halls of government. You are heading for a future where you might pay your debts in full!

[ceejayoz]

> How do you think those debts will be payed down?

The US debt-to-GDP ratio is a bit over 100%.

With my mortgage, mine's higher than that, and I don't have a central bank under my control to tinker with things. No one questions my ability to pay off my thirty year loans; current interest rates on US debt indicate no one seriously believes your assertion that a US default is at all likely, let alone probable.

(Argentina's bond rate is 75.00%, reflecting their history of default and likelihood it'll continue. The US borrows at 2.90% right now.)

When my mortgage is mostly paid down, I'm likely to refinance and take on additional debt, perhaps for home improvements or a newer house. Just like the US does as it makes its debt payments.

[roenxi]

You're a lovely bloke. I don't care about your mortgage.

Describe to me, in concrete terms, ideally using the names of the politicians you think might be involved, the voting demographics, the years and values, etc, how you think the US is going to make a start on paying down its debts in real terms.

We all know what is going to happen. They're taking in real resources, they're going to give a lot less back and pretend there is a meaningful difference between not paying off all the debt and defaulting on debt. Which there is not.

[ceejayoz]

> Describe to me, in concrete terms, ideally using the names of the politicians you think might be involved, the voting demographics, the years and values, etc, how you think the US is going to make a start on paying down its debts in real terms.

The US will continue to carry a debt load. With inflation and a sub-3% borrowing rate, it's essentially free money - we pay $400B a year in interest to access $30T. Again, we've done this for hundreds of years; it's not gonna suddenly stop being a functional bit of monetary policy.

By the end of my loan, my mortgage payments will be worth a lot less in real money, too - $1k ten years ago and $1k twenty years from now aren't the same. Creditors price this in from the beginning, whether it's my mortgage or a trillion dollars in US government bonds.

> pretend there is a meaningful difference between not paying off all the debt and defaulting on debt

This is just a silly statement. I don't think we can have a rational conversation about monetary policy if you think that.

[roenxi]

> The US will continue to carry a debt load.

No, no, that part no contest.

How you think the debt load might shrink without the US defaulting. How do you think this will happen? When? Who? Real-world specifics, a plausible scenario that you think might play out. How does the debt get smaller? What is going to change that hasn't been the case since the 70s?

And why will the US not just default in preference to of attempting to do the impossible when those conditions change?

> This is just a silly statement. I don't think we can have a rational conversation about monetary policy if you think that.

Reason it out for me, I'm obviously struggling to understand you. What do you think the difference is between borrowing a large amount, returning a small amount and claiming it isn't a default? Why do we have the word default if that isn't a default?

If that is a better option than a default, why don't all the debtors do that instead of defaulting?

[ceejayoz]

The definition of default is to not be able to make loan payments. It's something the US has never done, and isn't considered likely to do in the forseeable future. The largest risk the US has in this regard is political; politicians occasionally use the routinely-raised statutory debt ceiling as a game of chicken.

> How you think the debt load might shrink without the US defaulting.

It won't, and it doesn't have to. We pay off a trillion on-time, we borrow another. As long as we make payments as required, no one gives a shit.

> And why will the US not just default...

Because then we stop being able to borrow when we want to, like Argentina.

> What do you think the difference is between borrowing a large amount, returning a small amount and claiming it isn't a default?

We borrow a large amount, and return a small amount lots of times, paying down both some principal and a little interest. Again, just like a mortgage.

[roenxi]

Ah, so you are arguing that it is feasible the US will keep paying all the interest payments on its debt? If so I misunderstood. I thought you were arguing that the US debt levels might drop at some point.

Fair enough. I don't think it will play out that way, but do admit it is still arguably possible.