[rawgabbit]

You are describing a doomed government fiscal scheme. It is more like a ponzi scheme that requires new entrants into perpetuity. This is doomed to fail. It is simply bad policy.

For any system, absorbing shocks and massive social change will take decades to resolve. "The natural end" I would argue will occur with or without government intervention. In the ideal case, government intervention should lessen the upheaval by preparing for eventual population decline. At worst, government intervention will champion false hare-brained schemes like Brexit or massive immigration. This will only make things worse, not better.

This situation remind of when France's Louis XVI was deeply in debt. Instead of reforming society and their unfair taxation scheme (only the poor paid taxes), France put their trust in Necker a "financial genius". Necker published a completely fake set of accounting books in order to get even more loans. Of course, he argued the loans were only step1 of his plan to get "breathing room". Step2 was to actually reform France. I believe he is disingenuous. As an experienced financier, he should known that loaning money to France is like giving money to a gambling addict. Who is the greater the fool? The gambling addict or the person loaning money to the addict? Meanwhile Louis XVI and his family got their heads chopped off by the French Revolution. With hindsight, he would have better off confiscating all the church property (which the Revolutionaries did) and refused to pay the old debts.