Slashdotters are educated enough to apply the mean value theorem
to convert this from a quesiton of "does it ...
" to a question of "at what level ...
", which changes it from an existence question to an at what level question. However, the real
question is whether anyone with any political audience is doing these analyses while incorporating a strong demographics and growth component (of course there is, but is anyone listening DoD Systems 2020
). It is one thing for a person to owe 4x their annual salary when they are buying a house at age 25, compared with a 60 yr old buying one at 1x annual salary. The 25yo has a major factor that works in their favor, which is that their income should (in theory) increase during the payoff period, making it ever easier to pay off that debt. The political equivalent to this is the growth-based economic model
, which assumes that the economy will grow every year, forever. It is when this assumption fails that we suddenly get very uneasy about debt, just as you might be very uneasy extending "125% of value" mortgages to a 70yo (fair lending and FannieMae, FreddieMac
aberrations not included). The Keynesian model sort of works in the exponential part of the economic growth curve, but it fails catastrophically in the Limits to Growth part of the economic universe. The Adam Smith model of economic growth does not fair much better in this region.