It makes sense to balance the expense stream with the lifetime (use) of the asset. Companies do this all the time and so do people (with their houses, and sometimes with their cars).
Future generations get the benefit of the asset too, either directly, by driving over a bridge, or indirectly by growing up in an environment of greater GDP. So purchasing the asset out of direct taxes during the years it was built is foolish.
Also the macroeconomic implications of government debt are quite different from the microeconomic impacts of personal or corporate debt. For example foreign governments are pretty much obliged to buy US sovereign debt and in exchange the Fed is pretty much obligated to issue it. That ripples through all sorts of things but in general is quite favorable to the US.
Of course the second paragraph requires good choices for investment, i.e. more nuclear weapons is probably a bad choice, but bad choices like that are frequently made.
For the really big infrastructure projects that will have compounding benefits over the next 50 years, yes. Because then they will have paid for themselves in less than that time and then it's just free joy.
gumby|2 years ago
Future generations get the benefit of the asset too, either directly, by driving over a bridge, or indirectly by growing up in an environment of greater GDP. So purchasing the asset out of direct taxes during the years it was built is foolish.
Also the macroeconomic implications of government debt are quite different from the microeconomic impacts of personal or corporate debt. For example foreign governments are pretty much obliged to buy US sovereign debt and in exchange the Fed is pretty much obligated to issue it. That ripples through all sorts of things but in general is quite favorable to the US.
Of course the second paragraph requires good choices for investment, i.e. more nuclear weapons is probably a bad choice, but bad choices like that are frequently made.
ThorsBane|2 years ago