I think reality makes me question the common sense idea of whether or not a government can borrow indefinitely.
Because none of the stable governments that control their own currency has seemed to find a limit.
modern monetary theory works a bit different than the article implies.
The idea is that you can spend as long as there is a benefit somewhere else in the economy.
So you could say spend 50 billion on free education or whatever. But if that means that over the course of 4 years $200 billion in wealth is created it is actually a net benefit.
Same for taxes. If you lowered taxes but that means more consumer spending you're actually creating value for the economy.
Likewise with healthcare. If people have less problems with their health and are more productive, they make more money in theory. It is a benefit for the economy overall, not a loss.
Seeing government spending in some areas (innovation,infrastructure,education etc.) as a 'long term investment' in the greater good rather than a sort of 'family budget' that has to be kept in check actually makes sense.
Austerity we've seen, doesn't actually have a positive effect of the economy nor on the well being of a country at all. The problem is though that most money is not being spend on stuff that 'creates' value in other ways for the economy.
Defense is a tricky one. On one hand it creates jobs(thus creates wealth) on the other hand you're stuck with a bunch of vehicles and planes that have no added value for the economy.
