Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I am quite well aware of the development of the national debts of the US and UK and neither of them are anywhere near "bankrupt."
Bankrupt simply means that the entity can't meet the demands for repayment made by creditors. Usually this means suspension of credit, and with the money faucet turned off, operations have to be curtailed, and revenues as well as payments grind to a halt.
Often creditors are stuck in zugzwang, where they know the creditor may be not credit worthy, but suspending new credit only means loss of any payments whatsoever, and probably loss of the original principal. The creditor has to weigh the likelihood of the borrower reversing his situation, against the chances the situation is irreversible, where he must cut his losses.
I don't know what the national debt of the UK is, but it is over $17 trillion in the US. What do you think the chances are that can be ever repaid? I don't think either party has the testicular fortitude to eliminate deficit spending. |This is more than a US problem. Perhaps the good thing is a lot of that debt is owed to ourselves. The promises made by Social Security by the latter part of the century will exceed all projected revenues. At that point, we would be unable to pay our seniors, and of course other debts would be over and above that.
This situation has evolved in the years since about 1960. It has grown due to Democratic social programs and Republican militarism, and under GW Bush and BH Obama, both have soared.
No, it is not irrevocable, but bankruptcy is defined by the lenders not the borrowers. The US stands much stronger than the UK, because in the end, it is probably more capable of autarky than is the UK. Other smaller European socialist States may appear for the present to be on sound footing, but many of them have little or no national defense budget, which means for them to survive, we must conclude that humankind has altered its nature.