I think the issue all goes back to the Euro. If European countries had monetary sovereignty, debt wouldn't in and of itself be an issue. They'd only have to worry about debt in regards to other related factors like inflation.

It seems Spain isn't playing ball with austerity, and if they decide to break with the Euro, I see a number of other southern Eurozone countries following. It'll initially lead to very hard times, but in the long run the entire region will recover and be much more stable for it.

It's really scary how fast and how far things have fallen in Europe. In 2007 Spain posted a budget surplus, had an 8.2% unemployment rate, and was seen as a paragon of fiscal responsibility.

Now they're on the verge of collapse and unemployment has eclipsed 22.85%, and I think it's because dipping into debt can be disastrous for a country that cannot print its own money. Stimulus spending is essentially not an option.

The happenings in Portugal demonstrate why austerity has at best been ineffective (Ireland), and at worst made things considerably worse for the target nation.  In Portugal, austerity cuts lead to decreased economic activity, GDP, and tax revenue and increased unemployment, thus increasing its debt to GDP ratio:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/business/global/portugals-debt-efforts-may-be-a-warning-for-greece.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Dutch government lost it's majority today, while negotiating austerity cuts that would make the deficit go from -4.6% to -3% for 2013.

Why is it austerity when the Government stops spending your money? I mean, this is how badly the "establishment" has engrained the need for big government in our lives... keeping more of your wealth is now a bad thing.

Competely different situation. If a person decides to go to University or go straight into the work force that decision affects him - he receives the benefits from each choice, and absorbs the costs. If he takes the college route, he chose to take on that debt. When the British Government borrows £146bn this year to pay for shit that I don't agree with, there is nothing moral or right about that.

But, to go along with your scenario. I would recommend neither, I'd recommend that if he's asking me for advice (so, he isn't obviously academic enough that college is an immediate answer, or he hasn't already got a job), I'd recommend that he seeks an apprenticeship in some kind of skilled labour, or look to start his own business.

We truly do have fundamentally different views of the role of currency in society.

You're more of the mindset that money ultimately comes from the people, and is taken by the government to be used for various goods.  A view I once held.

I now view currency as a tool created by government to allow economic activity.  Without the government first printing money, we would have none to pay back in taxes.  

As a country's population and economy grow, we obviously need more currency available to represent this commerce and prevent deflation, thus a government with a fiat currency usually deficit spends to accomplish this goal.  You can say that government shouldn't be deciding how we spend our money.  I'm of the view that the government doesn't need any of our money to actually spend money.

In a fiat currency, taxation and spending aren't directly linked.  A government spends to provide a certain level of services, to encourage economic activity, and to add more currency to the economy.  A government taxes to control income inequality and to have more immediate control over economic activity.  In times of decreasing activity, they can then cut taxes to spur growth.  If things start growing too quickly, and inflation becomes a risk, they can then raise taxes to curb growth.  This has no bearing on how they're spending money.

Government could theoretically spend without taking in any taxes at all.  It would just lead to hyperinflation, assuming the influx of currency outpaces the growth of our economy in terms of real wealth.  Thus, a balance between the two must be struck.  But by balance, I don't mean a truly balanced budget.  There is nothing inherently wrong with a deficit.

Of course, none of this holds true for governments tied to some sort of standard (gold) or governments that do not print their own currency (the Eurozone), for whom debt is a very real concern.

If you're interested, I would recommend reading Warren Mosler's Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy.

Our economy is not in the situation it is in now, because we have a lack of supply in carpenters, cleaners, and whatever fucking jobs Mike Rowe covers. If that was the source of the problem, Jesus, they must have huge influence on the global economy.

So IDK. I guess I'm just confused. You're trying to make this some kind of philisophical argument about what "value" and "work" is (again, you're starting to sound socialist, that try to equate value as labor), or trying to make the economy as a function of the nation's "character" (oh, it's because everyone wants to get rich and do no work).

The problem with all those arguments (aside from the fact that they're wrong), is that they're too easy. In a way, it's kind of like that with Japan. By tying everything as a matter of "national character" (BTW, now it's a bit remincent of fascism) or something like that, you sort of doom yourself (in the case of Japan), or make it sound like you can solve EVERYTHING by fixing the nation's "character". And making that fix involves making some huge, radical changes like cutting all the government agencies and dismantling all social welfare (and I'm terrified of what the OWS folks are going to propose, once they become more organized).

America's "character" or Japan's "character" have nothing to do it with it. We don't need sweeping radical changes to our society. We need technocratic solutions that have worked pretty consistently and well for the past few decades. Not ideology.

You do realize that, in the United States, the government doesn't print money a private organization (the Federal Reserve) does; and people have organized their own currencies in the past, and even do today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17680904) without the involvement of government.

Anyone can create a new currency and, as long as people believe in its value, it can be viable. The only reason we don't see a worldwide privately controlled currency is that governments wouldn't allow it because it would cripple their ability to rob you through taxation and inflation.

This is true in the UK too. We've been pushing people into university, but many of them come out with useless degrees that don't have any relevance in the workplace. The result is a lot of debt and a job in which they don't actually need the degree they studied for.

My brother-in-law on the other hand left school with the bare minimum qualifications at 16, worked as a painter/decorator for a few years and setup his own business. Now? He owns a bungalow worth nearly £1 million, drives a Lexus 4x4 (which he paid for upfront), can afford to send his daughter to extra theatre lessons (on top of extra private tuition), and hollidays twice every year. He's earning about the same amount in a year that I could just about scrape in 3 with a PhD in Biochemical Engineering.

Not sure if I'd have done anything different even knowing what I do now, but it was never even seen as a viable option when I was younger.

1.  I do realize this.

2.  I don't see it as theft, given the government's investments in things like infrastructure and law enforcement often have long term positive effects on society's economic growth and overall well being.

I view it as society, together, allocating resources to provide various services.  Like law enforcement, given private enterprise likely would not do it as equitably, comprehensively, or cheaply (their costs might be lower, but not their prices).

They were never really seen as viable options when I was younger either, and they're areas I'm only just now looking into given I'm hard up for work.

I wish I had stuck with computer science in college.  I've always had a nack for programming, but I didn't stick with it for dumb reasons.  I sit here today wondering if it's too late to go back to that, and whether I could make it in that field without paying for an expensive education that I definitely can't afford.

You really just don't get it ...

I'm not talking about some grand economic problem, I'm talking about someone being able to find a satisfying job that pays the bills and gives them an adequate lifestyle. There are enough morons in this world who believe that (somehow) studying English Literature will prepare them to make meaningful contributions to the economy of tomorow, or are simply too lazy to do manual labour for a living, that there will be an ever growing shortage of people in the skilled trades to do the work that needs to be done; and this basically means that you will be ensured a stable upper middle class lifestyle if you go this route.

To put it another way, there are so many people graduating from worthless degree fields that law school and business school enrollment has skyrocketed over the past decade. What were once (almost) guaranteed ways to get a job and receive a 6 figure income are now very difficult fields to break into, and most people getting jobs are receiving very average incomes. Essentially, people are spending 6 to 8 years of their lives and building up $100,000+ in student loan debt to graduate with a degree where new grads have a high unemployment rate (after 1 year) and those that are employeed have are lucky to earn $50,000 to $60,000 per year.