If we only understood what economists were saying.

Two weeks ago, Paul Krugman's column argued that debt is good for our society.  His argument may have been valid, but was probably out of reach of most readers.  His column may be seen here, or by finding the August 24, 2015 edition of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

I responded to the column in Letters to the Editor, published on September 27, as follows:

Paul Krugman argues the value of increasing the country’s debt (“Debt is good,” Opinion, Aug. 23). His reasoning may make sense to economists, but there’s a more compelling argument to justify payment for infrastructure improvements through borrowing. When we build a bridge, school building or sewer system over the next couple of years, the people who will benefit from that infrastructure are those who will use it for the following 20 to 30 years. People who enjoy the benefits should be the ones who pay for it. The only way to get those people (and you and I might be among them) to pay for the infrastructure is to borrow the money and obligate the citizenry (us) to pay it back. If infrastructure and its maintenance are good for society, we should build and repair, and we should do it with debt.

If you want a PDF of the Krugman article or the letter to the editor, contact me off line.