Working is an interesting term (which I agree with btw) because place like Japan with debt at 200%+ of gdp, rates rising are going to annihilate spending in other important areas.

Maybe we should vote for people who are financially literate, can think long term, and can "conserve" rather than politicians who promise endlessly?

> vote for people who are financially literate, can think long term, and can "conserve" rather than politicians who promise endlessly

I wish you luck. Endless promises and short term thinking are the main things the system incentivizes. Each politician is temporarily renting their seat, paid for by other people. Each bureaucrat is studiously, steadfastly avoiding learning anything that threatens their continued employment, which is paid for by other people.

Eliminate candidates who promise to lower taxes (slows down debt repayment substantially) and those who promise new or expanded services. Who's left? "I'll tax you a little more and not spend that money" is a tough pitch, even if it would be helpful for the debt.

I think Clinton was the last us president to balance the budget and start reducing the deficit so I guess see what he did.

“Promise endlessly” is an oft touted criticism of social safety net programs, when the reality is that reducing vast tranches of corporate welfare is typically more than enough to solve budget shortfalls.

> Maybe we should vote for people who are financially literate, can think long term, and can "conserve" rather than politicians who promise endlessly?

Maybe we should consider the possibility that there is no such candidate, or if there is, they cannot compete against the 'populists'. What then?

> Maybe we should vote for people who are financially literate, can think long term, and can "conserve" rather than politicians who promise endlessly?

Who could you vote for, in any democracy, that would fit this?

Also, how many voters would have the wherewithal to identify such a person?

Japan is closer to 130% debt-to-gdp. The 200% number is based on gross debt and ignores some other mitigating factors for shock value.

Japan’s debt is mostly held local unlike some other countries.

Maybe it's time some people to update their understanding of the "Japan 200%+ debt" slogan that is mindlessly repeated.

https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=68142

Accounting for the asset holding, Japan's net debt is even lower than UK/US.

>The key lies in the Japanese public sector’s operation of a de facto sovereign wealth fund. Unlike countries such as Norway and Saudi Arabia, which fund such vehicles with national savings from natural resources, Japan finances its investments largely through domestic borrowing at very low floating interest rates

.... >In the case of Japan, evaluating fiscal positions solely through the lens of gross government debt can present a highly distorted picture of the overall fiscal health of the country.

More likely they are going to "monetize" the debt. Aka print yen to pay it off.

> Maybe we should vote for people who are financially literate, can think long term, and can "conserve" rather than politicians who promise endlessly?

These people do not exists. If a politician ran on such a platform, they would never get elected.

The fact is in modern democracies like in the EU or in the US there are simply too many people who rely on the status quo directly or indirectly.

Its almost comical, in France politicians have run, got elected and have swept the debt problem under the rug for the last 40 years, then they leave office and suddenly decide that the debt is a massive problem but that there was nothing they could do about while in office so they never did anything but now they speak about it.

And they all do it. Left, right, center, it's all the same.

> Maybe we should vote for people who are financially literate, can think long term, and can "conserve" rather than politicians who promise endlessly?

Conservatives:

    +-------------------------+----------------------------------------+
    | President Name          | Deficit Increase (+) or Decrease (-)   |
    +-------------------------+----------------------------------------+
    | Donald Trump (2nd term) |                                    N/A |
    | Donald Trump (1st term) |                                 +11.1% |
    | George W. Bush          |                                  +4.3% |
    | George H. W. Bush       |                                  +1.8% |
    | Ronald Reagan           |                                  +0.5% |
    | Gerald Ford             |                                  +0.8% |
    | Richard Nixon           |                                  +0.7% |
    | Dwight D. Eisenhower    |                                  -1.8% |
    +-------------------------+----------------------------------------+

    +-------------------------+----------------------------------------+
    | President Name          | Deficit Increase (+) or Decrease (-)   |
    +-------------------------+----------------------------------------+
    | Joe Biden               |                                  -5.7% |
    | Barack Obama            |                                  -6.7% |
    | Bill Clinton            |                                  -6.1% |
    | Jimmy Carter            |                                  -0.1% |
    | Lyndon B. Johnson       |                                  +1.9% |
    +-------------------------+----------------------------------------+

you don't think what they promise is important?

Just seems like one of those weird ambiguities.

japan is an empire, longest one too, you can't vote for that LMAO