Talleyrand
Back in 1959 when Fidel Castro and his fellow revolutionaries (aka bandits) entered Havana, they faced the problem of taking over a plundered State. Fidel appointed Che Guevara head of Cuba’s central bank. Che trained as a medical doctor but didn’t know much about banking, so he appointed a deputy, an economist.
The economist said to Che, ‘we have a problem: we have no money’. What the previous rulers had not squandered, they took with them into exile, evidently.
Che said, ‘no problem. Come here to the window: what do you see?’ The economist said he saw some buildings. Che said, ‘yes, and four of them are Cuba’s largest banks. Take some of the boys and their guns, and take over the banks’.
It worked, for a while. Not the first or the last time that somebody solved a financial problem by force.
The debt of the USA is $33 trillion. Its government is incapable of making obvious fiscal decisions beyond what sorts of expenditure should be favoured in burdening the American people with even more debt.
Talleyrand has already posed the question of a low-growth economic recovery: who is meant to subsidise this debt when so many others around the world are in debt? The answers that came back were rather disappointing. So, what about Che’s option?
Is it unreasonable to predict a show of force to China or to a number of other countries, not to defend the prestige of Taiwan or some other fashionable middle power, but instead to keep making foreigners pay for the USA and its friends to live in the manner to which they’ve grown accustomed?
Not for a gerontocracy that continues to enrich a military-industrial complex at the expense of almost everything else besides their own sustenance. If you think that’s implausible, or impractical, propose something better.