> I think simplistic statements "government should not spend money it doesn't have" or "government should stop spending so much money" are all just the normal average person's way of trying to phrase this fundamental economic truth that anyone with a working brain can intuit.

There Is Always a Well-Known Solution to Every Human Problem—Neat, Plausible, and Wrong

> It's also obvious to anyone, that just like eating too many calories, it's much eadier to overspend than to underspend.

You accidentally came up with the best possible illustration for the topic, and it's a really good illustration that actually goes against your argument:

- If you eat too much, you'll get fat and unhealthy.

- If you eat too little, you'll die from starvation.

And you're right, it's exactly the same for government spending: if the government spends too much, it's not good, but if it's spends too little the economy's dead.

That's too much of a balanced take though than touted by lots of populists.

Germany put it recently into their constitution that new debt is strictly limited, literally called the "debt brake". That overlooks all the nuances you just explained and in the worst case can cripple the German economy. German politics is full of folks demanding the "black zero", meaning essentially no (new) state debt. It's the literal sense, not the metaphorical sense that you are describing. And people buy it, since that's how their household economy works too. They even have a metaphor for that ("schwäbische hausfrau").

It's terrible. The debt brake is just as bad for their economy as the "rent lid" that's very popular among the German left which is crippling their housing sector.

Appreciate your defense of me - that is the point I was trying to make :)

I would go into more depth, but I find there are a lot of people that just fundamentally have different views on economics XD