The last page of the article highlights a problem with your line of thought: Wages didn't profit (much) from the economic growth of the last years. And without money germans cannot consume more. This is a problem for an ever increasing part of the work force as cost of living is on the rise.

(There were people who benefited from the economic growth - I count myself among them - but that doesn't invalidate the argument regarding the whole work force)

Wages rose quite a bit in countries that were net borrowers. All the extra cash bid wages up and the higher wages even caused many to move to those countries to get those higher wages. Importing goods is not the only way to import labor.

The net lender countries didn't experience the same wage growth. But they didn't see their currencies inflate either. Except for those otherwise soundly managed countries that for some reason share a currency with a bunch of poorly managed countries. These countries got the stable wages and the privilege of subsidizing their partners.

> And those that keep consuming more than they produce will continue to lose, just as individuals do that behave unwisely.

The comparision between private households and state households is invalid. That's on of the main errors of Neo capitalism. What is wise for individuals is dumb for states.

Because states households are circuits. They press and rotate money. The money they spend comes back partially.

Private individuals households are linear they receive and spend money. The money they spend is lost forever for them.

Money spent by government comes back as tax income by stimulated economic growth.

> Money spent by government comes back as tax income by stimulated economic growth.

You're ignoring the fact that said money was stimulating economic growth before govt took it.

Govt spending is not stimulating. Stimulating spending is stimulating, regardless of who does it. Unstimulating spending is unstimulation, regardless of who does it.

The difference between private spending and public spending is that private spending is usually an attempt to make money while public spending is a combination of keeping govt employees happy and buying votes. (Yes, the two are related.)

Taking money from individuals and using it for politically popular "investments" usually winds up destroying the capital. Politicians don't usually care if its paid back, as long they can claim credit for giving it away.

Private investors are much more likely to earn a return on an investment. Which means they can keep re-investing it.

Yes, you get all the "stimulating" effect without destroying wealth. Of course, its been that way wherever societies become wealthy.

And government handles all of the "investments" wherever societies become poor.

I wonder at what point does a household magically transform into a state that suddenly lives by different rules. When you add the tenth individual? The hundredth?

Of course, the answer is whenever the group becomes large enough so that people lose track of who's taking what.

Government likes to make waves on the pond, point out the highs and distract you from the lows and how much disruption is created.

When the group is small, its a lot easier to identify someone that's just splashing around and claiming to create value.