> that's like trying to argue that water is not wet.
Your fallacy is assuming that both glasses contain water. Again you're just restating your assumptions as truth.
I refer you to my original parent comment; "Government debt and household debt don't work the same way." and "You have not shown that government debt and private debt are even the same thing at all"
What I am saying, and all that I am saying, is that they aren't the same thing, at all.
Saying "this is larger than that" is neither here nor there when they aren't comparable.
Saying "larger government debt must be bad because more household debt is bad" is not a valid argument. It might be good or bad, but not for those reasons. Argument that rests on the assumption that it works the same will go wrong rapidly.
Your fallacy is assuming that both glasses contain water. Again you're just restating your assumptions as truth.
I refer you to my original parent comment; "Government debt and household debt don't work the same way." and "You have not shown that government debt and private debt are even the same thing at all"
What I am saying, and all that I am saying, is that they aren't the same thing, at all.
Saying "this is larger than that" is neither here nor there when they aren't comparable.
Saying "larger government debt must be bad because more household debt is bad" is not a valid argument. It might be good or bad, but not for those reasons. Argument that rests on the assumption that it works the same will go wrong rapidly.