The crux of the issue is debt.
Why not present the issue as a choice. Pointing out the evil evils of debt and the dangers. Conceding the possibility that there may be some free lunch,but at risk of blowing up.,and questioning wether responsible people indebt themselves to the max.
Aubrey could have called to discuss this with me.
That would have been a better way to make an informed decision.
Phil,
I think you could do a good job speaking against the measure, but only if you are clearly speaking *against* the measure! I agree with Marcy that what you're saying here sounds a little too nuanced. The "free lunch" that the government borrowers eat if there is inflation will be paid for by the people, who will be the victims of that inflation when the value of the dollars in our pockets, paychecks, and bank accounts decrease. While the SF city government may not be the ones creating money out of thin air that is backed by nothing, they are still part of the government culture of living beyond its means that is fueling the harmful money-creation. We don't want people in government thinking they can get a good deal by borrowing money and gambling there will be inflation so they have to pay back less in real terms. The rest of us pay the price for such policies.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))