How about letting economists figure out how to balance the economy instead of politicians?
Economists should also be in charge of setting proper tax rates.
How about letting lawyers write new laws, instead of politicians? (Though many politicians are ex-lawyers)
Note: I'm not saying any lawyer or any economist, but a government group of about ~20 economists should set taxes. Likewise, a government group of about ~20 legal experts should write the details of any new laws that Congress wants to implement (so no riders get in).
Note that we'd still need to decide how those people are chosen. But yes, it sounds similar to how the UK interest rate is set by the Bank of England rather than politicians.
Do politicians actually write the wording of the laws directly? I'm not sure how it works in the UK, but my impression was that it was written by the relevant Government departments, which didn't necessarily mean it was penned directly by the politicians themselves (though MPs would ask for the law to be drawn up, then debate on the wording, and vote on the proposed law). I also don't see how this would prevent riders, politicians could still take the laws written by these people, and bundle them into a single bill (which happens in the UK).
What I wonder is for how long the world will accept US Dollars for payment for things. In the US(I live here BTW), we can print US Dollars, and so when we need money, we print it, which of course devalues it. And since it no longer has to have gold(or anything else) backing it is is in reality worth less than the paper and ink that was used to print it. At some point, the countries that supply the US will not want dollars anymore, and will instead request "real" payment, in physical goods, or other backup currencies.
Though isn't fiat money normal for many if not most countries?
They could always move to a practical form of communism, where the focus is on efficient use of resources and labour to meet the requirements and desires of an entire population in a fair and well organized fashion, and having the side benefit of 99.9% employment and probably around a 20 hour work week in most fields, which would leave far more time for the population to engage in art, sciences, and general education or travel. A problem of debt only ever exists when two parties assume one exists. If one party finds a way where they no longer have to be bound by it, well, then it magically goes away.
I don't see how you can magically handwave away the issues. If the amount of things that people want from the Government is more than the amount the Government receives, then that kind of problem is still faced in communism, just that you now have the state providing all the services, and everyone working for the state. So rather than questions like how much should people be taxed, and what should the Government spend money on, you now have the question of what work should people be doing.
(Seriously. Modern capitalism is a lie we all tell ourselves make sense because it means there is some slim chance we can take advantage of those around us and make them do more work than we have to. Once you get over that Me Me Me ME! race to the bottom we're currently in, and realize that dollars are meaningless, and what matters are resources and people with skills to use them, then capitalism and free markets start to look like very stupid ideas.)
I don't think that's true at all. I can understand that what matters are resources, but that doesn't make capitalism stupid - it's still a valid answer to the economic questions of what to produce, who to product it for, and how to produce it.
The wars only account for ~1/4 of our defense spending. People generally see the defense budget and think all that money is spent on war, but the reality is that we only spend a fraction of that on any sort of combat; most of it, to my knowledge, is spent on maintaining what we have and RnD. Reasonable estimates on what is cuttable from defense is around 15-30% of it's current budget, which would only be a small fraction of what is necessary to get the country on a profitable course.
Not having had the wars in the first place would have cut down on current interest, but, having already had them, cutting defense spending won't do enough.
If you're not having as many wars, surely there's less requirement to be maintaining so much, and spending so much on RnD. Yes I know politically that might be unpopular - though other countries have far less military spending, so it's not like this is impossible.