No country can afford war? But that do not stop social unrest. And desperation leads to social unrest. The individual person don't need much money to make a molotov coctail. The french revolution didn't require the foot people to have any money. Most countries have at one time or other had social unrest resulting in huge problems. In recent years, quite a number of countries have had youth burning cars, because they are frustrated. They know they can't afford a good school education. And they can't get a job. Their parents are likely unemployed. Everyting around them are misery.

So there is not any "can afford". It's just a "can we avoid"? And if we can't - what direction will it take?


It's ab it of give and take.

Countries with clever people can take advantage of their right to make own decisions. Run when it is advantageous. Rest when needed. So some smaller countries can live and prosper even when countries around them are in serious troubles. But the disadvantage with freedom is that countries with less skillful leadership - or leadership that don't want to deliver any bitter pills, because the position is more important than the country - can drown. One bad year doesn't matter much. But when the course isn't adjusted based on that years losses, it doesn't take much to bring a full country to the brink of disaster.

What is needed is people with serious amounts of charisma and believability, to make people understand that it isn't possible to consume more than what is available. That it is not meaningful to kick out the politicians who adapts the spendings to the income. That it is like peeing in the pants. It only warms for a short while before becomming really, really cold.