Ritchie meets a comments section not moderated by Ritchie:
In reply to Anthony Nordberg
Professor Murphy wrote above:
“If most economists think deficit reduction so important why have we had a national debt almost continuously since 1694 and prospered because of rather than despite it?”
Some students might be reluctant to pay to be taught by a Professor of Practice in International Economy who evidently doesn’t understand the difference between the deficit and the national debt.
2 hours ago
logged in via Twitter
In reply to Paul Rowntree
This is extreme pedantry
Deficits created the debt
And if you know anything at all you know deficits have been run in most years since 1694
But that’s a good thing – that’s how the government creates money
And that’s how the government meets the demand for gilts to underpin pensions
We desperately need public sector debt – in fact, more than we have
Just for those who want to know, there’s good argument that at times we might want to have deficit spending. There is no valid one that we need a national debt. It might be useful, sure, but we don’t need one. And the idea that we need more as it approaches 90% of GDP…..again, it might be that economic circumstances mean that we’d like more deficit spending (no, I don’t think so but it is possible) but more debt just to have more debt?