You can, of course, calll this playing semantics. But actually, it is not. That is because already know that governments cannot borrow in their own currencies. After all, they created the currency in question. They cannot then borrow what was already created by them. In that case to describe anything as government borrowing is to play semantics.
Sheesh. I can create something – say, a coffee mug. Then I sell it to someone. And then, ask, well, can I borrow it back for this arvo please?
I have just borrowed something that I created.
Govt creates money. Then it sells it. That is what it is doing when it hires a GP for example. We are buying your labour with this money which we have created. Great, now the GP decides to lend money to government – government is borrowing by issuing a gilt.
What is difficult to understand about that structure? And given that Ritchie’s wife’s money is indeed hers, earned by the sweat of her brow, why does government having created it mean they cannot borrow it?