I have posted a video this morning in which I argue that when the government discusses what it calls national debt, it forgets something really important – that if it supposedly owes money, there must be someone it owes to. Those people it might owe it to are either households, businesses, or people from overseas saving in sterling in the UK. And if all those three groups decide to save – as they often do – then the government has no choice but to borrow. And that means the government can talk about the national debt as much as it likes, but in reality it has very little practical control over how big it is.
Spud is taking a definition as being causative.
If government spent less money than it received in taxes – ran a surplus – then it would have to pay less interest on the bonds it issues. At which point households, corporates and Johnny Foreigner would all find something else to invest/save their money in.
Amazing, but true.
But The State is everything, isn’t it? Nothing outside The State!
If a state ran constant surpluses then it wouldn’t have to borrow at all.
The surplus would pay down the debt.
I often wonder how much economic damage would occur if the government didn’t owe any money.
Suppose we privatised the NHS – the National Debt would be gone in 10years.
“ if all those three groups decide to save – as they often do – then the government has no choice but to borrow”
Good grief. As BiG says, he really does believe in “nothing outside the State”.
And it isn’t even just an aspiration for him – it’s his view of reality.
“ if all those three groups decide to save – as they often do – then the government has no choice but to borrow”
I thought his position was the reverse – savers should have no choice but to lend to the state. And forget paying interest, the state should just take your saving.
I often wonder how much economic damage would occur if the government didn’t owe any money.
Well it would be catastrophic for the likes of the Rothschilds which is why it will never happen.
Before I retired from Electronic Engineering design, we had people who gave the impression of knowledge of the subjects, but in reality were chancers who had minimal depth of understanding of the discipline. Usually found out when they couldn’t handle a design brief.
Murphy is like one of those – a chancer with little real knowledge, bluffing his way though things beyond his abilities, making assertions which he cannot justify. A sad and hopeless failure incapable of success.
O/T, but this made me LOL…
https://freespeechunion.org/i-was-debanked-like-nigel-farage-says-ex-bank-of-england-economist/
Twat deserved it.