The William Hague article on debt is actually really weird and I can hardly follow it. But basically it's wrong.
It's ironic that he sets out on a hearty historical analogy. Because historically speaking our spikes of debt/GDP have been unwound not by paying down debt, but by growing GDP, a bit of inflation [quite a bit in the 70s and 80s] and financial repression.
What does this mean? 
'Inflation could come back because of our debt. And a lot of our debt is index linked. So it will rise with prices. So inflation will make our debt go out of control!'
Poor man. He carried the torch of Tory fiscal conservatism for a while, and he feels strongly that something is not right about current circumstances, but is hopelessly confused. Things are bad, and could get worse, but he can't really explain to himself why.
Where do you start with this? I taught an undergrad 1st year course at City for a couple of years, and you would sometimes get stuff this confused, and struggle to find marks to get them over the pass line.
We are running inflation risks by borrowing to support the pandemic. But they are small and manageable. And it's not just me saying that - govt bond markets think this too and lots of the people trading those bonds are paid money to figure it out!
Moreover, this policy is so much superior than not doing it. Which will make social distancing untenable, ignite the virus too early, and cast a long shadow over the recovery with poverty, bankruptcy and homelessness.
Even on narrow public finance terms there is a good chance that it would be self-defeating, throttling the tax base through its effect on economic activity.
He's right about MMT. But it doesn't help that such a confused piece takes a pop at it as obviously he struggles with the general topic [fair enough - it's hard].
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
