From Phil McDuff in the Guardian this morning:
Perhaps the one upside of finally achieving the ludicrous goal [of the government balancing its current budget] is that we will now see there was no reason for it. Maybe at long last, when this meaningless balance-sheet position turns out not to be the gateway to the sunlit uplands of growth and prosperity, the media will stop simply accepting deficit hysteria as a given, and start asking the questions it should have been asking from the beginning: what is all this suffering and poverty for, exactly?
Quite so. And Phil, generously quotes me saying (from here):
A growing economy requires general price increases, or inflation. Except under unusual circumstances, a general increase in prices requires an increasing money supply. A fiscal deficit is the only way in which money can be injected into an economy continuously. It follows that governments must run a near perpetual deficit or face the risk of creating a liquidity crisis due to a shortage in the money supply, which would then create a risk of deflation.
What's good about this? Simply the fact that it is being said in the Guardian, which remains too wedded to the false log of tax and spend: that's what's good about it. On this occasion the right question is being asked.