The real economic problem that we have is that politicians are listening to the totally unjustified calls for the national debt to be reduced

Posted on

I took part in this Twitter exchange last night:

I note the exchange for two reasons. First, I have to take seriously anyone who played on Sultans of Swing. Second, because the mistake is commonplace and worth noting.

The idea that the size of the national debt is a threat to well being is, prima facie, wrong.

The so-called national debt is made up the savings of pension funds, life assurance companies, banks and foreign governments in the main. They are no threat to anyone.

It's also a simple fact that about one third of the debt is owned by the UK government, meaning the debt to GDP ratio is actually  less than 70%.

And what, anyway, does this debt represent? It is the money created by the government as a result of its spending not yet taxed back by it. It is, in effect, the national money supply.

Why has that increased? There are two main reasons. One is that commercial banks have not created enough liquidity to ensure the smooth operation of the national economy.

The other is that the amount of money needed to provide liquidity within the economy has increased because what is called the velocity of circulation of money has slowed considerably since the global financial crisis, but also because since the use of cash declined considerably, more money is required to compensate for that. The government has provided it by not taxing back money it has created.

Does that create a risk - as David Knopfler went in to claim in a follow up tweet? No, not at all. 100% debt to GDP is now the ‘new normal'. It simply reflects the need for money in the type of economy we now have. There is nothing more to it than that.

Should we then worry about this and try to reduce the debt, which is incidentally the exact opposite of Bank of England policy since it is planning to sell more debt back into markets over the next year? My answer is we need not worry about this, although the Bank has its policy wrong.

The reason for my suggestion is that providing the liquidity - or money supply - to the market that the market needs is precisely what a government should be doing and is responsible economic activity. Just as, incidentally, providing a safe place for money to be saved is also a vital function of government.

What is dangerous is trying to stop such essential actions. It seems though that most economists and commentators want our politicians to do just that. Problematically, the politicians are listening. That's the real crisis that we have.


Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:

You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.

And if you would like to support this blog you can, here: