As a matter of fact, it’s the economic orthodoxy. The insight that eludes critics of debt-financed government spending as a policy tool, is that they fall into the trap of the fallacy of composition – just because saving is good for an individual in times of uncertainty, doesn’t mean it’s good for society in aggregate.
Similarly, if individuals and companies are averse to spending, doesn’t mean it’s good for the economy if the government doesn’t do it too. Of course, making sure that government spending is effective and supports nominal spending and economic recovery remains a thorny issue, as is the level of sustainable debt that a country can bear over the long term. On that basis, a reliance on monetary policy is generally preferred – but that’s hard to do near the zero interest rate boundary.
But often, the debate shouldn’t even have to go that far – I’ve always been of the opinion that it’s relative debt (relative to income and wealth), and not absolute debt that matters. And you really shouldn’t talk about debt without talking about its inverse, wealth and income.
So this article just about pushes all the wrong buttons for me:
All those IOUs stashed under America’s carpet
Andy Mukherjee
NOV 22 — The most accurate depiction of the way United States policy makers have dealt with the unsustainable, unserviceable debt that caused the financial crisis of 2008 has to be this: “Bury that putrid stuff under a carpet of cash and hope that no one notices.” …