[Skip to the end]
This is the exact same line Niall Ferguson is spewing.
He also says the two choices are inflating or defaulting.
The inflation would be from too much aggregate demand and a too small output gap.
That would mean that fatefull day would be an economy with maybe 4% unemployment and 90%+ capacity utilization and an overheating economy in general.
Sounds like that’s the goal of deficit spending to me- so in faccct he’s saying deficit spending works with his rant on why it doesn’t.
And if we do need to raise taxes to cool things down some day, we can start with a tax on interest income if we want to cut payments to bond holders.
Regarding the supposed default alternative to inflation, in the full employment and high capacity utilization scenario that might call for a tax increase to cool it down, I don’t see how default fits in or why it would even be considered.
In fact, with our countercyclical tax structure, strong growth that follows deficits automatically drives down the deficit, and can even drive it into surplus, as happened in the 1990’s. In that case one must be quick to reverse the growth constraining surplus should the economy fall apart as happend shortly after y2k.
Feel free to pass this along to either.
June 12 (FT)—US budgetary prospects are dire, disastrous even. Without a major permanent fiscal tightening, starting as soon as cyclical considerations permit, and preferably sooner, the country is headed straight for a build up of public debt that will either have to be inflated away or that will be â€˜resolvedâ€™ through sovereign default.