Do some more reading around how governments fund spending and various levers available to them. It’s an area quite far removed from how most people think of spending as their only reference point is their own household spending and budgeting. This is really quite different.

I am no fan of this government and their handling of the pandemic but what they are doing with borrowing is just sensible given the situation we are in.

Just a quick google search but this guy seems to have produced a nice little summary of the options available for governments to raise money. The section on borrowing below - should be a fairly digestible read.

[Link]

This guy is using an example of the general public buying long term government bonds, like Keir Starmer was advocating. How much do we need to raise? £500 billion, or is it a £trillion? Going to need a lot of Bob’s and Ken’s to invest money they aren’t going to see again until they’re dead or in a residential home. Not saying it’s not going to happen. I just don’t see it being the miracle cure. I expect we’ll sell ourselves out to China a bit more. They can do no wrong after all. Instead of selling the family silver in the way have been doing we’ll sell our future citizens’ housekeeping and disposable income to the very country responsible for this in the first place.

The U.K. current account deficit is 3.8 or 4% and not 2% like this man is using in his nice example. When will we ever have economic growth (that reduces the debt) higher than 3.8%, that lasts longer than a quarter or two?

I’ve always seen the upside to some devaluation rather than black Wednesday forced devaluation (and interest rates hiked above people’s eyes to prop up the £pound). Problem is every country is in a similar stage in their economic life cycle so what do you do? Out devalue each other? I expect the world economy bodies might have something to say about this kind of thing.

(Funny how all you remainers went potty about devaluation when it was caused by something you didn’t agree with but could actually benefit the people the left should be looking after. Blue collar workers. You know, the labour force the Labour Party were originally looking out for and not the sneering Emily Thornberry force).

Printing money is of course an option, but is only going to go okay if inflation and interest rates remain low like the last decade. For how long would that need to remain the case again?

I get the impression there’s a lot of people out there who think because money is now numbers on computer screens with no tangible worth or creation that it can be created whenever it’s needed and it’ll never ever matter. Nobody understands it so don’t be bothered about it. It’ll start to dawn on people again when there’s no furlough and GDP isn’t anywhere near high enough (how much will that account deficit be? Higher than 3.8%?)

COYP

[Link]

My favourite part is 'far right'

Red and Blue Army!

This is missing the woods for the trees on a massive scale.

These methods are viable within the context of normal deficits and are hardly anything new.

This guy you link to seems a bit one track. He suggests that leaving the ERM was better for the UK economy.....sure it was longer term, but he ignores the massive short term cost of it.

He also suggests Argentina defaulting was also better for their economy when it has resulted in massive interest on loans and defaulting carries with it several negatives even if you ignore the ethics of it.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Argentina has defaulted several times it makes foreign investment much harder and raising money more difficult, why would you loan money to a country that doesn't pay it back.

Something for the SNP to mull about if they ever get independence and decide not to take their fair share of the UK national debt.

One more point