From the Google Book:
From page 3. I omit their "basic circumstances" and go straight to "the guides to economic policy":
My immediate reactions:
- Number (1) is a complete failure.
- Number (4), after 75 years, can only be seen as some kind of joke.
- Number
(6) can be restated as my call for policy to accelerate the repayment
of private sector debt -- to fight inflation; to counterbalance existing
policies that accelerate credit use; to reduce the risk of
financial crisis and deflation; and to promote economic vigor.
Things did not work out according to the 1949 plan. The problem was not that they failed to understand what was required. They understood, and they were clear on it. On the topic of federal debt, under the heading "The Problem of Debt Management" on page 4 they say:
The first inescapable principle of successful debt management is successful maintenance of high levels of national income.
To deal with debt successfully requires a vigorous economy and "successful maintenance of high levels of national income". I make the same argument today: I call for more rapid economic growth in these times of excessive debt.
On the next page, they restate their thought:
High-level income, high-level production, high-level employment is indispensable to national solvency.
However, they do not consider federal debt alone. They also note:
The servicing and retirement of private indebtedness likewise will be impossible unless national income remains high. It, too, should be paid off as much as possible in boom years.
The failure of mainstream economists to accept the 1949 view of credit and debt for the last 50 years is the cause of the decline of the US economy.
The more we rely on credit, the more we need policy to encourage repayment of debt. The deeper we are in debt, the more we need "boom years" to reduce our debt. The more we reduce private debt, the sooner will vigor return. And the sooner we restore economic vigor, the sooner will our efforts to reduce public-sector debt succeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment