Should federal borrowing target nominal income rather than the budget balance?
Core argument: U.S. private indebtedness sits at its lowest level since 2000, though still high, while total debt issuance remains remarkably low, which the author reads as a favorable outcome.
If the current account deficit is taken as a given, then there must be some combination of U.S. domestic entities on the other side that are net sellers of financial assets. None of those entities has a track record of consistently translating massive issuance into productive investments. But the federal government at least has the virtue of being able to issue liabilities that are reliably easy to service out of current income and that, historically, have been useful to investors as hedges for risk assets during downturns. Rather than targeting the budget balance for its own sake, federal borrowing and monetary policy together should be the output of a process aimed at supplying enough nominal income to the domestic private sector (but not too much). In particular, the goals should be ensuring that there is enough spending to keep businesses investing and hiring, while also minimizing the need for (or appeal of) excessive private borrowing. From this perspective, the past few years look pretty good. Private indebtedness is at its lowest since 2000, albeit still high, while total debt issuance remains remarkably low.

