Turner made the above point in this article. Or at least he got near to saying the above. Nice to see someone in power getting to grips with Modern Monetary Theory.
Warren Mosler, a leading MMTer argued some time ago that government debt is a nonsense, and that the only liability issued by the government / central bank machine should be money, or more accurately, monetary base. See second last paragraph here.
I argued the same in 2010 here.
Of course, if the entire debt WERE MONETISED, that would probably be inflationary, thus it would be necessary to take countervailing anti-inflationary measures. I favour raised taxes. Turner has other ideas there. But the important point is that IN PRINCIPLE there is no difficulty in monetising the debt.
As distinct from “principle”, there might well be POLITICAL difficulties, but then there are always political difficulties in raising taxes – even when there is absolutely no resulting effect on GDP, employment or unemployment levels, as would be the case in the debt was monetised in a competent manner.
Also, in saying that there are no difficulties in principle in monetising the debt, I’m not saying that doing so is necessarily a good idea. That is, there are some arguments for debt as long as the interest paid on it is around zero in real or inflation adjusted terms. Personally I’d aim for a small negative rate: that way the country rips off its creditors, and I’m all for ripping people off..:-)
As to the world’s leading debt-phobes, Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, they’ll be completely baffled, and probably won’t know what to think about all this till the day they die.
(h/t to MikeNorman.)