<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Deal With The&nbsp;Debt!]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[
<p>Or face serious inflation. To my mind, the key test of the Obama administration next year will be a serious move to get long-term deficits under control. It&#39;s asinine to expect fiscal improvement in the depths of a deep recession, and dumb to want government to cut back now. But in ten years&#39; time? <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71520770-4a2c-11de-8e7e-00144feabdc0.html">John Taylor</a> sees the scenarios that could take place if we don&#39;t get a handle on long-term entitlements and defense soon:</p>
<div class="blockquote" style="margin-left: 40px;">Inflation will do it. But how much? To bring the debt-to-GDP ratio down to the same level as at the end of 2008 would take a doubling of prices. That 100 per cent increase would make nominal GDP twice as high and thus cut the debt-to-GDP ratio in half, back to 41 from 82 per cent. A 100 per cent increase in the price level means about 10 per cent inflation for 10 years. But it would not be that smooth – probably more like the great inflation of the late 1960s and 1970s with boom followed by bust and recession every three or four years, and a successively higher inflation rate after each recession.</div>
]]></html></oembed>