Who's going to take a haircut on the national debt? |
Why Japan's debt can never be repaid
If the
1,000 trillion yen national debt were a 50-year mortgage, the homeowner would
have to pay down an average of 20 trillion yen in principal every year. Right
now, the Japanese government has an income of 42 trillion, and 10.5 trillion of
that goes to interest on the debt. To start paying off the debt, it would have
to pay 20 trillion per year, leaving just 12 trillion to pay for defense,
health care, education and so on. However, the current budget is 103 trillion,
meaning that present spending obligations force the government to borrow an
additional 61 trillion yen and forget about ever paying down the principal. The
GDP and the tax base could never expand enough to generate the funds necessary.
We could conceivably wish for high levels of inflation over the next few decades,
which would make debt payments affordable, but the levels of inflation
necessary could have some unpleasant downsides. Economists like to debate
whether it is really a good idea to “inflate your way out of debt.” In the
future, the government could be in the same position as a retiree who bought a
bungalow for $20,000 in 1955 which is now worth $400,000.
But if
inflating your way out of debt were so simple, why wouldn't the government
consider going all in with this thought experiment, something which is no
stranger than the trillion dollar coin:
The government
could print a new set of currency bills, all with double the face value of old ones. All
old bills could instantly be exchanged for the new bills. Every old 10,000 yen
bill could be freely exchanged for a new 20,000 yen bill. The government would
simultaneously run a computer program through the bank system and double the
value of all deposits. Of course, all wages and prices would instantly double, including
the price of foreign currencies, but - most importantly - all debts public and private would remain at their previous
values. (It's no longer just Africa that needs a debt jubilee.) In this case, it would be glaringly obvious that creditors were being forced to take a haircut, and they would react by ceasing to lend or charging much higher
interest rates, with a preference for short-term contracts with this newly
unreliable debtor. If they were foreigners, they might want to retaliate with military force, as has happened in previous cases of national default. In any case, it would now be much easier for the government
to start paying down its debt, and if it were not easy enough, this experiment
could be run at different values. The currency could be tripled or quadrupled
in its value. There would be no upper limit.
But hey, I’m
no economist. What do I know? Yet is seems to me that the present policy of
setting a mild 2% inflation target is just this very same scenario enacted in timid slow motion, and unlike the scenario above, there is no guarantee
that it will inflate wages and liquid assets for working folk - which is probably the reason "serious people" would find it absurd. But the 2% target is
so far short of what is necessary that there is no hope of it solving the
problem. If a country is saying that it needs to inflate its way out of debt,
it is tacitly announcing default.
In some
sense, it doesn't really matter. Money and financial crises are just reflections of the physical world. This is why they so easily adopt physical
phenomena like nuclear meltdowns as their metaphors. The debt crisis is the symbolic representation of the energy and environmental crisis. The national debt is like
nuclear waste and greenhouse gases. Everyone knows the un-repayable burden is
being passed on to future generations, but we choose not to apply elementary
school math skills, do the above calculations and face the real problem. (Note
that the largest number in the 50-year mortgage example was only four digits.) For
more simple math exercises, see Global
Warming’s Terrifying New Math.
Further
reading, if you want to take it from a couple experts:
“It is
not guaranteed that a state can inflate its way out of debt. The danger is all
too real that more inflation hits the costs and the revenues of the state in a
way which widens the gap or deficit. The only ways out of excessive
debt are to remove the deficit and grow the economy.”
-John Redwood. Can
You Inflate Your Way Out of Debt? December 12, 2012
“Turn next to whether it [inflating your way out of debt] will work. Inflation will do little for entities with floating rate liabilities (many households that borrowed near the peak of the boom) or relatively short term liabilities (banks). The US government, with debt duration of about 4 years, is unlikely to benefit much from a surprise inflation unless it is huge [bold emphasis added]; and the bulk of its promises are social security and healthcare that cannot be inflated away [because they are indexed to inflation]. Even distressed households that have borrowed long term could be worse off – with unemployment likely to subdue nominal wage growth, and higher food and fuel prices cutting disposable income.”
-Raghuram Rajan. “Why
We Can’t Inflate Our Way Out of Debt.” The
Financial Times. August 15, 2011. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4f8b84d8-c72d-11e0-a9ef-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2HuYrwtib
At the Symposium on the Health and Medical Consequences of Fukushima, one of the presenters made an excellent point...
ReplyDeleteHe said the storage of nuclear waste is the largest form of long-term debt that any country with nuclear waste has.
I figure about 20,000 generations will pay to store the waste.
Yes, that is loooooong-term debt.
Link to the symposium:
http://enenews.com/watch-live-stream-fukushima-event-nyc