Find us on Google+

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

The Fallacy of Unsustainable Debt?

Lord Skildesky neatly draws out how personal (credit card) debt differs from national debt, with the inevitable conclusion that the current narrative being espoused by Eurozone countries is leading them to the abyss :

Europe is now haunted by the specter of debt. All European leaders quail before it. To exorcise the demon, they are putting their economies through the wringer.

It doesn’t seem to be helping. Their economies are still tumbling, and the debt continues to grow. The credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s has just downgraded the sovereign-debt ratings of nine eurozone countries, including France. The United Kingdom is likely to follow.

To anyone not blinded by folly, the explanation for this mass downgrade is obvious. If you deliberately aim to shrink your GDP, your debt-to-GDP ratio is bound to grow. The only way to cut your debt (other than by default) is to get your economy to grow.

Fear of debt is rooted in human nature; so the extinction of it as a policy aim seems right to the average citizen. Everyone knows what financial debt means: money owed, often borrowed. To be in debt can produce anxiety if one is uncertain whether, when the time comes, one will be able to repay what one owes.

This anxiety is readily transferred to national debt – the debt owed by a government to its creditors. How, people ask, will governments repay all of the hundreds of billions of dollars that they owe? As British Prime Minister David Cameron put it: “Government debt is the same as credit-card debt; it’s got to be paid back.”

The next step readily follows: in order to repay, or at least reduce, the national debt, the government must eliminate its budget deficit, because the excess of spending over revenue continually adds to the national debt. Indeed, if the government fails to act, the national debt will become, in today’s jargon, “unsustainable.”

Again, an analogy with household debt readily suggests itself. My death does not extinguish my debt, reasons the sensible citizen. My creditors will have the first claim on my estate – everything that I wanted to leave to my children. Similarly, a debt left unpaid too long by a government is a burden on future generations: I may enjoy the benefits of government extravagance, but my children will have to foot the bill.

That is why deficit reduction is at the centre of most governments’ fiscal policy today. A government with a “credible” plan for “fiscal consolidation” supposedly is less likely to default on its debt, or leave it for the future to pay. This will, it is thought, enable the government to borrow money more cheaply than it would otherwise be able to do, in turn lowering interest rates for private borrowers, which should boost economic activity. So fiscal consolidation is the royal road to economic recovery.

This, the official doctrine of most developed countries today, contains at least five major fallacies, which pass largely unnoticed, because the narrative is so plausible.

First, governments, unlike private individuals, do not have to “repay” their debts. A government of a country with its own central bank and its own currency can simply continue to borrow by printing the money which is lent to it. This is not true of countries in the eurozone. But their governments do not have to repay their debts, either. If their (foreign) creditors put too much pressure on them, they simply default. Default is bad. But life after default goes on much as before.

Second, deliberately cutting the deficit is not the best way for a government to balance its books. Deficit reduction in a depressed economy is the road not to recovery, but to contraction, because it means cutting the national income on which the government’s revenues depend. This will make it harder, not easier, for it to cut the deficit. The British government already must borrow £112 billion ($172 billion) more than it had planned when it announced its deficit-reduction plan in June 2010.

Third, the national debt is not a net burden on future generations. Even if it gives rise to future tax liabilities (and some of it will), these will be transfers from taxpayers to bond holders. This may have disagreeable distributional consequences. But trying to reduce it now will be a net burden on future generations: income will be lowered immediately, profits will fall, pension funds will be diminished, investment projects will be canceled or postponed, and houses, hospitals, and schools will not be built. Future generations will be worse off, having been deprived of assets that they might otherwise have had.

Fourth, there is no connection between the size of national debt and the price that a government must pay to finance it. The interest rates that Japan, the United States, the UK, and Germany pay on their national debt are equally low, despite vast differences in their debt levels and fiscal policies.

Finally, low borrowing costs for governments do not automatically reduce the cost of capital for the private sector. After all, corporate borrowers do not borrow at the “risk-free” yield of, say, US Treasury bonds, and evidence shows that monetary expansion can push down the interest rate on government debt, but have hardly any effect on new bank lending to firms or households. In fact, the causality is the reverse: the reason why government interest rates in the UK and elsewhere are so low is that interest rates for private-sector loans are so high.

As with “the specter of Communism” that haunted Europe in Karl Marx’s famous manifesto, so today “[a]ll the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise” the specter of national debt. But statesmen who aim to liquidate the debt should recall another famous specter – the specter of revolution.


  1. Whenever supply side economics (neoliberal economics) leads to a collapse in demand, the answer is to shore up demand.

    Africa has been under supply side economics, courtesy of the World Bank and IMF, since the 1970s.

    They destroyed the Somalian and Ethiopian economies, by forcing staple growers to grow inedible cash crops to pay off the IMF, stopping the barter between farmers and pastoralists, which led to the famines of the 1980s.

    (Read: Somalia: the Real Causes of Famine
    by Michel Chossudovsky
    Global Research, July 21, 2011)

    Supply side economics (neoliberalism) only concentrates wealth at the top of society, where demand side economics equally spread the benefits of economic activity across the entire population.

  2. If you look at Japan, it has the most equitable society on earth, courtesy of such policies as universal access to education, healthcare, land redistribution among the small farmers, strong government involvement in the economy, and protection for domestic industries. Especially the last has allowed the economy to accumulate wealth.

    Unlike the neoliberal myth, Japan never grew to the third biggest economy in the world (see: by opening up to 'foreign investment', which is really foreign ownership, and never allowed or enabled foreign car companies to set up shop on their shores.

    What is happening today in Europe and parts of the United States, is the final application of a failed or highly partisan ideology which only benefits trillionairs and billionairs, in a disaster situation, as described in Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. A disaster created completely through deregulation of the financial industry, and with the connivance of Goldman Sachs. It are employees of Goldman Sachs, the World Bank and IMF which have been stacking countries with debt, specifically so they can later return and demand the hard assets that countries and people own.

    This is no different in Zambia (privatisation of the mines in return for scrapping $7 billion in debt through HIPC), as it is in Greece. If you look back at it, the debt was created by IMF/WB employees in the Greek government, which hid their real debt picture in order to allow them to join the EU.

  3. I am sick and tired of listening to the lies (or is it just ignorance) of the likes of the MMD, and their defense of national plunder by 'foreign investors'.

    Foreign investment means foreign ownership, especially when the only criterium is how big a bribe the politicians can take.

    Could it be done right - yes. Will it be done right - no.

    We have to follow the Japanese model, and show nationalism in economic affairs. Buy Zambian first as a matter of law, not open markets to cheap Chinese manufactures. Give cheap credit to anyone who wants to start a business in Zambia. Get that credit by building up cash reserves from taxes on the extractive industries, so the country can diversify into agriculture and manufacturing, and build infrastructure.

    I personally believe (a very strong hunch) that the reason that the credit derivatives and other toxic assets amount to nearly a quadrillion dollars, is that this is the value of the entire planet.

    I think the endgame if this isn't stopped, is that the trillionair dynasties will take over the entire planet through debt.


All contributors should follow the basic principles of a productive dialogue: communicate their perspective, ask, comment, respond,and share information and knowledge, but do all this with a positive approach.

This is a friendly website. However, if you feel compelled to comment 'anonymously', you are strongly encouraged to state your location / adopt a unique nick name so that other commentators/readers do not confuse your comments with other individuals also commenting anonymously.