Writing Dreams

Two recent events have rocked the world of a couple of internet denizens.

The first is David C. Simon, the creator of the webcomic Crimson Dark. Simon, a talented user of computer graphics and scriptwriting, has been nabbed by the Game company that is producing "Star Wars: The Old Republic". Simon's role will be mainly in writing, but there's no doubt that his skills in creating Crimson Dark were an important part of this process.

The second is that a Redditor named Prufrock451 with a good script idea is now in talks with a Hollywood company. While this is early days yet, it is the culmination of a very quick few weeks in which the Redditor began writing a sci fi/fantasy story in which a Marine battalion in Afghanistan is transported back in time to ancient Rome. The story, called Rome Sweet Rome, started off mere weeks ago as an experiment in writing that somehow gained a huge following amongst Redditors. Just the mere idea of Machineguns mowing down Praetorian Guards got people involved, not just in reading but also in editing. I suppose you could call it a Saw and Sandal epic (see here).

A proposed solution: Co-ordinated international fiscal and currency policy

Synopsis: A new international agreement between China, Japan the US and the Eurozone should be made to boost economic growth: The US Dollar should be actively depreciated against the value of the Japanese Yen and the Chinese Yuan; Japan and China should enact substantial stimulus programs while the US dollar drops in value. This should boost internal demand in Japan and China which would result in a higher amount of goods and services exported from the US. The Eurozone should also enact a stimulus program while depreciating the Euro slightly. This would ensure both an increase in overall economic growth in all nations while solving the current account imbalances which helped create the economic crisis in the first place.

Due to the inter-relationships between various economies and the imbalances that occur between them, it strikes me that one of the better solutions to the world's current malaise would be to enact some sort of co-ordinated fiscal and monetary policy.

I am one who believes that our current situation has arisen mainly due to imbalances in world investment. Huge current account surpluses in some nations have led to a permanent culture of saving while huge current account surpluses in other nations have led to a permanent culture of borrowing. As a result, certain nations have become "geared" to either saving & production or borrowing & consumption. The response to the economic crisis so far has not resulted in a move away from this imbalance but has rather sought to entrench it further. For example, policy in the US is all about the importance to reviving consumption, either via various stimulus packages or quantitative easing - all of which are designed to boost consumption and reduce saving. Meanwhile, China and Japan and other nations geared towards saving and production continue to manipulate forex markets to keep their nations producing and their citizens saving, all the while waiting for the US to begin consumption and borrowing again.

Well let me suggest the opposite as a solution.

If we want to rebalance the world economy at the same time as boost it, then there needs to be a shift towards balanced current accounts. This would mean that the US would no longer be the world's borrower and consumer, and Japan and China no longer be the world's saver and producer. It would work something like this:

1. A new "Plaza accord" is agreed upon between the US, China and Japan and the Eurozone. This agreement would see a depreciation in the value of the US dollar against the Japanese Yen and the Chinese Yuan. A small depreciation in the Euro would also occur.
   
2. At the same time as this occurs, the governments of China, Japan and the Eurozone enact substantial fiscal stimulus programs to boost internal demand.
3. The increase in internal demand from Japan and China combined with a lower US Dollar will result in an increase in US production.
4. All three nations, along with the Eurozone, agree to have a currency board to ensure that a balanced current account exists between them. This currency board would not exist to peg the three currencies but to merely ensure that the current account remains balanced within the limits of a floating currency.

What this will do is ensure that future Chinese and Japanese economic growth is no longer linked to US consumption and borrowing. The stimulus program in China and Japan should increase the demand for US goods and services. This would increase aggregate demand in the US without relying upon US government spending. Now to some questions about this:

How does the Eurozone fit in?
The Eurozone already has a balanced current account. Unlike many commentators I support the notion of the Eurozone and believe that it is an optimal currency area, which means that any internal current account imbalances amongst Eurozone countries is not as important as the current account of the whole. At present, the Eurozone's current account is nicely balanced, which means that any new Plaza accord should aim to change the current account balances of China, Japan and the US, but not the Eurozone. Of course the stimulus program in the Eurozone would only be useful if the current account remains balanced, which is why only a small depreciation in the Euro is required.

But the US doesn't produce anything!
This is plainly wrong as any judicious person knows. The US has the world's largest manufacturing base. Any increase in external demand will result in an increase in US manufacturing. In order to boost manufacturing and create jobs (especially for those with lower skills) a balancing of the current account must be undertaken.

Can we trust the currency boards?
So long as there is an agreement between the nations involved, so long as the boards are kept free from political and market influence and so long as they are answerable for the decisions they make, then they should be trustworthy.

Can Japan afford it?
Japan's long period of economic malaise has been accompanied mainly by a lack of internal demand. Balancing the Japanese current account and enacting a stimulus would ensure that any boost in economic performance arising from the stimulus is felt mainly in internal demand. In short, Japanese consumption - which is problematic - will be boosted; simultaneously US production - which is problematic - will be boosted. Accompanying this new economic situation will be a decrease in Japanese savings levels - which are too high - and an increase in US savings levels - which are too low. The result of this should be an increase in Japanese economic growth and, with it, an increase in tax revenue. Japan's public funds are certainly problematic, and so I would suggest an increase in tax rates accompany the increase in government spending. The short term boost in spending - which would boost economic growth - would then give way to a longer term sustainable economic performance which, because taxes are higher, would result in increase government revenue and more government debt being paid off. It stands to reason that the Bank of Japan change its policy to, at the very least, prevent long-term deflation (a phenomenon that is felt more by the Japanese GDP deflator than in the CPI).

What about Wall Street?
Let the follow rather than lead. With an increase in US manufacturing and exports, Wall Street should begin investing in companies that actually produce goods and services. Then Wall Street will be doing its job properly.

What about the rest of the world?
With China, Japan, the US and the Eurozone combined, this agreement accounts for over 75% of world GDP. The other 25% will probably need further international agreements - but at the moment we can leave that for the future.

What about US Conservatives?
This agreement won't need much in the way of further government spending for the US. US Conservatives couldn't care less about Japanese, Chinese or European big government spending. Actually, they should be happy that US goods will be increasingly sold in China. They should also welcome the profits made by US industrialists.

An analysis of the past 30 years

So I was playing around with my spreadsheet and some numbers recently and decided to work out just how much money has been invested in the sharemarket as a proportion of GDP. Of course we remember the time when the Dow hit 10,000 and unemployment was low - but it's currently over 10,000 and unemployment is high. This should indicate something strange going on, not to mention question the idea that the Dow represents the economy.

I couldn't use the Dow index, though. Instead I decided on the Wilshire 5000, which is an index that a) encompasses all shares in all publicly traded markets in the US, not just the top performing ones, and b) comes up with an index number that also closely approximates the dollar value of the entire sharemarket. For example, the W5000 index for 2011-08-18 (last Friday) closed at 11806.16, which approximates $11.8 Trillion. Historical numbers of this broad index can be found at St Louis, as always. So what happens when you look at this index and compare it to GDP? This:

By way of comparison, throughout the 1970s this index averaged around 56% of GDP, and swung between 38% and 83% of GDP. The 1980s and half the 1990s thus saw a W5000 performance not too different from previous experiences. Then from 1995 onwards we have the tech boom, which peaks in 2000 Q1 at over 140% of GDP. Yet there was no decline back to the sub 80s for the long term but a re-inflating of the bubble from 2003 Q1 onwards (which, by the way, occurs around the same time as the Federal Funds Rate drops from 1.75% to 1.25% and then 1.00% for the rest of 2003). A second, lower, peak is reached in 2007 Q2 (108%), which then plunges back down to 58% in 2009 Q1 as a natural result of the 2008 credit crisis. Since then it has re-inflated back up to 92% of GDP in 2011 Q2. Of course, there is a huge chance that this number is going to crash down again.

What appears to have happened is simple - there has been a sharemarket investment bubble that has inflated since 1995 and which has yet to be properly dealt with. My belief is that the higher the sharemarket value to GDP ratio is (as demonstrated by the graph above) the more chance there is of a bust and a damaging recession. Either the sharemarket needs to crash down or GDP has to increase to ensure a more sustainable level. Anything below 50% of GDP should be a policy goal. This can be achieved through a Tobin Tax or a Market Capitalisation Tax imposed upon the sharemarket - with taxation rates increasing the higher the ratio gets in order to prevent runaway over-investment.

This issue also reveals shortcomings in monetary policy. While monetary policy affects the entire market, it affects the financial market and its behaviour directly through its operations. If the market is in the process of over-investing, then all monetary policy ends up doing is re-inflating the bubble, rather than mitigating liquidity issues arising from a deflating bubble. Ideally monetary policy in this situation should create a "soft landing" for the deflating bubble - but in practice it has simply re-inflated the bubble and, as a result, postpones the bubble bursting to a later date.

This issue also reveals shortcomings in fiscal policy. Tax cuts for the rich have not resulted in a substantial increase in money velocity but rather a further investment into the share market.

Finally it also appears that our current economic state is the result of the tech boom's bust. We're paying now for decisions made by the financial market up to 16 years ago. While it is true that the 2008 credit crisis had a more damaging impact upon the economy and upon unemployment than the 2001 recession, we can trace back the credit crisis to the tech boom.

Now the second graph to look at concerns personal saving. I've based this upon the St Louis Fed PSAVE series which measure the dollar amount of personal saving. I've then compared it to GDP. What has happened since 1981? This:

By way of comparison, between 1951 and 1980, the ratio of personal savings to GDP averaged 6.04%, with the lowest being 3.86% in 1951 Q1 and the highest being 9.28% in 1975 Q2. The average between 1980 and today has been 4.27%.

So since 1980 personal savings as a percent of GDP has dropped. In fact it dropped below the 4% level on a more or less continual basis since... 1995 Q2. Now where have we heard of that quarter before? Oh yes... that was when the sharemarket tech bubble started. In recent years the savings ratio has tried desperately to rise above 5% but has gotten no further than 4.84%

My belief is that too much personal savings is bad, but that too little is bad as well. If we assume that the 1951-1980 period was a better period for personal saving then obviously it should increase in these times. But it hasn't. Why?

The first is that we need to look at personal saving at the same time as we look at sharemarket investing. As sharemarket investing has grown so has personal saving dropped. This indicates that people are investing more in the share market than they are in cash.

The second reason is that GDP has grown substantially in response to sharemarket investment. While it has created a "virtuous cycle" for part of that time, it means that ordinary people have had less money in proportion to GDP for them to save.

But here's another graph: Public debt.

One rule of thumb that people over the years have believed in is that when the government goes into debt, the private sector begins to save. Yet this doesn't appear to be true when it comes to personal saving. Since 1980 personal saving as proportion of GDP has decreased, while US government debt has increased. If the rule of thumb worked, then why wasn't there an increase in personal savings?

Well in one sense there was an increase in personal savings - investing in the share market. Share market investing, because it became so attractive, took money away from cash investment.

And the fourth graph is interesting too: The balance on the current account.

By way of comparison, the period between 1960 Q4 and 1979 Q4 saw an average current account surplus of 0.26% of GDP, with a high of 1.06% of GDP in 1975 Q4 and a low of -0.87% in 1978 Q3. Since 1980 the current account has averaged around -2.58% per year, with a high of 0.05% in 1991 Q4 and a low of -6.11% in 2006 Q3.

The first thing to note is that the first drop in the current account between 1984 and 1988 occurred during a time when the US Dollar increased in value. The Plaza accord was signed in 1985 Q3 to reduce the value of the US Dollar. This eventually saw the current account reach a trough in 1987 Q2 and begin to rise again.

The 1997 Asian financial crisis then saw a rush of investment into the US Dollar, which began rising again. By 1998 Q3 the current account had dropped past -2% of GDP. Since then the current account has been deeply negative.

We need to remember that the world cashed in on America's sharemarket boom as well. The current account deficit hid inflation and prevented any meaningful tightening of monetary policy to rein in the asset-price bubble that had formed.

In light of this, what would OSO do?

1. Institute a Tobin Tax or Market Capitalisation Tax to dissuade over-investment in the sharemarket. Rates would be increased the more the market over-invests. This money would, at the moment, be useful in paying off government debt.
2. Create a currency board to control US currency. This would not be an abandonment of a floating currency and nor would it be a return to Bretton Woods. Instead a currency board would act to ensure a balanced current account by entering the Forex market and either buying or selling US dollars in response to current account fluctuations. The US would also take the lead in creating a new world trade agreement to ensure that all major industrialised nations would institute currency boards to do the same thing for their own currency zones: ensure balanced current accounts (rather than current account deficits or surpluses). I go into more detail on this idea here.
3. Create more broad-based monetary policy to ensure a wider scope for its effect: Quantitative easing needs to do more than just buy back government bonds - it could also be used to directly fund treasury, to create banks or even be used in Keynesian stimulus programs.
4. Regulate the financial industry to dissuade the ponzi-like nature of modern financial investment. More details here.
5. Expand government services with a commensurate increase in taxation to create another "New Deal". A minor "Total War" economy needs to be examined again, though with money being spent on growth (and obviously the environment and global warming) rather than on military equipment and wars. More details here.
   

A Magical Method in the Money Making Madness

Inflation. No one likes too much of it, though there is some debate as to how much is good and how much is bad.

Inflation is often linked to money creation - though not always, since inflation can also result from supply shortages such as oil. Nevertheless history abounds with money printing experiments that ended up in hyperinflationary failure: Weimer Germany, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, Postwar Hungary and the Crisis of the Third Century being the best known ones.

Injudicious money creation will always create hyperinflation. If the Federal Reserve creates $1 out of thin air the amount of inflation it causes will be negligible. If it creates $1 Trillion the amount of inflation it causes will destroy the economy.

Of course money is created all the time through the fractional lending system. Most of this money is created by the commercial banking system. While some see conspiracies and unsustainability in this process, it has actually worked for millennia. Nevertheless the real heart of the fractional banking system is the role of the Central Bank, which, in the United States, is the Federal Reserve Bank.

Now I'm not going to go into the intricate details of how the system works. If you're unsure of how it works, go to the Wikipedia page. Using this as a basis, however, let me do some funny little experiments as to what injudicious money creation can theoretically do.

So here's graph no.1 showing how the system works in the United States. If we assume that the US economy is worth $1000 in total money supply, it looks like this:

This is, of course, identical to the Wikipedia page's graph.

But now let's begin playing. Let's say Congress and the President and the heads of the Fed suddenly suffer from a collective insanity... even more severe than the one they already have... and decide that they'll fix the deficit by simply creating money out of thin air. Now according to the latest data, the budget deficit is $1.2059 Trillion and represents around 8.11% of GDP. So what would happen if the powers that be decide to just create the money out of thin air, again assuming in our model that the US economy is worth $1000?

I've added the baseline there by way of comparison (the blue line). The yellow line represents the collectively insane decision.

That doesn't look too good does it? You're looking at a huge increase in the money supply and, as a result, a hyperinflationary situation probably similar to anything occurring through history.

But then let's take this even further. Let's say the US has been taken over by an Idiocracy... worse than the current mob... who decide that they'll just forget about taxes altogether and just create as much money as the government needs. Since the US Government represents about 25% of GDP, it would mean that an even greater amount of money would be added to the money supply:

Ouch. And that, my friends, is why money printing on the scale used by the Romans, the Germans, the Hungarians and Mugabe ends in abject failure.

But hang on, what's that thing called "The Reserve Rate"? - Well that's how much money commercial banks are forced to keep in reserve when lending. Adjusting the reserve rate is used by some nations (India and China for example) as a way of implementing monetary policy. If the reserve rate is increased, the money supply drops. If it is decreased, then the money supply is increased.

And so now my friends let me show you some real magic.

Let's go back to the US Government who wants to create money out of thin air simply to pay off the deficit, shown two graphs above, except this time we increase the reserve rate to 18.11%. Why 18.11%? Well it's the 10% reserve rate plus the 8.11% size of the deficit (in relation to GDP). So let's see what the outcome is:

What? Wait. Hang on? Is that possible? You're creating money out of thin air but not affecting the total money supply? Yes. How? By increasing the reserve rate.

Let me say this again: It is possible for large amounts of money to be created by fiat by a central bank and NOT induce inflation only if the reserve ratio is increased accordingly.

So what would happen in real life? Let's say the US Treasury, facing a shortfall in funds, approaches the Federal Reserve Bank for funds. The Fed then creates money by fiat, out of thin air, and gives it (not lends it) to Treasury. Treasury then uses this money to pay the bills. The Fed, however, increases the Reserve Rate accordingly to prevent the inflationary impact of this money creation.

Magic? No. Just a simple change to the equation - a change to the equation that was never thought of by Mugabe, Weimar Germany and others.

Don't believe me? Then do the spreadsheet yourself. Here is a screenshot of what I did with mine.

Long term readers of this blog might notice where I'm going here: My Zero Tax Idea. How would the graph look in the "Idiocracy" situation I described, where taxes are removed and the government is funded purely by money printing, except this time we adjust the Reserve Rate?

Yep. No increase in the total money supply and thus no inflation.

Is this mad? Does this completely misunderstand how the fractional banking system works? Or does this have the potential to revolutionise how governments work? It isn't Quantitative Easing, it's Quantitative Control.

Imagine: No taxes at all, but a completely functional government.

Note: This was discussed back in 2007 at Angry Bear. Megan McArdle at The Atlantic also examined it here. Since the math backs me up (as proven by the spreadsheet graphs), maybe we should seriously consider it?

EDIT: For nations that do not have a reserve rate (such as Australia) the baseline money creation would appear as a straight line going up at a 45% angle. In order for this system to work in countries that have no reserve rate, one must be introduced. This is how it would look:

But then what about nations with large governments? Take Denmark, for example, whose government represents 56.6% of economic output. How would this system react to such a large amount of central bank money? Would the fractional system still work? Yes:

The 14th Amendment and the potential for economic disaster

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution is currently being examined and touted as an important factor in the current debate about the government debt limit. I've blogged about this recently but I've had some more ideas about it. Here is the text again:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave. But all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Okay, the background of this amendment was post civil war. In its original context that first sentence guarantees the payment of debts incurred by the Federal Government in fighting and defeating the South. The second sentence, however, absolves the Federal Government from having to pay debts incurred by the Confederate States of America. The third sentence spells this out even more, permanently settling the question of Confederate debt.

It's the first sentence that applies in this current situation. Obviously the framers of the amendment thought it important not just to guarantee payment of debt by the Federal Government in the successful waging of the civil war, but to make it part of the constitution itself via an amendment. This means that they intended the principle behind this amendment to have an ongoing application.

The question is, what does it mean by debt? Obviously this debt is public meaning that it is owed by the Federal Government. In short it is money owed, and money owed that has been authorized by law. In other words, it is money that the Federal Government owes creditors - so long as it has been authorized by law.

As I pointed out in my recent article, this naturally applies to government bonds. As of the 26th July 2011, the US Government owes $14,342,830,116,551.28 in public debt. But is "Public Debt" in 2011 the same as "Public Debt" in 1868? There is a broader application of this term: there is debt accrued by borrowing, and there is debt accrued by buying. For example, if a government office gets a local company to mow their lawns, they naturally have to pay this local company. If we expand this idea outwards, we see that the Federal Government has legal obligations to pay for goods and services delivered to them by private industry.

But what about entitlements? Are entitlements considered debt? I think not. Entitlements such as Medicare and Unemployment benefits are probably not considered "debt" in this situation. Sadly this means that the 14th amendment does NOT cover money spent on Medicare or other social services.

"Public debt authorized by law" has also been interpreted by various bloggers and experts recently as to apply simply to spending bills authorized by congress. Essentially it means that if congress has authorized spending, then this cannot be invalidated by a debt ceiling... hence the debt ceiling as it stands is unconstitutional. I'm not sure of this broad definition for a number of reasons. The first is that the amendment itself doesn't specify it. The second is that we are talking here about Public debt - debt owed to the Public, ie not the government.

If you take this second definition to be important - PUBLIC debt - then what to make of government spending bills authorized by law? Well so long as the PUBLIC get what they are owed, the 14th amendment will not be broken. But if the Federal Government decides to stop paying its own employees, that is completely different because the money owed to their employees is not public. There are approximately 2.8 million people employed by the Federal Government.

Here's a summary of my thinking on this issue:

• "Public Debt" means money owed to non Federal Government creditors.
  
• These creditors include those holding government bonds, as well as those who have sold goods and services to the government.
• The 14th Amendment prevents the Federal Government from defaulting on money it owes to bond holders.
• The 14th Amendment does not specify whether payment of money to bond holders needs to be paid "on time" or "later"
  
• The 14th Amendment prevents the Federal Government from defaulting on money it owes to private businesses and individuals for goods and services provided.
• The 14th Amendment does not specify whether payment of money to these private businesses and individuals needs to be paid "on time" or later".
• Money for those who qualify for government services and entitlements - such as unemployment benefits and Medicare services - are not considered "Public Debt" since they are not "owed" money they have directly invested or money they owed through the provision of goods and services.
  
• Under the constitution, Congress is responsible for all spending bills.
  
• A self imposed limit on the amount of debt the Federal Government can borrow is within the constitutional powers of Congress.
• The 14th Amendment does not prevent the Federal Government from defaulting on money it owes to itself on the bond market. Intragovernmental debt is not "Public Debt".
• The 14th Amendment does not prevent the Federal Government from defaulting on money it owes to itself via spending bills.
  
• Money owed to government employees and government departments is not "Public Debt".
  

So given that these are true, what happens if the debt ceiling is not passed? We need to assume here that without a debt ceiling, the Federal Government will be forced to spend only as much as it gets in tax revenue. Specifically what might happen here?

• The Federal Government will not default on paying back interest and principal on bonds owed to the Public.
• Social Security payments are likely to be defined as money owed to the Public, so payments will continue.
  
• The Federal Government will not default on paying back money owed to private businesses and individuals for goods and services provided.
• Delays in payments nevertheless may occur.
• The ordering of future goods and services from private businesses and individuals may be cut.
  
• Money for entitlements (Health Care, Unemployment benefits, etc) can be cut.
• Money for defense can be cut.
  

As I have pointed out, I don't think an arbitrary self-imposed debt limit set by Congress is somehow unconstitutional since Congress is responsible under the constitution for spending government money. Also, it won't be a case of a law passed earlier (the debt limit) being superseded by a law passed later (spending bills) since the earlier law was specifically designed to prevent something happening in the future.

So if the debt limit is not passed and is not declared unconstitutional, what we won't see is a default on government bonds but there is a chance that these payments might be delayed. This would be viewed by the market as a form of selective default. Similarly Social Security payments might end up being delayed, as would be money owed to government suppliers for goods and services owed.

But in order to ensure that these obligations are met (either straight away or over time), certain government departments would have to undergo a drastic reduction in spending. We would see the government either retrench or put on furlough tens of thousands of its employees, if not many, many more. Those with unemployment benefits would have them reduced or postponed indefinitely. Those awaiting or needing medical procedures covered by Medicare will have them delayed indefinitely with priority given only to the most severe cases.

As I pointed out in my previous post on this subject, the US Federal Government currently takes in revenue equivalent to 15% of GDP while its spending is equivalent to 25% of GDP. The 10% gap between revenue and spending is shored up by borrowing. If the debt limit is not raised then the Government will have to reduce its spending to meet its revenue. We would see a reduction in spending from 25% or GDP to 15% of GDP, which is a 40% cut in spending. If we assume that bondholders, social security recipients and government suppliers are protected by the 14th amendment then everything else covered by government spending will be cut.

Needless to say this will have a hugely negative effect upon the economy. With 10% of the economy suddenly halting, you could assume that GDP would drop by at least 10%. The knock-on effects, caused by the money multiplier going into reverse, could conceivably double this impact. And this would be the case even without defaulting.

It's so gratifying to leave you wallowing in the mess you've made

Not good news:

Negotiations over a broad deficit reduction plan collapsed in acrimony on Friday after House Speaker John A. Boehner suddenly broke off talks with President Barack Obama, raising the risk of an economy-shaking default.

The epic clash between the White House and Congressional Republicans came a week before the government hits its borrowing ceiling, and set off sharp accusations from both sides about unwillingness to compromise.

A visibly angry President Obama, in a hastily scheduled White House news conference, demanded that Congressional leaders come to the White House on Saturday morning.

“I want them here at 11 a.m. tomorrow,” Mr. Obama said. “They are going to have to explain to me how it is that we are going to avoid default.”

Anyone who has played Sim City 2000 will remember the importance of maintaining a tight budget. But if your city in the game gets to a point where you're running out of money you have a number of serious choices to make in order to balance the budget. One option you have is to cut funding to roads. When you do so, this guy (your roads and transport secretary) pops up and yells at you:

What happens then? As time goes by your roads begin to crack up and become unusable. This is turn reduces economic activity and your own tax revenue even further. It's a short term solution but ends up costing you far more in the longer term. It's a sure fire way to lose to game.

Then, of course, there is that Simpsons episode where Homer becomes the town's sanitation commissioner. He manages to gain this position through an election campaign where he simultaneously lies about the incumbent (and even defames him) and gives outrageous promises to the voters, all with Bono's consent. When the scheme blows up in his face (the yearly sanitation budget is used up in a matter of weeks) he resorts to a scheme whereby funds are generated by taking the trash from various US cities and storing it underneath Springfield. This, of course, turns the town into a smelly, garbage infested hell hole. An emergency meeting is held in the town hall and the people unanimously vote for the previous commissioner (Ray Patterson, voiced by Steve Martin) to retake the job. Patterson saunters on stage to music and then says this:

Oh gosh. You know, I'm not much on speeches, but it's so gratifying to... leave you wallowing in the mess you've made. You're screwed, thank you, bye.

I have to say that part of me wants to call the Republicans' bluff and not raise the debt ceiling. To be honest with you it would be the easiest and quickest way for them to achieve their ideological ends. I have already pointed out that such an action would cut federal government spending by around 40% and represent a cut in spending from about 25% of GDP to around 15% of GDP. According to historical notes on the US budget, the last time the US government was that small was 1951 - in other words the Republicans have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to shrink the government to its lowest level in 60 years. Moreover, this would not lead to debt default, as the 14th Amendment protects bondholders.

And it's not as though such a move wouldn't be popular, at least initially. There are many in the US who claim that the Federal Government has no real input into the economy. "Let's shut her down!" some would say, confident that such a move would have no real impact upon the economy and society in general. And as for all those pesky civil servants out of a job, well they weren't doing anything really important anyway. And it's not as though we can't afford to pay them unemployment benefits since such benefits would disappear anyway for everyone once the great spending cut occurs. And with so many people unemployed and not receiving benefits, they would then be able to get off their collective lazy asses and find jobs. Then the economy would start booming again.

Of course these sentiments are nonsense. Anyone with any understanding of the complexity of economics, the effect of government programs and the problems besetting the unemployed would know that such a gigantic cut in government spending would have only a negative impact upon the US. It would cause social and economic pandemonium.

And yet part of me wants to the GOP to do it. I do admit that there is some perverse pleasure in watching an economic collapse unfolding, in the same way that people hang around and watch the aftereffects of an accident.

Nevertheless I do have a rather pragmatic reason for wanting this to occur - the disaster that it brings on the nation (and the rest of the world) will be so damaging that no one would take hard-line conservatism seriously ever again. The disaster would be so horrible that Obama would be re-elected by a landslide and the Republicans would be utterly humiliated in Congressional elections. More than that, hard-line conservatism throughout the world would be discredited in the same way as communism was discredited after the collapse of communism.

And why? Conservatives have painted themselves into a corner. They are just so angry that things like Medicare, NASA, unemployment benefits and the Department of Education exist. It's not just that they don't like big government, it's that they so strongly believe that their understanding of limited government was the same thing believed by the founding fathers that anything, anything which suggests slightly higher government tax revenue or spending is immediately cause for revolution and "watering the tree of liberty". In the words of Grover Norquist, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Of course I see such people as not just hard-line but extremist. Their ideology has regressed so far that even Ronald Reagan, patron saint of Conservatives, would be labeled a "Republican in Name Only" for many of his policies.

And so this is why part of me wants the Republicans to follow through with the extremist ideology that now controls their party - it would allow them the chance to finally do what they've always wanted to do while simultaneously proving to the rest of America and the world the utter stupidity and unworkability of their policies. Their fate would be to disappear from the political landscape for a long, long time. The world would then become a much better place.

And as their doom descends and the party faithful shrink in horror at what they've done and seek to make amends, the voice of Ray Patterson calls out to them:

It's so gratifying to leave you wallowing in the mess you've made. You're screwed, thank you, bye.

Random Thoughts on Government as Business

One way to look at the place of government in an economy is to view it is as just another business. This is because:

1. It produces goods and services
2. It has customers
3. It has shareholders
   

Of course there is a limit to which government can be identified as a business:

1. It cannot go bankrupt (debt can be defaulted)
2. Monopoly: It has little to no competition in an economy
3. If it is a national government, It can declare war against foreign national governments
4. It writes and enforces law to govern both society and itself
5. It has the means of creating money and enforcing its use
   

The way I always look at government is that it is a mutualized monopoly - while it has no competitors (and is thus a monopoly), its customers are its shareholders. At least in a Democratic country, the government's customers are the people, who are equal shareholders in the national government.

Tax, therefore, should be seen as the price the customers pay for the goods and services that the government provides. The fact that a "user pays" system is not set up does not mean that the system is flawed, since "user pays" itself can be a flawed way of pricing, depending upon the goods or services produced (selling food over the counter is a good user pays system, having toll booths every few kilometres to pay for road building and maintenance is not a good user pays system).

Bernanke's money printing idea is interesting - but I have a better one

I'm no fan of Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. Bernanke's response to the 2008 credit crisis was to first state that it wasn't happening and then, when it happened, to say that it wouldn't be too bad. Fail. Moreover he was one of the members of the Federal Reserve Board under previous chairman Allan Greenspan who approved of policy keeping interest rates too low between 2002 and 2005, thus creating the conditions for the property bubble. Epic Fail.

But credit where credit's due - the recent announcement of $600 billion in bond repurchases is a step towards a more effective form of monetary policy, though I do question whether it is needed.

Bernanke has the dubious honour of being labelled "Helicopter Ben" because of some comments he made many years ago about how radical monetary policy could have solved the Great Depression. Given the damaging, persistent deflation during that period, Bernanke surmised that increasing the money supply by seigniorage (money printing) and then handing said money out willy nilly to people and businesses would have wiped out deflation and stimulated the economy to begin growing.

Of course those who ran the world economy in the 1930s did not have the information that we do now, namely that inflation and deflation can be controlled through manipulation of the money supply by central banks. The problem with conventional monetary policy is that it focuses solely upon interest rates to achieve its goal - in the case of the United States, adjusting the Federal Funds Rate is the way interest rates are raised or lowered. Developed countries have similar tools while developing countries tend to increase or decrease the reserve ratio as a way to influence monetary conditions.

Adjusting interest rates affects the money supply: Increasing interest rates will remove money from the money supply while decreasing interest rates will add money to the money supply. If a central bank wants to reduce inflation, it removes money from the money supply by raising interest rates; if a central bank wants to increase inflation (to prevent deflation), it adds money to the money supply by lowering interest rates.

Unfortunately, conventional monetary policy is constrained by the natural limits of interest rates. While there are no upper limits to interest rates, the lowest rate is obviously zero. You cannot have negative official interest rates because depositors will simply withdraw their money from banks - hiding cash under the bed is a better investment than keeping it deposited at the bank. When interest rates reach zero there is nothing conventional monetary policy can do to stimulate domestic demand - Japan is a classic example of this, with interest rates near zero for the last 15-20 years.

The Federal Funds rate is currently 0.20%. It has been below 1% since 2008-10-15, which means that the US has, for the past two years, reached the limit of conventional monetary policy. Enter Ben Bernanke and quantitative easing, and you have a radically new monetary policy tool.

The thinking is rather simple:

• To create more inflation, the money supply needs to be expanded.
• Since conventional monetary policy has reached its limit, no more money can be added to the money supply through the lowering of interest rates.
• Therefore money needs to be added to the money supply through different means.
• Seigniorage (money creation by fiat) is then used to buy back government bonds, thus increasing the money supply.

Seigniorage has been used injudiciously in the past, most notably by Weimer Germany and Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and has created hyperinflation. Yet this is the same process Bernanke is undertaking now. The difference is that the amount being created is limited, which means that the inflationary effect will be similarly limited.

But there are naturally limits to even this level of monetary policy - it is limited by the amount of government bond holders (US treasuries). While the amount of money currently tied up US government debt is huge (over $9 trillion in public debt), in theory this amount may be brought down to zero. This is an important limit for nations like Australia and Norway, whose gross government debt levels are comparatively low (and are actually net negative). Such forms of quantitative easing (as this policy is now known as) do have natural limits that need to be taken into consideration.

So what's my idea then?

Back in March 2009 I wrote an article titled Thoughts on fractional lending and quantitative easing which outlined some ideas I had at the time about unconventional monetary policy. Here it is:

The Central Bank creates money by lending it to Commercial Banks.

This would take the form of a deposit. The central bank creates money by fiat, and then deposits this money in as many banks and financial institutions (institutions that are part of the fractional banking structure) as it can find. This won't be a bond buyback, but a simple deposit. It is not important as to whether the commercial banks pay interest on such a deposit since paying back interest is not important - expanding the money supply is.

Of course, with more money deposited, commercial banks would then have more money to lend out, thus alleviating any credit crisis. There is no money entering the money supply via any bond buybacks or stimulus plans. It's simply money appearing by fiat and being deposited into banks.

But what happens once the economy begins to recover, credit begins to flow again and inflation begins to rise? Well obviously the central bank could then withdraw all or part of its deposit with commercial banks. This would reduce the amount of money commercial banks could lend out and act as a contraction of the money supply.

And then I got thinking again - what if this form of quantitative easing replaced current monetary policy completely? So rather than money being removed or injected into the money supply through bond issues or buybacks - why not simply have the central bank deposit money into commercial banks or withdraw money from its commercial bank accounts? It would still be an open market operation, but one which doesn't require a government bond market to exist or even some form of centrally set level of interest - rates would be completely market controlled and dependent upon how much money the central bank deposits into, or withdraws from, commercial banks.

So, to summarise:

To stimulate growth in the money supply (to battle deflation and thus stimulate economic growth), the central bank creates money by fiat and deposits it into commercial banks.

To restrict growth in the money supply (to battle inflation and thus restrict economic growth), the central bank withdraws money from its commercial bank accounts.

In both cases, the money supply is affected by the ability of the commerical bank to lend up to 100% of its deposits - the more deposits, the more money is lent; the less deposits, the less money is lent.

----------------------

Naturally, Paul Krugman and others will point out that increasing the money supply during a solvency crisis does little (the "pushing a string" theory) and I would agree that some level of Keynesian stimulus might be necessary, but one which sources its money from central bank money creation rather than by borrowing from the market.

In this scenario, instead of Bernanke's $600 billion being used to buy back government bonds, it is used (for example) to build wind turbines all over the country. It is monetary policy (money creation) AND fiscal policy (increase in production) acting together, and it is aimed at bettering the environment. Of course the $600 billion could be used to build tanks and machine guns for the army, or it can be used to buy everyone in the US multiple cans of Coca Cola, or it can be used to build mansions for the rich, or it can be used to build houses for the poor - the possibilities are endless, as is the potential for both intelligent or stupid spending.

What makes standard Keynesian fiscal policy work is twofold: firstly, money is injected into the economy, and, secondly, goods and services are produced, leading to a multiplier effect. Modified forms of Keynesian stimulus - such as Bush's tax cuts in the early 2000s - have only a single effect, namely money is injected into the economy. Monetary policy, even of the unconventional (quantitative easing) or radical (my March 2009 proposal) variety, has a similar effect: money is increased, but its demand (money velocity) is not. What the market does with the money after it has been gained depends upon how the market is acting, which is why monetary and/or fiscal stimuli do lead to some level of economic growth, but not as much as that enjoyed by a true Keynesian injection.

So the question comes down to this: what will the markets do with the $600 billion that Bernanke injects into the economy through "QE2" (as many have called it)? That, of course, is the issue. Will the markets use that money to invest back into the US economy or will they do something else? The markets have already reacted to the announcement by dumping some of their US dollar holdings, so it may be that QE2 just leads to a dollar devaluation, with the fiat money instead being directed towards Japan, Europe and other major economies. Here in Australia the dollar has breached parity and made buying CDs and books from Amazon.com that much cheaper. Thanks for stimulating the Australian economy, Ben.

But then all this goes back to whether the money supply should be increased. While US inflation is low (currently 1.14%, year on year) deflation is hardly a problem just yet. Deflation hit the US economy very hard in late 2008 when the credit crisis hit, but since then prices have stabilised somewhat. Paul Krugman and others would argue that the US should actually target 4% inflation as a goal rather than as a limit, in which case Bernanke's policy is heading in the right direction. Interest rates have certainly bottomed out, but where is the deflation that can't be influenced by conventional monetary policy?

And this therefore calls to question the reason for quantitative easing. Is Bernanke aiming to stimulate the US economy or is he simply trying to maintain price stability? If it were the latter, then Bernanke is crazy since the US doesn't have a problem with price stability at the moment (unless you adhere to absolute price stability like I do, of course, but that's another topic!), which means that QE2, as an inflationary policy, is being implemented when prices are not in danger of deflating. This can only mean that Bernanke is aiming to stimulate the US economy, and this is problematic.

Who in government should be responsible for direct actions to stimulate the economy? In most nations this responsibility is undertaken by politicians - in other words, elected officials. The Federal Reserve Bank is not run by elected officials but by public servants. Most central banks the world over see price stability as their major, if not sole, concern. Stimulating economic growth should not be the role of a central bank, though central banks should be open to being co-opted by governments to produce outcomes aimed at stimulating growth (an example being my proposal of Bernanke's $600 billion being used to build wind farms above). But if any policies are pursued to stimulate economic growth, they must originate from, and be ultimately controlled by, congress or parliament or diet or duma.

The problem with having a dual role - as the Federal Reserve obviously has - is that it is more open to corruptive influences. "Stimulating the economy" may mean dumping $600 billion into the accounts of troubled financial giants whose incompetency is what drove them to the verge of bankruptcy; it's not a coincidence that these financial giants just happen to own a considerable number of US treasuries that they can sell to the Federal Reserve Bank for the $600 billion being offered. If the Fed was only concerned with price stability they could simply ignore these troubled corporations and only respond to price signals from the Consumer Price Index.

Nevertheless QE2 does open the doors to monetary experimentation, which should be welcomed by those who have been concerned with the limits of interest-rate-based monetary policy.

Update 00:15:00 UTC

If $600 billion were used to build wind farms, the result would be huge. The Cape Wind project will produce 454MW for $2.5 billion. Using simple maths, $600 billion could buy 253.34 GW of nameplate electricity generation. Since the US has around 1075 GW of nameplate electricity generation, you're looking here at 25% of the US electricity market. Obviously these are hard and fast facts and there are certainly limitations to this form of extrapolation, but the sheer amount of money involved here needs to be subject to opportunity cost: would $600 billion of fiat money be better spent constructing wind turbines or injected into the US bond market?

OSO's pontifications at Reddit

I've realised that some of these are worthy of posting here:

In response to the GOP's "Pledge" about controlling the US budget:

I'm actually a person who has looked at the stats. I know how much the US budget deficit is. I know how much US public debt is. I know the proportions of spending by various government agencies.

So let me summarise from here what the biggest things in the budget are, in order of amount:

1. Department of Health and Human services. (Medicare and Medicaid).
2. Social Security.
3. Department of Defense.
4. Interest paid on money owed

So there are only these four places for the Federal Government to cut into. Everything else represents a very small proportion of government spending. Even if you completely cut funding to NASA, Homeland Security, the FBI, or Department of Education, the result will be negligible.

So what Americans need to ask the GOP is "What are you going to cut spending on to bring the budget back into balance?".

1. Is the GOP going to gut Health and Human services? This means less money for Medicare and Medicaid. Old people especially will be hit by this.
2. Is the GOP going to gut Social Security? Less money for retirees.
3. Is the GOP going to gut Defense? Yeah right I see that happening.
4. Is the GOP going to stop paying debt off? That would mean defaulting on treasuries.

In the end the only real solution is to increase tax revenue, which means increasing taxes. The GOP won't do that. In fact they'll probably cut taxes for the rich again, convinced that maybe this time it might work.

Which means that the GOP will simply put the Federal government further and further into debt. That's what they've been doing since 1981, so we can assume that they'll go with tradition on that one.

In response to predictions of the "end of the world" and the fact that so many have failed:

The thing is that history is replete with instances of societal collapse and population downturns. War, famine and disease have taken away huge proportions of human population.

The "end" is never the "end", unless you're talking about Jesus returning or a massive impact event. The Roman empire ended - slowly and painfully. But people still lived in Rome. Other empires came along and replaced them.

We have around 6 billion people living in the world at the moment. If global warming takes a turn for the worse and agricultural production drops by 95%, it will probably mean the deaths of billions. But it won't be the end. People will still survive. Countries will disappear, governments collapse, borders moved, but there will still be stable governments and healthy people for a minority of the people on earth. And it will be that minority that will eventually flourish to replace the collapse.

So it's not the end of the world, but an end of a chapter.

In response to a Conservative Redditor who is very concerned about radicals taking over the Republican Party:

As a Liberal/Progressive, I like you.

We disagree over spending: I'm happy to increase spending and increase taxes; you're happy to decrease spending and decrease taxes. Both of us, however, oppose the stupidity of continually running deficits.

Even though I'm a lefty I have, like most people, a foot in both camps. I may believe in increasing welfare but I also believe in personal responsibility; I may believe in wealth distribution but I also believe that the talented and the hard working should be rewarded; I may oppose corporate corruption and tyranny but I also oppose government corruption and tyranny.

What saddens me is that conservatives in the US have degenerated into anti-intellectualism, blind ideological adherence and an inability to think critically. Popular conservative commentators reflect this belief.

Conservatism as a set of political beliefs has a lot to offer - seriously it does. But conservatives in the US pose a net threat to America's safety and prosperity.

If the GOP and the Tea Party do not do as well as they hope during the 2010 mid terms (ie control one or both houses of congress) I can see violence resulting.

A further comment on the same thread:

I don't even know who the "extreme radical left" are in the United States. There are certainly a few unreconstructed Marxists out there who still preach class warfare and the need for a people's revolution but they have, as far as I know, almost no influence upon the Democratic Party. Even Bernie Sanders is too right wing for these old Marxists.

There's a few anarcho-primitivists in the environmental movement, but they are too small.

I visit Daily Kos often - it's probably a good place to start in finding out the thoughts and beliefs of the young mainstream left in the United States. Although they support an expansion in government spending to fund universal health care, better public schools and better environmental policies, they are hardly trying to create a communist America. The policies of the Kossacks and those like them in the Democratic party is to move the US into more of a Western European social democracy. They may find the free market problematic and in need of change, but they are not preaching a complete government takeover of private businesses, wealth and property. By all means of measurement, the left in the US is moderate compared to historical progressive policy.

By contrast, the right wing in the US has no real precedent in history. The US right want the government to be turned into Minarchism while maintaining a series of very conservative social laws (eg against homosexuality & abortion, more censorship, etc). The America that the US right wing want is one in which the federal government runs the armed forces, state governments run law enforcement and the legal system is covered by both. Apart from that, the government should do nothing. Education will be run either as a private business or home schooling. The poor will receive no welfare except from the charitable giving of the wealthy. Health care will be provided entirely by private business and insurance agencies, with those who cannot afford it left uninsured or begging for charitable handouts. Social security should be eliminated and people should provide for their own retirement. These policies are a complete repudiation of all that has been learned in the last 150-200 years of Western Civilization. Thus the right wing in the US is historically very radical in its views and not moderate by any way of measuring political and economic beliefs.

And the more radical a belief is, the more likely that violence is to erupt. It erupted on the "left" when communism swept into Russia and China. It is likely to erupt on the "right" in the US due to the Tea Party.

And I finish by promoting Absolute Price Stability on a thread discussing the gold standard:

Fiat currencies are as inherently failure-prone as a car is - it depends upon the driver.

Car drivers can be stupid, they can be smart. If a car crashes it is oftentimes the fault of the driver.

When it comes to fiat currencies, it is up to central banks to control supply to ensure that it matches demand. When the demand for money increases so should its supply. When the demand for money decreases, so should its supply.

Money demand is called Money Velocity.

Basically it goes like this: Money velocity is sped up or slowed down according to the actions of the market and the government; Money supply is increased or decreased by the actions of the market and government when they respond to interest rates set by the central bank.

It is quite possible for a fiat currency to exist without any form of long term inflation. Japan since the early 1990s has had enough bouts of deflation and inflation to ensure that the Yen has neither gained nor fallen in value.

Of course Japan's economy during that period has not been the best, but what it does show is that an economy can function, GDP and GDP per capita can be raised and prices can remain stable even when a fiat currency is being used.

The key here is absolute price stability: ensuring that money neither rises nor falls in value over the long term.

Of course, by this argument, even low inflation targets are too high. The ECB, for example, tries to keep inflation under 2%. They should be keeping it just above or just below zero so that the average over the long term is zero.

As for gold... the problem with a gold standard is that for it to act as a currency it would need to not just retain its value but neither increase nor decrease in value, otherwise inflation or deflation would result. To increase gold supply would require more gold to be extracted from the ground (which would make mining companies de facto central banks) and, once it has been extracted, it cannot be "unextracted". By contrast a fiat currency can be created or "decreated" instantly by the actions of a central bank.

Krugman vs Rogoff and Reinhart

I think Krugman is mistaken in this post.

The Rogoff/Reinhart study looks at multiple countries and discovers that growth tapers off once gross debt exceeds 90% of GDP. This argument is not based upon one single episode of US post-war experience but upon multiple countries since the 19th century. Irons and Bivens argue that "The empirical findings of GITD are very unlikely to be relevant to the United States economy of today" which is akin to saying "What applies to everyone else does not apply to America". Sadly this is just another way of expressing American exceptionalism.

Does Krugman really believe that America's single experience of High gross debt after WW2 completely cracks open the Rogoff/Reinhart argument? It seems likely that he has not read the paper at all.

To reiterate: Rogoff/Reinhart examine multiple countries over many years and have come to the conclusion that high gross debt badly affects GDP growth. Their research is NOT based simply upon one period of US history but upon dozens of different countries. To argue that this does not apply to the US is magical thinking, based upon American exceptionalism.

(posted in comments)

Common Misperceptions?

Austerity means cutting spending.

No, though this is one way it can be achieved. The other way is through increasing tax revenue by broadening the tax base and/or increasing the tax rate. Any policy which results in smaller fiscal deficits can be termed austerity. Progressives who worry about the US Federal deficit but don't want to cut services only have one option: raise taxes.

Deflation is always bad.

No. Stable prices should be the number one priority of monetary policy (conversely, smoothing out economic peaks and troughs should be the priority of fiscal policy). Yet prices naturally increase or decrease due to changes in supply and demand. The goal of monetary policy should therefore be to ensure price stability over the long term. This has actually been achieved in Japan, where the inflation index has hovered around 100 since 1993, implying that prices have been more or less stable in Japan for the past 17 years.

Which leads me to my next misperception...

Japan has a problem with deflation.

Not so. If stable prices are the goal then the Japanese Central Bank has done admirably. There has been neither inflation nor deflation over the long term in Japan since 1993. Any period of deflation has always been balanced out by a period of inflation. But is this really a good thing? Isn't Japan a basket case of an economy? My next misperception...

Japan's economy is permanently in ruin.

The following graph is from here.

Since 1993, the Japanese economy has grown. Not only has it grown, but GDP per capita has increased during that period. Both measurements indicate that GDP growth and GDP per capita growth can exist during a period of absolute price stability.

Of course the figures in the graph above do show periods of economic contraction. Certainly the 1997-2000 period was difficult, as was 2008 and 2009, but the trend is most obviously upwards.

And measuring GDP per capita is important when you consider that Japan's population has peaked and is at the point of shrinking - I have argued before that shrinking populations don't have to be seen as a bad thing for the economy.

I like Obama and I agree with Keynes. But US government debt needs to be paid off sooner rather than later.

Despite the fact I am increasingly finding my own economic understanding being challenged and improved upon through the views of others, I am yet to change my mind over the issue of government debt. I therefore find myself in one of those uncomfortable "middle" places between ideologies and ideas in which I find myself agreeing with people whom I usually disagree with and disagreeing with those whom I respect.

This is the situation: It is my view that US government debt is a serious problem. It is the prime reason why I publish a "debt watch" every month, since hard data is essential in informing my view. Yet by holding the "debt is a problem" view I find myself aligning with populist conservative economists who deride Keynes and hate government while at the same time I find myself disagreeing with people like Paul Krugman and Obama supporters who see the stimulus as a good thing.

For the record I am not dismissive of Keynesian economics. As a non-American I have seen "automatic stabilisers" such as welfare payments and unemployment benefits being enacted by governments and have even benefited from them directly. I have no problem with government deficit spending during recessions, all things being equal of course. Yet it is that last phrase - "all things being equal" - which is the qualifier that has made me oppose the Obama stimulus package and to align with deficit hawks.

So, what is so "unequal" about the American situation? The problem is that for Keynesian economics to work over the course of the business cycle, any deficit run during recessions must be balanced out by surpluses during expansions. This causes a virtuous cycle, whereby increased tax revenues during expansions pay off the debt accrued by the government during recessions, while also creating net government savings once the debt has been paid off. These savings should then, of course, be used as emergency funds to be tapped when the economy moves back into recession. The idea is that over the course of the business cycle, government deficits are balanced out by surpluses, and the amount of debt accrued is balanced out by the amount of savings.

What is obvious though is that this process falls apart when governments act irresponsibly. Irresponsible actions in this case involve governments running deficits and accruing debt during economic expansions. Since 1981 the United States has run up huge fiscal deficits not just during recessions but during expansions. For this I blame the rise of Supply-side economics and the populist tax complainers who advocate it. The idea that reducing taxes would magically produce more tax revenue has destroyed the fiscal standing of the US government since the early days of Reagan.

Yet it seems to me that some non-supply siders have their own magical thinking to deal with. There's no doubt that the Obama stimulus has boosted the economy, but it is illogical to assume that such a boost in economic growth would provide enough increases in tax revenue to pay off the stimulus in the first place. Despite the presence of multipliers, the end result has been and will continue to be a net increase in debt levels. Those who believe otherwise are merely replicating the error of supply-side economics, except that the deficit is created by spending increases instead of tax cuts.

The fact is that public debt in the US is now just over 58% of GDP and debt servicing represents 2.7% of GDP. Just over 19% of Federal government spending is dedicated to debt servicing, an amount which easily exceeds anything spent on NASA, Education or the Environment combined.¹ Debt servicing is only exceeded in size by defense spending, health and human services and social security. Alarmingly, this amount will only increase the more the economy expands, since an expansion will create a higher interest rate environment and force the government to pay even more on money owed.

It is debt servicing which is the real killer behind running large structural deficits over a long period. As more and more debt is accrued by a government, more and more money is spent on paying interest. As time goes by this increase in debt servicing "crowds out" spending on other government programs: education spending gets cut, science gets cut, health care gets cut, environmental protection gets cut, welfare gets cut - and all getting cut without any actual decrease in government spending since these cuts are being balanced out by an increase in debt servicing. And of course who is the beneficiary of government debt servicing? Investors - households and businesses who fronted the billions of dollars in the first place to lend to the government. This is, of course, the rich, mainly. If there is one government policy that rewards the rich over the poor over the long term, it is having a structural deficit adding to increasing national debt levels.

If a household goes into an unsustainable debt spiral, they end up being declared bankrupt. Bankruptcy can also apply to businesses, but businesses also have the option of dissolving. Both the borrower and the lender in this situation are "losers". Sovereign governments do not have the option of bankruptcy or dissolution. Too much debt can be controlled through inflationary seigniorage (since the government controls the money supply) or by defaulting. Markets respond to the threat of default by dropping sovereign debt investments and thus causing a rise in bond rates (eg the recent problems with Greece).

Bankruptcy, dissolution, inflationary seigniorage and defaults are processes which cause massive economic damage. If a sovereign government inflates its debt or defaults, the pain and damage is passed on to the market and to households and businesses, who in turn are rendered bankrupt or are dissolved and the problem escalates. So while the government may survive, the people and businesses it supposedly serves ends up badly hurt.

The US is not close to defaulting on its debt, but it is closer now than at any other time in history. The reason why I believe the Obama stimulus was a bad move was not because I somehow oppose Keynes or have embraced Grover Norquist, but because US debt levels were already too high for such a stimulus package to be sustainable. One of the problems that caused the great financial crisis was lax US fiscal policy, so it seems illogical to assume that loose fiscal policy can be used to solve it. While this may seem merely axiomatic, it is nonetheless important in my thinking on the issue.

One response from stimulus supporters in the face of this complaint can be summed up in one word: Hoover. Didn't Hoover make the depression worse by cutting government spending, and didn't Roosevelt make the depression better by increasing government spending via the New Deal? My retort? I agree - but neither Hoover nor Roosevelt was lumbered with government debt the size and proportion of which Obama was lumbered with when he took office in 2009. Debt levels were already too high before the great financial crisis hit, and they have grown even higher throughout.

At some point the US must deal with its debt decisively. The government must agree to run fiscal surpluses over a long period in order to pay off the "national credit card". Supporters of Obama's stimulus argue that the economy must recover first and that any changes must occur later rather than sooner. I disagree. I can't see the US economy returning to its pre-GFC glory for some time. Financial market imbalances have gone on for too long and have messed up too much money for things to return quickly to 2005-style balance sheets. Unemployment is unlikely to drop below 7% for the next few years and there is always the threat that a second credit crunch might hit and make the current recession even worse. After all, there has been a domino effect of sorts - the subprime crisis of 2007 leading to credit crisis of 2008 leading to the European sovereign bond crisis of 2010 leading, inevitably, back to US households and businesses, a process which looks like it is already hitting with further drops in house prices being experienced.

Yet if I got my way, what would result? Let's say Obama rings me up and says "OSO, you're a wise man. Tell me what to do and I will do it." Well apart from awarding myself a few million dollars to feather my own nest I would:

• Increase taxes, especially on the rich.
• Introduce a Market Capitalisation tax to tax public companies according to their market wealth.
• Cut defense spending by 25% (Iraq and Afghanistan would be handed over to the United Nations and troops brought home)
• Leave spending levels where they are proportionally for the next five years.
  

In short, I would aim to run an immediate fiscal surplus of around 1% of GDP, and then sit back and wait as this surplus increased over time.

Of course such an action would result in an economic contraction. It would push the US into a deep recession. Yet the alternative would be an even deeper and even more damaging recession later on. Moreover, forcing the country into a recession is exactly what Paul Volcker did when he began work as Chairman of the Federal Reserve and it was he who is seen by many as the real reason behind America's 80s recovery and expansion (and not Reagan). If Volcker can cure the economy via harsh monetary medicine then so can Obama and Congress cure the economy via harsh fiscal medicine. Of course such a decision by Obama and Congress (acting on my wise counsel) would push the US into a far worse recession than Volcker ever did, but Volcker's recession resulted from, and cured, 10-15 years of monetary madness, while an OSO directed recession would result from, and would cure, some 30 years of fiscal madness.

The point is, though, that a reckoning has to occur. Had George W. Bush in his first term of office decided to keep taxes where they were and run more Clinton-inspired fiscal surpluses, the current GFC would probably be much milder, or may have never occurred at all. Had Clinton and the Gingrich Republicans in the second half of the 90s been less concerned with White House interns and more dedicated to running fiscal surpluses, the current situation would be even less severe. Had Walter Mondale been inaugurated president in 1985 on the back of fixing Reagan's fiscal stupidity with tax increases (one of his actual election promises that seemed crazy at the time but quite prescient in hindsight), we'd probably never be in this predicament in the first place.

The thing about learning from history is to ensure that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. In 1996 Australia had 8% unemployment and government debt levels of around 20% of GDP (which at the time was quite high, but is quite low in comparison to other nations now). Despite the economic torpor of the time, the new conservative government chose to cut spending and aim for a surplus within a few years. The immediate result was predictable - the economy barely grew and unemployment increased. But as years passed the economy grew more strongly, unemployment dropped and the government began running regular, healthy budget surpluses. By the mid 2000s the Australian government was debt free.² Comparing Australia to the US has its problems, but there is no doubt in my mind that this conservative government (under PM John Howard and treasurer Peter Costello) did Australia a great favour through running constant, incremental contractionary fiscal policy. Not only did Australia manage to avoid going into recession in 2001 but it has also avoided recession throughout the GFC. The economy has expanded almost continually from about 1994 until the present and unemployment, once always lower than the US, is nearly half the US rate. There are certainly other factors involved (eg the resources boom) but even when those are factored in, there is no doubt in my mind that intelligent fiscal policy has provided Australia with a huge safety net to turn too once the GFC hit - PM Kevin Rudd instituted a stimulus package which has created the potential for economic overheating, a problem certainly NOT experienced by most western countries at this moment. The point I am making here is that Rudd' stimulus, on the back of over ten years of fiscal prudence and the retirement of government debt, was quite sustainable and probably saved the country from recession. Obama's stimulus, by contrast, was not, and will come back to bite.

If the US government institutes fiscal policy of the sort that I am suggesting, the result would be a sharp but short term contraction which, on the back of the current recession, would obviously be quite damaging. Nevertheless this is the harsh medicine that America must swallow if a) it wants to rebalance its fiscal state over the long term, and b) if it wants the government to not expand in its size. This last point can obviously change, and I would not be unhappy if the US instituted:

• A NHS-style universal health care system.
• Building enough renewable energy plants to exceed total US electricity demand.
• Massive industrial biochar production aligned with afforestation programs.
• Doubling public transport infrastructure
• More money into public education
• And other OSO-approved polices that would make me happy.

Of course I would not oppose such spending, but spending of this sort would probably double the size of the US government and for that to succeed without adding to the deficit, it needs to be accompanied by tax increases - tax increases which result in more revenue that is needed to pay for the spending increases. The issue here is not whether government spending should be expanded (I think it should) but whether a surplus should be run (which is absolutely essential). Given that the US hasn't as yet reached my own enlightened levels of social and economic understanding, whatever increases in government spending are enacted should always come second to the need for a fiscal surplus (or, more properly, the need for debt to be paid off over the long term which will, in the short term, require a reduction in the deficit).

<sup>1: MTS Report April 2010, Table 3, "Budget Outlays - current fiscal year to date": Department of Defense-Military $396,452 million, Department of Education $61,232 million, Department of Health and Human Services $503,984 million, Interest on Treasury Debt Securities (Gross) $224,414 million, Environmental Protection Agency $5,586 million, National Aeronautics and Space Administration $10,781 million, Total Outlays $1,998,847 million

2: Debt free here in a net sense. A bond market for government debt was still needed and still continues to operate. Government surpluses since the mid 2000s have been directed instead to a "future fund" which allowed government savings to eventually exceed debt levels. So Australia still had gross debt but no net debt - at least until the GFC hit and returned the government into net debt, although at a very low level.</sup>

Some predictions using real interest rates

My study of real interest rates has been continuing, though without any publishing on this blog due to data collection. There are some predictions though which I have decided to publish today.

I've broken up nations into four groups.

Group 1 - Plunging real interest rates. These are nations whose monetary conditions have dramatically changed over the previous six weeks to promote inflation. These nations are:

• Britain
• Argentina
• Brazil
• Iceland
• Switzerland
• Mexico
• China
• Russia
• Turkey
  

Now of these nations, the one with the lowest CPI is Switzerland, which means that the inflationary growth will not be as serious, while Turkey and Argentina already have high levels of inflation. High inflation levels are bad for an economy because they act to distort prices which, in turn, leads to more inaccurate "money direction" - the choices money holders have in spending or saving or investing or borrowing currency. This inevitably leads to a "peak" in growth, followed by a trough - inflation usually precedes a deflationary economic downturn.

Group 2 - Real Interest rates dropping moderately. These are nations whose monetary conditions have favoured economic growth over the previous six weeks.

• Japan
• Canada
• Euro Area
• Australia
• Ireland
• Spain
• Germany
• France
• Italy
• Sweden
• India
• New Zealand
  

While inflation may result from these monetary conditions such an increase is not likely to be serious. While these conditions do not guarantee economic growth they do act to either improve growth already occurring or to limit any contraction. Of these nations, Ireland is the only one with a contracting economy experiencing deflation, so it is likely that Ireland will experience only moderate contraction and more stable prices in the coming months. Conditions in the Euro Area are improving, which should affect the PIIGS in a positive way. While India's real interest rates have improved moderately, very high inflation continues to afflict them and there is evidence from my data to suggest that India is likely to have some form of economic contraction (ie either a downturn or lower growth rates) soon. Of the nations on this list, Japan and Germany, with price changes close to zero, are more likely to experience sustained growth.

Group 3 - Real interest rates increasing moderately. These are nations whose monetary conditions have favoured economic contraction over the previous six weeks.

• United States
• South Korea
• Poland
  

Again this is not a prediction of economic decline but a contractionary effect upon growth/decline already being experienced. I have collected more data on US CPI and interest rates than any other nation and the data suggests that conditions in the US are not improving. Growth in GDP for Q1 2010 was 3.2%, following on from 5.6% in Q4 2009, which shows that the Obama stimulus of 2009 has passed its peak and is headed on its way down. Real interest rates in the US declined considerably between July and December 2009. In fact "considerably" is too conservative a word to use - real interest rates declined from 5.7% to 0.62% over that six month period. The US would be in "Group 1" in December last year, which indicates that the US economy is beginning to slow down. Considering the speed of the decline and the growth experienced in Q4 2009 and Q1 2010, I would be very surprised if growth ended up exceeding 1.0% for Q2 2010 (which is now).

Group 4 - Real interest rates increasing substantially. These are nations whose monetary conditions have seriously deteriorated over the previous six weeks.

• Greece

Greece has suffered mainly from the market's fear of a sovereign debt crisis - and such a fear is not unfounded. With increasing austerity measures being put into place, Greece's economy looks set to contract - ie shrink - some time this year. Inflation in Greece is still running a little high (3.9%) but increases in bond rates have more than exceeded this amount. Inflation in Greece is likely to turn into deflation as soon as the economy begins to shrink. Growth in the Euro Area, though, is likely to moderate any Greek downturn (and also help Ireland stop its current economic decline).

And that's Stephan Bibrowski in the picture.

I'm not alone on Government debt

James Hamilton, Professor of Economics at the University of California, San Diego, and a contributor to Econbrowser, says this about Paul Krugman's sanguine attitude towards government debt:

Normally, you'd think that putting off repaying a debt does not make it any smaller. The federal government can (with my wallet) pay the trillion today, or it can wait 10 years to pay one trillion plus 10 years' interest, or wait 20 years to pay one trillion plus 20 years' interest. The present value of the service cost on one trillion dollars in debt is exactly one trillion dollars today, no matter how long you put off paying. My comments on how much a trillion really is are perfectly appropriate for discussion of any repayment timetable.

Perhaps Paul is suggesting that there may be a potential free lunch available from postponing payment in this case, arising from the fact that the economy's growth rate has historically exceeded the government's cost of borrowing. If I put off paying another year, with interest the amount I owe grows 2% in real terms, but my income grows 3%, so things get easier the longer I put it off.

Let me go on the record as favoring the consumption of truly free lunches. If everything the government buys really is free, then by all means, let's have them buy more, and more, and more, and rather than double my taxes, let's cut taxes all the way to zero. Unfortunately, I expect that Paul would agree with me that in fact there is a limit to just how much we can count on supersizing this particular happy meal.

That last point is one of my arguments - if there is a limit to cutting taxes then logically there is a limit to how much debt the government can take upon itself.

I asked a friend the other day to compare his mortgage to his annual income, which he figured out to be 580%. For smaller economic entities like households and businesses, such a huge debt/income ratio is expected and normal. Nevertheless the bigger an economic entity is, the more risky such debt/income ratios become since its collapse would have a huge secondary impact.

The US Government's debt/income ratio is currently 362.64%. That's too large in my opinion.

---