Friday, April 15, 2016

Which is bigger?

The national debt or the national ignorance about the debt?

I suppose one way to think about it is to propose that the American educational system has failed because almost no one understands the simple and basic concept of a national debt. Not the editors at Time:

Not the Tea Party.

Does Donald Trump, the Teadiot darling? That's a curious question. (Bear with me. I will leave the formal demolition of the debt-is-a-bad-idea to more formal people. This post will offer some facts that, I am willing to bet, not many people know.)

Trump is clearly not averse to borrowing when he can find someone stupid enough to lend to him, but his 4 -- count 'em, four! -- bankruptcies demonstate he doesn't manage debt well.

The first country to create a funded permanent national debt in the modern sense was England in 1694. The vehicle was the Bank of England, which is still in business and doing very well, thank you.
Britain has never been out of debt since and the debt keeps growing. Yet the British are among the most prosperous people in the world.

The British understood the value of a safe investment in which its growing middle class could park their savings, since placing them with private banks was extremely dangerous. (This is one of many examples of how governments can accomplish goals better than private enterprise. Nobody has even lost a farthing in the Consols, as British government stock used to be called.  Consols were finally paid off last year, now replaced with more modern forms of public debt.)

There were earlier "national debts," of course, but usually considered the personal obligation of the sovereign. Sovereigns were very bad people to lend to, as Jacques Coeur and many another rich man discovered. The few medieval and early modern republics issued what we would now recognize as national debt.

These were called, in Italy, mountains of piety, and they were not always voluntary. Venice made capital levies on its rich citizens to pay for war, issuing bonds. In light of the recent controversy about vulture funds buying discounted debt from Argentina, Puerto Rio and other places, it is interesting that when Venice eventually paid off its bonds (which were 100 at par), it paid 2 ducats to holders who had bought on the secondary market, but 8 ducats to heirs of the original "investors" of a century earlier.

The United States got its national debt down to nothing during the "National Period" by selling off lands it had stolen from the Indians. It had the advantage of not fighting expensive wars or providing much in the way of public services in those days, except lighthouses and harbors. Global trade was not a bad word back then.

The Civil War put the nation into permanent debt, but this did not damage prosperity, which -- in terms of percentage expansion -- has never been greater. Holders of Confederate bonds lost everything.

The United States has never levied on capital, although that might have been a good idea at some periods, like 2003-present. Nor has it ever raised forced loans, although the pressure to buy War Bonds was very strong in 1917-18 and 1942-45.

The end of World War I was followed by a sharp depression from which the country never recovered, and it was feared that World War II would also be followed by a depression, unemployment and business failures. Debt saved the country's bacon, however.

In 1917-18, ordinary workers, who were paid little over subsistnce, could not buy much debt, but in 1942-45, thanks to minimum wages, unionization and oher excellent New Deal innovations, ordinary workers bought $140 billion in governemtn debt. In 1946, as the economy converted to peacetime pursuits, this enforced saving was unleashed in a tidal wave of home buying, car buying and furniture buying that at last ended the depression that had started in 1921-22.

For perspective, in 1944 the government ran its biggest debt (as counted in constant dollars) ever, $244 billion. So the war debt in the hands of average Americans was equal to about six months of allout deficit spending.

It helped that much of that $244 billion was invested in new factories, mills and mines. Most of these were put to profitable use after the war. Very, very profitable, since many of these valuable properties were turned over to private corporations for a dollar each. That is not the kind of deal that you or I are ever offered, so when some heir of World War II profiteers bitches about taxes and spending, throw that in his face. (It was not because the holders of great wealth were such great managers that their share of national wealth went up and up.)

The Time cover story that sparked off this post was not written by a staffer (though it must have been editd by the paid help) but by James Grant. Here is how the magazine describes him:
Grant is the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer. His latest book, The Forgotten Depression: 1921: The Crash That Cured Itself, won the 2015 Hayek Prize
 Ah! Time turned its cover over to a Teadiot. Not everybody has forgotten the Crash of '21. Not RtO, not by a long shot.

As I have mentioned many times (working off the research of Rexford Guy Tugwell, perhaps the best of all American political economists), in 1921 about 1 in 4 Americans was a farmer or other primary producer (timber, fish) or depended on farmers for income. Although US industrial production expanded in the '20s, giving rise to an illusion called "Coolidge prosperity," the farmers who were wiped out virtually dropped out of the money economy. After great exertions, the New Deal began to get the farm economy reviving by 1940, but by 1950 technological innovations had rewritten the playbook. The yeoman farmer never did recover. (As Harry Truman remarked, in 1949, there were 2 million farming mules in Missouri; but they were being replaced by tractors.)

It is no surprise that a moron like Grant would win a Hayek Prize.

19 comments:

  1. I suppose one way to think about it is to propose that the American educational system has failed because almost no one understands the simple and basic concept of a national debt.

    Okay. It is so simple, how about you provide the definition of precisely what it is, why it exists, and, most importantly, when it becomes too big.

    As an added bonus, how about explaining how the current US debt trajectory is sustainable.

    Oh, and while you are at it, explain how you understand the US debt better than Krugman pre-Obama, or post-Obama.

    Or better than the Venezuelans.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I suppose one way to think about it is to propose that the American educational system has failed because almost no one understands the simple and basic concept of a national debt.

    Okay. It is so simple, how about you provide the definition of precisely what it is, why it exists, and, most importantly, when it becomes too big.

    As an added bonus, how about explaining how the current US debt trajectory is sustainable.

    Oh, and while you are at it, explain how you understand the US debt better than Krugman pre-Obama, or post-Obama.

    Or better than the Venezuelans.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It never becomes too big. Unless you let the rightwingers crash the markets. Even then, although they have done that numerous times, they have never forced suspension of interest payments.

    Unlike some people, I am old enough to remember hysterical rightwing arguments about debt. In the early years of Reagan the Wall St Journal was foaming at the mouth about how the expanding debt was going to crowd out private investment because (for some strange reason) savers were going to put all their money in soon-to-be-worthless gummint bonds.

    What happened, of course, was the the reverse. Debt soared but savings soared even more, so that there were not anywhere near enough sensible private investments to make.



    ReplyDelete
  4. You spew a great many nonsense pronunciamentos, but this must take the cake.

    Clearly, you have absolutely no appreciation for what influences exchange and interest rates, nor any recollection of Greece, Venezuela, Chicago, Illinois, Detroit, et al.

    Now, an obvious objection is that none of those entities have a reserve currency.

    But before you make it, consider that any company that issues stock is completely analogous to the US. It can issue as much stock (debt) as it wants.

    Now, tell me that debt doesn't matter.

    But wait, there's more: what is the one essential thing that characterizes any viable fiat currency? (Hint: Bitcoin does not have this characteristic.) Presuming you can figure that out, see if you can reason from there to the logical conclusion.


    What happened, of course, was the the reverse. Debt soared but savings soared even more, so that there were not anywhere near enough sensible private investments to make.

    Because all of this happened in a vacuum, without absolutely no changes anywhere else that had any effect at all.

    Were you really a business journalist?

    ReplyDelete
  5. P.S. I can't help but notice that hatred has destroyed your reasoning abilities. If your hate rests upon so many distortions, omissions, elisions, and outright lies, then perhaps you need to reconsider your opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Government debts are not like corporate debts, for many reasons. Bottom line: all my life, rightwingers have been predicting imminent failure of the US to pay its debts. The record of failure is 100%.

    Rather than repeating the same old charge, wouldn't it make sense to think about it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. That their predictions (and those of Krugman -- didn't know he was a right winger; learn something new every day) have thus far proven wrong means only that they have been wrong so far.

    There were plenty of people who thought the Soviet Union was going to be around for a very long time, until very suddenly it wasn't.

    Since you clearly don't know what the basis of a viable fiat currency is, it is no surprise to me that you think debt can increase without bound, and there will be no consequences.

    If that is true, explain Venezuela.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well being wrong for a loooongtime should indicate something.

    You know,you have this habit of calling on Cuba, Venezuela etc. instead of trying to deal with the question at hand. This is a hint that you really haven't any idea how to defend your position.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This coming from someone who thinks because he said it, it is true.

    In contrast to my citing examples where debt mattered very, very much.

    That you don't see the difference speaks volumes, none of it good.

    But wait, there's more: what is the one essential thing that characterizes any viable fiat currency? (Hint: Bitcoin does not have this characteristic.) Presuming you can figure that out, see if you can reason from there to the logical conclusion.

    Still waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is more than one essential thing that characterizes a practical currency.

    I spent a post listing examples that mattered. You must have skipped that part

    ReplyDelete
  11. I spent a post listing examples that mattered. You must have skipped that part.

    You mean this? Britain has never been out of debt since and the debt keeps growing.

    The example that includes not a single number, like, oh, debt to GDP ratio? It's historical levels? It's trend?

    Or this? For perspective, in 1944 the government ran its biggest debt (as counted in constant dollars) ever, $244 billion.

    It also fails to include a number most would consider important: debt to GDP ratio. Again, you fail to mention the ratio's, levels and its trend.

    But wait, there's more: Constant dollars? What are those?

    Your post is so devoid of any useful facts on the subject that an article from the NYT fashion section would likely be more relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 'The example that includes not a single number, like, oh, debt to GDP ratio?'

    Well, neither did your citation of Venezuela, and we happen to know (from earlier comments) that your views on that nation are unhistorical.

    Not everybody in the world doubts the dollar. you travel. I bet if you ask, you will find in some places you go, people will pay the US to keep their money in dollars.

    I have pointed before to where numbers can be found, if it's numbers you want. http://www.mauinews.com/page/blogs.detail/display/3550/Book-Review-225--Exorbitant-Privilege.html

    It is worth noting that since that was written the US has taken on much more debt and the dollar has become much more desirable to hold, as markets see it.

    Funny how that works

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, neither did your citation of Venezuela ...

    Why should it? It is already obvious that Venezuela is in a debt crisis, and it is just as obvious that your views have absolutely no contact with reality.

    Not everybody in the world doubts the dollar.

    Pro-tip: when dealing with something that might happen in the future, the present tense is a sure sign you don't understand what is going on.

    When using other countries, and the US's debt as reasons to conclude debt doesn't matter, the most significant number is the debt-GDP ratio.

    That you have left it out can mean only one of two things: You are clueless, or, you are a marxist hoping for a collapse of capitalism.

    From here, it is a very tough call.

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/09/opinion/the-making-of-an-ignoramus.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

    The debt/GDP ratio is in there, but feel free to ignore Krugman. The comments, however, are hilarious.

    BTW, when he calls Trump an ignoramus, he's talking about you, too.

    'Pro-tip: when dealing with something that might happen in the future, the present tense is a sure sign you don't understand what is going on.'

    That's another way of saying, 'I am an ideologue who does not learn from experience. Experience means nothing to me.'

    That happens to be the explicit stance of the Republican party on finance and has been for as long as I have been an economic reporter.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The debt/GDP ratio is in there ...

    No, it isn't.

    Although, if you think it is, then that explains a lot.

    Except that part about being an economic reporter. It doesn't explain that at all.

    Pro-tip: instead of making people read an entire link searching (in this case, futilely) for what you are referring to, use those copy and paste features.

    Once we get that sorted out, then perhaps we can have a side discussion on how unreliable -- if not intentionally dishonest -- Krugman is. The article you cited has a perfect example.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, tell me then, when -- a year will be close enough -- did the debt/GDP ratio become unsustainable?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Know, you first. Where, in that link, was debt to GDP ratio?

    And then, having answered that question, you need to entertain why, despite the oft said assertion that there is no such thing as a stupid question, that Well, tell me then, when -- a year will be close enough -- did the debt/GDP ratio become unsustainable? a perfect example of that rara avis.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well, I say it is sustainable, and the markets -- which you set such store by -- agree since people with cash are paying for the privilege of owning US debt.

    People like you have been asserting that the debt is unsustainable since before I was born. Therfore, it is time for them to be specific: when does this bad event occur?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cut the SQUIRREL cr*p, Harry.

    First things first: Where, in that link, was debt to GDP ratio?

    Then, having explained that, and tracking down an actual depiction of the US's debt to GDP ratio over time, justify how the US's debt history is applicable to the forecast.

    Until then, you are just blowing it out your hat.

    ReplyDelete