Tuesday, January 24, 2023

Does the US really have a debt crisis?

What’s the debt crisis?  Just this: The US Treasury may run out of cash by fall. In that case, it won’t be able to pay interest on its loans and will have to default. For the world’s second richest nation (next to China) to admit that it’s broke has, um, interesting implications.

But thank God for the tireless guardians of the public trust.  Kevin McCarthy, the moderate California Republican who sold his soul to the neo-Tea Party in exchange for the Speakership of the United States House of Representatives, says the nation simply must observe Congress’s $31.4 trillion limit on the public debt.  “If you had a child and you gave them a credit card, and they kept hitting the limit—you wouldn't just keep increasing it."

Actually, you might.  The amount that you can comfortably borrow depends on your income.  As you become richer, you can take on more debt without flirting with disaster. And so it is with the nation: GDP, the nation’s income, usually rises. We should limit the public debt not in dollars but as a share of GDP. In fact, a bipartisan group of Congressmen has just proposed this.

For three decades, the public debt when measured in dollars has been rising more and more rapidly, as Figure 1 shows below. But this substantially reflects inflation rather than real cost. As the government prints more dollars, the debt naturally claims more of them, because more are circulating. But the dollars are cheap to print, so they do not represent a true cost in the sense that we can pay it only by doing without something else.

Figure 2 tells us more about the true cost. It shows the share of annual GDP that the debt would claim. (GDP is gross domestic product, the market value of what we produce each year. It measures the size of the economy.)  For example, if the share is 20%, then paying off the debt in a year would force us to tighten our belts by a fifth for a year.

You can see that the debt share did not rise steadily until the financial crisis of 2009, when the government borrowed heavily to spend its way around an economic collapse.  The debt share rose sharply in the response to the pandemic in 2020 but then actually fell. In other words, the “looming debt crisis” wildly descried by TV newscasts is a mirage.  It occurs only because Congress was so foolish as to express the debt limit in dollars, a meaningless measure.  

Figure 1: Debt soars in dollars...


Data source: US Treasury

 

Figure 2: ...but not in GDP share


Data source: US Treasury

And we’ve been here before, as Figure 3 illustrates. The Treasury almost ran out of cash late in 2021 and again just before New Year’s. But we survived, and we never heard about it on the six o’clock news. True, the decline in cash balances looks precipitous in Figure 3, but look again. The Treasury had beefed up its balances for pandemic spending.  Then it drew them down rapidly over 2020. If we ignore that event, the trend in balances after 2020 will look like the one before and even compare favorably to it. 

In short, today’s crisis is due to Congress’s definition of the debt limit and to its delay in deciding the main question: Do we want a bigger government or a smaller one? I can understand the delay. But meanwhile, the Treasury is running out of band-aids, such as suspending payments into the savings plans of government workers.   

Figure 3: Treasury operating cash

Source: Reuters

Markets notice. Figure 4 shows the interest rates on Treasury bonds coming due on the date in the horizontal axis.  For example, for a bond that matures in September, the interest rate is almost 4.6%. People buy bonds (i.e., make loans) to collect interest, and if they think that the bond might not pay in the end, they will demand a higher interest rate in the meantime as compensation.  As Figure 4 shows, interest rates for bonds coming due after September rise steadily with each passing month. Maybe investors think that there’s a growing chance that the Treasury will run out of cash after September and thus will have to default.

 

Figure 4: Interest rates on Treasury loans that will soon come due


Source: Reuters

 

Figure 5 shows a starker measure of the default risk. This is basically the cost of insurance against the prospect of default in the next five years.  Insurers demand higher premiums if they think that they will lose money because the risk will actually occur.  Well, the default premiums have been rising since early 2021 and are now soaring.

 

Figure 5: Credit swap against default


Source: Reuters

Yet we may be over-reacting.

I don’t mean to make light of the debt. It has been 120% of annual GDP for several years, higher than at any time since 1966 at least. President Lyndon Johnson was excoriated for splurging on the Vietnam War and the War on Poverty simultaneously in the 1960s, but today’s debt share is triple his. See Figure 2.

Moreover, we owe more of the debt to foreigners than Johnson did.  We no longer just pay ourselves.  We especially pay Japan, China, and the United Kingdom, which account for more than a third of the Treasury securities held by foreigners.  Foreign holdings totaled $7.3 trillion in November, or more than a fourth of the debt limit.  For comparison, the US produces about $20 trillion of goods and services each year. (Time out here: A Treasury security is just a loan to the government. Uncle Sam pays interest on bonds, notes, and bills—long-run, medium-run, and short-run loans.) Most of these dollars will eventually wing back to the US, since they can’t be spent elsewhere. (Not all of them.  A few countries use the dollar as their own currency, so dollars paid to them can be re-spent within their borders.) But meanwhile, we lose control of when those dollars will be spent.  If they are spent at the wrong moment, they may push up our prices.

Mad max       

Even so, we should ask not only what maximum to impose on the debt share but what minimum to observe. It’s not obviously zero. You should borrow to pay for college, since it will increase your future income. And the government should borrow when this will raise our future standard of living. For example, national defense protects us—protection that the private sector will not provide, because it cannot force beneficiaries to pay. The same principle holds for clean air.

For such essentials, which will pay off later, the government should borrow rather than tax today. After all, future taxpayers will be the ones to benefit, so they should settle the loans.

Time for boring arithmetic.  Feel free skip over it.

Denote as GI the amount that the government spends on valuable goods that the market won’t provide, like national defense and environmental quality. Denote the interest rate as r. By borrowing to invest GI, the government incurs a debt of r*GI per year. For example, if GI is $1 million and r is .1 or 10%, the annual debt is $100,000 over the life of the loan, probably 10 to 30 years. 

The annual public debt share of GDP is (r*GI)/GDP.  For example, if GDP is $10 million, then in our example the debt share is $100,000 / $10 million = .01, or 1%.

For simplicity, assume that when the government extinguishes one loan, it takes on another, proportional to the economy, so that the debt share of GDP is constant over time.

What federal spending is beneficial? I’m not sure that I want to answer that question. But, for heroic simplicity, suppose that the government spends either to grow the economy or to redistribute from the rich to the poor.  The main programs for redistribution may be Social Security ($1.4 trillion in fiscal 2021), Medicare ($709 billion), and Medicaid ($521 billion). These totaled $2.4 trillion, or a third of all federal spending. All other federal spending came to $4.9 trillion. Suppose that we treat this spending as beneficial. (I know, I know.)  The interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds in 2022 was 2%. The implied minimum debt share is roughly .02*4.9/20 = .005, or one-half of one percent.

Clearly, this figure isn’t much good for anything other than bar talk. Not all spending that doesn’t redistribute is good, and not all spending that redistributes is bad.  The Pentagon wastes money, and Medicaid may spur growth by improving health. Redistributing to the poor may also stabilize society. But the point is this: Even from a conservative point of view, observing a minimum debt share need not sock us hard in the wallet.   

What should be the maximum debt share of GDP?  This, I think, is the amount that absorbs all private savings, so that nothing remains to finance private investment, which surely boosts GDP and consumption over time. Then the limiting debt share would be the share of personal and corporate savings in GDP.  After all, households and firms lend their savings to companies building factories and to stone-broke youths (I remember those years) going to college.

More boring arithmetic. From 2010 through 2019, the personal savings rate averaged 7.3% of personal after-tax income. Profits in fiscal 2022 were $11.7 trillion (wow!). The federal profits tax was 21%, so after-tax profits were $9.3 trillion (still a wow).  The implied maximum debt share of GDP is about 54%.  This is less than half the actual debt share. 

Granted, I cobbled together my estimates with bubble gum and kite string.  You shouldn’t take them to the bank. But the moral, I think, is clear: Sooner or later, and preferably the former, we should pay down a healthy chunk of the debt.  It is high not because we need so much debt but because we procrastinate in deciding how much, over the long run, we really want to borrow.  Leon Taylor, Baltimore, tayloralmaty@gmail.com

     

References

Jason Lange.  U.S. lawmakers preparing plan to avert debt-ceiling crisis.  January 22, 2023.  U.S. lawmakers preparing plan to avert debt-ceiling crisis | Reuters

Reuters. Cash balance. Cash balance.png (1016×723) (thomsonreuters.com)

Reuters.  Graph of US credit swap against default.  https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/myvmogqmovr/US%20five-year%20single%20name%20credit%20default%20swap.png

Reuters. Treasury bill curve.  https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-CONGRESS/DEBT/lbvggogmavq/chart_eikon.jpg

St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank.  Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GFDEGDQ188S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

United States Office of Management and Budget.  Budget of the United States Government for fiscal year 2022.  Budget of the United States Government | GovInfo 

United States Treasury.  Debt to the penny. Debt to the Penny | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data

United States Treasury.  Daily Treasury long-term rates.  Resource Center | U.S. Department of the Treasury

The Wrap. Kevin McCarthy Compares Congress to a Child With a Credit Card in Fox News Interview on Debt Limit (Video) (thewrap.com)

 

 

Saturday, January 21, 2023

Is digital money a waste?


The roundup last month of Sam Bankman-Fried, who pleaded not guilty to allegations of fraud at FTX, is only the most vivid of recent catastrophes regarding e-money.  Since late 2021, bitcoin prices have fallen off a Dover cliff, as Figure 1 shows.  Pundits are inspired.  “Whatever highfalutin things you might have been told, crypto is only really about one thing: Making a quick buck,” writes Jemima Kelly of The Financial Times.

 

Figure 1: Bitcoin prices since 2015

Source: International Monetary Fund

In reality, digital money (and it really is money, as anyone who has used a debit card at McDonald’s knows) may be a godsend.  We, and the economy, would gain if we could send and get funds as easily as email. Yes, hustlers take advantage, of the ease of digit money, to rob us; but that does not mean that it can never help us. Think of the rapid switch to new-fangled checks from cash payments early in the 20th century. The fact that a scofflaw could kite checks did not make them useless. 

Central banks recognize the promise in digital currencies.  More than 100 countries have “adopted or explored” digital currencies sponsored by their central banks, says the International Monetary Fund. El Salvador and the Central African Republic recognize bitcoins as legal tender.   

Crypto crooks  

Still, digital moneys are prone to fraud, because they are not all regulated.  The value of any form of money depends on the central bank, which controls the nation’s money supply. For example, in the United States, the Federal Reserve sells bonds for dollars and takes the dollars out of circulation. This raises the value of a dollar in the economy—thus fighting inflation, the average increase in prices which reduces the amount of goods that your dollar can buy. (On the other hand, when the Fed wants to create jobs, it sells dollars for bonds, circulating dollars to boost spending.)  The Fed succeeds because it controls the dollar supply. But central banks are still getting a grip on cryptocurrencies.  No one central bank controls them, especially stablecoins, a private money that promises to redeem at a fixed value. 

In principle, cryptocurrencies can be as safe as gold, because technology can limit their supply. To create another bitcoin transaction, the computer must solve a complex problem. But in reality, since no one regulates cryptocurrencies worldwide, little stops an unscrupulous dealer from flooding the money market with bitcoins while falsely claiming that they are fixed in supply (and thus selling them at a high price).  So bitcoins really aren’t as safe as gold: There is a physical limit on the gold supply but none on bitcoins.

Cryptocurrencies look like a good deal because their value sometimes rises sharply on the market. But this is due to a fad. Everyone thinks that cryptocurrencies pay off big, so everybody buys them, which forces up their price. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, what goes up can as easily come down.  When bitcoins fall in price, everyone will want to sell them, accelerating the price decline.  Glance again at Figure 1. 

Speculative debacles are an old story. When computer-firm startups crashed in 2000-01 due to over-expansion, the US economy went into recession.  In the 1630s, a speculative craze over Dutch tulips suddenly imploded.  Does Figure 2 look familiar? In general, in finance, anything that looks too good to be true, probably is. 

Figure 2: Speculation on tulips raises their price—for a while


Source: Earl A. Thompson, The Tulipmania: Fact or artifact?, Public Choice 130: 99–114. 2007.

If you can't trust the bitcoin a bit, what can you? It's a good idea to put your money in something safe and easy to cash, like US Treasury bonds. (A bond is just a loan to the bond seller.  The Treasury borrows money by selling bonds, which it eventually pays off.) They’re safe because everyone trusts the US government to pay its bills (or has so far), so bonds sell at a stable price. 

Another good place to park your money is a stock index fund, like Standard & Poor’s 500, which reflects the stock market.  It’s fairly safe (though not as safe as a Treasury bond) because the stock market rises and falls with the US economy, which usually grows.  If you’re young, you can speculate just a bit, if you wish, by buying stock in an industry that you understand and by selling when the price is right. (You can speculate because your income will rise over time, covering losses from small risks.) But I wouldn’t stake more than 10% of my money, if I were young. 

"Enough!" you say. (You may know the New Orleans standard written about me, "Oh, didn't he ramble.") "What can I read?" Well, Burton Malkiel’s book on money management, A random walk down Wall Street, entertains and informs.  On cryptocurrencies, the IMF blogs enlighten (img.org). The IMF is an international group that rescues currencies in emergencies.

That’s probably more (or less?) than you wanted to know about digital money. Used with care, they can save us time and grief.  Used without care…. --Leon Taylor, Baltimore, tayloralmaty@gmail.com

     

References

Jemima Kelly. The clowns of cryptoland haven’t given up | Financial Times (ft.com)  January 19, 2023.

Bo Li and Nobuyasu Sugimoto.  Crypto Contagion Underscores Why Global Regulators Must Act Fast to Stem Risk.  imf.org

Andrew Ross Sorkin, Ravi Mattu, Bernhard Warner, Sarah Kessler, Stephen Gandel, Michael J. de la Merced, Lauren Hirsch, and Ephrat Livni.  Sam Bankman-Fried’s “house of cards” teeters.  The New York Times. Dec. 13, 2022  FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried’s “House of Cards” Teeters - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Adrian Tobias and Tara Iyer.  From Crypto to Central Bank Digital Currency, Podcast Tracks Fintech Boom.  From Crypto to Central Bank Digital Currency, Podcast Tracks Fintech Boom (imf.org)  December 21, 2022.

 

Good reading

Thomas Mackay.  Memoirs of extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds.  1841. Depicts Tulipmania vividly (if not always accurately).

Dave Roos.  The real story behind the 17th-century “Tulip Mania” financial crash. History.com . March 16, 2020.  The Real Story Behind the 17th-Century ‘Tulip Mania’ Financial Crash - HISTORY  A fascinating correction to Mackay.