Robert Heilbroner and Peter Bernstein, The Debt and the Deficit
1989, WW. Norton, New York
Arguments over our debt being too big are not new! As our book pointed out,
when Kennedy proposed a ten billion deficit to deal with what we would now
consider a mild recession, people were aghast. In 1988, a poll of the
American People said that the deficit was the number one issue (by fourty-four
percent to the next closest, "protecting jobs from foreign competition.)
At the time of the book, the deficit was 2.6 trillion or ten thousand
dollars for every man, women and child.
Now, the United States household debt (including mortgages and credit card balances) is 13.5 trillion and the federal government debt is about seven trillion (1)
or about 20 trillion. That works out to $43,874 and
$30,000
per United States Resident. Or more realistically, as some people are not
working,
about $60,000.00 per worker for the public debt and
$30,000.00 for private debt. The average student graduates with
about $23,000.00 student loans outstanding.
Drs. Heilbroner and Bernstein also pointed out:
-
If we adjusted for inflation, the debt owned by the U.S. government
itself, the fact that some of the debt goes into productive assets, which
would be a capital budget if the government were a corporation, and
that the states have a surplus, as a whole the United States governments, local
and federal, have a net surplus
-
Debt as a whole is increasing. Even though mortgages are generally
paid off, the total mortgage debt increases as people take out new
mortgages, either to buy existing houses under mortgage or new constructed
houses.
Between 1970 and 1988, home mortgage debt increased seven times
Corporate debt went from $363 billion to two trillion and major corporations
never pay off their debt. IBM and EXXON debt went up by a factor of nine
as well.
-
There is no correlation between how much a country increases its debt and
its real interest rate--government borrowing does not "crowd out"
private borrowing
(
Dr. Krugman, and noble laureate and excellent blogger, showed a graph of borrowing for Britain and Britain twice had
very high ratios of deficit spending (250% of GNP)--in 1830 and 1950.)
And Mr. Souza of Brasilia, Brazil, in a comment on same,
quoted extensively from Lord Macauley.
David Hume declared that Britain's National Debt would be its ruin and
earlier, Adam Smith made similar warnings about a bankrupt society.
But Lord Macauley cited the many signs of progress in Britain at the same
time as the debt was reaching unprecedented levels, at these times.
Also, they observed that perhaps the trade deficit caused the federal
deficit. Note that in the late nineties when we had a balanced Federal
budget, there was still a bad trade deficit.
Table Eleven ranked the major economies on the basis of government
debt and on their trade deficit. The United States was six out of
seven on the federal deficit size and the worst on the trade deficit.
And, of course, the United States is by no means the highest
on the list of countries, when ranked by public debt as a percentage
of GNP. Japan is the highest at 198 per cent (excluding Zimbabwe).
My University college of business and Technology ethics day had a talk
on sovereign debt. They pointed out that although Japan had a very
high public debt, 90% of this was held by Japanese.
The United States was at 61.5 percent and is comparable to countries
such as Canada, Germany, France.
Scary Numbers!
But what if we converted our debt to a share economy, dividing that figure by
five per cent. And make it a share of income. Average income is $30,000.00
in the United States. Assume that this income is for the next twenty years.
Or we are left with about a ten percent share.
That means the United States worker would be free of all debts and worries,
The median Salary in the United States for men is $45,000 and $35,000
for women.
They would just pay about ten percent of their income.
Dr. Krugman looks at the federal deficit differently.
Currently, the Federal Government
pays 1.5 percent on ten-year debt. Even if our total debt was equal
to our gross domestic product, then the cost per individual is 1.5%--probably
not even noticable.
Paul Krugman pointed out the danger of relying on short term debt and
a commentor pointed out the folly of relying on ten year bonds--what happens
in ten years? We may not be able to renew the debt. This is why the share
economy calls for the end of arbitrary time restrictions on contracts.
We saw what happens to reliable companies when debt becomes due at
some arbitrary time that has no relation to the real world.
Whichever percentage and way one looks at,
the debt holder would be in about the same position. There is no interest
but assuming wages or income rises with inflation, the debt holder would
not be damaged by inflation. And the debt holder also benefits from the
natural growth of the economy, improvement in productivity, assuming same
are reflected in the wages.
Reference
Mark Whitehouse, "Americans Pare Down Debt"
Wall Street Journal
March 12 2010, Page S1 , CCLV no 58.
Note, the article said that reason debt fell 1.7 per cent in 2009--people
cleared their debt by declaring bankruptcy, giving them a fresh start in
life, but creating problems for our financial system.