Tag: all money is debt

–Less debt . . . oh, wait. More debt.

An alternative to popular faith

The 6/30/10 editorial in the Chicago Tribune, titled, “Enough debt, already,” had me confused. At first I thought they meant private debt. After all, consumers now deal with mortgages they can’t handle and credit cards charging 20% or more interest. And business profits, or lack thereof, won’t support much more debt without increased consumer buying. Consumers and businesses are going bankrupt in droves, so at this stage of the recession, “Enough debt, already” seems like good advice for the private sector.

But no, that is not what the Tribune meant. They wanted less federal debt and more private debt. The federal government has the unlimited ability to pay any debt of any size. It is a government that neither needs nor uses tax money to pay its debts. Yet the editors say, “. . . the U.S. has gone way, way down the path toward unsustainable debt . . .”

Will the government be unable to service its debts? No, that cannot happen. So, what makes federal debt “unsustainable”? The Tribune editors never say. However they call for more lending to business, despite the fact that growing business debt can be unsustainable. To make matters worse, the Tribune cheers the restriction on unemployment checks to those people who would have used those checks to buy things from businesses, thereby stimulating business. (“Unemployment checks extending up to 99 weeks instead of the usual 26 add more indebtedness.”)

The editors correctly say, “The U.S. economy is hungry for credit,” not realizing this means the U.S. economy is hungry for money, and federal deficit spending is the government’s method for adding money to the economy. The editors lament, “Washington already has bequeathed to our descendants a nation debt of $13 trillion,” – an untrue statement – and simultaneously wants to bequeath to our descendants added business debt. (Who do they think pays for business debt?)

To summarize: The Tribune editors oppose debt creation by the one entity that can afford unlimited debt service, but advocate more debt for the over-extended private sector. They support looser lending standards, so that less qualified businesses can go deeper into debt. They oppose increasing regulations on lenders, the same lenders whose unsupervised, profligate lending triggered the recession. They favor the end to federal stimulus plans, which would add the money they say the economy needs. And they hope the economy will recover — somehow.

Clearly, economics is not the Tribune editors’ forte.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Is Federal money better than other money??

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

In other posts on this blog, we have discussed how reductions in federal debt growth, as shown by the following graph, “Federal Government Debt-Domestic Nonfinancial Sectors,” immediately precede recessions. This comes as no surprise, since a growing economy requires a growing supply of money, and deficit spending is the federal government’s method for adding money to the economy.

Federal debt
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT- PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM YEAR AGO

Clearly, federal debt/money growth is essential to keep us out of recessions. Yet, when we look at “Debt Outstanding Domestic Nonfinancial Sectors” which includes not only Federal debt, but also outstanding credit market debt of state and local governments, and private nonfinancial sectors we do not see the same pattern.

Total Nonfinancial Debt
TOTAL DOMESTIC NONFINANCIAL DEBT — PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM YEAR AGO

In fact, when we subtract federal debt from total debt, leaving only state, local and private debt, we see the opposite pattern. Recessions more often seem to follow increases in state, local and private debt.


STATE, LOCAL AND PRIVATE DEBT, PERCENT CHANGE FROM YEAR AGO

Now in one sense, money is money. Your buying on your credit card creates debt/money, just as federal deficit spending creates debt/money. Presumably, both should have the same stimulative effect on the economy. They do, but not long term. Why?

Because, unlike the federal government, you, your business and local governments cannot create new money endlessly to service your debts. Your debts can pile up to the point where you must liquidate them by paying them off or by going bankrupt. When non-federal debts become too large, a growing number of people, states, cities and businesses must pull back and stop further borrowing, i.e. stop creating money, or even destroy money by paying off loans. When that happens, we have a recession.

(As an aside, this is one reason the early stimulus efforts had so little effect. People used the stimulus money to pay off loans, so while the federal deficit spending created money, the loan pay-downs destroyed it. Debt reduction destroys debt/money.)

During the recession, and for a short time after, we tend to cut back on our personal borrowing and liquidate debt/money. Then we begin to resume borrowing, more and more, until again, we hit our personal limits and cut back, causing yet another recession. The sole prevention of this cycle, which averages about 5 years in length, is to make sure that federal deficit spending grows sufficiently to offset periodic money destruction by the private sector.

In summary, federal deficit spending is good for the economy, always good, endlessly good (up to the point of inflation). Private and local government spending/borrowing also is good, but not endlessly. Unlike the federal government, the private and local-government sectors eventually reach a point where debt is unaffordable and unsustainable.

To prevent recessions, the government continuously must provide stimulus spending, then provide added stimulus spending to offset the periodic reduction of money creation by the private sector.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty


==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

— Let’s blame China

An alternative to popular faith

Here we go, again. The typical beggar-thy-neighbor approach to international trade.

————————————————————————————-
6/10/10: By David Lawder; WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Thursday that reform of China’s exchange rate is “critically important” to the U.S. and global economies and a more flexible yuan was in China’s interest.
[…]
In his testimony, Geithner said the Obama administration wanted China to change policies that disadvantage American companies and to provide a more level playing field for U.S. products and investments. He vowed the administration would “apply forcefully” all remedies available under U.S. law to curb China’s unfair trade practices, including anti-dumping and countervailing duty complaints.
[…]
“A stronger yuan would benefit China because it would boost the purchasing power of households and encourage firms to shift production for domestic demand, rather than for export,” he said. “[…]which is particularly important now, with China’s economy facing a risk of inflation in goods and in asset prices.”
————————————————————————————-

Think of it this way. When two nations each have the unlimited ability to create money, which nation benefits from a positive balance of trade? That is, which nation benefits when one sends more of its goods and services to the other?

In CHINA TRADE we saw that the nation exporting fewer resources (i.e. exporting more, easily created money), has the advantage. The Obama administration seems to believe international trade is a zero-sum game, where for every “winner” (net goods and services exporter) there is a “loser” (net goods and services importer). So in their minds, for the U.S. to be a winner, we must make sure there are enough nations that are losers – as I said, the beggar thy neighbor approach to international trade.

The technical truth is, the U.S. could we wealthy without exporting a single dollar’s worth of goods and services. Visualize that our exports were zero and the U.S. government were the sole “export” customer. Rather than exporting steel, sausage and services, the government would buy all this output. No, don’t get excited. I don’t suggest we stop exporting. I’m just trying to demonstrate a point.

Could the government afford it? Yes, the government has the unlimited ability to create the money to afford anything. Would our industries suffer? No, they would receive the same money as if they actually had exported. Would this increase the money supply to inflationary levels? No, the total money within the economy would be the same as if it had come in from other nations.

Yes, we’d have to solve the problem of what we do with all the goods and services we produce (Create new industries for this purpose??), but the U.S. literally could survive and prosper with no exports at all – as though it were the only nation on earth.

The Obama administration merely has set up China as a straw man, to take the blame for our economy’s failure to grow as fast as it should. But, the real blame should go to the debt hawk belief that federal deficit spending should be minimized. For years, our stimulus efforts have been too-little, too-late, and even today, while growth is painfully slow, and millions are out of work, there is more concern about so-called debt (i.e. money created) than about economic success.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Anthropomorphic economics disease

An alternative to popular faith

Fundamental to debt hawk beliefs is the idea that monetarily sovereign nations are like you and me. Thus, debt hawks practice “anthropomorphic economics.”

A monetarily sovereign nation is the monopoly supplier of its currency, which currency is not tied to any asset (like gold) or to a foreign currency. A monetarily sovereign nation has the unlimited ability, and the monopoly power, to create its currency.

The U.S., Canada, Australia, China and India are monetarily sovereign. The EU nations are not. That is why so many of the comparisons between Greece and the U.S. are false.

Specifically, here are a few of the assumptions debt hawks have about the U.S. — assumptions that might be correct for individuals, but not for the U.S.

1. The U.S. government must borrow or tax in order to spend.
You and I must obtain money, either by borrowing or by income, before we spend. The reverse is true for the U.S. government. U.S. spending creates money. So-called federal “borrowing” is not like personal borrowing. The U.S. creates T-securities from thin air, then exchanges them for dollars it previously created from thin air. Then it destroys the dollars. When the government repays its ‘debt,” the situation is reversed. It creates dollars, which are exchanged for T-securities, and the T-securities are destroyed. The whole process became obsolete in 1971.

2. Servicing the federal debt is a burden on the U.S.
Because the U.S. pays all its bills by creating money ad hoc, paying its debts never is a burden. Unlike you and me, the government simply credits the bank accounts of its creditors and debits its own balance sheet, which it can do endlessly. The “debt” carried on the government balance sheet is an accounting of the T-securities created by the government. Rather than “debt,” this balance sheet entry should be called “T-securities open.”

3. Federal debt is a burden on future taxpayers
Unlike you and me, the government does neither needs nor uses income in order to spend. There is no relationship between federal taxes and spending. Even were taxes dropped to zero or raised to $100 trillion, neither event would affect the federal government’s ability to spend by one penny. In fact, tax money is destroyed upon receipt, as a credit in a government balance sheet. The government does not spend tax money.

4. Federal surpluses are more prudent than deficits
For you and me, net income is more prudent than net outgo. Not so for the U.S. government. Federal taxes destroy money; federal spending creates money. To grow, an economy must have a growing supply of money. Federal spending is the most reliable, controllable source of money. Federal surpluses are imprudent, because by destroying money, they create recessions and depressions.

5. If U.S. debt is “too big,” nations will refuse to lend to us.
A credit rating is based on the past and future ability and willingness to service debt. You and I need a good credit rating in order to borrow. But, the federal debt has grown 1500% in only 30 years, and no nation has refused to buy our T-securities (not that it would matter, because we no longer need to sell T-securities).

Debt hawks have made the intuitive argument that federal debt is like personal debt – anthropomorphic economics – but are unable to supply data to substantiate their intuition. One person told me the proof is that costs have risen (inflation) and the federal debt also has risen, therefore federal debt must cause inflation. The problem with this cause-effect conclusion is that through time, many things in addition to debt have risen: population, real GDP, the miles of paved roads, satellites in orbit, M3, the number of schools in the Big Ten, the number of cell phones and the years since the Cubs won the World Series. For example:

rising thingsGRAPH

If federal debt caused inflation, we would expect to see greater inflation when deficits are greater and less inflation when deficits are smaller. But, as we have seen at INFLATION there is no historical relationship between deficits and inflation.

In short, debt hawks suffer from anthropomorphic economic disease, the unsubstantiated intuition that the federal government’s finances are like personal finances, where debt must be minimized and spending must follow the acquisition of money.

As I have so often in the past, I again suggest you write to one of the debt hawk web sites – Concord Coalition, the Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget et al – and ask for data to substantiate their claim that federal debt has an adverse effect on our economy. In the unlikely event they answer you, they will supply data showing the debt is large and growing, but no data showing it hurts then economy. The reason: No such data exists. Growing federal debt is economically necessary.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity