Further, there's little evidence that Debt-to-GDP over 100% (despite "feeling" meaningful, because, 100%!) has any kind of predictive value for the long term direction of an economy, particularly one that has unusually low interest rates. If Debt-to-GDP were a problem for the US, you'd expect higher interest rates, not lower ones, as investors would be demanding higher returns on US debt.
The fact that interest rates on Treasury bonds remain so low, despite our debt levels and despite certain political figures repeatedly attempting to force the US Government to default on that debt, is prima facie refutation of the idea that no one in the market actually thinks US debt levels pose a major macroeconomic problem in the short to medium term.
The thing that worries me about our debt is that it's not like the rates are locked-in for 1000 years. After bonds mature, we need to issue new bonds to pay for them. And if the interest rates are higher at the time, the new debt will have a higher interest rate (I guess, technically, the bonds will sell for a lower price, which has the same effect).
Paying our current level of interest on our debt is not crushing. But it's not hard to imagine the rates tripling (or more) considering how close to zero the rates are now. Then we are over $1 trillion/yr in debt service (if my calculations are correct).
Combined with what seems like a structural deficit, I don't see any good way we'd get out of that.
In other words, we're not falling off a cliff now, but it seems like fragile situation.
My guidance to others, when they ask about US debt, I suggest they watch Japan. When Japan's interest rates rise, even just a little, their debt will become unserviceable. Once that happens, it will be time to think hard about US debt. The plan is clearly to inflate out of it. Survivable for the wealthy, devastating for everyone else.
The blog post raises some fair points, but the author does a pretty poor job at getting any point across. The most concerning things right now are: low interest rates on very high risk debt, continued and dramatic growth of derivatives (you fail, I fail, we all fail), and China's decision to push the 2008 correction in to the future finally running out of steam. The geo-political issues in the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia are a whole other cause for concern.
I think the risks now are still fairly benign compared to what was faced during the Cold War (though we still build new nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles, Russia fell short of its recent goal of 300 and instead has built 30 so far.)
There is probably 10% slack right now before you even get to mild inflation. What's concerning to me is geopolitical instability while the economy is teetering on deflation. This state is strongly correlated with big wars.
2013
A = Debt is around: $17.5 trillion
B = Debt Service: $416 billion
C = Average Rate: 2.38% ($416 billion / $17.5 trillion)
D = U.S. Tax Revenue: +/- $2.8 Trillion
Things won't get interesting until B approaches D.
So one way of looking at is if everything remained constant (which it won't) you'd need 15% interest rates on the current debt for debt service to approach tax revenue. If interest rates stay the same you could increase the debt to $128 trillion.
"Things won't get interesting until B approaches D."
I'd say things would get pretty interesting well before that point. B=D is just the point at which a default is inevitable (unless much higher tax revenue is achievable without causing other problems).
But the problem is that the interest rates are so low now that large increases are not outlandish. 7 years ago, the rate was more than double what it is now. Looking at the graph in the article, in the 80's it was over 10%, more than 4X the current rate (which would imply 1.6 trillion in debt service).
It seems like we're making a big bet that interest rates are down permanently. That may be true, but it seems like a fragile assumption to me.
There is no reason for the government to default when B=D. (If you disagree, please take a deep breath and think through the mechanics of exactly how the US federal government could be forced into default.)
In reality, B=D is likely to balance itself out again. This becomes apparent once you think through where the interest payments go.
If they are reinvested in government bonds, nothing happens. If they are reinvested in other financial assets, the general interest rate decreases, which will also pull down the interest rate on government bonds (reducing B). And if the interest payments end up with people who spend them on goods, well, that grows the economy, which increases D.
I agree that it will happen before B equals D but no one knows the tipping point ratio. In theory, a government can always argue right up to that point that, "we'll grow our way out of this."
There is a reason why they are at historic lows-- it is the decision of market participants. Your concern is essentially that market participants will somehow do a complete 180, for no stated reason.
"Your concern is essentially that market participants will somehow do a complete 180, for no stated reason."
If market participants demand a higher interest rate, I wouldn't call that a "complete 180".
Regardless, change is the only constant, as they say. Markets move. Behavior changes in response to the environment. If we really are supposed to be a risk-free place to loan money, then I would think we'd be a little more resilient to rising interest rates, which happen fairly often historically.
However, it is hard to imagine that interest rates would increase without a serious uptick in economic performance. Such an uptick would automatically go hand in hand with increased tax revenues and lower spending (because social safety net spending would shrink automatically).
Basically, any scenario in which interest rates grow are scenarios in which automatic stabilizers will reduce the government deficit in other places. It's a healthy system in which the feedback mechanism go in the right (i.e. stabilizing) direction.
"However, it is hard to imagine that interest rates would increase without a serious uptick in economic performance."
It's not that hard to imagine; what you describe is essentially Stagflation. You may consider it unlikely, but there are some known potential causes[1].
As I understand it, Stagflation happens when increased demand is less able to stimulate increased supply than one might expect.
As mentioned in [1], an oil supply shock could be a cause. That is not outlandish given the current instability in the middle east and our tense relationship with other oil producers (Russia and Venezuela). The US and Canada do produce a lot of oil, which may offer insulation, but I don't think that's necessarily a defense.
Another cause listed is tough regulatory atmosphere. For instance, if the EPA decides to strongly curb CO2 emissions, or misguided labor laws come into effect, or the healthcare system in the US gets even worse. Again, not outlandish.
Ah, right. I still think there are two mitigating factors here to what I said.
First: In the stagflation of the 1970s (which is really the only significant empirical data point we can draw from), increased interest rates were a political choice made by the central bank rather than an economic necessity.
Second, and more importantly: Stagflation is characterized by inflation, which means that nominal GDP grows even while real GDP is stagnating.
Since real GDP is irrelevant to the debt-to-GDP ratio (witness the debt-to-GDP ratio through the 1970s), the conclusions for whether one should worry about the debt-to-GDP ratio remains the same as far as I can tell.
Why is that hard to imagine? If, hypothetically, our economy fell off a Great Depression style cliff, wouldn't that make it harder to pay our debt, expectation of which would force rates up, and be somewhat self-fulfilling?
> The fact that interest rates on Treasury bonds remain so low, despite our debt levels and despite certain political figures repeatedly attempting to force the US Government to default on that debt, is prima facie refutation of the idea that no one in the market actually thinks US debt levels pose a major macroeconomic problem in the short to medium term.
With respect, I don't think it's accurate that the fact that bond rates remain low correlates to evidence that there's no major macroeconomic problem. Just take a look at the Federal Reserve's balance sheet that was relatively stable for many years has quadrupled in 5 years.
>The fact that interest rates on Treasury bonds remain so low, despite our debt levels and despite certain political figures repeatedly attempting to force the US Government to default on that debt, is prima facie refutation of the idea that no one in the market actually thinks US debt levels pose a major macroeconomic problem in the short to medium term.
Not necessarily. If you have to ask yourself what the country had to do to keep those rates from changing. The more a country is in debt (especially to other countries) the more their foreign debtors have leverage over what policies the debted country can enact. For the sake of arguement, let's say that China decided to annex Alaska. If we retorted with a threat of military action, China could come back and say we'll increase your interest rates.
Also high debt to GDP ratio makes printing money as a solution more attractive for a government. Inflation is a theft from everyone.
Foreign debtors have zero leverage over the United States. What would happen if China decided to stop buying US debt? Their currency would appreciate, their exports would collapse, and their economy would go into recession. Our currency would depreciate, our exports would increase, and our economy would get a much desired boost.
You will pay triple for your iPhone, your car, your TV, your laptop, your monitor... If you haven't checked recently anything you buy comes from China or has a significant % of it's BOM from China and is essentially financed by that debt. Your standard of living would collapse.
Obviously both China and the US would take a big hit but I'd argue the US would take a bigger hit. Right now the US benefits from the status of the US$ as the world's reserve currency. If all foreign US bond holders sell their their bonds the US$ will not simply depreciate, it will collapse. The US will be able to import nothing and it's not geared to handle that. It's very comfortable having the cheap manufacturing and the environmental implications somewhere else. Now none of the US debt holders want to see this happen but also no one will want to be the last one holding to debt in a collapsed currency - if someone sneezes.
Given that a lot of US businesses do their business worldwide and keep their money out of the US they won't necessarily be impacted as much but this "run on the bank" scenario is not going to be pretty.
The more a country is in debt (especially to other countries) the more their foreign debtors have leverage over what policies the debted country can enact.
Not necessarily, because national debt (eg bonds, t-bills, etc) can be owned by anyone, not just foreigners. In the case of the US, as it happens, most national debt is overwhelmingly owned by Americans --think your IRA: whatever percentage of bonds you own is government debt to you.
The confusion arises because one particular strategy of hedge funds in the past has been to buy up huge controlling amounts of dollar-denominated bonds/debt from small export-dependent countries so that, if the country's economy slows down and they have to devaluate their currencies to boost exports (and thus growth), they end up unadvertently increasing the amount owed to the hedge funds in dollars. This can easily get way out of hand, thus causing the well-publicized financial crises of the 1990s, Argentina's, Greece[1] etc. But this scenario obviously does not apply for countries that do not issue foreign-currency bonds, like the US.
[1] The case of Greece is even worse because they cannot even devaluate "their" currency to boost exports, so all they can do is intentionally depress or deflate their economy to make everything (salaries, land, inputs) massively cheaper; or refinance their debt with EU-backed loans.
Inflation is from those with assets denominated in dollars (if they are not inflation adjusted). It is to those with liabilities denominated in dollars (if they are not inflation adjusted) and to the people introducing the new dollars into circulation. In the case of the government printing money, that's the government (obviously) and it's fairly reasonable to consider it a tax like any other. A somewhat regressive tax, since the more wealthy usually have more flexibility about how they store their wealth, but I don't know how it compares to sales taxes.
"For the sake of arguement, let's say that China decided to annex Alaska. If we retorted with a threat of military action, China could come back and say we'll increase your interest rates."
Our debt is not callable. China can say "we won't buy from you except at a higher interest rate" as new loans come due, but anyone else in the market could come in and undercut them (and might be likely to, if they knew China was backing off because of politics and not worry about the soundness of our debt) - heck, it could even be patriotic Americans - BUY WAR BONDS!
That doesn't really seem to follow, to me. The worst a single creditor could do is not bid, or bid for higher rates in future treasury auctions. The terms of existing debt are fixed. The impact of this wouldn't be large unless other creditors followed suit - there are many parties interested in buying up US debt.
Furthermore, if a holder of US debt declared war on the US, I wonder if that wouldn't be viewed as a credible reason to default on that outstanding debt - certainly doesn't make much sense to be sending interest coupon payments to someone invading your country.
The creditor could dump the bonds on the open market, and depending on the level of pain they were willing to feel, could crush the us bond markets. The fed can only stand in and defend for so long until we have to go inflationary to defend the dollar. Its actually a good thing that china controls a large chunk of US bonds, they can't dump without taking a huge hit themselves, MAD (for you cold war buffs). The countries you need to worry about dumping are ones with large amounts of hydrocarbons, Russia. They could theoretically dump, and then they have the hard asset to trade (oil) if they truly wanted to cause pain, however doing so to the US would send the entire world in to a free fall and they would probably end up worse than before, however everyone would be worse than before. It would be a large global reset.
Exactly. If China dumps their bonds rates are going to go to the sky and the US currency will depreciate. No one wants to do this but no one will want to sit on the sidelines holding billions of US bonds if this starts happening. It's not that different than a run on a bank that does not have enough reserves. (well, it's a little bit different, a bank can't print money)
What everyone is trying to do is figure out a way to unwind this slowly and/or grow out of it. I think a lot of past growth was fuelled by population growth and "free" resources (oil, coal, etc.). Population isn't growing as fast and resources aren't as free any more.
Further, there's little evidence that Debt-to-GDP over 100% (despite "feeling" meaningful, because, 100%!) has any kind of predictive value for the long term direction of an economy, particularly one that has unusually low interest rates. If Debt-to-GDP were a problem for the US, you'd expect higher interest rates, not lower ones, as investors would be demanding higher returns on US debt.
The fact that interest rates on Treasury bonds remain so low, despite our debt levels and despite certain political figures repeatedly attempting to force the US Government to default on that debt, is prima facie refutation of the idea that no one in the market actually thinks US debt levels pose a major macroeconomic problem in the short to medium term.