Is The US Headed Toward A Debt Time Bomb?

Harvard Economist Ken Rogoff says we should be very worried about the growing national debt and that the current growth rate of debt could lead to a second wave of financial crises within years. However Mark Thoma discredits Rogoff, arguing that his concerns about debt caused him to advocate raising interest rates and argue against a stimulus in June of 2008. See the following post from Economist's View for more.

Ken Rogoff says the debt crisis he has been warning about for many years is still a risk:

From Financial Crisis to Debt Crisis?, by Kenneth Rogoff, Commentary, Project Syndicate: ...How can policymakers be so certain that financial catastrophe won't soon recur when they seemed to have no idea that such a crisis would happen in the first place?

The answer is not very reassuring. Essentially, there is still a risk that the financial crisis is simply hibernating as it slowly morphs into a government debt crisis.

For better or for worse, the reason most investors are now much more confident than they were a few months ago is that governments around the world have cast a vast safety net under much of the financial system. At the same time, they have propped up economies by running massive deficits, while central banks have cut interest rates nearly to zero.

But can blanket government largesse be the final answer? Government backstops work because taxpayers have deep pockets, but no pocket is bottomless.

And when governments, particularly large ones, get into trouble, there is no backstop. With government debt levels around the world reaching heights usually seen only after wars, it is obvious that the current strategy is not sustainable. ...

We are constantly reassured that governments will not default on their debts. In fact, governments all over the world default with startling regularity, either outright or through inflation. Even the U.S., for example, significantly inflated down its debt in the 1970s, and debased the gold value of the dollar from $20 per ounce to $34 in the 1930s. ...

The ... rate at which government debt is piling up could easily lead to a second wave of financial crises within a few years. Most worrisome is America's huge dependence on foreign borrowing, particularly from China... The question today is not why no one is warning about the next crisis. They are. The question is whether political leaders are listening. ...

How Paul Krugman might respond:

So is there anything to worry about? Yes, but the dangers are political, not economic. ... Over the really long term,... the U.S. government will have big problems unless it makes some major changes. In particular, it has to rein in the growth of Medicare and Medicaid spending.

That shouldn’t be hard in the context of overall health care reform. After all, America spends far more on health care than other advanced countries, without better results, so we should be able to make our system more cost-efficient.

But that won’t happen, of course, if even the most modest attempts to improve the system are successfully demagogued — by conservatives! — as efforts to “pull the plug on grandma.”

So don’t fret about this year’s deficit; we actually need to run up federal debt right now and need to keep doing it until the economy is on a solid path to recovery. And the extra debt should be manageable. If we face a potential problem, it’s not because the economy can’t handle the extra debt. Instead, it’s the politics, stupid.

Note also that the bond price data do not show any signs of worry over inflation, default, or crowding out.

One more note. This is Rogoff in June 2008. He argues that there should be no stimulus, the risk posed by deficits is too large, and that interest rates should be raised to prevent inflation:

[P]olicymakers must refrain from excessively expansionary macroeconomic policy ... and accept the slowdown... For most central banks, this means significantly raising interest rates to combat inflation. For Treasuries, this means maintaining fiscal discipline rather than giving in to the temptation of tax rebates and fuel subsidies. In policymaker’s zealous attempts to avoid a plain vanilla supply shock recession, they are taking excessive risks with inflation and budget discipline that may ultimately lead to a much greater and more protracted downturn.

My own view is that "significantly increasing interest rates" in June 2008 would have been a disaster, and that deficit spending was needed to prevent conditions from deteriorating even further. Opposition to deficit spending from people like Rogoff only served to delay putting this policy in place. (Also: This was prior to Lehman, inflation was being driven by commodity price increases, i.e. by relative price changes which do not pose long-run inflation risks, and had the Fed followed this advice and raised rates, it would have likely reversed course after Lehman further undermining its credibility at a time when credibility was needed the most.)

This post has been republished from Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View.

Geithner Urges Congress To Raise $12.1 Trillion Debt Ceiling

Although the US debt ceiling currently stands at $12.1 trillion, the ceiling could be shattered by October as the national debt is rapidly approaching $12 trillion. Should the national debt be allowed to grow without limit? Tim Iacono from The Mess That Greenspan Made discusses this.

In a letter to Congress yesterday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner urged elected officials to raise the $12.1 trillion debt ceiling since, according to current projections, that limit may be reached as soon as mid-October.

If there is a more inane concept than a U.S. debt "ceiling" - one that is moved upward, regularly, whenever necessary - someone please tell me what that inane concept is.

And, no, Geithner's justification for the higher level of U.S. government debt does not qualify since it is directly related to the ceiling itself.

It is critically important that Congress act before the limit is reached so that citizens and investors here and around the world can remain confident that the United States will always meet its obligations.

You see, in the twisted logic that passes for policymaking in Washington, it's critically important that the limit be increased before it is reached. Otherwise investors may lose confidence in the entire system - not so much because of the spiraling debt and the lack of any sort of realistic plan that would see the money be repaid, but because lawmakers hadn't paid close enough attention to the relationship between the debt and the debt ceiling, failing to move the ceiling upward when conditions required such action.

The debt ceiling was last raised just six months ago when the stimulus bill was passed.

This post was republished from Tim Iacono's blog, The Mess That Greenspan Made.

Can Obama Convince The World To Buy US Debt?

As the government plans to sell $65 billion in notes and bonds this week, we will see whether Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke were able to renew the confidence of overseas investors in America's ability to repay debt. Will countries like China and Saudi Arabia continue to buy US debt? Peter Schiff from Money Morning discusses this in the following post.

Just last week, Team Obama took its financial-crisis dog-and-pony show on the road. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner went to China. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke visited Capitol Hill. And President Barack Obama, himself, embarked on a Mideast tour that started in Saudi Arabia.

This full-court press is not coincidental, and comes just as the federal government began unloading trillions of dollars in new U.S. Treasury obligations. The coordinated charm offensive is meant to assure the world-at-large that the United States can repay these obligations - without destroying the dollar.

Given the renewed weakness in the dollar and the recent expressions of concern from China-our largest creditor-about the safety of its current holdings, this is no easy sell. Not only must our leaders convince holders of our debt not to sell what they already own, U.S. officials must persuade these same foreign investors to back up the truck and buy a whole lot more. The hope is that a Dream Team - consisting of a charismatic politician, a skilled Wall Street banker with longstanding ties to China, and a respected Fed chairman - can close the deal. However, no matter how slick the sales pitch, no amount of lipstick can dress up this pig.

The most obvious fear the trio must address is that oversized deficits will persist indefinitely. Reading from a carefully scripted rebuttal book, all three proclaim that as soon as the stimulus revives our economy, the government will take all necessary steps to reign in the deficits that result. Bernanke’s testimony showcases this rhetorical shift. The Fed chairman claimed that catastrophe has been averted and that the recession is nearly over. As a result, he advised Congress to now focus on debt management. How he expects U.S. lawmakers to do that was left unexamined.

Setting aside the fact that the recession is far from over and that the stimulus will actually weaken the economy in the long run, Bernanke’s words were less a practical guide to Congress than a bromide for our foreign creditors. Meanwhile, President Obama carefully peppers his speeches with calls for Americans to live within their means, to save more and spend less, to produce more and consume less. But nothing in the government’s current fiscal or monetary policy will encourage such behavior. In fact, the objective of economic stimulus is to prevent such changes from taking place!

The laughter of Chinese students that greeted Secretary Geithner at Peking University shows how ridiculous this spiel sounds overseas. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Obama administration are deafening. Multi-trillion-dollar deficits, bailouts, nationalizations, quantitative easing, and grandiose plans for government-provided healthcare, education, and alternative energy, render all of the administration’s claims of future prudence meaningless. If our leaders will not make tough choices now, why should anyone believe they will do so later, when those choices will be even harder to make?

Of course, it’s not just major holders - such as China and Saudi Arabia - that need to be convinced. Since the largest holders are already in so deep, they have the greatest short-term incentive to play ball. While throwing good money after bad is certainly a lousy investment strategy, it is politically expedient as it delays the need to officially acknowledge losses.

The spin is designed to keep all the smaller, more nimble holders from dumping their U.S. Treasury securities. The major holders can publicly pledge their commitment to Treasuries, while they privately planning their exit strategies, as long as they feel that the smaller holders won’t spook the market by front-running their trades.

However, once the psychology turns, there is no way to stop the rush for the exits. Remember how quickly the secondary market for subprime mortgages collapsed? One day, investors were lining up to buy; the next day, the stuff couldn’t be given away.

Make no mistake about it, we are issuing subprime paper and no amount of political spin can alter that reality. Bogus credit ratings aside, I think the world already knows this and it’s just a matter of time before someone admits it.

In the meantime, by continuing to lend, our creditors merely supply us the shovels to dig ourselves into an even deeper economic hole. Their credit enables our government to grow when it needs to shrink, finances bailouts of companies that should be allowed to fail, and enables a nation that should be saving and producing to continue borrowing and spending. As a result, the more money the world loans us, the less capable we are of paying it back. I really wish the world would stop doing us favors, as neither party can afford the consequences.

For a timely example, just look at California. With an unmanageable $20 billion deficit, California recently asked Washington for a bailout. With none immediately forthcoming, California was forced to make real and needed budget cuts. The hard choices, which will benefit California in the long run, would not have been made if federal funds had been committed. We all should be so lucky.

This article has been reposted from Money Morning. You can view the article on Money Morning's investment news website here.