Why Excessive Debt is the Real Problem – Part II
by Steve Suranovic
One of the main reasons for the unemployment problem around the world is excessive debt. Only when we eliminate the underlying source of our problems will we be able to sustainably reduce the unemployment rate. In my last post about debt I talked about mortgage debt. This post is about government debt.
Consider the Greek debt problem. Examples of Greek government largesse are easy to find on the internet. For example, government workers get some of the best benefits anywhere in the world. All are paid in 14 monthly paychecks per year. (the two extra amount to negotiated bonus payments). Some workers can retire with a full pension as early as age 45. Pensions of deceased military officers continue to be paid to their unmarried daughters for life or until she weds. Some union members were once granted free unlimited transportation on the national airline. The state railroad payroll is 4 times larger than total ticket sales. There are many more examples like this.
To finance these generous benefits, and to remain popular, the Greek government had to borrow enormously. When the economic crisis hit in 2008, Greek government debt had already reached 100% of GDP. This year Greece’s total debt is expected to exceed 150% of GDP, which amounts to over $450 billion. And still the Greek government continues to run large budget deficits to fulfill promises that are clearly untenable.
The situation is a mess and the problem just keeps getting pushed further into the future. One necessary outcome is for Greece’s budget to be balanced quickly or even moved into surplus to reduce their enormous debt. However, if this is done too quickly it could cause sharp contractions in economic activity making it even harder to pay down the debt. The Greek people have already risen up riotously this year (and last year) to protest the proposed cuts in government programs or increases in taxes. After all, profligate or not, the Greeks feel entitled to these promises, just like Americans feel entitled to their Social security, Medicare and tax breaks. They are surely not willing to rein in excesses without a fight. Besides what is excess to one person is another person’s monthly paycheck.
Greece’s government doesn’t want to make the needed budgetary changes (no sane politician would!) because the changes are very painful and unpopular. So the only way to continue the largesse, quiet the protests, and move along is to get someone to lend them even more money. But with a CCC bond rating (worse than junk bond status) they can’t borrow on the private market unless the interest rate was extremely high to compensate for the high risk of default. The risk premium on short term Greek bonds currently exceeds 25% and borrowing at that rate would push up their deficits and debt even faster.
In July 2011, for the second time, the EU stepped in to provide up to $160 billion in loans to allow Greece to continue to borrow at relatively low interest rates and with longer maturities. In essence this is like an increase in Greece’s debt ceiling, allowing it to continue running deficits. However, these EU bailouts are funded by the other EU countries. Thus, if Greece can’t repay these loans, the losses will be borne by taxpayers in the other EU countries.
Of course, in accepting these bailouts Greece is required to bring its budget into balance in a reasonable time period. Interestingly Greece has not been doing a very good job at this. In the first half of 2011 – this is after the bailout loans they received last summer – the Greek budget deficit rose 24%. Of course some of this has to do with the fact that the economy is stagnant and unemployment remains above 15%.
So growth is slow to nonexistent, tax revenues are falling, government promises remain generous, and any attempt to reduce spending leads to massive riots in the streets. So why do they keep getting bailed out?
There are several reasons.
First, creditors – that is, the institutions holding the $450 billion in Greek bonds – want to get their money back someday. (Note it is not the bank’s money in jeopardy.. it is depositor’s money .. that’s the people’s money) If Greece defaults then some creditors may not get anything back. Better to get a deal and wait longer than get nothing. Also, defaults can be disorderly as creditors line up trying to squeeze as much value out for themselves as possible. For example, if Greece owes $50 billion but only $25 billion in cash, who gets paid and who doesn’t? Figuring that out can sometimes take years.
The bailouts amount to promises that creditors will get their money back eventually, but will have to wait longer for it. So the bailouts buy time. For Greece though, the bailouts result in forced austerity, especially for those most dependent on government programs or those who pay taxes … which, of course, means pretty much everyone, … hence the riots in the streets!
Actually it is worth noting that another way to solve the problem for Greece is an outright default. If Greece defaulted, they would have to first settle with the creditors to decide who will not be repaid (this is a contentious process) and second balance their budget immediately because no one will lend them money for a long while. Thus the austerity will be even more painful in the short run. If Greece receives bailouts, then the austerity still has to happen, but it will be spread out over a longer period into the future. One question worth considering is whether it is better 1) to suffer a greater austerity quickly, resolve the debt problems (basically determine who is getting money back and who isn’t) and move on with a healthy balance sheet, or, 2) to suffer a longer and milder, though still painful, austerity and hope that the economy can grow and change into a healthy one in the distant future?
Perhaps the bigger problem for the world economy, though, is contagion. Many observers say Greece is small and so the problems there don’t matter much. That’s true, Greece is about the size of Maryland. But Portugal, and Ireland, and Spain and Italy are facing similar problems. If Greece’s problems migrate to these other countries then creditors will worry about the value of their loans to these countries too. And these loans are much bigger.
If Greece defaults, maybe the banking institutions can handle the losses. But what if Portugal, or Ireland, or Spain, decides to default? These could be large enough to force innumerable financial bankruptcies and threaten the entire financial system. Or what about the EU and IMF bailout of Greece? Again the values aren’t that large. But, what if the EU needs to lend money to Portugal, Ireland and Spain to keep them afloat too? (Note: they’ve already begun to do this!) How deeply into debt and how much risk are the Germans, French and other EU members willing to bear?
The essence of the true problem then is that numerous financial institutions around the world have taken deposits from its citizens and have saved the money by lending it to governments. Some of that money is in jeopardy of not being returned in full, but no one knows whose money is most in jeopardy or when those losses will materialize. Add on to this the US debt ceiling debate and the downgrading of US debt by S&P and we have financial institutions around the world questioning the true value of an enormous amount of their outstanding loans. It is worries like these, spread across the globe, that prevents the expansion of credit and the necessary risk taking that inspires economic growth. Sure, lending is occurring, but it is mostly safe and highly secured loans. These can keep the economies of the world running in place, but it is unlikely to fuel the rapid expansion we need to bring unemployment rates down.
If we want to solve the unemployment problem, there is no recourse but to alleviate the debt problems. There remains too much risk and uncertainty about the true value of outstanding loans for the world markets to function effectively. This is a reason why a large stimulus program may not work in this environment. Yes extra government spending can increase demand and create a few jobs for a little while, but this probably won’t speed up the debt restructuring. So if after the demand boost runs out, there remains a large number of underperforming loans, then we will also remain stuck in a stagnant economy. Only now we will be stuck with an even scarier level of government indebtedness that in turn could exacerbate the debt problems.
A useful analogy may be to think of the debt problem described above corresponding to a car that has been downshifted into 2nd gear. A fiscal stimulus represents stepping on the accelerator. Yes, the more we step on the gas (the bigger the stimulus) the faster the car goes, but if we remain in 2nd gear we’re in danger of burning out the engine. We can only return to a comfortable highway speed by upshifting to 3rd or 4th gear, and that requires resolving the debt problem first.
Steve Suranovic teaches international trade, international finance and microeconomics at The George Washington University. His research focuses on international trade policy, fairness and equity issues, and behavioral economics. He has a book titled “A Moderate Compromise: Economic Policy Choice in an Era of Globalization” published by Palgrave-Macmillan. This is cross posted from his blog.
Greece is simply the first country to get into this mess, because it’s one of the most structurally unsound. The root of the problem is the dependence on debt by all countries at all levels. The difference between savings and borrowing power may look equivalent during normal times, but when lenders want to balance their books, they’re not obligated to lend.
The problem in Greece was that all of society was in on the insanity.
In the US, a few castes are allowed to speculate and dictate policy/acceptable solutions while the rest are only to be instructed (“INFLATION LOOMS! CROWDING OUT! GUT SOCIAL SECURITY! LETTING TAX CUTS EXPIRE IS CLASS WARFARE!”).
Debt is no problem as long as you start paying it off to an acceptable level Like President Clinton did.
Bush massively increased debt and never raised taxes to cover it. In fact he lowered taxes for the big business people. He was relying on his Republican Voodoo economics of not taxing big business to stir growth. No growth occurred. In fact we had to bail them out because they were going broke!
There is a reason Democrats have been calling Republican economic ideology “Voodoo”. Because it’s a stupid shell game. A game that never pays a cent of debt, never stirs the economy, and , always results in raising taxes. Raising taxes which unfortunately but necessarily occurs when Democrats retake power and have to correct Republican mistakes.
Really Bush should have been out of office first term, but he used the war, which he created, to keep himself in office.
Gee…and I thought we grew out of comparing the US and Greece. This is propaganda from at least a year ago.
Which is the same as all other western countries, and still is.
The problem is that the current deficit is mostly structural. The military can be cut some, but it’s not going to be done quickly. The social security umbrella is still growing faster than inflation. At the same time, taxes can’t be raised quickly, nor can they go over 100%. The unsustainable problems can’t be ignored or excused away forever.
What about the other PIIGS? The situation has only gotten worse over the last year, and the entire financial system is intertwined. Time is proving, not disproving, the comparison.
Allen said: Debt is no problem as long as you start paying it off to an acceptable level Like President Clinton did.
That sounds great in theory until you realize that even with normal business cycles there will be downturns, which decrease govt revenues, so basing the budget and interest payments on the baseline which constantly grows is inherently unsustainable. Add to that the insanity of anticipating perpetual bubble economy growth and expansion, and you’ve got our present dilemma.
The problem is with spending by politicians as if it’s always a downturn — which is bogus Keynesianism (made worse by seeking stupid tax increases in a real downturn while demanding higher spending at the same time).
The politicians don’t want to say “No” to those who don’t want to hear it.
Economics was never my strong suit. Would the following be an accurate summation of Mr. Suranovic’s argument: “Banks are holding on to money that they would otherwise be lending to job-creating businesses, because they will need that money to stay solvent if Western countries’ governments delay or default on their debt payments?”
I like it, Dan.
Daniel: That’s exactly right. And much clearer than the way I put it! – Steve
One other policy option not mentioned for Greece is for it to leave the Euro, re-adopt its local currency, and then inflate its way out of debt. But that’s a riskier option, as it could endanger the entire Eurozone, which, as we all know, is already on unsteady waters. So, austerity it is! And while Greek citizens may not be happy about it, one thing the Greek government could do to gain some trust with its people is to tackle tax evasion and endemic corruption – i.e. issues which are the root of the problem. – Dimitri Bertson, wikigreeks.org
So I’ve been churning over these past two posts in my mind. They are pretty thoughtful & thorough, although the author did slip up in this particular section. He takes a leap from debt to unemployment without making the logical bridge. It is there, you just have to fill in the gaps yourself or with bits from other parts of the article. It just doesn’t “flow” there (it’s a writing thing and not a logic thing).
Style choices aside, there is still one flaw, one missing data point, that I’d like to see to prove the point that excessive debt is the root cause of our economic doldrums. That missing data point is overseas investment.
It seems to me that if indebtedness was truly affecting investment, and therefore jobs and overall economic growth, we’d see investment pretty dead across the board. Sure, some things would be doing better than others (all the money isn’t gone, it’s just less fluid). But overall, investment would be down. Too many poor-returning, current investments (i.e. bad debt) at risk of collapsing the whole thing.
So here’s the missing data point: is capital freely flowing to other countries, or has even that been affected by this downturn?
If overall investment activity is down across the board, then it’s clear that all the indebtedness is hampering the flow of capital, and per the logic of this article, economic & job growth is therefore struggling. No one has available capital to lend or invest because there is such a risk of “domino theory defaulting”.
If capital has simply moved from developed nations to developing nations, where it is freely flowing, then indebtedness is not really that big of a deal and, instead, we have a situation where rates of return in the developed world are not at all attractive and our American recession has a completely different root cause.
Now clearly investment capital has been moving to Asia for some time. I’m talking about magnitude here.
Barky,
One thing we could look at is the financial account on the US Balance of payments. You can look at the data on this page. http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=6&step=1 Look in Table 1 and scroll down past exports and imports.
In 2007, before the crisis, the US invested $1.45 trillion overseas. (This includes all stock and FDI purchases and all loans both private and public) In the same year foreigners invested $2.06 trillion in the US. So foreigners have been investing much more in the US than we have abroad.
In 2008 with the crisis in full swing, the US divested (negative investment) $332 billion abroad while foreigners continued to invest, but only $432 billion. These are huge adjustments in financial flows, all due to the crisis.
In 2009 investment flows began to recover, the US invested $139 billion abroad while foreigners invested $335 billion in the US.
In 2010 investments rose some more … the US invested $1 trillion abroad, while foreigners invested $1.2 trillion in the US.
So flows in both directions have returned but not to the levels in 2007. Also, the last few quarters of data suggest continuing disruptions.
Since this is all financial flows into and out of the US I’m not sure if these are what you refer to .. food for thought at least!
Actually, that’s incredibly fascinating. Thanks for digging out those numbers!