So writes Dylan Matthews (washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/) in edited excerpts from his original article* entitled Everything you need to know about the deficit.
[The following article is presented by Lorimer Wilson, editor of www.munKNEE.com and the FREE Market Intelligence Report newsletter (sample here) and may have been edited ([ ]), abridged (…) and/or reformatted (some sub-titles and bold/italics emphases) for the sake of clarity and brevity to ensure a fast and easy read. This paragraph must be included in any article re-posting to avoid copyright infringement.]
Matthews goes on to say in further edited excerpts:
There are plenty of deficits that federal economic policymakers have to keep track of. There’s
- the current account deficit,
- the closely related trade deficit and
- the budget deficit that we’re going to discuss here which is the gap between the amount of money that the federal government is taking in… and the amount it’s spending.
Do we usually have a deficit?
For most of American history, we’ve been spending more than we take in, meaning we run deficits. For brief moments in the late 1960s and late 1990s we took in more than we spent, meaning we had surpluses, but surpluses are rare.
How big is the deficit?
The 2013 deficit is 3.9% of GDP, or 2.5% if you exclude interest payments. That works out to roughly $642 billion.
Is it going up or down?
The deficit’s definitely going down, as this chart from the latest CBO budget projections demonstrates, but will start growing again in a few years:
As a consequence, the debt load is expected to keep increasing:
Are the deficit and the debt the same thing?
- The deficit is the difference between revenues and spending in any given year.
- The debt is the total amount the U.S. has borrowed and still has to pay back.
How much debt do we have?
Debt held by the public (that is, not held by the government itself in trust funds and the like) is about $12 trillion, or 73% of GDP. That’s lower than the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy, or (especially) Japan, but larger than many Nordic countries, Australia, and South Korea.
Is borrowing all that money bad?
Depends how much interest you’re paying.
If we always paid below-inflation interest rates, then we’d be crazy not to borrow but sometimes interest rates can creep much higher. In 1984, real interest rates stopped just short of reaching 10%. That not only makes that year’s borrowing more expensive, it makes past borrowing more expensive, since debt is frequently rolled over; that is, past creditors are paid back with money borrowed from new creditors. If the rate at rollover is higher than the rate when the money was originally borrowed, then that old debt starts to cost more.
Does having a lot of debt hurt growth?
We don’t really know.
What evidence has been marshaled for this proposition, however, is remarkably weak. The best-known evidence was provided by a working paper from Harvard’s Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, which argued that high debt loads (in particular loads above 90%) are correlated with slower growth. The biggest problem with this is that it’s unclear from their data whether the high debt is causing the slow growth, or if it’s the other way around.
The mechanism by which high debt would hurt growth is unclear but it’s easy to see how slow growth could reduce tax revenue and increase unemployment and welfare payments, and so add on to the debt.[More recent] analyses have confirmed that the causal arrow went from slow growth to high debt, not the other way around.
- Arindrajit Dube, an economist at UMass Amherst, found that high debt loads are better correlated with slow growth before the debt gets that large as opposed to after, indicating that it’s the slow growth causing the debt and not the other way around:
The left chart [above] correlates debt-to-GDP ratios of a given year to the GDP growth rates of the next three years. If debt is causing slow growth, there should be a strong relationship but, except at the very low end, there isn’t. Meanwhile, the right chart correlates debt-to-GDP ratios of a given year to GDP growth rates of the previous three years. There’s a very strong relationship, indicating that slow growth causes high debt and not the other way around.
- Miles Kimball and Yichuan Wang at the University of Michigan did a similar analysis, and like Dube, found that high debt was better correlated with slow growth beforehand than with slow growth afterwards [see the 2 charts below], suggesting that Reinhart and Rogoff got their causality wrong assuming that Reinhart and Rogoff’s data was right.
UMass Amherst economists Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin, however, found that Reinhart and Rogoff made a key Excel error that had the effect of overstating the correlation between slow growth and high debt.
- Another paper, by David Greenlaw, James D. Hamilton, Peter Hooper and Frederic S. Mishkin, appeared to confirm Reinhart-Rogoff’s results, finding, “a country can quickly move from the group without problems to the group that faces nearly insurmountable problems if its debt rises significantly above 80% of GDP, particularly if it is running a large current-account deficit” but, as both Neil Irwin and the Atlantic’s Matt O’Brien have noted, this is driven by their inclusion of Eurozone countries that don’t control their own currencies. If you look at countries like the U.S. who control their money supply and, as a result, never have to default on their bills, the association goes away entirely.
That’s all a long way of saying that the case for high debt causing slow growth, rather than the other way around, is remarkably weak. If interest rates are very high, then a debt burden can become a serious fiscal problem but the evidence on growth doesn’t make for a strong case against adding debt.
How did we get all this debt anyway?
The best chart on this is the so-called “parfait chart” by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), which breaks down what specific policies caused the big increase in the U.S. federal debt in the 2000s. Strikingly, the current debt was almost entirely caused by events in the past 13 years.[As the “parfait chart” below illustrates,] the most important factor was the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which greatly reduced federal revenues and put the federal government into deficit after the surpluses of the late ’90s and early ’00s, but the economic downturn, the stimulus and other recovery measures, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan all played important roles too. Without those four things, we’d have a debt burden around 20% of GDP — far too small to even start to worry about, and smaller than every developed country other than Luxembourg:
What’s driving that increase?
It’s not that revenues are falling; in fact, they’re growing over the medium-term. The cause is an increase in spending – one that’s concentrated, overwhelmingly, on health care, with some Social Security thrown in.[As outlined in the table below,] Federal spending on major health-care programs was 4.6% of GDP in 2013, up from an average of 2.7% from 1973 to 2012. By 2038, it’s projected to increase to 8.0%. Spending on Social Security, currently 4.9% of GDP, will grow to 6.2% by 2038.
All other spending will fall from 10.0% to 7.1% but because the debt load is growing, the cost of servicing it will grow from 1.3% to 4.9%.
I’ve heard people say we need to “stabilize the debt.” What would that take?
A bit, but not a whole lot.
CBPP estimates [in Figure 1 below] that, now that the Budget Control Act (aka the debt ceiling deal, including sequestration) and the American Taxpayer Relief Act (aka the fiscal cliff deal, including the partial expiration of the Bush tax cuts) are in effect, it’d only take another $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years to stabilize the debt load.
[The above being said, however,] we might also want to replace some of the previous deficit reduction measures. The Budget Control Act cuts almost entirely from discretionary spending, [as can be seen in the graph below] which is decidedly not what’s causing the increase in spending going forward. Even if you want to cut discretionary spending, sequestration is a fairly blunt and dumb way of doing so.
[Editor’s Note: The author’s views and conclusions in the above article are unaltered and no personal comments have been included to maintain the integrity of the original post. Furthermore, the views, conclusions and any recommendations offered in this article are not to be construed as an endorsement of such by the editor.]
*http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/19/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-deficit/?wprss=rss_economy (© 1996-2013 The Washington Post)
It’s been over two years since Standard & Poor’s did the unthinkable and downgraded the U.S. government’s debt rating…and yet, it’s as if it never happened… Read More »
The trade deficit has improved a lot since 2010 and the U.S. dollar strengthened with it but I believe that is all about to change. Here’s why. Read More »
A BIS study released in June 2012 warns that budgets of most advanced economies, excluding interest payments, “would need 20 consecutive years of surpluses exceeding 2 per cent of gross domestic product – starting now – just to bring the debt-to-GDP ratio back to its pre-crisis level”. Read More »
At this point, thanks to a long-standing policy of wanton money printing, the Fed has more liabilities than ever before in its history – by an enormous margin – and this precarious balance sheet is dangerous, because if the Fed goes bust, everyone loses [- including YOU. Let me explain why that is the case]. Words: 398 Read More »
There is one vitally important number that everyone needs to be watching right now, and it doesn’t have anything to do with unemployment, inflation or housing. If this number gets too high, it will collapse the entire U.S. financial system. The number that I am talking about is the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries. Here’s why. Words: 1161; Charts: 2 Read More »
The madmen who are responsible for the coming economic disaster continue to behave as if they can manage to avoid it. Violating Einstein’s definition of insanity, they continue to apply the same poison that caused the problem. These fools believe they can manage complexities they do not understand. We are bigger fools for providing them the authority to indulge their hubris and wreak such damage. Read More »
Anyone that thinks that the U.S. economy can keep going along like this is absolutely crazy. We are in the terminal phase of an unprecedented debt spiral which has allowed us to live far, far beyond our means for the last several decades. Unfortunately, all debt spirals eventually end, and they usually do so in a very disorderly manner. Read More »
Whether you are an investor, concerned citizen or merely someone trying to understand the current economic situation, you should be worried. Watch this video to get an outstanding overview of what is occurring. It is probably the best short explanation as to why the end of this economic death spiral is so hard to call. Read More »
Little has been done in the past six years to restructure economies and cut debt i.e. learn the lessons of 2008. Because we’ve partially recovered from that traumatic period, that’s led to complacency. All the while, the debt that caused the bust in the first place has compounded and threatens to undo the world again. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. Read More »
Is there going to be another crisis? Of course there is. The liberalised global financial system remains intact and unregulated, if a little battered…The question therefore becomes one of timing: when will the next crash happen? To that I offer the tentative answer: it may be imminent…[This article puts forth my explanation as to why that will likely be the case.] Read More »
I wrote several years ago that Japan is a bug in search of a windshield and in January I wrote that 2013 is the Year of the Windshield. Japan is a country that is on the brink of fiscal and economic disaster Read More »
The Boston Consulting Group has issued a paper that recommends 10 steps that developed countries must take to end what they refer to as ‘Ponzi finance’ and to return to a sustainable growth path but I believe their recommendations to be but theoretical and impractical constructs. While I believe we face – and will experience – interesting, speculative, fragile, and very challenging and very likely life-changing times going forward, I believe that the only thing that will force developed country politicians to work for common purposes is a further global financial crisis. This article provides an overview and assessment of said paper and the rationale for my position. Words: 600
Why are so many politicians around the world declaring that the debt crisis is “over” when debt-to-GDP ratios all over the planet continue to skyrocket? The global economy has never seen anything like the sovereign debt bubble that we are experiencing today. This insanity will continue until a day of reckoning arrives and the system implodes. Nobody knows exactly when that moment will be reached, but without a doubt it is coming. Are you ready? Words: 1270
“The end of the world as we know it” is what David Korowicz predicts is coming sometime this decade – an “ultimate” crash that will be irreversible – TEOTWAWKI! Words: 1395
Governments everywhere are becoming more distressed and desperate as economic realities dominate the political doublespeak. The world is at a dangerous point. Much of what we thought we knew and assumed regarding governmental behavior and economics is beginning to be reassessed. Governments of the world are out of money and out of ideas. The Ponzi scam that has been perpetrated for over fifty years is collapsing under its own weight. There are not enough suckers and capital left to sustain the fraud. [Let me explain further.] Words: 999