Let’s go “Back, to the Future!”

flattr this!

If you were told the fol­low­ing graph showed two indi­ca­tors of Australia’s eco­nomic health, and one of them had to be addressed urgently, which one would you expect politi­cians and econ­o­mists to try to bring under con­trol first?

If you picked the blue line, you’ve obvi­ously not a politi­cian. The blue is the ratio of pri­vate debt to GDP in Aus­tralia; the red line is the ratio of gov­ern­ment debt to GDP (debt to the bank­ing sec­tor only; both series come from RBA table D02). The red line is the one that both sides of pol­i­tics in Can­berra are obsessed about; the blue one they both ignore.

Click here for the rest of this post

About Steve Keen

I am a professional economist and a long time critic of conventional economic thought. As well as attacking mainstream thought in Debunking Economics, I am also developing an alternative dynamic approach to economic modelling. The key issue I am tackling here is the prospect for a debt-deflation on the back of the enormous debts accumulated in Australia, and our very low rate of inflation.
Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Let’s go “Back, to the Future!”

  1. ken says:

    Gov­ern­ment debt is at least dou­ble that. Total gov­ern­ment bonds on issue less the future fund is about $350 bil­lion, GDP about $1400 bil­lion, so pub­lic debt about 25% of GDP. Assum­ing that it was about 0 in 2008, thanks to the future fund, we have a total debt growth from about 160% in 2008 to 170% now, so total debt is still growing.

    I actu­ally think that total debt is more impor­tant than look­ing at pub­lic and pri­vate sep­a­rately. The rea­son is that it is always easy to con­vert from one to the other,unless the total is huge. Extremely easy to con­vert pri­vate into pub­lic, the gov­ern­ment just bor­rows lots of money and hands it out. To con­vert pub­lic into pri­vate just cre­ate an asset bubble.

  2. Lyonwiss says:

    Agreed, clearly the gov­ern­ment can con­verted pri­vate debt to pub­lic debt by bail­ing out banks with gov­ern­ment debt and printed money, exactly what the US gov­er­ment has been doing. All debt, pri­vate or pub­lic, is delu­sional money. OK in good times, but dis­as­ter­ous in bad times.

    Only in bad times do we know what money really is. Keen’s endoge­nous money is not money, but credit which acts as a “medium of exchange” in good times seem­ingly like money, Schumpeter’s “pur­chas­ing power”.

    JP Mor­gan said, “Gold and sil­ver is money. All else is credit”. This will be proven true again. Bank deposits (arbi­trar­ily cre­ated) are not money but credit which is proven to be such when liq­ui­dated by depos­i­tors in a bank run.

    Even sov­er­eign cur­rency or reserve cur­rency such as the USD is only credit which will be liq­ui­dated into gold in bad times when peo­ple want a real “store of value”, unadul­ter­ated by money print­ing. More bad times and crises are com­ing, unfor­tu­nately. Exces­sive debt is not the cause but the effect of eco­nomic mismanagement.

  3. Steve Keen says:

    Yes, includ­ing gov­ern­ment bonds it is 28% of GDP. But that is still well below pri­vate debt to the bank­ing sec­tor, which is vir­tu­ally six times that. And if I included pri­vate sec­tor bond debt, that would rise sub­stan­tially as well.

    The two have to be con­sid­ered sep­a­rately because the dynam­ics behind them are very different–even if those con­ver­sions can occur dur­ing a crisis.

  4. Philip says:

    Don’t for­get that the pri­vate debt to GDP ratio listed above in the graph doesn’t include the non-banking finan­cial debt to GDP ratio, which a Mor­gan Stan­ley report sug­gests is equiv­a­lent to house­hold debt — 100% of GDP.

    Steve,

    You’ve pre­vi­ously men­tioned that inter­ests rates should be much lower, but they can’t be low­ered to far because Aus­tralia is run­ning a cur­rent account deficit, we need rel­a­tively higher inter­est rates com­pared to our cred­i­tor nations in order to keep bor­row­ing and rolling over for­eign debt.

  5. mahaish says:

    Gov­ern­ment debt is at least dou­ble that. Total gov­ern­ment bonds on issue less the future fund is about $350 bil­lion, GDP about $1400 bil­lion, so pub­lic debt about 25% of GDP

    so what hangs on it,

    not much,

    its all positve i think,

    the gov­ern­ment debt is a pri­vate sec­tor and bank­ing assett that earns income for the pri­vate sector.

    it also ensures that in any future bank­ing cri­sis, the cen­tral bank has a mighty war chest in terms of the liq­uid­ity swaps it can under­take to shore up the bank­ing system.

    the size of the goern­ment debt only becomes an issue if infla­tion is a problem.

    all this harp­ing on about money print­ing being delusional,

    well where is the cur­rency cri­sis for the japs and the yanks,

    right now US trea­sury secu­ri­ties at the short end of the mar­ket have neg­a­tive yields,

    expalin that

  6. mahaish says:

    good to hear from you phil,

    the rba tar­get rate would be lower than it is at present , if the rba board stayed out mak­ing the decision ,

    why,

    due to the gov­ern­ment deficit and debt.

    yes,

    the gov­ern­ment deficit and accumi­lated debt will actu­ally force mar­ket rates down, and not the oppo­site as some would beleive due to over sup­ply in the inter bank money mar­ket, if the mar­ket was allowed to make the deci­sion rather than the rba board.

    gov­ern­ment deficits, with­out rba board inter­ven­tion force inter­est rates down not up.

  7. mahaish says:

    I actu­ally think that total debt is more impor­tant than look­ing at pub­lic and pri­vate separately”

    well we cant look at it that way,

    the gov­ern­ment debt is qual­i­ta­tively dif­fer­ent in that it rep­re­sents a pri­vate sec­tor assett.

    the bal­ance sheett effects in the econ­omy are different.

  8. mahaish says:

    Extremely easy to con­vert pri­vate into pub­lic, the gov­ern­ment just bor­rows lots of money and hands it out”

    the gov­ern­ment doesnt need to bor­row any­thing. trea­sury can just instruct the cen­tral bank by legal author­ity to cre­ate a deposit in its bank accounts.

    the gov­ern­ment doesnt take the money from the pri­vate sec­tor, it injects the money into the pri­vate sector.

  9. Steve Hummel says:

    the gov­ern­ment doesnt need to bor­row any­thing. trea­sury can just instruct the cen­tral bank by legal author­ity to cre­ate a deposit in its bank accounts.
    the gov­ern­ment doesnt take the money from the pri­vate sec­tor, it injects the money into the pri­vate sector.”

    This is cor­rect, but if it is injected into com­merce via busi­nesses you’ll get a pal­try effect as far as debt elim­i­na­tion is con­cerned. The injec­tion needs to go directly to indi­vid­u­als via a pre-programmed debit card which enforces its usage for debt elim­i­na­tion along the lines of the mod­ern debt jubilee Steve has sug­gested. This is really just a nascent (big) one off of the citizen’s div­i­dend con­sumer finan­cial par­a­digm which is nec­es­sary in an ongo­ing way if we are going to vir­tu­ally elim­i­nate the busi­ness cycle and keep profit mak­ing sys­tems viable. The com­bi­na­tion of the real­ity of the inher­ent scarcity of indi­vid­ual incomes in com­par­i­son to prices plus the ever increas­ing effect of tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion lead­ing to the decreas­ing ratio­nal need for employ­ment in profit mak­ing sys­tems makes the div­i­dend the LOGICAL sup­ple­ment and even­tual replace­ment of the wage.

    To avoid con­fronting these inex­orable and uni­ver­sally ben­e­fi­cial changes is quite frankly.…stupid.

  10. TruthIsThereIsNoTruth says:

    gov­ern­ment deficits, with­out rba board inter­ven­tion force inter­est rates down not up.”

    This is pretty counter intu­itive, so I’m try­ing to see how you arrive at this understanding.

    So you’re say­ing gov­ern­ment deficit is caus­ing an over­sup­ply in the inter­bank market.

    Ok so over­sup­ply in the inter­bank mar­ket — how does that force down rates? Over­sup­ply gen­er­ally means more peo­ple want to short, so if you’re speak­ing to peo­ple in the inter­est rate mar­ket, over­sup­ply is trans­lated to higher rates to attract more peo­ple want­ing to go long. You must mean more demand for yield, forc­ing yield down.

    Ok where does this “over­sup­ply” come from? You’re say­ing gov­ern­ment deficit. Gov­ern­ment deficit will force yield up to attract demand for gov­ern­ment bonds, and you’re say­ing that it some­how forces yields down in the inter­bank mar­ket. How? Can’t see it, maybe a men­tal block, but I’m strug­gling with this one.

  11. mahaish says:

    hi titint,

    a gov­ern­ment deficit is basi­cally a reserve add into the com­mer­cial bank­ing system.

    basi­cally cre­at­ing excess reserves in the clear­ing accounts held by com­mer­cial banks at the cen­tral bank.

    a sys­tem wide sur­plus, since indi­vid­ual banks may be able to divest them­selves of sur­plus funds at prof­itable trades, but the mar­ket as a whole is unable to divest itself of these sur­plus funds.

    remem­ber hor­i­zon­tal money includ­ing inter­bank fund­ing , nets to zero in bal­ance sheet terms.

    ver­ti­cal gov­ern­ment money in terms of a deficit, cre­ates a reserve add or net money .

    in oz, the cen­tral bank pays a sup­port rate on the reserves held at around 25 basis points below the offi­cial cash rate.

    the rea­son this is done is that the rba can set the off­i­cal cash rate by decree , with­out hav­ing to man­age inter bank liq­uid­ity with open mar­ket ops, since the cash rate can only be bid down to the sup­port rate paid on reserves

    in the absence of this rba man­dated sup­port rate on these excess reserves, inter bank com­pe­ti­tion will mean the inter­est rate would be bid down­wards due to a mar­ket demand for funds being less than the avail­able sup­ply due to the gov­ern­ment deficit.

    so the­o­ret­i­cally bid down to zero perhaps

    excess inter­bank fund­ing liq­uid­ity in the absense of trea­sury or cen­tral bank inter­ven­tion, can the­o­ret­i­cally lead to zero inter­est rate at zero bid.

  12. Bret Carpenter says:

    Mark 7:28 …yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.

    I have asked before (on this forum) and have been com­pletely ignored.
    I am bark­ing a lit­tle bit louder this time.

    Why is pub­lic debt not as bad as pri­vate debt? Isn’t a tril­lion dol­lars pub­lic debt exactly the same harm­ful as a tril­lion in pri­vate debt?

    I am a layper­son con­cern­ing eco­nom­ics BUT I WANT TO LEARN.

    What does it take to get you guys to throw me a bone?

    For over a year I have taken an inter­est in eco­nom­ics and have not found the answer to this question.

    This is the clos­est post I have seen address­ing this issue.
    ”… because the dynam­ics behind them are very dif­fer­ent” Steven Keen.

    Si no me respon­des por mi insis­ten­cia por lo menos me puedes con­tes­tar porque vivo en SAN LUIS POTOSI.

  13. Derek R says:

    Bret asked, “Why is pub­lic debt not as bad as pri­vate debt?

    It’s more accu­rate to say that “some types of pub­lic debt are not as bad as pri­vate debt but oth­ers are worse”.

    Lets look at some scenarios.

    1) The pub­lic debt of a gov­ern­ment owed to its own cit­i­zens is not a prob­lem because the peo­ple who have to be repaid are also the peo­ple who have to be taxed to pay the debt. So the money just goes round in a cir­cle. Sure, the cit­i­zens who own more than the aver­age amount of the debt will end net win­ners and those who own less than aver­age will end up net losers and that will cause poverty in some cases but on aver­age, no prob­lem. The gov­ern­ment will never become bank­rupt, and it need not print money to cover the debt since tax­a­tion can always cover it.

    The pub­lic debt of a gov­ern­ment owed to for­eign­ers is a bit more of an issue. How much of an issue depends upon whether the gov­ern­ment has its own cur­rency and on whether it owes the debt in its own cur­rency or in a for­eign cur­rency. Here are three scenarios.

    2) If the gov­ern­ment owes a debt in its own cur­rency, then it can always repay the debt since it can print the money to pay the for­eign­ers if it is unable to raise enough via tax­a­tion of its cit­i­zens. How­ever if it does so, infla­tion is a pos­si­ble (but not inevitable) con­se­quence, since more money may enter cir­cu­la­tion than is being removed.

    3) If the gov­ern­ment owes a debt in a for­eign cur­rency but has its own cur­rency, then it can gen­er­ally repay the debt since it can print the money to buy the for­eign cur­rency to pay the for­eign­ers if it does not earn enough through exports. How­ever once again, infla­tion is a pos­si­ble con­se­quence, since more money may enter cir­cu­la­tion than is being removed. In fact this is a sce­nario which may cause hyper­in­fla­tion, if the cur­rency of the debt is in short sup­ply. This was the basic cause of the Ger­man hyper­in­fla­tion of the 1920s where the for­eign debt was owed in gold which had to be bought from for­eign­ers using Marks.

    4) If the gov­ern­ment owes a debt in a for­eign cur­rency and does not have its own cur­rency. In this case there is no essen­tial dif­fer­ence between pub­lic debt and pri­vate debt. The for­eign cur­rency has to be earned by exports to for­eign­ers and then trans­ferred by tax­a­tion from cit­i­zens to the gov­ern­ment so that it can be paid back to for­eign­ers. If the coun­try does not have a bal­ance of trade sur­plus (or a sub­sidy from the cur­rency issuer), it will sooner or later become bankrupt.

    So in sce­nario 1 (Japan) or sce­nario 2 (USA), a tril­lion dol­lars in pub­lic debt is basi­cally harm­less to the gov­ern­ment but causes an increase in poverty among many of its citizens.

    In sce­nario 3 (1920s Ger­many or 1990s Zim­babwe), there may be extremely severe infla­tion­ary con­se­quences which, in many ways, make this type of pub­lic debt more dan­ger­ous than pri­vate debt.

    in sce­nario 4 (Greece, Ire­land), a tril­lion dol­lars in pub­lic debt is just as harm­ful as a tril­lion in pri­vate debt.

    So in con­clu­sion, I would say that the good­ness or bad­ness of a debt depends much more on the abil­i­ties of the debtor than on the debt itself. If the debtor has the abil­ity to make the things that it owes, it is in a far bet­ter posi­tion to repay the debt than a debtor who can’t.

    That’s my under­stand­ing anyway.

  14. Bret Carpenter says:

    Derek R, thank you for tak­ing the time to respond to my ques­tion. I have read sev­eral times through your post but I still don’t understand.

    Steve Keen is propos­ing a “debt jubilee“ as a pos­si­ble solu­tion to the finan­cial cri­sis that faces the U.S.

    If I under­stand cor­rectly, the gov­ern­ment would essen­tially elim­i­nate the pri­vate debt by deposit­ing money into the bank accounts of all the cit­i­zens with the stip­u­la­tion that it could only be used to pay down debt. Those with­out debt would actu­ally be receiv­ing a bonus.

    So the pub­lic debt would increase in pro­por­tion to the decrease in pri­vate debt.

    Under this sce­nario what would hap­pen to home prices? Would we now have infla­tion­ary pres­sure and not defla­tion­ary pressure?

    If the U.S. did do some­thing like this how would it affect the rest of the world?

  15. mahaish says:

    hey brett,

    the prob­lem with the debt jubillee idea , is that banks have bal­ance sheets that they like to gear up to there eyeballs.

    banks are his­tor­i­cally highly lever­aged entities,

    the greater the lever­age on their bal­ance sheet, the greater the profit.

    so a pay down of the debt just free’s up their bal­ance sheet to re lever­age up to their eyeballs.

    so with­out changes to the pru­den­tial guid­lines that bank oper­ate under, we will be back to square one in short order.

    ulti­mately whether we have infla­tion or not through gov­ern­ment spend­ing really comes down to on which pri­vate sec­tor bal­ance sheet the gov­ern­ment deposit ends up on.

    its no coin­ci­dence the unem­ploy­ment rate shot up and house prices fell in the US. where as in oz, the unem­ploy­ment rate stayed sta­ble and no house price crash.

    ask any ceo of any bank , and he or she will tell you, the unem­ploy­ment rate has a sig­inif­i­cant bear­ing on the sta­bil­ity of the hous­ing market.

    gov­ern­ments are bet­ter of spend­ing money on things that need to be done, keep­ing the unem­ploy­ment rate low, and rais­ing the min­i­mum wages in coun­tries like the US, to keep these prob­lems at bay.

    its not as if the yanks are liv­ing in par­adise. i am sure we could all think of list as long as our arm that needs pub­lic invest­ment in to make our soci­ety a bet­ter place to live in.

    the prob­lem is , try telling this to con­gress, with there obses­sion about the pub­lic debt, and their ridicu­lous debt ceiling.

    if it wasnt for the debt ceil­ing, and the no over­daraft pro­vi­sions gov­ern­ing trea­sury , the yanks could have come out of reces­sion a lot faster and a lot stronger, instead of look­ing like fal­ter­ing again.

  16. Bankster says:

    This graph indi­cates the gov­ern­ment was in debt in the years lead­ing up to 2008. Wasn’t there a sur­plus then?

  17. ferb says:

    Here is back to the future.

    we r in a clay­tons reces­sion” and “The joke — which like most jokes is just a reflec­tion of real­ity — goes that the bar­be­cue con­ver­sa­tion has moved from talk­ing about how much we paid for our houses to how small our mort­gages are”

    Really, Aus­tralia is no longer suf­fer­ing from mas­sive mort­gages cause we’ve all paid them off in the “last 5 yrs of deleveraging”

    Where have i been!

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/motley-fool/the-coming-boom-20121113-299t3.html#ixzz2C5EtDDig

  18. Rich Shapero says:

    Keen’s focus on pri­vate debt seems very right to me. Any­one who is involved in sell­ing stock or sell­ing homes knows that debt enables a hot mar­ket by allow­ing buy­ers to bid prices up, and it’s clear that this is a big part of what has cre­ated asset bub­bles in the recent past.

    But I think Keen is too blithe about sov­er­eign debt, prob­a­bly because he lives in Aus­tralia. As an Amer­i­can, I can tell you what it’s like when every pub­lic entity is insol­vent and tee­ter­ing on the edge of col­lapse. My local county is buried in unfunded lia­bil­i­ties, my state issues IOUs in the place of tax refunds, and my fed­eral gov­ern­ment con­tin­ues to bury the coun­try in debt. I applaud the out­look of Aus­tralian politi­cians. Gov­ern­ment spend­ing is one of the things politi­cians are DIRECTLY respon­si­ble for.

    I also think Keen goes too far in lay­ing the blame solely on the banks for asset bub­bles. In the US, the gov­ern­ment gets a lot of the credit, lay­ing the ground­work through Fan­nie and Fred­die, and pass­ing leg­is­la­tion that forced banks to make bad loans. But even with the cor­rupt prac­tices of banks and gov­ern­ment, I would lay the chief blame on the dete­ri­o­rat­ing char­ac­ter of the peo­ple. What kind of per­son bor­rows money to gam­ble in an asset bub­ble? That’s the real dri­ver of our recent eco­nomic misfortunes.

  19. glubilee says:

    A lot of pub­lic debt can sim­ple be printed away. Debt to for­eign­ers and and pen­sions no, debt in U.S. to Fed is debt in name only…Fed prints, lends to govt, govt pays inter­est, Fed rebates inter­est to govt minus small admin fee. Right now I believe Fed owns at least 30ercent of uS debt, or maybe just financ­ing per­cent of deficit spend­ing… So Fed is print­ing money, govt is spend­ing it, and govt is pay­ing no inter­est on it. And yet US has lit­tle infla­tion out­side school tuition and med­ical costs. Hous­ing prices down or level, food and gas pop around but over sev­eral years of Fed print­ing have been bot up and down in cots…services/labor costs steady etc.…So US debt to Fed free money sup­ply. Of course as Steve points out, pri­vate debt swamps pub­lic debt, so govt debt even­tho huge by his­toric stan­dard small com­pared to money cre­ated by pri­vate bank lend­ing to pri­vate busi­nesses and consumers.

Leave a Reply