In an economy where the money supply depends on the production of debt, deflation can never be a good thing. In fact as any cyclist can tell you, deflation means you aren't going anywhere.
Not on topic to your post: but I have a question. Why is it that government interest payments as a percent of GDP are not quoted as a figure for understanding the effects of debt levels (flow vs flow scenerio). And why do we not see popularly discussed any theories about why this value may change over time (its velocity)?
Maybe you'll say such a figure is unimportant (I have no idea myself). But I think it would be a lot easier for the public to understand, and to frame policy choices about, than the popular debt/gdp framework that has provoked much unenlightened discussion.
I prefer to compare interest cost to gdp, rather than debt/gdp. As you say, it is better to compare like with like. Debt/gdp compares stocks and flows and therefore needs to used with caution, I would say.
Regarding the problem of deflation increasing the value of outstanding debts. Hypothetically that could be overcome if the credit system was changed and so the value of the debt was constantly recalculated by factoring in the inflation rate, if in reality the money supply effect on prices could really be measured accurately enough to do that though.
considering your post would you agree that paying off debt increases the value of money, and so not paying off debt decreases the value of money the value of money, and so defaults on debt are inflationary.
No, I would not. Defaulted debts are written off and therefore destroy money in exactly the same way as if they were paid off. In effect, the lender pays the debt from profits. The effect is therefore contractionary. Additionally, widespread debt default destroys the value of assets, and that also has a contractionary effect - see Irving Fisher on this.
Someone has just put this comment on my post " The Golden Calf ": Luke 10:30-37 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesu...
What do you do when your economy is in the doldrums and you need to kickstart growth? Why, you put more people to work, that's what you do. This has been the Tories’ strategy since 2010. The sustained attack on welfare benefits has all been focused on “making work pay” - encouraging, and at the margin forcing, people with illnesses, disabilities and caring responsibilities into paid work. But there is another way of putting more people to work, and that is to import them. In a new report , the centre-right CPS thinktank says that importing people to kickstart growth has been the unspoken strategy of successive governments since 1997. And it argues that the strategy has manifestly failed. In my latest Substack piece , I examine the reasons the report advances for this failure, and conclude that the "put more people to work" strategy has not failed. It has in fact compensated to some degree for the catastrophic failure of innovation, capital investment and productivity si...
In my post " The Nature of Money " I noted that money's use as a store of value is secondary to its function as a medium of exchange, and commented that long-term savings should not be held as "money" but rather as hard assets or investments in productive activities. I made it clear that my personal belief is that the latter is far preferable, because it benefits not only the holder but the rest of society too. This attracted the attention of a number of people who appear to have an almost religious belief in the virtue of gold as a store of value. The result was a bruising three days of intense debate on twitter, which was only ended when I blocked several of these people and warned off the rest. I was frankly shocked by the fervour of their belief: the more convinced they were that eventually I would "see the light" the less I wanted to have anything to do with them. I felt much as an agnostic must feel when subjected to the attempts of religious c...
Not on topic to your post: but I have a question. Why is it that government interest payments as a percent of GDP are not quoted as a figure for understanding the effects of debt levels (flow vs flow scenerio). And why do we not see popularly discussed any theories about why this value may change over time (its velocity)?
ReplyDeleteMaybe you'll say such a figure is unimportant (I have no idea myself). But I think it would be a lot easier for the public to understand, and to frame policy choices about, than the popular debt/gdp framework that has provoked much unenlightened discussion.
I prefer to compare interest cost to gdp, rather than debt/gdp. As you say, it is better to compare like with like. Debt/gdp compares stocks and flows and therefore needs to used with caution, I would say.
DeleteRegarding the problem of deflation increasing the value of outstanding debts. Hypothetically that could be overcome if the credit system was changed and so the value of the debt was constantly recalculated by factoring in the inflation rate, if in reality the money supply effect on prices could really be measured accurately enough to do that though.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete> Frances
considering your post would you agree that paying off debt increases the value of money, and so not paying off debt decreases the value of money the value of money, and so defaults on debt are inflationary.
No, I would not. Defaulted debts are written off and therefore destroy money in exactly the same way as if they were paid off. In effect, the lender pays the debt from profits. The effect is therefore contractionary. Additionally, widespread debt default destroys the value of assets, and that also has a contractionary effect - see Irving Fisher on this.
DeleteSo those debts are paid from commercial lender profits. If however the Central bank is the Lender, how is that scenario handled.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete