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.
The world is saving like crazy. Corporations are building up cash mountains that they can’t or won’t invest in expanding their businesses. Individuals are building up pensions and precautionary savings. Governments, especially in developing countries, are building up FX reserves. The “ savings glut ,” as former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke dubbed it, shows no signs of dissipating. It is sloshing around the world looking for a productive home. But there isn’t one - or at least, not one that offers the safety that fearful investors desperately crave. That, fundamentally, is what is driving down the returns on assets. It is also the primary cause of the wide US trade deficit. The President likes to think that the reason for the US’s persistent trade deficits is unfair trade practices and currency manipulation. And for some countries, these are undoubtedly contributing factors. But the biggest reason by far is the global dominance of the dollar, and above all, the pre-eminence of dollar
Tether is the issuer of the cryptocurrrency world's premier stablecoin, USDT. Stablecoins aim to guarantee the value of cryptocurrencies in dollar terms, hedging volatility risk and making it easier to realise notional gains from cryptocurrency's wild price rises. But Tether's relationship with the main cryptocurrencies, particularly Bitcoin, is controversial. There is a raging battle between those who think that USDT issuance pumps up the price of Bitcoin, and those who argue that USDT issuance has nothing to do with Bitcoin's price. But in my view, the truth is more complex. Tether's asymmetric mechanics both support and disprove the arguments of both sides. USDT, Tether's "token", is a representation of the US dollar that can be readily traded on cryptocurrency markets. People exchange dollars for USDT, then use the USDT to buy and sell cryptocurrencies. They do so secure in the belief that each USDT token is always worth 1 US dollar. And so far, U
"Britain nearly went bust in March, says Bank of England", reads a headline in the Guardian . In similar vein, the Telegraph's Business section reports "UK finances were close to collapse, says Governor": Eh, what? The Governor of the Bank of England says the UK nearly turned into Venezuela? Well, that's what the Telegraph seems to think: The Bank of England was forced to save the Government from potential financial collapse as markets seized up at the height of the coronavirus crisis, Governor Andrew Bailey has said. In his most explicit comments yet on the country's precarious position in mid-March, Mr Bailey said 'serious disorder' broke out after panicking investors sold UK government bonds in a desperate hunt for cash. It left Britain at risk of failing to auction off the gilts needed to fund crucial spending - and Threadneedle Street had to pump £200bn into markets to restore a semblance of order. Reading this, you would think that the UK
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