- National debt of the United States!
- Lack of action spurs insurmountable national debt?
- The U.S. Consumer Debt Crisis?
- Why Should You Doubt Me Now?.
- U.S. national debt tops $22 trillion for the first time - MarketWatch.
For context, over just the last 12 months from Jan. However, given the sheer scale of U. For example, consider Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world.
Right now, the U. Thus, if Bezos gave his entire fortune to the U. And this is just new debt.
According to its most recent census figures, the United States has ,, households. This would be just enough for every single household in the United States to buy a brand-new Nissan Versa. The per capita share of the debt is particularly dramatic when compared to the U. As recently as the s, Canada was so debt-ridden that it was considered one of the worst economic basketcases in the G In the U. For , the U. It would be tempting to assume that the United States is piling up all this debt because of big, tangible budget items: Battleships, fighter jets, highways, disaster relief, etc.
But the majority of U. As a result, much of the expansion in U. This is all happening during good times Throughout U. By any economic measure, however, the United States is currently doing fantastic. Major foreign wars have been stepped down. So long as the government's fiscal house is in order, people will naturally assume that the central bank should be able to stop a small uptick in inflation.
Conversely, when the government's finances are in disarray, expectations can become "unanchored" very quickly. But this link between fiscal and monetary expectations is too often unacknowledged in our conventional inflation debates — and it's not only the Keynesians who ignore it. For 50 years, monetarism has been the foremost alternative to Keynesianism as a means of understanding inflation. Monetarists think inflation results from too much money chasing too few goods, rather than from interest rates, demand, and the slack or tightness of markets.
- Explore the new agenda.
- Data Protection Choices;
- Types of Debt in America!
- Venus Descends - Volumes One-Two-Three!
- The SEXY NEW Secrets of Creative Writing;
- Choose your subscription.
- Lucky Luke - Volume 32 - Rails on the Prairie.
Monetarists today have plenty of reason to worry, as the money supply has been ballooning. Reserves are accounts that banks hold at the Fed; they are the most important component of the money supply, and the one most directly controlled by the Fed. The monetary base, which includes these reserves plus cash, has more than doubled in the past three years as a result of the Federal Reserve's attempts to respond to the financial crisis and recession. Monetarists fear that such increases in the quantity of money portend inflation of a similar magnitude. Get ready for inflation and higher interest rates.
The unprecedented expansion of the money supply could make the '70s look benign. We can expect rapidly rising prices and much, much higher interest rates over the next four or five years. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, Philadelphia Fed president Charles Plosser issued a more muted but similar warning:. We have all these excess reserves sitting in the banking system, a trillion-plus excess reserves. As long as [the excess reserves] are just sitting there, they are only the fuel for inflation, they are not actually causing inflation.
While I also worry about inflation, I do not think that the money supply is the source of the danger. In fact, the correlation between inflation and the money stock is weak, at best. The chart below plots the two most common money-supply measures since , along with changes in nominal gross domestic product. M1 consists of cash, bank reserves, and checking accounts. M2 includes savings accounts and money-market accounts.
Nominal GDP is output at current prices, which therefore includes inflation. As the chart shows, money-stock measures are not well correlated with nominal GDP; they do not forecast changes in inflation, either. The correlation is no better than the one between unemployment and inflation. Why is the correlation between money and inflation so weak? The view that money drives inflation is fundamentally based on the assumption that the demand for money is more or less constant. But in fact, money demand varies greatly.
During the recent financial crisis and recession, people and companies suddenly wanted to hold much more cash and much less of any other asset. Thus the sharp rise in M1 and M2 seen in the chart is not best understood as showing that the Fed forced money on an unwilling public. Rather, it shows people clamoring to the Fed to exchange their risky securities for money and the Fed accommodating that demand.
Money demand rose for a second reason: Since the financial crisis, interest rates have been essentially zero, and the Fed has also started paying interest on bank reserves. But if bonds earn the same as cash, it makes sense to keep a lot of cash or a high checking-account balance, since cash offers great liquidity and no financial cost.
Fears about hoards of reserves about to be unleashed on the economy miss this basic point, as do criticisms of businesses "unpatriotically" sitting on piles of cash. Right now, holding cash makes sense.
Modern monetarists know this, of course. The older view that the demand for money is constant, and so inflation inevitably follows money growth, is no longer commonly held. Rather, today's monetarists know that the huge demand for money will soon subside, and they worry about whether the Federal Reserve will be able to adjust. Laffer continues:. Reduced demand for money combined with rapid growth in money is a surefire recipe for inflation and higher interest rates.
Laffer's worry is just that "rapid growth" in money will not cease when the "panic demand" ceases.
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
Plosser writes similarly. Some people have questioned whether the Federal Reserve has the tools to exit from its extraordinary positions. We do. But the question for the Fed and other central bankers is not can we do it, but will we do it at the right time and at the right pace. The Fed can instantly raise the interest rate on reserves, thereby in effect turning reserves from "cash" that pays no interest to "overnight, floating-rate government debt. Modern monetarists therefore concede that the Fed can undo monetary expansion and avoid inflation; they just worry about whether it will do so in time.
This is an important concern. But it is far removed from a belief that the astounding rise in the money supply makes an equally astounding increase in inflation simply unavoidable. And like the Keynesians, the monetarists do not consider our deficits and debt when they think about inflation. Their formal theories, like the Keynesian ones, assume in footnotes that the government is solvent, so there is never pressure for the Fed to monetize intractable deficits. But what if our huge debt and looming deficits mean that the fiscal backing for monetary policy is about to become unglued?
Data Protection Choices
You don't have to visit right-wing web sites to know that our fiscal situation is dire. About half of all federal spending is borrowed. Then, as the Baby Boomers retire, health-care entitlements and Social Security obligations balloon, and debt and deficits explode. And the CBO is optimistic. Three factors make our situation even more dangerous than these grim numbers suggest. First, the debt-to-GDP ratio is a misleading statistic. But there is no safe debt-to-GDP ratio.
There is only a "safe" ratio between a country's debt and its ability to pay off that debt.
Japan National Debt Clock Is Ticking At More Than 200% Of GDP
If a country has strong growth, stable expenditures, a coherent tax system, and solid expectations of future budget surpluses, it can borrow heavily. In , everyone understood that war expenditures had been temporary, that huge deficits would end, and that the United States had the power to pay off and grow out of its debt. None of these conditions holds today. Second, official federal debt is only part of the story. Our government has made all sorts of "off balance sheet" promises. The government clearly considers the big banks too important to fail, and will assume their debts should they get into trouble again, just as Europe is already bailing its banks out of losses on Greek bets.