I'm not sure why you think it matters whether China or Europe is holding the debt.
I'm not sure why you think it matters whether China or Europe is holding the debt.
That may matter to you as an individual but governments get to print money. It's like if I issued IOUs denominated in Steve's Funbucks that I'm the sole issuer of, and those IOU holders lived across the ocean and also I had half the world's armed forces at my disposal. Then when things went sideways I fired up the Epson and paid you off. As it turns out inflation is not directly connected to the issuance of new money, although it does contribute. Balancing a federal checkbook isn't the same as your home finances.
I'm not saying you should go to town and print a ton of money and that nothing would happen, I'm saying it can play a role and isn't directly equatable to small-scale finance.
(Edit) further, borrowing to create economic activity is not zero sum. If you borrow 100K and create a business worth $1M, and reap the tax returns, it doesn’t matter how much you owe. If I borrow $1T and create a $5T economy, I doubt the kids will mind. This is in part why the money supply increases over time — to reflect the new scope of the economy.
The only material risk of taking on debt is that you need to create returns in excess of your interest payments.
The government should on being the best administrator of markets possible. They should never be taking part unless there's a ton of evidence it'd be the best option compared to alternatives or simply a moral obligation, like health care and (more so in the past, before parcels) the postal service.
Otherwise they need to go away and focus on bettering and updating the regulatory and tax regime. Not "bringing jobs" or generating economic activity, or w/e else via directly putting money and management themselves. The former is the only way they can really improve the economy. By letting the millions of highly capable do what they are already doing, while efficiently dealing with externalities that the markets and courts can't handle.
It’s well worth asking but it is a completely different domain. From an Econ perspective this is pretty clear. Borrowing when things are cheap is more efficient than when they are expensive.
Also as a side note, you present lots of opinions as facts in your argument (even if they are opinions I might find agreeable).
Interest on the debt in 2019 is equal to about 60% of the much maligned defense budget, to put it in different terms.
Re: return on debt, that's really not a strong argument when you consider where the budget actually goes. About 75% of the 2019 budget goes to entitlements (of which the majority goes to retired persons who receive more in benefits than they ever paid in) and military, neither of which really seems like they're going to bring in significant returns to justify the debt.
Sure, there are probably some programs where this argument makes sense but my impression is that most large-spending proposals from progressives are more motivated by lofty idealism designed to motivate the voting base than policies where the cost of debt vs ROI is being carefully considered.
That said, irresponsible spending on Washington is definitely a bipartisan sport these days. And as an incumbent politician, why not? You reap the electoral benefits of lavish spending on the voting public, and neither you nor voters in general care much to think any longer-term than the next election cycle.
Logic tell us that there is not reason whatsoever for the only issuer of dollars defaulting in a debt denominated in dollars.
Alan Greenspan (ex-chairman of the federal reserve) will confirm it (video):
Are you saying that because of QE? If so I don't buy it. QE is an ongoing experiment. We'll see.
No, governments (unless Zimbabwean) don’t get to print money. They get to borrow money, and pay back previous loans with newly borrowed money.
Well, this is patently false on its head. The Treasury Department and Federal Reserve certainly print money.
>They get to borrow money, and pay back previous loans with newly borrowed money.
What? Money has to come from somewhere - you can't borrow a thing that has to be produced if no one can produce it. When you hear comments like "The world economy grew 3.1% in 2018" that's measuring monetary output - for it to grow new money plainly has to be created
You don't physically print much money these days, but what the US Federal Reserve, and other similar central banking systems in other countries do, is draft new liquefiable accounts (US Treasuries are a popular one and in line with the current discussion) that then adds them to existing reserves that the other banks have with the Fed - if the Fed buys a bond from a bank, it just credits the payment to the reserves that bank has at the Fed - it does not debit an equal amount from elsewhere. Then the banks themselves continue to print money - they only need to keep 10% of their deposits in reserve and can lend out the other 90%, of which ends up in other banks as deposits, which then only need to get 10% of that value, and can lend out the rest, etc. So if the Federal Reserve creates $100B in new assets and loans them out, the nominal monetary increase in the economy could be as high as $1T.
One of the fundamental pillars of the modern world economy is the fact that both central reserve banks and regular banks can print money. Without this the world economy looks almost entirely different.
If investors are willing to lend to the US for 30 years at 2%, doesn't seem like they see much risk of default.
And before you say “just buy EUR/gold/stocks” that just means someone else (the seller of EUR/stocks/gold) would now be in the above situation.
Buying US Treasuries for USD has little to do with absolute risk of the bond, and everything to do with the non-existence difference in risk between the bond (US Treasury) and the currency (USD) it’s denominated in.
Where are those debt repayments going? The majority go to US citizens. That's the point. Government debt are assets (read: wealth) to the owners of the bond.
It's astonishing to me how many times people fail to look at both sides of an economic transaction. It's like Ray Dalio talking about China weaponizing their treasury holdings yesterday. Yeah, China is going to "hurt" the US by selling bonds it bought for $1000 to someone else for $700. Who does that hurt again? Not the US; the debt repayment remains the same, no matter the holder.
>It's also going to get a lot worse if investors start to worry the US might default on its debts and demand higher yields on return.
You're missing a part of the logic here: interest rates are low because there is high demand for these instruments. It's easy to talk about some hypothetical scenario where people "demand" higher returns[1], but in reality, people the world over are lining up for US debt and many other investments that pay far less than treasuries (speculative equity, for example). Creditors don't get to choose their returns; they are at the mercy of those putting the capital to work.
[1] I'm sure you, as do I, want higher returns right now. How do you intend to demand this?
So far.