1. Nobody is losing confidence in the US over debt ratios. Japan’s debt ratio is over 300%, and they’ve had no issues with financing their spending or capital flight. This is a myth that has been proven false.
2. If the private market doesn’t want to purchase bonds, the central bank can do it. Either way, there is never a need to default on debt owed in your sovereign currency. This will never happen. The risk here is inflation, but that risk is always present, regardless of how spending is financed.
1. Japan is a net creditor nation, meaning it owns more foreign assets than it owes in debt. The U.S., on the other hand, is a net debtor nation, meaning it relies heavily on foreign investors to finance its deficits. Japan also has a high domestic savings rate, and a large portion of its debt is held by its own citizens and institutions. This reduces capital flight risks compared to the U.S., which depends more on foreign investors (e.g., China, Japan, and others buying U.S. Treasuries). The U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency, which gives the U.S. unique advantages, but also means its debt is held globally. A loss of confidence in U.S. debt could have larger consequences compared to Japan.
2. U.S. benefits from strong global demand for the dollar, but this is not guaranteed forever. If the Federal Reserve were to absorb all bond issuance ( basically monetizing the debt), inflation expectations would rise sharply, leading to a currency crisis or higher interest rates. Zimbabwe and Weimar Germany are extreme examples of this.
U.S. essentially "exports" its debt due to its persistent trade deficits. U.S. runs large trade deficits, meaning it imports more goods than it exports. Other countries (like China and Japan) accept U.S. dollars in exchange for their goods, and then reinvest those dollars into U.S. assets, primarily Treasury bonds. This has helped finance U.S. debt at low interest rates for decades. If global confidence in U.S. debt declines, foreign demand for Treasuries could drop, leading to a weaker dollar, higher interest rates, and inflationary pressures.
All of your comments in this thread are misleading.
I already wrote about how Japan is different from the US and why that changes everything.
> debt is owed in dollars and can always be serviced. If foreign investors lose confidence in the US and sell off their treasuries, the central bank can just purchase them and nothing would change
It changes everything for US citizens. Zimbabwe's debt is also serviced, but I'm not sure US citizens would like to pay one trillion dollars for bread and get cut off from the majority of products and resources that the US imports, because the dollar would be worth as much as the paper it was printed on. It would also mean that the whole stock market would collapse because no one would recycle the dollar anymore. It would be a devastating blow to the US economy. It's so obvious to anyone that knows anything about economy that at this point you are just spreading lies.
Zimbabwe’s inflation happened because the country had debt denominated in USD and CNY, along with massive political instability, a shrinking economy, and a war happening all at the same time. Couple that with a useless central bank and you have hyperinflation.
How is that in any way comparable to the US? It’s not. This is obvious to anyone arguing in good faith.
Hmm. Let's follow your argument to its conclusion. Why stop at 300% of GDP? Why stop at 300 times GDP? It seems that even a small nation with a sovereign currency can eliminate all taxation, borrow an infinite amount of money, buy an infinite amount of stuff, make all of its citizens infinitely wealthy, service its debt with printed money forever, and prices and interest rates will both be unaffected. It's amazing, then, that no nation has yet taken advantage of this exploit!
I feel confident that is not right. I think it may be right that (marginally?) there is not a big difference whether a fixed amount of government spending is financed by taxation or debt, because printed dollars and t bills are so easily interchangeable. But it seems that you are trying to use this argument to prove that if these things are equivalent that they are (in any quantity!) harmless, and that's a non sequitur.
The constraint on public spending is the amount of real resources that can be utilized. Productive utilization of resources is not inflationary. For example, if you have 10% unemployment, a government can hire those people to build infrastructure regardless of the debt ratio. On the other hand, if you issue public debt to purchase commodities that’s obviously inflationary.
But in either case, the constraint is real resources and inflation, not the debt ratio.
You asked why countries haven’t done this already? They have, it’s called quantitative easing and they do it in financial crises to absorb the productive capacity that the private market isn’t utilizing anymore.
Oh, so the Central Banks can actually make use of "things" so that there is no waste. This is an absurd claim.
No mention of velocity or the role of human behavior in an inflationary environment.
You argue in bad faith.
I don't know what the fallacy of "something is the same along one dimension, therefore the situation along some other dimension(s) must be the same too" is called, but this is a clear example.
This statement is very misleading. The Bank of Japan holds 45% of all outstanding bonds.
>> If the private market doesn’t want to purchase bonds, the central bank can do it.
This is NOT sustainable. Arguing that it did not fail yesterday or last year is not evidence that it won't occur. History rhymes with itself.
Go high enough, interest payments consume the entire federal budget. There is no way out except revenue growth (infeasible without breakthrough productivity improvements), taxation, and printing money (equivalent to taxation). Before that point, other bad things happen such as creditors losing faith in the government, making debt more expensive and destabilizing the dollar's position as global reserve currency.
Over the last few decades, debt has continued to rise as a percentage of the federal budget, and appears that trend will continue without drastic action.
At the end of the day, the Japanese market is huge and people want access to it. Same thing goes for the US.
If the private market doesn’t want bonds, the central bank can purchase them. That’s not inflationary. What is inflationary is how the government then spends that money, but that’s true for any government spending, regardless of how it was financed. Either way, the debt ratios is literally meaningless.
So, a country is not a business but it is comparable to fish?
Are you seriously claiming that there is no precedent?
Central bank buying bonds and increasing money supply absolutely is inflationary. That is precisely how FOMOs work, with the end goal being increasing or decreasing money supply depending on inflation and labour market. So if you already have stubborn inflation and you have a fiscal crisis then unmooring inflation expectations by lowering rates is exactly what you don't want to do (risk becoming a banana republic that inflates away it's debt). I don't think this will happen in the near future but it is absolutely a risk and you'd be foolish as a central banker not to consider it.
Do YOU actually understand the underlying mechanics? Your questions suggest that you do not.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_p...
What do you think happens if the debt goes up? Do you think the government is gonna go bankrupt? That’s literally not how it works.
Do you think inflation is gonna happen? Again, literally not how it works. In fact, too low public spending means you get deflation which is even worse than inflation.
> means you get deflation which is even worse than inflation
2. People regularly come up with this theory that prices dropping is a terrible thing. An extraordinary claim for which I've never seen an argument I accepted and the evidence is as thin as a rake. Typically the countries that experience the horrors of deflation go on to be unusually wealthy and prosperous - I'd like to see more of it. But it is easy to see why the governments would believe deflation is bad that since they are typically enormous debtors and inflation favours debtors.
Frankly I suspect that if prices go down all else equal most people will be better off and able to afford more stuff. Wild take, I know.
Especially given that "prices always up"="good" is counter-intuitive and I can't find anyone with a clear argument in favour of inflation. There is lots of gobbledegook and occasionally people who make arguments equivalent to holidays being bad because they reduce economic output. Which is an argument but not very persuasive, I'd prefer to optimise towards an end state where I get to live out a permanent comfortable holiday; even if the economic metrics go down. I like comfort.
EU - Still to see the long term consequences, but it isn't obvious the deflation was the bad thing in the story.
Hong Kong - Jewel of Asia.
Ireland - Very high HDI and GDP ppp per capita.
Japan - Economic success story.
UK - Can't argue that they're a success! But their problems after WWI wasn't the deflation.
US - Some good some bad, lots to debate, but the latest episode (Great depression in the 1930s) set them up to conquer the world and establish the Not-An-Empire they have now. If that is a bad outcome I fear the good ones.
I'm not seeing the Zimbabwe equivalent. In fact it looks a lot like deflation is associated with - if not a precursor to - long term economic success and prosperity.
'prices dropping' often includes labor as well, since currency is primarily a medium of exchange.
If you go through the arguments, inflation/deflation are both mostly neutral because people just adjust their expectations by whatever they think the rate will be. In practice though inflation policy is typically masking money printing projects or policies that destroy wealth. And by reversing that, deflation is usually positive but only because it suggests that the political leadership at the time was interested in honest market signals rather than seizing an opportunity to conduct handouts.
> 'prices dropping' often includes labor as well, since currency is primarily a medium of exchange.
Inflation or deflation, by definition, doesn't impact how much someone can buy in real terms. Because wages and goods are theoretically changing at the same rate.
If you’re arguing a fringe point of view please make that clear up front. If I knew you think deflation is good I wouldn’t have ever replied.
And by the way, you say Japan is an economic success story because of deflation, but I guess you never bothered looking up their 300% debt ratio that they have been running for decades, exactly because they didn’t want deflation to ruin their economy.
Well, this comment is off to a bad start. What about a very small economy of 1 widget that can be produced and sold for $2 per unit time, then a technological change that causes the equilibrium to move to 2x widgets for $1 apiece in over the same time? The real production of the economy has doubled, and experienced 50% price deflation. The same basic scenario can be developed at any economic size and complexity. No unemployment. No standard of living drop. Just people affording more stuff.
Deflation, in fact, is literally not the economy shrinking. It is a systemic reduction in prices.
> And by the way, you say Japan is an economic success story because of deflation, but I guess you never bothered looking up their 300% debt ratio that they have been running for decades, exactly because they didn’t want deflation to ruin their economy.
This is pretty typical of anti-deflation comments in my experience - what are you trying to say here? Countries manage to overwhelm themselves with high debts with inflationary monetary policy too; the problem - if there is one - is the borrowing of money. It is hard to end up in debt without borrowing money and investing it unproductively. That decision is independent of monetary policy.
And I didn't say Japan was an economic success because of deflation. There wasn't a "because".
From your earlier post: > Frankly I suspect that if prices go down all else equal most people will be better off and able to afford more stuff. Wild take, I know.
As you mention above, this isn't likely to actually be that different.
But:
>In practice though inflation policy is typically masking money printing projects or policies that destroy wealth
Inflation rewards moving money into goods, and deflation rewards moving money out of goods. Generally, an economy where money moves around is better than one where it sits idle. Yes, it does penalize saving cash (), which offends many puritan mindsets (including mine), but it rewards risk-taking and committing your currency towards capital, both of which tend to make the economy more productive.
() - So, if your 'wealth' is in currency, then inflation does devalue your wealth. But if your wealth is in capital, that capital should fluctuate with the currency, and inflation doesn't devalue that.
That was why I said "prices go down" instead of "deflation" - because the measure in practices is a price basket which doesn't directly include wages.
> But if your wealth is in capital, that capital should fluctuate with the currency, and inflation doesn't devalue that.
In the abstract, yes. In practice, after you factor in the interactions with capital gains tax it actually means there is a wealth tax (transaction tax? Extra tax on the principle, anyway) which is relatively punishing to anyone trying to save for their old age.
EDIT [0] With benefit of 24 hours hindsight, it would have been more proper to say "consumer prices" to distinguish the CPI from inflation.
I will admit that I don't understand economics, but infinite free money hacks seem too good to be true.
The government wants the economy to operate at close to full capacity, so it creates money and spends it into the private sector.
Eventually that money makes it to individuals, who want to save some of that money. There’s also foreign agents that might want to hold on to your currency, and trade happening that means some of your money leaves your country.
If the government maintains steady spending, this money supply slowly dwindles, which leads to a shrinking economy.
So governments issue debt to offset that dwindling money supply. The catch is that spending that doesn’t create real resources is inflationary, so you have to spend money on things that eventually earn you more money.
At the end of the day, that’s the idea of macro economics. Spend enough to get your economy growing, while making sure inflation doesn’t go up too much. Which is why people that complain about debt have no idea what they’re talking about.
We're sending in the young guns to save on government spending because trump won partly on "Biden ruined the economy". The government spending leads to the increase of government debt. Or is the debt coming from a separate source?
But all of this has nothing to do with the debt.
You're the one that has no idea what hes talking about.
Debt uncontrollably going up without something to balance it means exactly that. If the debt exceeds the GDP, which is where the US is clearly going, we are looking at a collapse of the US dollar and its global influence. Theres no telling what will happen after that because its unfathomable
This is also why the techbros are staging a coup on the US, so the US doesnt come for the billions when it goes bankrupts
My understanding is that the reason the USD is unusually resistant to inflation is that there's artificially high demand due to international demand for the currency as the global reserve currency.
But yeah, if that effect weakens (and the BRICS are trying to challenge the USD as reserve currency), then I think you'll see the USD weaken/inflation spike in response to large deficits.
US debt as a percentage of GDP doesn't demonstrate the continued ability to pay off the debt, since the ability to pay off the debt is dependent on that debt's interest. The issue with the debt in the current environment is that it is going to start rolling over into higher interest rates. If the debt is structured to pay higher interest then that lessens the ability to pay off the debt even if the debt as a percentage of GDP stays the same.
I don't think going from "we" to "they" would be appropriate although in hindsight it might have been a better choice.