The Deficit Paradox

John Mauldin  May 26, 2009 1:30 pm

The Deficit Paradox
 
Where will the money come from?
 

 
England has been put on negative watch for its debt rating. Bill Gross said yesterday that it's not unthinkable that the US could lose its AAA rating. I think the bond market is looking at the mountain of debt that will have to be somehow sold, and wondering where such a colossal sum will come from. Where do you find $10 trillion in the next 10 years for US debt?

And that's just for US government debt. Five trillion for new global debt in the next 2 years? In a deleveraged world? How much will the other countries need? What about money needed for businesses, mortgages, credit cards and so on?

If you add $10 trillion to the current $11.3 trillion (including Social Security trust funds, etc.), that totals $21 trillion in 2019. Let's be generous and suggest that interest rates will only be an average of 5%. That would be an interest-rate expense of over $1 trillion. That's 25% of projected revenues and 20% of expected expenses. And that assumes you have nominal growth of over 4% for the next 10 years. If growth is less, tax revenues will be less. It also assumes massive tax increases from carbon credits.

The Paradox of Deficits

I think the bond market is looking a few years down the road and saying that $1-trillion deficits are simply not capable of being financed. And if the debt is monetized, then inflation is going to become a very serious issue.

When you run deficits that are 4-8% or more than nominal GDP, at some point, things simply back up. Can we ride along for a few years? Certainly. Japan is getting ready to see its debt-to-GDP ratio rise to almost 200%. But everybody can't do it all at once.

Call it the Paradox of Deficits. We've been running a large trade deficit in the US for years because the people (China, Japan and the Middle East) who wanted to sell us "stuff" were kind enough to turn around and invest the money in our bonds. This, in turn, created Greenspan's conundrum, as it helped keep down US (and global) interest rates. Combine that with a massive increase in leverage and a few bubbles, and we now arrive at a true crisis.

Deficits aren't necessarily a bad thing if kept in check and if restraint is shown. But everyone cannot run deficits at the same time. If we don't buy $700 billion in goods, then that money cannot be recycled back to our debt. It's that simple.

(Sidebar: And now, China and Brazil are moving to do their trades in their own currencies rather than dollars. Very smart on their part.)
70 of 72 (97%) found this helpful
Rate this article:  (72 Votes)
Comments (14) See All Comments »
05-27-2009, 8:56 am
http://theburningplatform.com


Read More
05-27-2009, 8:49 pm
John,

This is an excellent article.
Regarding the "end-game". I think monetization is the most likely path, but the other is massive tax increases.

Either way it is a "tax" on the standard of
Read More
05-27-2009, 9:29 pm
Since it's a global world, and economy and looks like (from this article) we're all in the same situation, why don't we just make up some new rules for everyone and start over. If you think about it, all the rules, ie, mortgages,
Read More
05-29-2009, 4:19 am
There's a slight practical problem: leveraged investment created a huge wealth transfer. To start anew, that transfer has to be reversed via bankruptcy and liquidation. Any other solution is theft to the saving classes by the leveraged ones.
Read More
05-30-2009, 9:04 am
I'm not sure how to work it out fairly, I'd leave that to someone who really understands the mess we're in. It's pretty obvious that the systems we have in place really aren't working. Who was all the wealth transfered t
Read More
discuss this article and more on the mv exchange
No positions in stocks mentioned.

Get real-time options trading ideas from Steve Smith, veteran options trader and newsletter author, plus let him show you the way to cut risk and boost your returns through the strategic use of options.  Click here for a free 14 day trial to OptionSmith by Steve Smith.



The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Ticker Talk
Popular Tickers:
F »AMZN »HIG »
Select
  •  
Talk Now
Share this Talk on your site:
Send us your feedback

Our Professors

rss article alert