Sunday, July 11, 2010

When Cash Spending is Not Cash Spending

I have just seen a commentary which reminded me of an analysis I made long ago in another post. In the analysis, I pointed out that, even when a consumer went to pay for something with cash taken from their income, they were still spending borrowed money. In other words, even the financially responsible, spending only from their income, were in reality spending borrowed money.

I am aware that this is a difficult idea to grasp, but it is nevertheless the case. The first way in which the individual is spending borrowed money is that they are not actually paying the correct level of taxes to support government expenditure. In simple terms, if the government was not borrowing, but still providing the same services, the tax rate would be far higher. As it is, the government borrowing is the borrowing of the individual, as that individual will, at some future point in time, have to pay higher taxes than they would otherwise have done. This means that, as they make each purchase, a proportion of that purchase is paid for by money the individual is indirectly borrowing through too low taxation.

The second way in which the person is spending borrowed money is somewhat more complicated. For the sake of ease, we will just look at government borrowing, but a similar situation applies for private borrowing. If we return to our individual paying cash, and imagine that he is buying a car, part of his payment comes from borrowed money indirectly derived from government borrowing. When the car dealership accepts the money from the individual, they will have increased revenue, and that revenue will pay for many other things, such as their staff salaries. A proportion of the money indirectly borrowed by the individual making the purchase then ends up in the hands of the staff of the car dealership. The dealership staff will then go on to spend the borrowed proportion of the money, and that will then be used by whichever organisation is in receipt of the money from the staff.

In other words, the money that was originally borrowed by the government percolates through the economy, and it becomes ever more difficult to separate the borrowed money from the money earned as 'real' income. As the borrowings of the government are transmitted through the economy, it becomes apparent that what appear to be 'cash' sales actually are always utilising borrowed money.

As I have said, it is a difficult idea. You may wish to see my first post on the subject, 'The Cigarette Lighter Problem' as I was just starting to grasp at the concept, and it may therefore help in understanding the ideas behind it. The reason for my return to this subject is the curious case of Greece. This is a commentary on the subject:

Since 2000, Greek unit labour costs have risen by almost 40pc. Meanwhile, German unit labour costs have barely risen. This loss of competitiveness by the southern countries is central to their current poor economic performance and their lack of viable prospects for the future.

If governments are obliged to cut back and consumers and/or companies are lumbered with excessive debts, it is to exports that these countries must look for salvation. For the eurozone as a whole to achieve prosperity and economic success, accompanied by stability and sustainability, will require the solution of both these problems. But are they simultaneously soluble within the current financial framework?

If the southern members – "Club Med" – are to regain competitiveness within the euro, the only way is for their costs and prices to increase more slowly than costs and prices in the remainder of the eurozone, led by Germany. (Let us call these countries Germany.) If costs and prices in Germany are barely rising at all, then Club Med must regain competiveness by deflating – ie. costs and prices actually falling.

The key point in this commentary is the wage inflation in Greece. How was this achieved? For the following, you may wish to view here, which has an excellent collection of charts for the Greek economy. Greece has apparently achieved an increase in productivity per head, and also TFP. This might be seen as an explanation for the growth in wages (at least partial). However, if we look at charts for labour market participation rates, we can see that these rates have also climbed. The question is, why?

The answer is that there was a mass of borrowed money percolating through the economy, pushing up activity, wages and employment, as well as providing employment for a larger workforce. This is an example of how an economy might become distorted as it becomes structured around deficit spending.

This is why the only real solution for Greece is to lower wages and costs throughout the economy. When the borrowed money disappears, the Greek economy is left with a structure in which wages are too high, and that is because the borrowed money created wage inflation. Everyone in the whole economy were laying their hands on borrowed money, even if they were apparently spending cash earned from income. In essence, it is the reality of the 'Cigarette Lighter Problem' with a harsh spotlight shining on it.

What we see in the case of Greece is the illusion of wealth appearing over all of the statistics, and this is partly why Greece managed to appear to be in a sustainable position for so long. Many of the statistics appeared to be positive, but they were only positive because they were not accounting for the borrowed money that every individual in Greece included in their spending. The borrowed money allowed the rapid wage inflation that is reported in the article. And the lesson from the case of Greece and the Cigaretter Lighter Problem - I will let you draw your own conclusions.

18 comments:

  1. Interesting post! By making people far removed from the borrowing you can make it appear that it is not actually going on at all. Which explains why they are so angry when it ends and so surprised by the outcome. Not knowing who to blame or what is actually going on they choose the easiest target and declare a protest, or a strike.

    If borrowing were illegal and countries had to live within their means these sort of difficult decisions wouldn't shock anybody. It is only be the clever illusion that high-borrowing states create that this impasse is reached at all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good one, it succinctly explains what I have been trying to explain to Keynesians about the way money moves. Add to that in our modern financial structures money is leaking out all over the place, notably into tax havens then in my view the borrowing element increases. the effects are thereby worsened. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  3. In other words, even the financially responsible, spending only from their income, were in reality spending borrowed money.

    This is hardly true: the original debt was incurred by the initial borrower and the money supply increased by the amount of the debt. But the increase in the money supply by the debt nets to zero as the debt is repaid. So money is destroyed reducing the broad money stock by the equivalent amount spent or saved by the “financially responsible” person who spends “only from their income.” Once the money was given to them it has become debt-free fiat money. The debt remains the obligation of the original borrower, who continues to pay it back and continues to reduce the money stock by repaying the principal.

    The money supply may well have been increased by more debt through fractional reserve banking, but then your objection would be to fractional reserve banking, not debt per se. But as I have shown here, fractional reserve banking is not necessarily a problem:

    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/06/fractional-reserve-banking-evil.html

    In other words, the money that was originally borrowed by the government percolates through the economy, and it becomes ever more difficult to separate the borrowed money from the money earned as 'real' income

    The government debt is nothing like private debt. An injection of money from deficit spending is akin to debt free fiat money. The analogy doesn’t work.

    The answer is that there was a mass of borrowed money percolating through the economy, pushing up activity, wages and employment, as well as providing employment for a larger workforce.

    If the money had been injected by government deficits mainly with newly-created money by the central bank, you have much the same result: a healthier economy but no debt.
    Another obvious argument for implementing MMT.

    This is why the only real solution for Greece is to lower wages and costs throughout the economy.

    This is a non sequitur. The problem was excessive private debt. Private deleveraging is strongly assisted by government deficits and job programs.

    Advocates of austerity and wage and price cuts ignore that fact that this will cause savage
    debt deflation.

    For more on debt deflation, see here:

    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2009/08/deflation-and-business-cycle-is-their.html


    Advocates of austerity are like a quack doctor saying that a patient with cancer should have the tumour cut out as well as half of his patient’s internal organs.

    In a previous post in 2008, Cynicus was struggling to understand debt deflation:

    [a]s I outlined previously, the spiral down into severe depression has started (see my first post on the blog). House prices go down, consumer spending falls, unemployment goes up, house prices fall more, more unemployment, more bankrupts, more house price falls, less consumer spending, government tax revenues drop, government expenses go up, less government spending, more unemployment and so on.

    The Economic Collapse is Starting, Thursday, June 26, 2008

    The crucial missing element is debt liquidation and distress selling making the situation worse. Debtors go bankrupt and creditors go bankrupt too. Then productive business must slash commodity prices leading to the debt deflationary spiral.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Lord Keynes

    This is hardly true: the original debt was incurred by the initial borrower and the money supply increased by the amount of the debt. But the increase in the money supply by the debt nets to zero as the debt is repaid.

    This is why GDP does not include borrowed money; the idea is that borrowing is neutral as it has to be paid back over the long term. However, while the differential of the amount being borrowed is positive, the economy is boosted by it. In other words a sustained campaign of government borrowing produces an artificial boost to the economy whether or not the money is 'invested' wisely. If everyone believes that GDP, as measured at any particular instant, measures the true health of an economy (as they seem to almost universally) then investors will continue to lend, further boosting GDP - the very definition of a bubble. The bubble must burst one day, however. Which is why GDP fluctuations are meaningless over the short term!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve Keen makes some of the same points that Cynicus’ has just made here:

    http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2010/07/03/are-we-it-yet/

    Steve Keen has been able to calculate the percentage of aggregate demand which was caused by private debt in the 2000s:

    the contribution to demand from rising private debt was far greater during the recent boom [2000s] than during the Roaring Twenties—accounting for over 22% of aggregate demand versus a mere 8.7% in 1928. Secondly, the fall-off in debt-financed demand since the date of Peak Debt has been far sharper now than in the 1930s: in the 2 1/2 years since it began, we have gone from a positive 22% contribution to negative 20%; the comparable figure in 1931 (the equivalent date back then) was minus 12%. Thirdly, the rate of decline in debt-financed demand shows no signs of abating: deleveraging appears unlikely to stabilize any time soon. Finally, the addition of government debt to the picture emphasizes the crucial role that fiscal policy has played in attenuating the decline in private sector demand (reducing the net impact of changing debt to minus 8%), and the speed with which the Government reacted to this crisis, compared to the 1930s.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cynicus, I usually agree with your opinions, but in this case I am with Lord Keynes.

    The government may be borrowing to fund services, but as a high rate tax payer I get very little benefit from them.

    I don't have a bus pass, rarely see the doctor, & don't claim any benefits. Also I pay something like twenty times as much in fuel duty and road tax as is spent on the roads.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hello cynicus,

    Do you have a satisfactory explanation for why nations borrow in the first place?

    Is it simply because their populaces wouldn't tolerate the higher taxes required to fund the ridiculous level of intrusion by the state? ('required' if there were no govt borrowing, I mean)

    Alternative 1: higher taxes + less state spending on feel-good nonsense

    Alternative 2: medium taxes + high govt borrowing, and rely on people's ignorance not to realise the implications of govt borrowing needing to be repaid with interest 'tomorrow'

    So essentially government borrowing is just another 'sleight of hand' trick. Your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lord Keynes: You say -

    "The debt remains the obligation of the original borrower, who continues to pay it back and continues to reduce the money stock by repaying the principal."

    The income from government comes from where - from the government? We, individuals and businesses, provide government income, and we therefore pay governments debts! Therefore it our debt.You simply highlight the dishonesty of discourse on government debt. The debt does not reside with the government but with those that must pay it.

    So 'yes', government debt is different from private debt, in that those that run up the debts do not pay it. They pretend that the debt is theirs, when they do not have to service it. We do...

    This is just an illustration of how your analysis diverges from reality. It is easy for government to borrow and spend but, in the end, unless government defaults (directly or indirectly), the burden falls eventually on the tax payers.

    Anonymous: Your choices are about right.

    James: The post is not about specific cases, but about the aggregate over the population. Whether you use or do not use services, the services are provided, and the debt is still (partially) paying for them, meaning that the debt based financing will end up on your tax bill and, in the meantime, that debt is raising activity through the economy. Some of your income will come from that original borrowing.

    Steve: I have yet to see a good argument for why governments of developed countries might borrow, outside of war and natural disaster. And if governments want to run counter cyclical stimuli, why not save during the good years? But they don't, they increase spending....at best paying down **some** of the previous debt as they do so..as I said, it is easy to borrow and spend, and abstract the debt away from those that will have to one day pay for it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The income from government comes from where - from the government? We, individuals and businesses, provide government income ….

    This and what follows has nothing to do with the question whether the “financially responsible, spending only from their income, were in reality spending borrowed money.” I am of course referring to private debt here, since you say:

    for the sake of ease, we will just look at government borrowing, but a similar situation applies for private borrowing.

    So it is obvious that you think your analysis applies to private debt as well. But clearly a similar situation does not exist for private borrowing. Money is destroyed when debt is repaid, and the money supply contracts. The money that passed from the original borrower to the “financially responsible” person is not debt money any more, and the original borrower contracts the money supply by an equivalent amount as the principal is repaid.

    The debt does not reside with the government but with those that must pay it.

    You forget 3 factors:

    (1) Open market operations
    (2) QE
    (3) Rolling over debt.

    You have complained bitterly about QE being an “indirect” way of monetising deficits, but have now conveniently forgotten this fact. Open market operations routinely buy back government debt, and not one pound of taxpayers’ money is used. And in those countries where debt is largely-domestically owned (like the UK) the payment of interest is just a redistribution of money within the society (often to pensioners or people saving for retirement). Big deal. In fact, this is a good thing as it provides a risk-free financial assets to savers.

    With a growing economy and growing population, tax revenues rise, making the burden of servicing debt and repaying bonds smaller and smaller as a percentage of GDP. That taxpayers have a role in repaying the debt is true. That it will be a significant burden to them does not follow at all.

    And if governments want to run counter cyclical stimuli, why not save during the good years?

    Because when a government runs a budget surplus and chooses not to repay debt with it, the government destroys money. An entity with the power to create money whenever it likes and in whatever amounts it wants (e.g., through QE) has NO need to save anything. The very idea of such an entity needing to “save” is incoherent.
    And how is it going to save? Pay itself interest? Where does the interest come from? Newly-created central bank money? In which case it has no need to save at all, since we just come back to the point that is has the power to create money ...
    If it invests in private asset markets, this is the height of foolishness, because it might contribute to bubbles and simply lose its money in a stock market crash.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Of course we all have benefited from the increased debt in the system, public and private. Even if you have no debt at all, your employment, and investments, have benefited from the increased economic activity the debt has fuelled.

    Yes, the most obvious beneficiaries have been public sector workers, with increased salaries, pensions and employment prospects. But the private sector has enjoyed the fruits too - a business does well, with increased sales and profits, so the employees get bonuses, and more staff are employed, and wages are increased.

    Take for example the Honda Car plant in my home town, Swindon. It employed over 5000 people in 2007, and produced 250,000 cars.
    It now employs at least 1300 less workers (from figures I've found) and produced about 115,000 cars in 2009. The remaining workers agreed to take a 3% pay cut. There may have been more staff reductions since then as well.

    That shows the difference between the level of demand for their products when times were good, and the debt was swilling through the economy, and now, when the true level of demand is revealed - ie the number of people who can afford a Honda car without having to go into debt to buy one. All those people who were working at the plant, but now are not, were beneficiaries of the increased debt levels in the economy, despite working for and entirely private company, in a competitive market.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The 'debt' is much higher than £900bn though. There is £1.5tr of private debt and I think £2.5tr of corporate debt(perhaps Lord Keynes would be good enough to confirm this last figure), making about £5tr of debt that the economy is carrying or perhaps we should say is 'inflated' by.

    I don't think we really know where this money comes from do we?

    As CE has described this money is lent into the economy and it passes from company, to individual to government and just circulates around. The fact that this money was originally 'borrowed' is no longer obvious.

    As LK points out, it is the original borrower who holds the 'tab' for this and carries the can should all go wrong with the loan, however this money is in reality inflating our economy.

    From RBS, to Northern Rock, to HBOS who all borrowed money on the wholesale markets, to overseas banks who lend to corporate clients, we actually don't know who money is owed to.

    The fact that GILTS are 80% bought by UK institutions isn't the end of the story, it is in fact just the beginning of the paper trail as to the original source of the funds they hold.

    At some point over the next 1 to 25 years or so that £5tr has to be paid back. If we can continue borrowing at the same rate then, perhaps, there is no problem as existing debt just gets replaced by new debt. But this is one hell of an assumption to base an economic strategy on.

    The reality is that money is leaking out of our economy as our Balance of Payments has been in deficit for the last 12 years. In essence as CE has always maintained we are living beyond our means but hidden by the sheer amount of borrowed money which makes everything look o.k. in the short term.

    The day of reckoning is somewhere around the corner, hence the governments action to try to get borrowing under control. It is simply unsustainable in the longer term - if the government thought they could put this off, then they would. But they just can't push the snowball back up the hill any longer.

    A few posts ago, LK tried to ridicule the Irish government for trying to tackle its budget deficit, saying it wasn't working and wouldn't ever work and the Irish armageddon was imminent. But this is just being disingenuous, the Irish goverment are still at the start of a very painful process. What they are doing will take at least 10 years to work its way through their economy.

    The British government is not even at the start of the process yet - but it will take at least 10 years or more to get our economy on to a sustainable footing.

    They may use the term 'rebalancing the economy' which doesn't sound painful but it will be and it will go on for many a year. That term, covers a multitude of sins which need to be corrected, including the rebuilding of domestic manufacturing industry which LK very much agrees with.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here'a a good argument why governments borrow

    1. They can
    2. It makes them feel good
    3. They are convinced that the voters will vote for them again
    4. Ever since Adam put his gnashers into the apple, it has been human behaviour to enjoy today what we pay for tomorrow
    5. The bankers just love it

    Brown had convinced himself (and told everybody) that he would "balance the economy over the cycle". Unfortunately his cycle was out of phase with the real cycle.

    There is possibly a need for the government to borrow funds for large infrastructure projects. Maybe project specific limited-life bonds should be issued for, say, a nuclear power station, or a new motorway. Instead "Bonds" are issued and the government is free to spend the lump of cash where and how it chooses.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dear Cynicus, since when did tax payers pay off government debt? The fact that you say this shows that you perhaps don't understand how the fiscal process works. Maybe I am wrong? Maybe you are deliberately choosing to take a certain line?

    And Dear Mr Tierney, if as you say States had to live within their 'means' (whatever that is?) then we would have even higher unemployment etc etc. The IMF has tried this 'live within your means' stuff in Africa and look how life is there.

    And please a note to everyone please stop mixing up public and private debt etc.

    Best Regards,

    p

    ReplyDelete
  14. Unfortunately all keynesian comments are null and void pending proof that in the" good times" they can find a politician prepared to balance the defixit spending.

    apologies - posted via Blackberry

    ReplyDelete
  15. May I recommend: "How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes." by Peter Schiff.

    I wish I knew the postal addresses of Lord Keynes (who could do with some clear reasoning to dilute his tractor stats) and Anonymous 'P' (who thinks one type of debt is different to another and who admits to not knowing what 'living within your means' means - which says it all) because if I did have I'd send them both a free copy. As a public service.

    "P" - living within your means is a fairly simple concept. It refers to the need not to spend more than you can legitimately expect to be able to repay.

    Though Lord Keynes will now probably try to prove that money can be conjured from thin air with no consequences and that government's can indulge their Santa Claus fetishes year after year within their safely expanding bubbles. And then (if you'll excuse my paraphrasing Douglas Adams) he will prove black is white and get killed on the next zebra crossing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Peter Schiff’s book is partly available online:

    How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes

    I can only say that with its embarrassingly infantile pictures, it might be called “Austrian economics for Dummies.” I have actually read a good deal of Austrian economics in the serious academic writing of Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and more recent academics like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and frankly this seems to add little to what they have already written.
    Austrians have certainly made some contributions to economics, but they have built their house on sand, just like neoclassical economics.

    You say:

    living within your means is a fairly simple concept. It refers to the need not to spend more than you can legitimately expect to be able to repay

    It may seem intuitive to you, but it doesn’t apply to governments.
    For centuries, the idea that the sun revolves around the earth seemed intuitive and was household “wisdom.” However, we discovered that it’s totally false.
    Keynes discovered that the “living within your means” doctrine doesn’t apply to government spending in times of depression or recession.

    Lord Keynes will now probably try to prove that money can be conjured from thin air with no consequences

    Capitalism has conjured money out of “thin air” for over 2 centuries. We call it “fractional reserve banking”, a major invention of the free market:

    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/06/fractional-reserve-banking-evil.html

    Fractional reserve banking allowed the creation of fiduciary media like credit money and bank notes, unbacked by any commodity. Far from being “evil” or “bad”, this massively increased commerce and economic development in the 19th century, but also in the absence of financial regulation led to asset bubbles and financial crises. We have just learned the same lesson learnt in the 1920s: that you need effective financial regulation to make private and public money creation work effectively.
    That money can be created “out of thin air” both by private banks or by governments is rather old news.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Reply to Lemming

    This is why GDP does not include borrowed money

    Since GDP measures national spending by one definition, how can it not measure spending funded by private debt??

    However, while the differential of the amount being borrowed is positive, the economy is boosted by it

    And it is easy to calculate what part of GDP is debt financed.

    Income – Spending = Net Savings
    Spending = Income + Net Change in Debt

    In other words a sustained campaign of government borrowing produces an artificial boost to the economy whether or not the money is 'invested' wisely

    There is nothing “artificial” about it. Go and look at a highway constructed by government deficit spending and see if it is “artificial.”

    If everyone believes that GDP, as measured at any particular instant, measures the true health of an economy

    I have no idea why you describe GDP as “instantaneous.” GDP measures economic activity over a year, but after that activity. GDP is thus a measure of annual activity post facto (“after the fact”).

    ReplyDelete

You are more than welcome to comment on the posts, but please try to stay on topic....I will publish all comments, excepting spam and bad language, and my moderation of the comments is just to exclude these.

Please allow up to two days for the comment to appear.

I have had a request for an email address for the site and have created the following:

cynicuseconomicus[at]yahoo.com

I have ommitted the @ symbol to avoid spam....

For general purposes I would suggest using the comment form, but will occasionally look at this email account. Please be clear what is for publication and what is not, though I will also not guarantee publishing of email comments, unlike the comments through the form! Thanks.