Wikinvest Wire

To the Limit, and Beyond

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Really ... what's the point in having a limit if it is routinely raised when it is about to be reached? That's not really a limit at all, is it? That's more like just a number that increases over time. Limits are intended to stop something. As Merriam-Webster would have you believe, a limit is "something that bounds, restrains, or confines".

For example, a speed limit is supposed to stop people from driving faster than a certain speed. Most drivers observe this limit, or what they infer to be a more reasonable and still "mostly" legal limit of the posted rate plus six or eight miles per hour.

This system works fairly well.

Credit card limits work fairly well also. For example, the credit requested on presentation of an Amex card is either granted or declined based on where the new total indebtedness falls relative to the previously established limit. You can always ask your credit card issuer to raise your limit - sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't.

But, what is one to discern from the Federal Government "debt limit" in recent years?

It was last raised in November 2004 from $7.4 trillion to $8.2 trillion dollars. Today, Treasury Secretary John Snow has alerted Congress that we are expected to finish spending this newly borrowed $800 billion by mid-February, and the limit once again must be raised.

At some point you've got to wonder who's going to start whittling down the outstanding balance on this debt.



OK, we all know the standard answer to that question ...

It also makes you wonder about that $317 billion budget deficit that many were crowing about a few months back - a 22 percent reduction in the fiscal 2005 budget? That doesn't square very well with new borrowing of $800 billion in 15 months. Some of the answers to this riddle were discussed in these pages some time ago when we had Fun with the Public Debt.

Raising the debt limit has become routine. It's as if you make minimum payments on your credit card every month, and then when you reach your limit, you call the credit card company and ask them to raise your limit.

And, they do!

About once a year - year after year after year. The outstanding balance continues to go up, with little or no payments toward the principle, but new credit is extended.

Of course it helps when you own a printing press. This way, the debt can be "monetized", which is a fancy way of saying that the Federal Reserve buys U.S. Government debt with money printed "out of thin air".

This is, at times, very convenient.

Recently, our Asian trading partners have purchased so much or our debt that "monetizing the debt" by the Federal Reserve has not been required as much as in the past.

Where do they get the money to buy U.S. debt?

This is "extra" money that they have laying around, apparently. A "surplus" of savings is what they call it. But our trading partners also own printing presses, and many of them fix their currencies to ours, so it seems that they have to operate their printing press each time hard-working Asian businessmen want to exchange U.S. dollars for their local currency.

Printing presses ...

In some ways, owning a home is kind of like owning a printing press.

As long as home prices continue to go up, you can always borrow against your house to make ends meet - to perpetuate a lifestyle that you really can't afford.

In an odd sort of way, this is much like borrowing money from Asian trading partners who are content with debasing their currency at a rate equivalent to the rate that you are debasing your own currency.

As long as the trading relationship continues, you can always borrow from your trading partners to makes ends meet - to perpetuate a lifestyle that you really can't afford.

9 comments:

john_law_the_II said...

this is all very ludicrous.

Anonymous said...

There are lots similaries between fiat money inflation in France (18th century) and our current economy. Could we avoid the coming financial disaters?

Here are some quotes from Fiat Money Inflation in France:

"To cure a disease temporary in its character, a corrosive poison was administered (Printing Fiat Money), which ate out the vitals of French prosperity."

"New issues of paper were then clamored for as more drams are demanded by a drunkard...The great majority of Frenchmen now became desperate optimists, declaring that inflation is prosperity. Throughout France there came temporary good feeling. The nation was becoming inebriated with paper money. The good feeling was that of a drunkard just after his draught; and it is to be noted as a simple historical fact, corresponding to a physiological fact, that, as draughts of paper money came faster the successive periods of good feeling grew shorter... "

"Prices of the necessities of life increased: merchants were obliged to increase them, not only to cover depreciation of their merchandise, but also to cover their risk of loss from fluctuation; and, while the prices of products thus rose, wages, which had at first gone up, under the general stimulus, lagged behind. Under the universal doubt and discouragement, commerce and manufactures were checked or destroyed."

"Early in the year 1789 the French nation found itself in deep financial embarrassment: there was a heavy debt and a serious deficit."

"Strange as it might seem to those who have not watched the same causes at work at a previous period in France and at various times in other countries, while every issue of paper money really made matters worse, a superstition gained ground among the people at large that, if only paper money were issued and were more cunningly handled the poor would be made rich. Henceforth, all opposition was futile."

"...doubling the quantity of money or substitutes for money in a nation simply increases prices, disturbs values, alarms capital, diminishes legitimate enterprise, and so decreases the demand both for products and for labor."

"Still another troublesome fact began now to appear. Though paper money had increased in amount, prosperity had steadily diminished. In spite of all the paper issues, commercial activity grew more and more spasmodic. Enterprise was chilled and business became more and more stagnant. Whenever a great quantity of paper money is suddenly issued we invariably see a rapid increase of trade.

john_law_the_II said...

I see our last 100 years as being similar to what happened in Europe after we discovered gold and silver in latin america and shipped it out in the 1500s.

Anonymous said...

Glad to see you are back. Hope you didn't get too wet up north.

What's really funny about the debt limit is what Congressman say just before the legislation is passed. Last time Ron Paul said:

"At its present rate of spending, the federal government soon will amass $1 trillion of new debt in just one year. By contrast, the entire federal debt was only $1 trillion when President Reagan took office in 1981.

Congress has become like the drunk who promises to sober up tomorrow, if only he can keep drinking today."

See http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst112204.htm

A trillion here a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Anonymous said...

this could explain it a tiny bit. a clip off of the web. "Total federal taxes, as a percentage of GDP are also important. In 1981, the year Reagan was inaugurated, federal taxes took 19.6% of GDP. He lowered taxes and by 1984 they had dropped to 17.3% of GDP but the federal deficit ballooned so Reagan raised taxes to 18.4% in 1987. Under H.W. Bush taxes dropped to 17.5% in 1992, his last year in office. Clinton raised taxes from 17.6% in 1993, his first year in office, to 20.9% in 2000, his last year in office. Although the economy improved under Reagan, under Clinton we had a much greater economic boom and we had a slower rate of increase in the federal debt even as taxes increased! President "W" Bush has pushed through several large tax cuts, dropping them from 19.8% of GDP in 2001, his first year in office to 16.5% in 2003 (they will be even lower in 2004). This is the lowest rate in over 30 years and is creating the largest budget deficit in history. "

Anonymous said...

One nit to pick with your analogy.

The consumer does have a way to increase their personal debt ceiling: Just get another credit card from another bank. I know people paying (or shifting) minimum balances on 5 or 6 cards.

Tim said...

Curious girl,

Here area couple of links:
Rob Kirby - The Grand Illusion
Robert McHugh - What's the Fed Up To With the Money Supply?

These two guys are pretty quick to rush to print with some pretty wild stuff, so be warned.

I've always thought the theory about making good on Fannie Mae mortgage backed securities (if widespread mortgage defaults accompany a 2006 U.S. housing slowdown) made a lot more sense than the impact of the Iranian oil bourse.

There are still many trillions of dollars in GSE MBSes held by Asian central banks and individuals - an interesting chart can be found in this recent post: M3, "Moneyness", and Conspiracy Theories

Tim said...

I think it's true that M3 is not important to the Fed in formulating monetary policy - see these links:
Much Ado About M3
More Ado About M3

However, others disagree with this approach - I believe the ECB places great emphasis in the broadest measure of their money supply.

As I understand, getting the data that they are going to discontinue is not trivial - it's more a matter of reconstructing it than just going someplace and adding a couple numbers, but I haven't really looked into it. See this link for reconstruction info:
What's Going on with non-M2 components of M3?

I'm not sure that you have correctly characterized the Kirby article on these counts.

I think the weakest part of the Kirby article is about the connection between holding/buying U.S. debt and buying oil. I think foreigners hold U.S. debt for many more important reasons than buying oil.

Tim said...

1) As I recall, Iraq was talking about selling oil for Euros but never did, but I may be wrong.
2) I think you are correct.
3) I don't think CD yields are related to what reserves central banks hold, and I also question whether central banks care about the return on their investment. The Japanese and Chinese central bank, for example, are probably more interested in keeping long-term U.S. interest rates low to perpetuate the housing boom, so that we can continue to buy their goods.

IMAGE

  © Blogger template Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP