Upload
outsidertrading
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 A Renaissance View of Deleveraging-Part1
1/3
A Renaissance v iew of Deleveraging - Par t 1
Traditional analysis of debt and deleveraging (the process where households, corporations and
governments are forced to reduce their overall debt) is often biased and incomplete. Opinions
of how to best manage government debt generally fall on clear lines of politics and economic
self-interest; usually with one side saying the government should spend less and another
group arguing the government should tax more. Indeed, as a libertarian it would be easy for
me to argue for less government spending and more austerity. This paper will explore how
politicians face a no-win situation when trying to solve public debt through a traditional partisan
lens. We will show that a multi-faceted approach to debt reduction combined with selective tax
increases and a blitzkrieg approach to spurring growth will be the only option. This paper is
not intended to be a prescription for all of our fiscal issues but rather to spur discussion with
some out of the box ideas and challenge the traditional partisan lenses in an effort to solve
this issue.
The Basics
In federal debt discussions it is important to understand two key terms. First, there is National
Debt also known as public debt. This is all U.S. domestic debt owed in the form of US
Treasuries, currently about $15.5 trillion. National Debt is important to track because it
represents the total amount we owe as well as the amount we must pay annually to service the
debt.
The other key debt term is budget deficit. The budget deficit is the amount the US overspends
on an annualized basis and thereby increases the National Debt. The drivers of the budget
are pretty straight forward. You have money received in the form of taxes, and you havemoney going out in the form of spending and debt payments.
Analyzing government debt is similar to analyzing that of a household or corporation. One
must consider how much total debt burden can be shouldered and what payment is affordable.
Budget deficits directly increase the National Debt, and a higher National Debt increases the
servicing cost. The interplay between deficits and National Debt make it necessary to consider
risk scenarios such as large fluctuations in GDP or how higher interest rates will impact
servicing cost.
The DilemmaFrom 1970 to 2012 the United States total National Debt has increased from $2 trillion to $15.5
trillion. This $15.5 trillion figure is itself often questioned because the Federal Government
does not hold itself to the same accounting standards as it does corporations. The
1
7/31/2019 A Renaissance View of Deleveraging-Part1
2/3
government uses a cash accounting methodology versus Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles known as GAAP. PIMCO calculates that if the government were to include the
unfunded entitlements (as would be done in GAAP) in its National Debt calculation the figure
would be closer to $80 trillion. For the remainder of this paper we will accept the government
National Debt figure but readers should consider how the dilemma would change if Pimcos
calculations are correct.
From 1970 to 2012 the public debt went from 20% of GDP to 85%. Generally 100% is
considered to be unsustainable. Many people will point out that at the end of World War II the
public debt was roughly 110% of GDP and the government was able to reduce this level to
20% over the subsequent 30 years. The United States was in a situation where the
government was able to lower the debt to GDP ratio through a combination of increased taxes,
higher inflation, virtually zero entitlement obligations to fund and amazing GDP growth, all
without having to make too many unpopular policy decisions.
In the last four years deleveraging has added pressure to dealing with the National Debt.
Roughly 50% of the National Debt has been incurred since the economic collapse of 2008 (for
comparison this works out to an increase of $400 per month per person in the National Debt
i.e. $400 in month one, $800 in month two $1,200 in month three etc.). It is expected that the
National Debt will increase as a way to try to offset household balance sheet deleveraging, but
rarely are debts of this magnitude accepted during times of peace. Such increases have led to
political tension that is further increased by the fact that global sovereign debt appears to be
reaching a breaking point whereby many governments cannot service their National Debt. In
turn this leads to questions as to our governments ability to service its debts.
Table S-5 below is page 210 of the presidents 2012 budget. The budget is broken down into
three main components. Total government outlays, total receipts and the remaining deficit orsurplus. Given that the budget office is forecasting budget deficits for the next decade, we will
focus our discussion on outlays and receipts and thus, how the deficits are being created.
Outlays are broken into four subcategories:
1. Security, which includes the military, the FBI, the border patrol, homeland security.
2. Non-security, all other administrative functions of the government.
3. Net interest, which is the payment on treasury debt.
4. Mandatory programs, which includes entitlement spending. A quick look at 2012 willhighlight how difficult of a situation the government faces.
In 2012 the government projects it will take in $2.469 trillion in taxes but plans to spend $3.796
trillion creating a deficit of $1.327 trillion. Once the government pays the $225 billion in debt
2
7/31/2019 A Renaissance View of Deleveraging-Part1
3/3
service expenses and the $2.252 trillion on mandatory programs there is exactly $7 million
left to run the military and administrative arms of the government.
In order to balance the budget I ran a hypothetical scenario where I had complete political
freedom to make any changes I deemed necessary. In this Financial Czar fantasy scenario
personal taxes increased across the board by a whopping 30% and ALL security spending wascut in half (This would have interesting implications on GDP, unemployment, and of course,
national security.). Even with these massive upsets there would still be a deficit of $800 billion.
This means, Medicaid and Medicare would need to be cut simultaneously, or social security
would need to be cut entirely, or some combination of all three would need to be cut in order to
bring the budget into balance.
Balancing the budget using traditional politics is in fact impossible. Effectiveness of tax policy
will be limited by the diminishing and even negative returns outlined in by the Laffer curve (see
below) assuming
of course you can get these changes through congress. Any spending cuts will be hotly
debated and the most needed cuts to entitlement programs will prove politically unsavory.
Moreover, the magnitude of cuts needed would most likely put the economy into a deep
recession or depression and may even spark riots. In order to successfully navigate out of debt
and deleveraging politicians should consider a different approach.
3