|
Any reasonably intelligent person understands that if the demand for a product
increases then (all things being equal, as the economist would say) its price
will rise. The same holds in the case of borrowing, except for congressional
Democrats. These people seem to think that economics laws are a vicious Republican
plot.
Poll figures are now showing that the American public is growing alarmed by
the Democrats' utterly reckless fiscal policy. Unfortunately, few people understand
just how grave the danger really is. In less than five months Obama increased
the national debt by more than $800 million and lumbered the economy with a
$1.8 trillion deficit that looks like growing even bigger. (I still get silly
emails from Obama cultists who were evidently screaming into their computer
monitors: "Bush did!!!!" Pathetic doesn't begin to describe these people).
In 2003 Thomas Laubach, the US Federal Reserve's senior economist, produced New
Evidence on the Interest Rate Effects of Budget Deficits and Debt, a paper
containing calculations for long-term interest rates based on historical evidence.
He concluded that
a percentage point increase in the projected deficit-to-GDP ratio raises
the 10-year bond rate expected to prevail five years into the future by 20
to 40 basis points, a typical estimate is about 25 basis points
As the US deficit has rocketed from 3 per cent to 13.5 per cent one should
therefore expect long-term rates to rise by at least 2.5 per centage points.
In addition, he believes that a 1 per cent rise in the ratio of debt to GDP
will raise future rates by 4 to 5 basis points. It appears that recent movements
in long-term rates support Mr Laubach's thesis. The 20-year treasury bill stood
at 3.22 per cent on 2 February: by the 8 July it had risen to 4.13 per cent.
It was the same story 10-year treasuries which rose from 2.46 per cent on 2
January to 3.33 per cent on 8 July while the 30-year mortgage rate had risen
to 5.32 per cent by 2 July as against 4.78 per cent for 2 April. The government's
insatiable demand for funds looks very much like it is driving up long-term
rates very quickly.
Obama supporters with their fetish for big government can always claim that
economic conditions in Japan refute Laubach. Japan has increased its national
debt by a colossal amount and yet interest rates remain ridiculously low. These
critics overlooked the economist's caveat: All things being equal. Just as
the price of the a monetary unit (its purchasing power) is determined by the
supply and demand for it, the same holds for all other economic goods. For
example, though US car production has dropped car prices have not jumped. Why?
Because demand fell.
The same holds for Japanese interest rates. They have not been driven up government
borrowing because the private demand for loans has virtually collapsed. A similar
situation prevailed during the Great Depression. Despite Roosevelt's spending
and borrowing interest rates remained low -- but so did business borrowing
with the result that there was a great deal of capital consumption.
Professor Higgs calculated that from 1930 to 1940 net private investment was
minus $3.1 billion. (Robert Higgs, Depression, War, and Cold War, The
Independent Institute, 2006, p. 7). Arthur Lewis calculated that from 1929
to 1938 net capital formation plunged by minus 15.2 per cent (W. Arthur Lewis, Economic
Survey 1919-1939, Unwin University Books, 1970, p. 205). Benjamin M. Anderson
estimated that in 1939 there was more than 50 per cent slack in the economy.
(Benjamin M. Anderson, Economics and the Public Welfare: A Financial and
Economic History of the United States 1914-1946, LibertyPress, 1979, pp.
479-48). It ought to be obvious that where a process of capital consumption
is underway -- as it was in the 1930s -- one should expect to see a rise in
the average age of plant and equipment. This is precisely what happened as
shown by the table below.
Percentage of Metal Working
Equipment over 10 Years Old |
| Year |
Percent |
| 1925 |
44 |
| 1930 |
48 |
| 1935 |
65 |
| 1940 |
70 |
| Source: Benjamin M. Anderson's Economics and the Public
Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States 1914-1946,
p. 479. |
So where we have a situation in which extremely low interest rates reign while
government borrowing has massively expanded we should expect to find -- as
in Japan -- that the personal demand for loans. particularly by business, has
plunged. In other words, critics have been looking at only part of the equation.
It just so happens that most critics of Obama's spending mania have also overlooked
a vital point -- the crucial role that interest rates play in raising or lowering
the standard of living.
If the government's fiscal policy imposes high long-term rates on the economy
then prospective highly time-consuming projects, the ones that do so much to
raise real wage rates, would have to be abandoned. Moreover, existing projects
of the same nature would be eventually phased out. This is called capital consumption.
What this means is that the quantity of savings necessary to prevent the capital
structure from contracting are no longer available. As Hayek observed:
[I]t is quite possible that, after a period of great accumulation of capital
and a high rate of saving, he rate of profit and the rate of interest may
be higher than they were before -- if the rate of saving is insufficient
compared with the amount of capital which entrepreneurs have attempted tp
form, or if the demand for consumers' goods is too high compared with the
supply. And for the same reason the rate of interest and profit may be higher
in a rich community with much capital and a high rate of saving than in an
otherwise similar community with little capital and a low rate of saving.
(Friedrich von Hayek, The Pure Theory of Capital, The University of
Chicago Press, 1975, p. 396).
Added to this is Obama's lunatic energy policy that amounts to a massive tax
on production. Once that is also taken into account one is left looking at
economic carnage.
|