Skip to comments.An Infinite Amount of Money
Posted on 03/21/2013 7:37:29 AM PDT by blam
An Infinite Amount of Money
By John Mauldin
I am often asked, How can anyone not see the problems of growing debt in the US? Why cant we get a consensus to change?
Part of the problem is that too many in power just dont see the impending crisis that you and I see, or at least they dont see the need to act now. That is changing or so I thought until I read a most inexplicable statement by the billionaire entrepreneur mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg. This is the sort of thing that causes me to despair. Here we have a supposedly (well, relatively) fiscally conservative politician, someone who is no stranger to financial circles, giving us these off-the-cuff remarks last week, commenting on whether sequestration will affect the NYC budget:
It depends on how long, Mr. Bloomberg said on his weekly WOR radio show with John Gambling. If it lasts a few weeks, no. If it [lasts longer], yeah. We get 10 or 12 percent of our budget from the federal government, not all of that is going to be cut back, but there would be effects not good effects. But in the context of, Is anything going to change tomorrow? Are we going to run out of money tomorrow? Im sure Ill get that question at the [next] press conference. No.
Furthermore, while saying the federal deficit does indeed need to be curtailed, Mr. Bloomberg argued the United States could owe an infinite amount of money and there is no specific amount that would cause the country to default.
We are spending money we dont have, Mr. Bloomberg explained. Its not like your household. In your household, people are saying, Oh, you cant spend money you dont have. That is true for your household because nobody is going to lend you an infinite amount of money. When it comes to the United States federal government, people do seem willing to lend us an infinite amount of money Our debt is so big and so many people own it that its preposterous to think that they would stop selling us more. Its the old story: If you owe the bank $50,000, you got a problem. If you owe the bank $50 million, they got a problem. And thats a problem for the lenders. They cant stop lending us more money. (Observer.com)
I am not sure what his understanding of the word infinite is, but I am pretty sure he is not using the word to mean limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate. In the few times I have met him, he has seemed quite reasonable and in command of the English language. I think he was speaking in a metaphorical sense, as in, there is (to his mind) no practical limit. I certainly hope he was.
I am reminded of Vice-President Dick Cheneys comment that deficits dont matter. He is right if the deficit never grows past the rate of the growth of the country (nominal GDP). It might not be wise to approach that limit, but it would not necessarily be a disaster. And, to be charitable to Cheney, Im sure it never occurred to him that the US could run a deficit close to 10% of GDP. Such a notion would have been preposterous to him. Unthinkable. The US government would pull back from anything even close to that. And that remained true until it happened and we didnt pull back.
And that is the problem. Too many of our leaders do not yet think we have approached the limit hey, were not to infinity yet! The political and economic repercussions of restraining ourselves are just too difficult for some of us to resist pushing the limits a little further. Too many in the current administration appear to truly believe that even minor spending cuts (and I mean just cuts to the increase in spending, not actual cuts!) will bring about calamity.
Spending cuts will indeed reduce potential GDP in the short run. And for most politicians, the short run is the world they live in. But at some point, the short run gets longer, and as infinity approaches, the bond markets get very antsy.
Greece protested against the austerity imposed on them. But what choice did they have? If they did not cut their budget, the rest of Europe would not fund the new debt they needed. It is not a God-given right for Greeks to expect Germans (and the rest of Europe) to fund their lifestyle. So the bond markets simply stopped funding Greek debt. Unless the Greeks had agreed to austerity (known in some circles as reality), the budget cuts would have been far larger, as Greece cannot print its own currency. The rest of Europe gave Greece money to avoid the potential debacle of a disorderly exit from the euro, but they did extract a price. The object of the process was to get Greece back to a place where it could fund itself with a smaller government budget.
Austerity is not fun. Ask any teenager whose parents have set limits where previously there have been few or none. Tantrums ensue. It is kind of like the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Except that when you are talking about seriously over-indebted governments, the depression (pardon the pun) can last a lot longer than any other stage.
Bloomberg and those who think like him project our current experience into the far future. Look at interest rates, they say; they are telling us the markets are just fine with the levels of US debt and the deficit. And they are right; there are no bond-market issues now. But those of us with an eye on history know that is not unusual. Bond markets are typically sanguine right up until the BANG! moment. Then they are not. Bloomberg is right to say there is no specific amount of debt that would cause the markets to cease funding us. Would that there were some convenient, unmistakable line we could see as we approached it. But the experience of over 250 debt crises over the past few hundred years tells us that there is no specific point when the markets lose confidence in a governments debt. When it happens, though, it is ferocious in its intensity.
That is why I and others are so deeply worried about Japan. The level of denial is majestic. The newly nominated governor of the Bank of Japan, Haruhiko Kuroda, has openly espoused the printing of money and monetization of debt. And Kikuo Iwata, one of the governments nominees for central bank deputy governor, said the Bank of Japan should buy longer-term bonds to help it achieve a two-percent inflation target.
They both suggest that the monetization planned for 2014 under the old regime could be accelerated into the present. As if to reinforce the perception that Japan can borrow an infinite amount of money, the yield on Japans ten-year bond has fallen to 0.585%, the lowest in a decade. If the bond market is so compliant in the face of imminent massive monetization, what could possibly go wrong? The amount of debt Japan has amassed has now topped one quadrillion yen. Not trillion with a T but quadrillion with a Q, which letter coincidentally also begins the word questionable. You can see for yourself how confident bond buyers are, in this chart:
Infinite means without limit. If Japan can borrow such sums at a 240% debt-to-GDP ratio, the thinking surely goes, the US can borrow a few trillion more or perhaps even an infinite number of trillions. And we have such a long way to go before we even get to a quadrillion!
I warned in Endgame two years ago that the markets could lose patience in 2014 if they do not see a serious attempt to curtail the US deficit. The recent gold standard for a bearish mindset, my friend Nouriel Roubini, told me he thinks I am being too pessimistic we can probably get through to 2015.
If we do indeed see some movement toward deficit reduction, then our date with destiny can be postponed for quite some time. If over time we can bring the deficit back to below nominal GDP, a true debt crisis can be averted. If pressed, I am sure Mayor Bloomberg would now express regret at using the words infinite and debt in the same sentence. I doubt he actually believes what he said; rather (I generously assume), he was trying to make the point that the current sequestration will not bring on a debt crisis.
Until we get enough leaders to press the point, leaders like Simpson and Bowles, et al., we will dig an ever-deeper hole for our children; and if we dont stop digging pretty soon, we will find ourselves in that hole. Past performance is not indicative of future results: it is not preposterous to think there might be limits.
Austerity will not happen. BANG will happen.
The leaders of the free world are pathetic.
Those of us who vote them in are pathetic.
People blame our politicians, but in fact, the source of this problem is the Federal Reserve, who enables them. The FED was the first progressive institution established and the cornerstone of progressive plans for Gov’t.
If the FED didn’t exist, it would be impossible for the US Gov’t to run $1 Trillion deficits forever into the future. It would be impossible for the Left to fund 1000 hated programs from Obamacare to Planned Parenthood. The Gov’t would not be able to steal your wages and savings nor would they be able to steal productivity increases in the economy via inflation.
There obviously are limits, the question is when will we hit them.
Fiscal conservatives have the “boy who cried wolf” problem here. We’ve been crying for decades that debt will kill us. And of course it hasn’t. Yet. So people stop paying attention to the cries.
What nobody ever remembers about the story is that the wolf eventually DID show up and then he killed all the villagers’ livestock. They’re the ones who were the butt of the “joke.”
An infinite amount of money...
Any math folks in here?
If a dollar represents 1 “share”, how much is that share worth if there are an infinite amount of dollars?
1 / infinity... hmmm... what could that be?
What a godless sleaze. Democrats think like con-men, and we are the 'rubes'.
Alternatively, if all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world were made of gold instead of silicon, what would gold be worth?
That’s not a fair question for two reasons. You are using logic with a factor of politicians inferred. The two do not mix.
What’s the quote I’m thinking of? “Give me a lever long enough something something something.”
As much as I dislike this guy, he hit on the truth in this case.
16 Trillion truly is an unimaginably infinite amount of money. What's the diff between 16, or 18, or 20 Trillion Dollars?
IMHO, like a drunk in a bar, the gov't will keep running up the tab. UNTIL, someone cuts them off. And the results in either case won't be pretty.
Without a defined end game (something both sides are afraid to commit to) this can't end well.
Survivor of Mexican Peso Devaluation: Read the Writing on the Wall, Extricate Yourselves From Your US Dollar Positions!
Thanks for posting
“Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.” - Archimedes
Uh the rest of the world is on to us. Most of the U S debt is now being bought by the Fed, not China, not Japan, not Brazil, etc etc.
THAT can’t go on infinitely . We’re like someone who jumped off a 100 story building, just passed the 10 th floor and thinks “ so far so good”.....
I’ll tell you what the defined end game is.
The US becomes oil independent. That’s going to happen in 10 years or so. Plus the USA now has an extra 50-100 trillion dollars worth of hydrocarbons backing the dollar.
That oncoming reality has already shifted central banking and military strategic thinking around the world.
The dems are going to get away with their borrowing without ever knowing why.
Bloomberg doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Equating our government to a drunk in a bar is apropos.