Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BIS view on sovreign debt

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BIS view on sovreign debt

    A sobering article.

    Neil Reynolds

    Published on Wednesday, May. 12, 2010 6:00AM EDT

    Last updated on Wednesday, May. 12, 2010 6:56AM EDT


    The Swiss-based Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the oldest international financial institution in the world, has functioned as the central bank of central bankers for 80 years. In a working paper written by three senior staff economists (“The future of public debt: prospects and implications”), released in March, BIS warns that Greece isn’t the only Western economy with hazard lights flashing.

    Indeed, it names 11 more: Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Britain – and the United States. Without “drastic measures,” BIS says, all of these countries will hit a wall of debt.

    When the senior economists at BIS warn 12 of the richest countries on Earth that they must take drastic action to reduce debt, you know that it’s time to check the air bags. The only thing you don’t know, that you need to know, is the precise time of the crash. The lesson is already obvious: Governments can’t drive recklessly, use only the accelerator for braking and not eventually crash.

    The BIS paper notes that the public debt of 30 OECD countries will (on average) exceed 100 per cent of GDP within the next year, “something that has never happened before in peacetime.” But it warns that conventional debt-to-GDP ratios are misleading – missing “enormous future costs” that are already authorized by past fiscal commitments, that will inexorably inflate public debt further still.

    By the end of 2011, the BIS economists calculate, U.S. government debt will have risen from 62 per cent of GDP in 2007, not quite three years ago, to 100 per cent. Britain’s debt will have risen from 47 per cent of GDP to 94 per cent. Italy’s debt will have risen from 112 per cent of GDP to 130 per cent. All together, the public debt of the 12 countries will have risen from 73 per cent of combined GDP to 105 per cent.

    At this debt level, the risk of sovereign default rises rapidly. But the BIS analysis says this unprecedented debt level will itself increase “precipitously” in coming years. It will not, as each of these countries separately insists, fall.

    For one thing, the BIS report says, countries that proclaim spending restraint generally do not actually do it. Normally, they hold the line – temporarily. Normally, they slow the rate of increase – temporarily. All pronouncements aside, the BIS report says, these 12 countries have made such grandiose spending commitments that they are predestined for higher debt. The U.S. debt-GDP ratio will hit 150 per cent in the next decade. Britain’s debt-GDP ratio will hit 200 per cent. Japan’s debt-GDP ratio will hit 300 per cent.

    These increases in debt, the BIS report says, are untenable. The financial markets, of course, won’t permit them. The only mystery, the BIS report says, is exactly when the markets will intervene. History shows, the report says, that when the markets do rebel, they often do so instantaneously and decisively – often without much warning.

    “When, in the absence of fiscal actions, will investors start demanding a much higher compensation for the risk of holding the increasingly large amounts of public debt that [these countries] are going to issue to finance their extravagant ways?” the BIS economists ask. “The question is when will markets start putting pressure on governments, not if,” they respond.

    When the markets do require a much higher risk premium, the consequences will be felt around the world – on rich and poor countries alike, on the thrifty as well as on the profligate. These consequences will certainly fall on Canada as well. If it takes Europe to save Greece, what will it take to save Europe? Emerging economies have done a better job than the rich countries in controlling debt. Asian government debt stands at 40 per cent of GDP; Central European government debt stands at 28 per cent; Latin American government debt stands at 37 per cent.

    In its most spooky, mind-boggling analysis, the BIS economists try to determine the share of GDP that interest rates would require – assuming, across the next 30 years, that the 12 governments kept spending as they are spending now. In the case of the United States, interest payments would cost 22 per cent of GDP in 2040. In the case of Britain, interest payments would cost 27 per cent. For Britain, this would shove the government’s share of GDP close to 80 per cent.

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty are right to press the more profligate countries for an exit strategy from stimulus spending. But what the rich economies actually need is an exit strategy from too much spending of all kinds and a return to some pragmatic recognition of the limits of government.

    The writers of the BIS report are Stephen Cecchetti, head of the BIS monetary and economic department; M.S. Mohanty, director of the BIS macroeconomic analysis department; and Fabrizio Zampolli, BIS’s senior economist. Their report deserves both attention and action.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1565375/

  • #2
    Re: BIS view on sovreign debt

    Try calling in defaults on the 11 richest countries on earth. See what happens...

    The finance system will crumble and be restructured before the cataclysmic forecasts made by this article come true.

    Originally posted by DRumsfeld2000 View Post
    A sobering article.

    Neil Reynolds

    Published on Wednesday, May. 12, 2010 6:00AM EDT

    Last updated on Wednesday, May. 12, 2010 6:56AM EDT


    The Swiss-based Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the oldest international financial institution in the world, has functioned as the central bank of central bankers for 80 years. In a working paper written by three senior staff economists (“The future of public debt: prospects and implications”), released in March, BIS warns that Greece isn’t the only Western economy with hazard lights flashing.

    Indeed, it names 11 more: Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Britain – and the United States. Without “drastic measures,” BIS says, all of these countries will hit a wall of debt.

    When the senior economists at BIS warn 12 of the richest countries on Earth that they must take drastic action to reduce debt, you know that it’s time to check the air bags. The only thing you don’t know, that you need to know, is the precise time of the crash. The lesson is already obvious: Governments can’t drive recklessly, use only the accelerator for braking and not eventually crash.

    The BIS paper notes that the public debt of 30 OECD countries will (on average) exceed 100 per cent of GDP within the next year, “something that has never happened before in peacetime.” But it warns that conventional debt-to-GDP ratios are misleading – missing “enormous future costs” that are already authorized by past fiscal commitments, that will inexorably inflate public debt further still.

    By the end of 2011, the BIS economists calculate, U.S. government debt will have risen from 62 per cent of GDP in 2007, not quite three years ago, to 100 per cent. Britain’s debt will have risen from 47 per cent of GDP to 94 per cent. Italy’s debt will have risen from 112 per cent of GDP to 130 per cent. All together, the public debt of the 12 countries will have risen from 73 per cent of combined GDP to 105 per cent.

    At this debt level, the risk of sovereign default rises rapidly. But the BIS analysis says this unprecedented debt level will itself increase “precipitously” in coming years. It will not, as each of these countries separately insists, fall.

    For one thing, the BIS report says, countries that proclaim spending restraint generally do not actually do it. Normally, they hold the line – temporarily. Normally, they slow the rate of increase – temporarily. All pronouncements aside, the BIS report says, these 12 countries have made such grandiose spending commitments that they are predestined for higher debt. The U.S. debt-GDP ratio will hit 150 per cent in the next decade. Britain’s debt-GDP ratio will hit 200 per cent. Japan’s debt-GDP ratio will hit 300 per cent.

    These increases in debt, the BIS report says, are untenable. The financial markets, of course, won’t permit them. The only mystery, the BIS report says, is exactly when the markets will intervene. History shows, the report says, that when the markets do rebel, they often do so instantaneously and decisively – often without much warning.

    “When, in the absence of fiscal actions, will investors start demanding a much higher compensation for the risk of holding the increasingly large amounts of public debt that [these countries] are going to issue to finance their extravagant ways?” the BIS economists ask. “The question is when will markets start putting pressure on governments, not if,” they respond.

    When the markets do require a much higher risk premium, the consequences will be felt around the world – on rich and poor countries alike, on the thrifty as well as on the profligate. These consequences will certainly fall on Canada as well. If it takes Europe to save Greece, what will it take to save Europe? Emerging economies have done a better job than the rich countries in controlling debt. Asian government debt stands at 40 per cent of GDP; Central European government debt stands at 28 per cent; Latin American government debt stands at 37 per cent.

    In its most spooky, mind-boggling analysis, the BIS economists try to determine the share of GDP that interest rates would require – assuming, across the next 30 years, that the 12 governments kept spending as they are spending now. In the case of the United States, interest payments would cost 22 per cent of GDP in 2040. In the case of Britain, interest payments would cost 27 per cent. For Britain, this would shove the government’s share of GDP close to 80 per cent.

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty are right to press the more profligate countries for an exit strategy from stimulus spending. But what the rich economies actually need is an exit strategy from too much spending of all kinds and a return to some pragmatic recognition of the limits of government.

    The writers of the BIS report are Stephen Cecchetti, head of the BIS monetary and economic department; M.S. Mohanty, director of the BIS macroeconomic analysis department; and Fabrizio Zampolli, BIS’s senior economist. Their report deserves both attention and action.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1565375/

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: BIS view on sovreign debt

      governments for the past several decades have been told that the private sector knows best and have acted accordingly allowing greater freedoms and massive wealth increases for the richest capital owners as shown by the inequality figures. Now that it all been shown to be a ponzi scheme backed by unpayable debts the private sector has shifted these debts onto the public sector. The way I see it the governments now can default on the debt, or enforce austerity on the average joe to make sure the people pay the private sector for bad ponzi loans, or they can raise taxes on wealthy and let them pay themselves to reduce the debt. With the mining tax, i think Australia might be going for the later. it might be the neatest way to go if there's any desire for public servants to serve the public.

      Comment


      • #4
        just another loudspeaker for bankers' interests?

        the US based banksters (Paulson for example) are calling for reductions of promised payouts.

        Is BIS just serving its members' interests, adding another "independent" voice to the mix, in addition to conservative think tanks whose opinion's been bought & paid for?

        Not saying they're wrong, but rather wondering, if you follow the money, whose/which money paid for this?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: just another loudspeaker for bankers' interests?

          The BIS report was discussed by EJ and Hudson on this thread
          http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...e-Eric-Janszen


          EJ: It’s been a while since I’ve interviewed you so I’m looking forward to a wide-ranging discussion today. I want to include your Financial Times article last week on the fate of ex-Soviet debtor nations, the Bank of International Settlement report I sent you on sovereign debt risk in Western economies, and also talk about China. Let’s start with the BIS report.

          MH: I skimmed through it very quickly. It’s the worst junk economics I have ever read! According to their reasoning, America will be bankrupt within a year unless it levies a $30 trillion tax on wealth immediately. Wages have to be cut by 90% and everything has to be nationalized because, by their logic, in order to pay for a $3 trillion war you need to have a $60 trillion savings already pre-saved at 5% interest. Let’s extend their logic to the $13 trillion bailout last year. America has to have $200 trillion in order to yield that much in interest. That’s the logic that they’re applying to Social Security and Medicare, too. It’s junk logic. The whole idea that Social Security has to be pre-funded and Medicare has to be pre-funded with savings levied regressively is hypocritical unless they say wars have to be pre-funded and bailouts to the financial sector have to be pre-funded.

          EJ: Whom does the BIS represent, in your opinion?

          MH: They’re the lobbyists for the international financial class. They represent the ultra-right-wingers of the world standing up for their vested interests—and especially for the banks—in antagonism not only against labor but also against industry. Their aim and function is to utterly destroy industry and to impose a neo-feudal economy. This sounds like ranting at first except when you look at their policies. They are so right wing, so destructive, so ignorant of the most basic monetary principles that you realize they are thinking back in the way people thought in the medieval period. They have no understanding of what credit is because if somebody does understand what credit is they are considered unfit to for work by the BIS. Anything they say should be looked at as active class warfare and paid propaganda. It should not be taken seriously.


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: just another loudspeaker for bankers' interests?

            Originally posted by thriftyandboringinohio View Post
            The BIS report was discussed by EJ and Hudson on this thread
            http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...e-Eric-Janszen
            Another data point to add to the mix.

            Thanks.

            Have been too busy to read closely for a while & either missed or forgot that.

            Comment

            Working...
            X