Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

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

  • Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

    This Article posted in 2005 is a must read for ITulipers. Basically saying that debt growth must exceed interest payments in a debt based money system, otherwise system collapses. As per this Article - We crossed that threshold in 16 June 2003. Article concludes that a new monetary system must arise.

    "It cannot win the battle to keep debt growth greater than interest charges, the precondition for the viability of a debt-based monetary system. Once started, cascading cross-defaults consume all debt within an economy. The Fed has only two options: institute a new monetary system with a new currency or return monetary authority to the market and shut down"

    http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/ed...005/1212b.html

    HOW DEBT MONEY GOES BROKE
    by Steven Lachance
    December 12, 2005


    Originally posted by Lachance


    Most know debt is a byproduct of the finance-centered US economic model. Few, however, are familiar with how much debt the US credit system creates, let alone the implications. The upshot is financial decision making based on mainstream herding and hesitancy to take essential steps to preserve personal wealth.


    How much debt?
    According to the most recent Flow of Funds report from the Federal Reserve, total credit market debt (TCMD) expanded by $799 billion in the third quarter of 2005. At this rate, debt growth for a single year is $3 trillion, or 50% greater than total US industrial production. Since 1987, the year Alan Greenspan became chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, TCMD has more than tripled, from $13 trillion to $40 trillion, and now accounts for well over 300% of GDP. This debt growth is without precedent by any relative or absolute measure, evidence that the US has experienced a debt bubble.


    Where does it come from?
    Traditionally, savings finance debt. As the US savings rate has been anemic for years, many establishment economists, Ben Benanke among them, have claimed that US debt growth is supported by the inflow of surplus savings from abroad-the global savings glut thesis. Net purchases of US debt by foreign interests, though, are less than $1 trillion per year, far short of annual debt growth of $3 trillion. Some commentators are quick to point a finger at the Fed; it's printing money they say. This too misses the mark. As of 9 December, Fed credit was up just 3.8% YoY and the combined balance sheet of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks is barely $1 trillion.

    The pump for the epic American debt bubble is neither foreign savings nor the Fed. For the $27 trillion of debt created during his tenure, Alan Greenspan can thank the private sector and the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). The Fed may be negligent for loosing control of the credit system, but it is not directly responsible for what has occurred since. The GSE's combined book of business, for instance, dwarfs the Fed balance sheet at nearly $3 trillion. Anchored by the money center banks, a vast constellation of financial entities, including mortgage lenders, consumer credit firms, and the financial arms of industrial enterprises, has blossomed to do with a vengeance what the Fed itself would not; create a seemingly unlimited quantity of debt out of thin air through loan origination.


    Where does it go?
    Debt is self-liquidating when used to generate future income, from which interest is serviced and principal repaid. Used for any other purpose, it is non-self-liquidating and results in payment obligations with no countervailing source of income. Of the $3 trillion in debt created this year, households used about 50% for mortgages and consumer loans, governments 25%, and companies 25%. Only companies incur self-liquidating debt, so at least 75%, or $2.25 trillion, of the debt has produced a future burden rather than an income stream. Companies, though, are no white knights. They have mostly used their $750 billion of the debt pie for purposes other than capital investment, namely to cover unfunded liabilities and buyback shares they liberally printed to reward management in the first place. The US is, thus, at or close to a situation whereby the percentage of debt financed by domestic savings is zero and the percentage of non-self-liquating debt is one hundred.


    How does it end?
    A debt-based monetary system has a lifespan-limiting Achilles heel: as debt is created through loan origination, an obligation above and beyond this sum is also created in the form of interest. As a result, there can never be enough money to repay principal and pay interest unless debt is continually expanded. Debt-based monetary systems do not work in reverse, nor can they stand still without a liquidity buffer in the form of savings or a current account surplus.

    When debt grows faster than the economy, the burden of interest is bearable only so long as the rate of interest is falling. When the rate of interest reverses course, interest charges start rising faster than debt growth. This point was reached on 16 June 2003, the day the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury bottomed at 3.09%. Since then, debt grew from $32 trillion to $40 trillion, an increase of 25%. During the same period, annual interest charges rose by over 50%, from $1.28 trillion ($32 trillion at the prevailing average interest rate for debtors of 4%) to $2.0 trillion ($40 trillion at 5%). When interest charges exceed debt growth, debtors at the margin are unable to service their debt. They must begin liquidating.

    Dipping into savings or running a current account surplus can offset liquidation for a time. The greater the pool of savings and the current account surplus, the longer an economy can endure liquidation at the margin without experiencing cascading cross-defaults. The US in the early 1930s and Japan in the early 1990s had such a liquidity buffer. In both cases, mobilizing domestic savings to increase government debt reversed the decline in total debt outstanding in two to three years and interest rates stayed low because savings financed the new debt. As a result, interest charges no longer exceeded debt growth and the need for marginal debtors to liquidate disappeared.

    The US is now in a fundamentally different position than it was in 1930 or Japan was in 1990. Aside from a dearth of domestic savings, its vulnerability is compounded by a current account deficit. There is no buffer and no margin for error. Thus, when interest charges, now $2 trillion per year and accelerating, overtake annual debt growth, now $3 trillion and decelerating, liquidation will immediately trigger cascading cross-defaults. Without domestic savings to mobilize, the Fed cannot facilitate the expansion of government debt to fill the breach and simultaneously hold down interest rates. It cannot win the battle to keep debt growth greater than interest charges, the precondition for the viability of a debt-based monetary system. Once started, cascading cross-defaults consume all debt within an economy. The Fed has only two options: institute a new monetary system with a new currency or return monetary authority to the market and shut down.

  • #2
    Re: Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

    Debt is self-liquidating when used to generate future income, from which interest is serviced and principal repaid. Used for any other purpose, it is non-self-liquidating and results in payment obligations with no countervailing source of income.
    This is incorrect, in my view.

    Just because a debt is not self-liquidating does not mean there is not a source of income to liquidate it.

    When I first got out of Computer Science school and got a job paying far more than I had ever earned before, I went right out and bought a fine car (a BMW 530i) I made no use of that car to generate income; it was an expensive toy. But being a bachelor in a $200/month cheap apartment with no other significant expenses, the payments were quite easy and I had no trouble paying it off well ahead of schedule.

    A debt-based monetary system has a lifespan-limiting Achilles heel: as debt is created through loan origination, an obligation above and beyond this sum is also created in the form of interest. As a result, there can never be enough money to repay principal and pay interest unless debt is continually expanded.
    I also disagree with this. There indeed is not enough money to pay off the entire loan plus interest all at one time, but there can easily be enough money in float to pay off the loan plus interest over time, as is the way loans are often paid. So long as the payments are recirculated into the economy, where the lender can earn a sufficient cash flow from the recirculating money to cover payments, then there is no essential impossibility here.

    Yes, of course, there are grave and frequently encountered dangers in debt-based monetary systems that lead to spiraling debt and ultimate collapse and default. However trying to express that danger as some sort of mathematical inevitability is quite misleading and incorrect. The problem lies elsewhere, more in human political systems than in mathematics or accounting.
    Most folks are good; a few aren't.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

      Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
      This is incorrect, in my view.

      Just because a debt is not self-liquidating does not mean there is not a source of income to liquidate it.

      When I first got out of Computer Science school and got a job paying far more than I had ever earned before, I went right out and bought a fine car (a BMW 530i) I made no use of that car to generate income; it was an expensive toy. But being a bachelor in a $200/month cheap apartment with no other significant expenses, the payments were quite easy and I had no trouble paying it off well ahead of schedule.

      I also disagree with this. There indeed is not enough money to pay off the entire loan plus interest all at one time, but there can easily be enough money in float to pay off the loan plus interest over time, as is the way loans are often paid. So long as the payments are recirculated into the economy, where the lender can earn a sufficient cash flow from the recirculating money to cover payments, then there is no essential impossibility here.

      Yes, of course, there are grave and frequently encountered dangers in debt-based monetary systems that lead to spiraling debt and ultimate collapse and default. However trying to express that danger as some sort of mathematical inevitability is quite misleading and incorrect. The problem lies elsewhere, more in human political systems than in mathematics or accounting.
      I disagree with you on this one PC - and I usually agree with most of your posts here.

      Let's look at a bigger debt - a mortgage.

      If I get a mortgage for 200K (6% @ 30yrs) , I need to "find" a total 431K dollars in the economy over a 30 yr period. This includes interest and principal. And I'm not the only one doing this, right? Keep in mind, that as a loan is paid off, money in the system contracts. Debt creation = money supply expansion, debt payoff = money supply contraction.

      Now, either the money in the economy has a phenomenal velocity rate, or money supply has to be constantly expanded i.e. more debt expansion, in order for me to find that money to pay off the loan. My view is that regardless of velocity, as debts are paid off, more debts need to be created for the system to survive. That's why Central Bankers fear deflation. The economy's blood supply, so to speak, contracts.

      I also subscribe to the Steve Keen/Mish view of "fictional reserve banking" : http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2...eserve-system/

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

        Originally posted by gnk View Post
        I disagree with you on this one PC - and I usually agree with most of your posts here.

        Let's look at a bigger debt - a mortgage.
        Perhaps I misread you, but from what I can tell, you're not actually disagreeing with me. Once we get too many people racking up too much such debt in a debt-based monetary system, then yes, debt grows inexorably.

        But this is not a simple mathematical problem which must apply to all debt-based monetary systems in theory. One could theoretically have some society of "perfect people", loan some fixed amount of money into existence in that society, and then have that money circulate in perpetuity, while and even after the initial debt and its interest are fully paid off. So long as the cash flow required to make the payments was less than the society's total cash flow (GDP, essentially), there is no mathematical theorem that I can see preventing this.

        I quite agree that this will never happen. But I can't prove it can't happen just using my mathematics textbooks. In the real world, we have never had, and never will have, a society of perfect people.

        In the real world, all debt-based monetary systems sooner or later due to excess debt if nothing else, just as all empires collapse due to excess growth and corruption of the central government, if not for some other cause sooner.

        ... or did I miss your point?

        P.S. -- Yes, I realize that my position on this matter is heretical. Many sharp people have taken the position consistent with yours. Offhand I am not aware of anyone agreeing with my position. But, for now at least, that's how I see it.
        Most folks are good; a few aren't.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

          Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
          Perhaps I misread you, but from what I can tell, you're not actually disagreeing with me. Once we get too many people racking up too much such debt in a debt-based monetary system, then yes, debt grows inexorably.

          But this is not a simple mathematical problem which must apply to all debt-based monetary systems in theory. One could theoretically have some society of "perfect people", loan some fixed amount of money into existence in that society, and then have that money circulate in perpetuity, while and even after the initial debt and its interest are fully paid off. So long as the cash flow required to make the payments was less than the society's total cash flow (GDP, essentially), there is no mathematical theorem that I can see preventing this.

          I quite agree that this will never happen. But I can't prove it can't happen just using my mathematics textbooks. In the real world, we have never had, and never will have, a society of perfect people.

          In the real world, all debt-based monetary systems sooner or later due to excess debt if nothing else, just as all empires collapse due to excess growth and corruption of the central government, if not for some other cause sooner.

          ... or did I miss your point?

          P.S. -- Yes, I realize that my position on this matter is heretical. Many sharp people have taken the position consistent with yours. Offhand I am not aware of anyone agreeing with my position. But, for now at least, that's how I see it.
          Our positions are different.

          I agree that corruption, reliance on permagrowth without corrections, etc., play a role. But what I am saying is that aside from those factors, and even in a perfect society, mathematically, it is an unsustainable monetary system.

          Money is but an abstraction - it is a measurement of: economic/productive growth, cheap/fixed cost energy growth usage, and population growth. These three factors, in my view will never be able to keep up with a debt based system that needs to grow in perpetuity - regardless of moral stewardship of finances, government, etc... The system needs all three to grow forever, yet our planet is a closed system.

          Credit growth, and the corresponding interest costs that accumulate in the aggregate, in my view, over time exceed the productive capacity to service these costs.

          I just don't see how a debt based system can be static forever. It's dynamic - either expanding or contracting. The timeframe that it can expand before it reaches critical mass? Well, no one gets timing right. I'm just focusing on the theoretical.

          But I do see your point to an extent. Although, as I say, it is either expanding or contracting, I can see a point arise where regardless of that movement, up or down, the money supply could stay within a band - contained within a floor and a ceiling. And thus, periods of significant wealth destruction/deflation are a requirement for there to be growth again, i.e., the floor within that band has to be touched. Politically, that is never allowed to happen - I guess that's where your view of corruption/central bank involvement plays a role.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

            The system needs all three to grow forever, yet our planet is a closed system.
            The problem with money being people, we don't have to worry about that constraint.

            And thus, periods of significant wealth destruction/deflation are a requirement for there to be growth again, i.e., the floor within that band has to be touched. Politically, that is never allowed to happen - I guess that's where your view of corruption/central bank involvement plays a role.
            There is no band, numbers wise. They were stupid enough to try find a lower floor, and hopefully figured out by now that the one they are looking for is the big fat 0.
            Why a dollar still buys you something is because nobody gets a look into the obscure derivate books; or maybe plain, oldfashioned and nowadays legal accounting fraud (heh).

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

              Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
              P.S. -- Yes, I realize that my position on this matter is heretical. Many sharp people have taken the position consistent with yours. Offhand I am not aware of anyone agreeing with my position. But, for now at least, that's how I see it.
              PC: I am in solid agreement with you. There is no mathematical reason why all debt can't be repaid. People forget what interest is, to whom it is being paid, and what that person is going to do with interest earned.

              Interest is profit for the lender of money. That lender will spend their profits. They spend their profits by purchasing goods and services from the borrowers, thus completing the flow of money.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

                Originally posted by gnk View Post
                even in a perfect society, mathematically, it is an unsustainable monetary system.
                It is not mathematically unsustainable. By mathematics I refer to that body of proofs, definitions and theorems derived from some specified set theory such as Zermelo-Fraenkel following the rules of a second order predicate calculus.

                Here's a (very very very brief) sketch of a proof by counter-example: I believe I could code a simulation of say 100 automatons operating in a stimulated "perfect" economic system, funded by a single issuance of debt-based money, such that that economic system was stable and sustainable forever, during and following the payback of that one initial debt, where the initial principle amount of money issued in the single loan funding the system remains forever and always exactly the amount of money available to the system.

                The original lender in this simulated system must spend some of (*) the loan payments (P+I) he receives back into the system for goods and services. The original borrower works, providing some service and receiving a cash flow income from which those loan payments can be made. Actually the other 98 automatons are inessential to this "proof"; they're just there to make this simulation more "realistic."

                A quite simple example. Let's say you hire me as a servant. You lend me 100 $GNK$ (100 pieces of paper you scribbled your initials on.) I work for a wage of 1 $GNK$ per week, and I pay you back 10 $GNK$ principle plus interest for 11 weeks to extinguish the debt. Beginning the 12th week, I begin paying you 1 $GNK$ for rent of the shack I built the first 11 weeks for you on the back of your property, in which you now let me live. You continue to pay me 1 $GNK$ wages. My job is now to guard and maintain that precious ;) shack.

                Each week thereafter, in perptuity, I give you 1 $GNK$ (rent) and you give me 1 $GNK$ (wages.) You keep the other 99 $BNK$ locked up in your safe, for you are a wealthy man.

                My best guess is that the word "mathematics" has different meaning for me than it does for yourself and most other people. I still treasure my volume one of Nicolas Bourbaki's Elements of Mathematics and my first edition of Set Theory and its Logic by Willard Van Orman Quine. My early edition of Quine's Mathematical Logic fell apart and was apparently discarded in some move I made in the past.

                (*) "some of" -- meaning sufficient to provide the cash flow required to fund future loan repayments.
                Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

                  Originally posted by goldy675 View Post
                  PC: I am in solid agreement with you.
                  Thanks. The movement begins ;).
                  Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

                    Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
                    Thanks. The movement begins ;).
                    PC - I am writing this from my cursed b-berry, so pardon the lack of charts.

                    So what is your explanation for the growing divergence between debt and gdp when you look at a total debt to gdp chart? Something is growing faster than the other, no?

                    BTW, I am not trained in mathematics, but Law, so pardon me if I'm a little slow.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

                      How about this? :

                      A debt based system borrows from future real wealth by creating paper wealth equal to the loan when the loan is made. This explains why we must grow to repay the loan, and why we have so much more paper wealth than physical wealth in the world.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

                        Originally posted by KGW View Post
                        How about this? :

                        A debt based system borrows from future real wealth by creating paper wealth equal to the loan when the loan is made. This explains why we must grow to repay the loan, and why we have so much more paper wealth than physical wealth in the world.
                        I like this description. To which I would add: all money is debt. It is born of debt. Look at the money in your wallet - it says "note" - which is a promise to pay, a loan.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

                          Originally posted by gnk View Post
                          So what is your explanation for the growing divergence between debt and gdp when you look at a total debt to gdp chart? Something is growing faster than the other, no?
                          My explanation -- we're toast. That debt will default. I'm trying to figure out how I can continue to feed my ample-sized carcass, once my Social Security check will no longer feed my cat, much less myself.

                          I'm not disagreeing that we're toast. I'm just legalistically quibbling over the word "mathematics." You'll have to pardon me.
                          Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

                            Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
                            I work for a wage of 1 $GNK$ per week, and I pay you back 10 $GNK$ principle plus interest for 11 weeks to extinguish the debt.
                            How do I pay you 10 $GNK$ on a wage of 1 $GNK$, or did you really loan me 10 $GNK$ instead of 100? Inquiring minds want to know.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Article : why debt growth must exceed interest payments

                              Originally posted by KGW
                              A debt based system borrows from future real wealth by creating paper wealth equal to the loan when the loan is made.
                              As I've noted above, a debt-based system need not create paper wealth equal to the total principal plus interest. It need only create cash flows in excess of the required payments. Therefore it is mathematically possible to construct a debt-based system with fixed, not ever growing, capital. I will readily grant that in the world of real humans, this ain't ever going to happen.

                              However I've already beaten these points into the ground. So I should shut up ;).
                              Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X