Is deficit spending sustainable?

In the discussions about the debt ceiling, a lot of dopers assume bad things will happen if the ceiling is not raised. Some support the Keynesian economics that the government needs to spend its way out of recessions such as right now, but the issue is larger than what is happening right now. Since 1932 (the election of FDR) until 2016 (proected), there has been deficit spending 71 of those 84 years. The question is how long can deficit spending before it starts having serious consequences on the national economy. If it is already doing so, in what way? If it can go on indefinitely then explain why debt-building will not eventually have major repercusions?

Other facts about US deficits:

The highest deficits as a percentage of GDP was World War 2 offset by a year (1942-1946). The second highest is 2009-2011. These are the only 2 times that the deficit has been over 8% of GDP. During the Depression, the highest deficit was 4.76% of GDP.

From 1970 through 2016, the only years with surpluses were 1998-2001.

No

Yes.

As you say, we’ve only had surpluses for a couple years post WWII. But we spent 40 odd years between WWII and Reagan with a shrinking debt/GDP ratio. So long as the average deficit over some time period is lower then average GDP growth, you can run a deficit every year and still have an improving fiscal situation. Indeed, its probably adventageous to do so.

:confused: :confused: Suppose you’re going 60 mph on the highway and your passenger decides that’s too fast. (Ignore for the moment whether it is too fast, or even if you’re going the right direction.)

Is it possible to put on the brakes hard enough to come to a full stop immediately? If it were possible, would you like the consequences?

If you diagnose that someone eats too many sweets, is reducing their blood glucose to zero a wise idea?

If you’re asking what intelligent Dopers think about not raising the debt ceiling, you’ll have better luck in BBQ Pit.

ETA: You know this of course, but “a lot of Dopers assume bad things…” seems peculiarly phrased.

Given sufficient economic growth and someone to borrow the money from, deficit spending can go on forever. We are missing the first part, and disallowing the second part. So it can’t go on too much longer without a change.

It’s not a great practice and eventually it’s going to be a problem. But let’s not Chicken Little things. As the OP noted, we’ve had deficits that have run for decades.

As pointed out above, so long as the deficit is lower than GDP growth, you can sustain it forever. However, how do you know GDP growth will continue at the same rate as in the past? Maybe GDP growth is doomed to decline to 0-2% instead of 3-5% as the low-hanging fruit is plucked and world competition increases. If that’s the case, then you can’t indefinitely maintain much of a deficit.

If the deficit is higher than GDP growth, the carrying capacity for that increasing debt will depend on potential creditors’ estimation of your solvency. High debt loads could be carried after WWII because the debt was clearly war related, and once the U.S. returned to a peacetime footing it would be relatively easy to pay it back over time.

Take the same debt load and project it onto a country that is amassing debt because it has made entitlement promises it can’t keep and has no political will to change, and for which entitlement spending is expected to increase much faster than GDP growth, and therefore deficits are projected to remain well above GDP growth indefinitely, and you have an entirely different scenario.

Finally, if you want to borrow truly huge amounts of money, you need to find enough people who are not only willing to lend it to you, but who have the money to lend. For example, China is a major holder of U.S. debt - but China only has a GDP of 5.8 trillion dollars, and the U.S. is currently borrowing about 1.5 trillion per year (projected to drop under a trillion, but still close to 20% of the entire Chinese economy). So there’s a limit to how much they can lend.

The deficit has been growing at mostly sustainable rates for the past few decades. Now it’s growing at unsustainable rates. No country can maintain borrowing close to 10% of GDP per year for very long - not even the U.S.

The history of credit crises suggests that they strike fast with little warning. You don’t get a nice blip in long-term interest rates as a signal or anything like that. You can maintain what looks like a healthy market in your debt instruments until suddenly there’s a crisis of confidence and all hell breaks loose.

The U.S. is currently in uncharted water. Anyone who says that the crisis will be here tomorrow, or that you can do this for a long time before having to worry about it, is wrong. The most accurate statement to make is “we don’t know. We’re rolling the dice.”

A good date to watch for will be the end of June. That’s when ‘QE2’ is set to expire. Under QE2, the Fed has been buying up long-term treasuries, hoping to goose the market and kickstart the economy. That program ends in June, and either there will be a ‘QE3’, or we’ll very rapidly find out if there’s enough demand for more U.S. debt in the world to keep the party rolling, and we’ll find out what happens to the economy when the Fed stops injecting trillions of dollars into it.

My guess is that there will be a ‘QE3’. If there is, the reaction will depend on how big it is. If it’s big enough that it becomes clear that the U.S. is monetizing its debt and inflatiing it away, Creditors will demand higher interest rates. Unfortunately, a lot of U.S. debt is in very short-term instruments, so this effect would kick in rapidly and drive up debt servicing costs and make it even less likely that people will take their money and invest it in the economy.

On the other hand, if there’s no QE3, the sudden end of easing could throw the country back into a deep recession. So Bernanke’s playing a dangerous game and walking a thin line.

In the meantime, real estate prices are still falling, industrial production growth is slowing, the Dow has declined over the last month, new vehicle production has dropped to the lowest rate in a year, and all that money Bernanke was hoping would be spent into the economy is just sitting in bank accounts because all the shenanigans have people spooked.

One thing that I think makes the US unique is that it borrows in its own currency. Debt crisis in other countries is usually the double whammy that happens when deficit spending causes their currency to fall, making the debt appear larger. If the US had borrowed a trillion in Canadian dollars the falling US dollar would make the same debt appear to grow faster. That would normally make the country seem much more insolvent, further devaluing the currency.

This was typical of African countries, and one of the reasons Greece and Portugal aren’t worse off. Imagine if their debt had been in a foreign currency instead of the Euro.

Like a business or a household, there is good debt and bad debt. Borrowing to fund your military in a time of war by selling domestic war bonds is fine. Borrowing during peace time to fund your military buy selling bonds to China, not so good.

The years immediately following WW-II were a once-in-a-lifetime economic gift because the United States had 75% of all the manufacturing facilities in the world. The war destroyed a substantial amount of infrastructure in other countries. This will never be repeated.

It’s impossible to look at the economic situation of those years in comparison to today’s situation. Prior to that we enjoyed a rather consistent product cycle where a new invention was developed and manufactured in the United States first with secondary production farmed out to 3rd world labor toward the end of the product cycle. Today countries like China can take any newly developed product and reverse engineer it and have it on the market before the bloom is off the initial marketing campaign.

To summarize, we no longer hold any kind of manufacturing edge and are deeply indebted to other countries. That means an ever increasing amount of tax revenue goes toward paying past debt. As that increases, we have less money to pay for current debt.

My college economics professor explained that debt didn’t mean anything because we basically owed ourselves the money. It was like a wife borrowing money from her husband. That argument was 11 trillion dollars ago. We know owe this money to other countries in large amounts and it isn’t going away.

That’s the big downside of the debt. We’re going to be sending four and a half trillion dollars to people in other countries.

And that’s a pretty big downside. By the middle of this decade, the interest charges on the debt will larger than the U.S. military budget.

That is a permanent drag on the economy, since there is no plan on either side that will start paying it off in my lifetime. The only hope is to grow your way out of it, so the debt service declines in real terms over time even if it goes up in dollar value. But that means policies which are pro-growth, AND it means also getting the deficit below GDP growth as quickly as possible.

I don’t think growth is sustainable.

And Magiver is right about the postwar boom. I’d just add that in addition to infrastructure, we had abundant and mostly increasing access to fossil energy. That was a one-time bonanza too.

Economist Tyler Cowen has written a pretty compelling short book that proposes a thesis that America’s high growth in the last century was due to the reaping of a lot of low-hanging fruit - just as China’s high growth rates today are the result of them reaping their own low-hanging fruit.

The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All The Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History,Got Sick, and Will (Eventually) Feel Better

Consider some of the big advantages the U.S. had in the last century that no longer exist or aren’t as strong:

  • Major, economy-growing innovations happened: Airplanes, computers, new power sources, industrial automation, mechanization of the farm, mass communications, etc. There are still innovations, but so far the latest ones don’t seem to be generating the kind of sweeping productivity improvements the old ones did.

  • Cheap land. The U.S. was a bounty of cheap land through most of its existence, right into the middle of the 20th century. That era is drawing to a close.

  • Education growth. The difference in education levels between the population of the 19th century and the start of the 21st century was huge. The rapid increase in average education translated into large increases in worker productivity. That’s no longer happening, and may even be reversing as skewed incentives push more people into educations that are not as valuable from a growth standpoint.

  • Health Care. The average health of Americans increased dramatically in the 20th century, allowing workers to be more productive. Unfortunately, the downside of that may be a drag on the 21st century: That boom in productive workers is turning into a boom in retired workers. You suffer a double-whammy of losing their productive capability, while also incurring the cost of caring for them. The ratio of workers to retirees in the 21st century will be much lower than it was in the 20th century.

  • Low energy costs. The 20th century was the era of very cheap, bountiful energy for Americans. The 21st century? Likely not so much.

I have some criticisms of the book, and I think he understates the potential productivity gains of some of our newer innovations such as the internet, nanotechnology, genetics, etc. But he could be right. Certainly all those trend lines that looked so rosy for the U.S. in the 20th century no longer look quite so bright, or may even have reversed.

The implications for policy is that perhaps you shouldn’t assume that you can grow your way out of your borrowing. Instead, maybe you should be asking, “What if this current anemic growth is the new normal? What if this is the high point of the next twenty years?”

If that’s the case, then borrowing money to pay for consumption today will be a disastrous choice.

Seconded. This is the critical issue which many people who should know better are in denial about. All life is risky, but not all risk is rewarded.

Well, duh. All that’s saying is that inventions that have already happened aren’t going to happen again. But he could have made the same prediction in 1980 and completely missed the development of personal computers. How do we know that no new technologies are not right on the horizon?

Maybe in 2040, they’ll all be asking how we didn’t realize we were right on the verge of the nanotech revolution (or artificial genes or fusion).

Or maybe they’ll be wondering why we followed a path that only unforeseen miracles could have made viable.

I’m not suggesting we should count on the invention of new technology. (I’m on record as saying that’s a bad idea regarding diminishing world oil supplies.)

But I think it’s equally foolish to do as Tyler Cowen apparently has done and assume that we’ve invented every revolutionary form of technology.

Have you read the book? That’s not what he says.

I haven’t read the book. I was going by your summation.

Indeed. Given wings, pigs could fly.

Actually, with sufficient economic growth, deficit spending simply becomes short-term credit: we pay our bills out of taxes a little while after incurring them and the National Debt heads towards zero, only failing to get there by the immediate liabilities of our unpaid bills. We are 14 trillion dollars away from that. Well, you Americans are, we Brits trade in pounds :slight_smile:

Instead we have exponential increase in debt, rapidly heading to the point where GDP can never make a significant dent in it. That’s definitely not sustainable. The arithmetic can go on indefinitely but the folk we borrow from get fed up with it when there is no prospect of getting their loans back. That’s why the outlook for America’s credit rating was called “negative” recently: a wake-up call that no matter what the nice man in charge may have read into Keynes, the fact is you can’t spend your way out of trouble if you have no prospect of future income. People won’t lend to you.

The OP’s question then becomes superfluous: “Is deficit spending sustainable?” becomes “Is deficit spending even possible now nobody wants to lend to us?” It won’t be any use wailing that we don’t mind going further into debt if wiser heads say “You may not, but we do.”

Really, it’s too obvious. Crap on your lenders and deficit spending rapidly ceases to be an option, let alone sustainable. Ask Greece.