“More often, debt relief takes place implicitly, through “financial repression”: government policies hold interest rates down, while inflation erodes the real value of debt.”, Paul Krugman, “How Righteousness Killed the World Economy”, New York Times
“Here it is plain and simple: Krugman WANTS the developed world’s governments and central bankers to run big deficits and keep rates low and money very easy to create inflation and why does he want to create monetary inflation? Well, he inadvertently lets it slip in the article below why monetary inflation so important to him and others; governments “financially repress” creditors and erode the real value of debt!!! Krugman loves government deficit spending and monetary inflation, because he believes that this “financial repression” hurts only the wealthy. He thinks of it as a transfer payment from the rich to the poor. His view is that during these economic times, we need government deficit spending to offset reduced private sector demand AND we need low rates and easy money to provide additional economic stimulus. Krugman isn’t worried about monetary inflation’s creating “financial repression” for debt investors. I think he believes this repression helps reduce income inequality and increase “economic fairness” (that’s also why he supports outright debt forgiveness, a key topic of the article below). I am not an economist (let alone a Nobel Laureate like Mr. Krugman), but I think he might be wrong. First, all debt investors are not wealthy. They include many and maybe most average Americans (and a lot of senior citizens) who own bonds of the U.S. government, mortgage-backed bonds, and corporate bonds either directly through mutual funds or 401K’s or indirectly in their pension plans. Second, if you “financially repress” debt investors through either monetary inflation and/or actual debt forgiveness (arbitrarily abrogating debt contracts violates The Rule of Law), investors aren’t going to buy new debt issued by anyone (even U.S. Treasury debt Mr. Krugman!!!) and/or they are going to demand very high rates to offset the risks of this repression. So Mr. Krugman’s “financial repression ideas” below, seem to me to only be a temporary strategy, at best, and they appear to have serious, negative long-term consequences for the U.S. economy.”, Mike Perry, former Chairman and CEO, IndyMac Bank
The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Columnist
Revenge of the Unforgiven
How Righteousness Killed the World Economy
Stop me if you’ve heard this before: The world economy appears to be stumbling. For a while, things seemed to be looking up, and there was talk about green shoots of recovery. But now growth is stalling, and the specter of deflation looms.
If this story sounds familiar, it should; it has played out repeatedly since 2008. As in previous episodes, the worst news is coming from Europe, but this time there is also a clear slowdown in emerging markets — and there are even warning signs in the United States, despite pretty good job growth at the moment.
Why does this keep happening? After all, the events that brought on the Great Recession — the housing bust, the banking crisis — took place a long time ago. Why can’t we escape their legacy?
The proximate answer lies in a series of policy mistakes: Austerity when economies needed stimulus, paranoia about inflation when the real risk is deflation, and so on. But why do governments keep making these mistakes? In particular, why do they keep making the same mistakes, year after year?
The answer, I’d suggest, is an excess of virtue. Righteousness is killing the world economy.
What, after all, is our fundamental economic problem? A simplified but broadly correct account of what went wrong goes like this: In the years leading up to the Great Recession, we had an explosion of credit (mainly to the private sector). Old notions of prudence, for both lenders and borrowers, were cast aside; debt levels that would once have been considered deeply unsound became the norm.
Then the music stopped, the money stopped flowing, and everyone began trying to “deleverage,” to reduce the level of debt. For each individual, this was prudent. But my spending is your income and your spending is my income, so when everyone tries to pay down debt at the same time, you get a depressed economy.
So what can be done? Historically, the solution to high levels of debt has often involved writing off and forgiving much of that debt. Sometimes this happens explicitly: In the 1930s F.D.R. helped borrowers refinance with much cheaper mortgages, while in this crisis Iceland is outright canceling a significant part of the debt households ran up during the bubble years. More often, debt relief takes place implicitly, through “financial repression”: government policies hold interest rates down, while inflation erodes the real value of debt.
What’s striking about the past few years, however, is how little debt relief has actually taken place. Yes, there’s Iceland — but it’s tiny. Yes, Greek creditors took a significant “haircut” — but Greece is still a small player (and still hopelessly in debt). In major economies, very few debtors have received a break. And far from being inflated away, the burden of debt has been aggravated by falling inflation, which is running well below target in America and near zero in Europe.
Why are debtors receiving so little relief? As I said, it’s about righteousness — the sense that any kind of debt forgiveness would involve rewarding bad behavior. In America, the famous Rick Santelli rant that gave birth to the Tea Party wasn’t about taxes or spending — it was a furious denunciation of proposals to help troubled homeowners. In Europe, austerity policies have been driven less by economic analysis than by Germany’s moral indignation over the notion that irresponsible borrowers might not face the full consequences of their actions.
So the policy response to a crisis of excessive debt has, in effect, been a demand that debtors pay off their debts in full. What does history say about that strategy? That’s easy: It doesn’t work. Whatever progress debtors make through suffering and saving is more than offset through depression and deflation. That is, for example, what happened to Britain after World War I, when it tried to pay off its debt with huge budget surpluses while returning to the gold standard: Despite years of sacrifice, it made almost no progress in bringing down the ratio of debt to G.D.P.
And that’s what is happening now. A recent comprehensive report on debt is titled “Deleveraging, what deleveraging?”; despite private cutbacks and public austerity, debt levels are rising thanks to poor economic performance. And we are arguably no closer to escaping our debt trap than we were five years ago.
But it has been very hard to get either the policy elite or the public to understand that sometimes debt relief is in everyone’s interest. Instead, the response to poor economic performance has essentially been that the beatings will continue until morale improves.
Maybe, just maybe, bad news — say, a recession in Germany — will finally bring an end to this destructive reign of virtue. But don’t count on it.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on October 13, 2014, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Revenge of the Unforgiven.