Outside the Box

Three Competing Theories

July 18, 2011

Long-time readers are familiar with the wisdom of Lacy Hunt. He is a regular feature of Outside the Box. He writes a quarterly piece for Hoisington Asset Management in Austin, and this is one of his better ones. Read it twice.

“While the massive budget deficits and the buildup of federal debt, if not addressed, may someday result in a substantial increase in interest rates, that day is not at hand. The U.S. economy is too fragile to sustain higher interest rates except for interim, transitory periods that have been recurring in recent years. As it stands, deflation is our largest concern …”

As I write, Europe is starting to unravel. This is going to be much worse than 2008, at least as far as Europe is concerned, and odds are high that it will be very bad for the US. And the markets are still acting as if the problems in Europe can be resolved. The recent bank stress tests were a joke, as they assumed no Greek or Irish defaults. This simply can’t be. There is a banking crisis of massive proportions in our future.

As Lacy notes, we are testing the economic theories of three (I think von Mises should be added) dead white guys. The dominant theories are being shown to be wrong. The sooner we acknowledge that the better. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the major economic schools to come to grips with their failure.

This is a real problem, and there is just no way to avoid it. I wish I had more positive things to say.

Your trying to figure this out analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Like Outside the Box?

Then you'll love John's premium publication, Over My Shoulder. Each week, after sorting through vast amounts of economic, political, and investing news, John sends Over My Shoulder subscribers his pick of the week's most important commentary and data.

It's your opportunity to get the news John thinks matters most to your finances.

Learn More About Over My Shoulder


Three Competing Theories

The three competing theories for economic contractions are: 1) the Keynesian, 2) the Friedmanite, and 3) the Fisherian. The Keynesian view is that normal economic contractions are caused by an insufficiency of aggregate demand (or total spending). This problem is to be solved by deficit spending. The Friedmanite view, one shared by our current Federal Reserve Chairman, is that protracted economic slumps are also…

Discuss This

17 comments

We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.

Comments

Page 2 of 2  < 1 2

mark thompson

July 19, 2011, 11 a.m.

In Chart 1, what do the figures in the vertical axis reflect in terms of “debt”?  They look too high to be just federal debt.  Are they the sum of private and public sector debt?  Federal and state debt?

Steve Singer

July 19, 2011, 10:09 a.m.

Given their occupation, Hoisington and Hunt’s viewpoint is unsurprising: creditors lend money expecting the borrower to repay the debt with interest (the equation at the end of the essay). Both humans and sovereign nations, however, occasionally turn renegade; they default rather than pay. And unhappily, the equation contains no clue about the frequency, politics or sequelae of default.

The real economic meat (and migraine) resides in what Irving Fisher (1867-1947) wrote throughout the depression era—“Nature of capital and income” (1927), “The money illusion” (1928), “Stock market crash—and after” (1930), “Booms and Depressions” (1932), “After reflation what?” (1933), “Inflation?” (1933), “Stable money” (1934), “100% Money” (1935), “Income in theory and income taxation in practice” (1937)—as well as in his letters to Roosevelt (in the presidential archive at Hyde Park), and in the subsequent support for his ideas that Hoisington and Hunt mention without always giving complete citations.

Just possibly, refusing to raise taxes may make sense economically. The only way to decide is to read Fisher’s works and to dig up the follow-on research. However, triggering a sovereign default to defeat a tax increase just seems . . . dumb.

Denny Schlesinger

July 19, 2011, 8:57 a.m.

John, borrowing is not the problem. We had 30 years of growth while the debt kept piling up, from Reagan to Bush II. The problem is paying back the debt and the right solution is to default. Screw those who were stupid enough to lend you money. But instead of following the proper course, letting banks go belly up, Uncle Sam borrowed even more to pay off debts that our dear Uncle had nothing to do with. The only adjective for Uncle Sam is “busybody.” Someone has to tell dear Uncle to stop minding other people’s business. With a little bit of luck the GOP will shut down government, cut up Obama’s credit card and put the US back on the lean and narrow.

The Debt to GDP chart that you published tells the whole story. Good times started with Reagan and that’s when Debt to GDP started growing in the post war period. Maybe borrowing does not cause economic growth but the correlation is astounding. Until it blows up. Borrowing is a Faustian bargain and Mephisto is here to collect his pound of flesh. Pay up. Better yet, default. And let’s get back on the lean and narrow.

The necessary consequence is that growth will be slower than when inflated with borrowed funds. We have to make choices. Slower growth or a Faustian debt bargain are the options.

BTW, Keynesian economic policy would work if applied correctly. The second part of Keynesianism is NEVER applied. It consists of paying down the debt with a government surplus after the economy recovers. Your Debt to GDP chart chart shows that growth correlates with borrowing. This chart shows that all the supposed logic behind the argument that stimulus does not help growth is fallacious. It does, for a while. Then the chickens come home to roost. The “problem” from 2008 to 2011, in isolation, is meaningless. The real problem is 1980 to 2008. During all those years one side of Keynesianism was applied most of the time but there were only a few years of surplus. Then Uncle Ben really blew it by applying massive amount of debt to cure massive amounts of debt. Nothing like giving an alcoholifc another bottle of booze!

The painful solution is for the GOP to shut down the government, cut up Obama’s credit card and let the economy sort itself out without further meddling by Washington.

alan radochonski

July 19, 2011, 7:50 a.m.

Good essay.  I don’t agree that we’ll put off the crisis for two decades like Japan did.  Japan’s deficit is largely funded by it’s citizens who were willing to invest at low rates.  I don’t see that happening in the U.S. therefore, the dough will need to come from some where outside the U.S. and they’ll eventually demand higher rates for the currency and credit risk.  I give it three years.

William Powrie

July 19, 2011, 6:22 a.m.

Dear John and readers,

A thought provoking article, yet for followers of the Elliott Wave Principle by Frost and Prechter 1978, and Conquer the Crash 2002, this scenario has been covered in depth. Recognition should be awarded to Robert Prechter.

Yours sincerely

William Powrie

Collon Shandler

July 19, 2011, 1:38 a.m.

This article is a fine analysis of symptoms but it fails to address the Ponzi scheme nature of all debt based monetary systems.  What we are witnessing is what happens when credit is extended but the interest due is not.  Infinite growth is required to retire the principle and pay the interest.  Failure and collapse is the end result of all public or private Ponzi based systems.  I have come to realize that loaning money when there is no risk to the creditor is a predatory lending practice.  Loans made by any central bank that are in default can be made whole with a keystroke.  What we have is the ridiculous situation where soverign governments borrow money at interest from privately owned central banks and other institutions when they could simply create the needed money and save billions in interest payments.  We are seeing the death throes of institutions drained of their productivity and life force by compound interest.

jim Tosti

July 19, 2011, 12:37 a.m.

There will be little positive happening until world-wide debt is restructured.  No way around it.  The question is “who is going to get stuck with the pain?” and the answer is mostly the private sector (taxpayers), then companies (corps.), then the public sector. 
All other solutions are just “wishes” (or is that hope and change). 

Will you please re-post a current graph of the velocity of money.  This seems to be an important element in understanding what is happening in the US.
JT

Page 2 of 2  < 1 2