
Supercycle of Debt
We have been looking at big historical/economic/political cycles for the past two months. We reviewed Neil Howe’s Fourth Turning concept, then George Friedman’s twin US institutional and socioeconomic cycles, then Peter Turchin’s “cliodynamics” concept, and then Ray Dalio’s Big Cycle.
None of these theories exclude the others. It is quite possible they are describing the same events through different lenses. In any case, they help us understand the times we live in. They are neither predictive nor prescriptive, but descriptive. They look back through history and try to interpret the past to help us understand what might happen in the future. I think all are at least partially correct. That’s disturbing… because in various ways, each points to serious global problems in the next few years.
Today we’ll start wrapping up the series by discussing the Debt Supercycle. I think we’ll probably need a few weeks, but this is important. I don’t want to rush through it.
Time-Traveling Money
Debt has a defined sequence: The lender and borrower agree on terms, the loan is funded, the borrower repays according to a schedule, eventually pays the full amount, then it’s over. Often the parties move on to more such deals, then others, then others… in an almost (dare I say it?) cyclical fashion.
As I’ve said many times, debt isn’t inherently bad. It’s an efficient way to finance new productive capacity. This helps the economy grow and raises living standards for everyone. But debt is also easily misused, and that’s where it causes trouble. In fact, we have seen throughout history where debt has been used far more than was prudent, especially by governments, and you get a debt crisis for an individual company or country.
Professors Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart described this process for governments in their magisterial book, This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. I think it is one of the most important books of the last 20 years. I have reviewed it extensively in the past and did a published interview with both Rogoff and Reinhart.
What I wrote in my 2011 letter The Beginning of the Endgame is the perfect set-up for dealing with the debt and deficits of the US (and then a possible survey of other debt-burdened economies).
“The lesson of history, then, is that even as institutions and policy makers improve, there will always be a temptation to stretch the limits. Just as an individual can go bankrupt no matter how rich she starts out, a financial system can collapse under the pressure of greed, politics, and profits no matter how well regulated it seems to be. Technology has changed, the height of humans has changed, and fashions have changed.
“Yet the ability of governments and investors to delude themselves, giving rise to periodic bouts of euphoria that usually end in tears, seems to have remained a constant. No careful reader of Friedman and Schwartz will be surprised by this lesson about the ability of governments to mismanage financial markets, a key theme of their analysis.
“As for financial markets, we have come full circle to the concept of financial fragility in economies with massive indebtedness. All too often, periods of heavy borrowing can take place in a bubble and last for a surprisingly long time. But highly leveraged economies, particularly those in which continual rollover of short-term debt is sustained only by confidence in relatively illiquid underlying assets, seldom survive forever, particularly if leverage continues to grow unchecked.
“This time may seem different, but all too often a deeper look shows it is not. Encouragingly, history does point to warning signs that policy makers can look at to assess risk—if only they do not become too drunk with their credit bubble-fueled success and say, as their predecessors have for centuries, ‘This time is different.’
“[Back to my voice] Sadly, the lesson is not a happy one. There are no good endings once you start down a deleveraging path. …much of the entire developed world is now faced with choosing from among several bad choices, some being worse than others.
“And this is key. Read it twice (at least!):
“Perhaps more than anything else, failure to recognize the precariousness and fickleness of confidence—especially in cases in which large short-term debts need to be rolled over continuously—is the key factor that gives rise to the this-time-is-different syndrome. Highly indebted governments, banks, or corporations can seem to be merrily rolling along for an extended period, when bang! — confidence collapses, lenders disappear, and a crisis hits.
“Economic theory tells us that it is precisely the fickle nature of confidence, including its dependence on the public’s expectation of future events, which makes it so difficult to predict the timing of debt crises. High debt levels lead, in many mathematical economics models, to ‘multiple equilibria’ in which the debt level might be sustained—or might not be. Economists do not have a terribly good idea of what kinds of events shift confidence and of how to concretely assess confidence vulnerability.
“What one does see, again and again, in the history of financial crises is that when an accident is waiting to happen, it eventually does. When countries become too deeply indebted, they are headed for trouble. When debt-fueled asset price explosions seem too good to be true, they probably are. But the exact timing can be very difficult to guess, and a crisis that seems imminent can sometimes take years to ignite.

